Spring RTS Engine

We're planning to roll out updates to the lobbyserver, starting on Monday.

These will add some new features but, since several internal changes & bug-fixes are also involved: we plan to update the lobbyserver code first, with all new features disabled, and then gradually enable the new features over a period of a few months.

Consequently, there may be short term disruption / downtime for the lobby server, beginning 9am Monday (= Jan 28th).

After that, what will be coming:

(1) A min Spring engine version requirement for botflagged hosts, which will typically be the current release version.
(2) Email verification for new accounts.
(3) Account recovery via email.
(4) Unification of code used for channels & battles (-> battles will support all the features of chat channels).
(5) Bridging bot interface allowing e.g. discord or ingame users to speak as though they were normal users.


For infra devs:
See viewtopic.php?f=64&t=37758 for protocol changes for (2).
See viewtopic.php?f=64&t=38984&p=589873#p589873 for protocol changes for (4) and (5).

Please notify any issues to this thread / the usual bugtrackers.

Can someone do a hard reset of the server in the mean while? It is dropping our hosts every few hours and preventing us from waiting for games.

SL is mostly ready

Will the registration email feature a link on which to complete registration? I don't like the authorization code pingpong as documented in https://springrts.com/dl/LobbyProtocol/ ... ENT:client

Additionally the link could also feature the agreement, so I can rip that part out of the client as well.

Will the registration email feature a link on which to complete registration?

See the last time you asked this question viewtopic.php?f=64&t=37758#p587655

Additionally the link could also feature the agreement, so I can rip that part out of the client as well.

This won't happen - simply providing a link in an email isn't enough to inform users of what they are agreeing to & how we handle data.

Silentwings wrote: ↑25 Jan 2019, 23:45

Will the registration email feature a link on which to complete registration?

See the last time you asked this question viewtopic.php?f=64&t=37758#p587655

:)

Silentwings wrote: ↑24 Jan 2019, 17:45 (1) A min Spring version requirement for botflagged hosts, which will typically be the current release version.

Could you explain the background of this?

(1) A min Spring version requirement for botflagged hosts, which will typically be the current release version.

Could you explain the background of this?

It's requested (/ demanded!) by engine developers, who can answer in more detail than I can.

In short, there was enough feeling that the future engine development (and, consequently, the whole project) is now threatened by not having enough periodic testing & updates of the engine. In response, and with an exception for showcasing high quality legacy content, they want to return to the old system where active game communities use at least the current major release.

Afaik the biggest concern is for the gl4 upgrade coming long-term in 105, which will allow Spring to run well on new hardware for much longer into the future than it currently could - and which will probably mean most games need a bit of help updating their gfx/gui code.

They realize that some users who've got used to (a few years of) being given the freedom not to update or change anything, especially those with less interest in the long term future of Spring engine development, may feel annoyed at having that freedom taken back.

I think the minimum version should be game-specific.

Jools wrote: ↑27 Jan 2019, 10:27 I think the minimum version should be game-specific.

i understand that, but we need to get rid of unsupported spring versions. spring development needs more current versions to be used. We have still some autohosts which use spring 98.0/100.0/101.0/103.0

I think it's safe to say that BA9 is currently the most played mod. BA playerbase is actually recovering at the moment. I am sure you know it can only run on 103. Not sure if it is a good idea to ban it, especially in this moment. But let's see what will happen. Might possibly lead to players leaving. Again.

afaik 103.0 has a crashbug which allows spectators to crash the running game. I'm pretty sure this will lead to more players leaving than the few osx players we have.

Staying at 103.0 very likely will cause engine-developers to leave which is much more harmful.

I hope its understandable that we can't care about osx atm.

Finally! :)

triton wrote: ↑28 Jan 2019, 10:46Finally! :)

How can you be excited about upsetting people? I mean, I get the rest… but…
Never mind.

It looks as though the first (of two) rounds of code updates has gone smoothly.

No known major issues atm, if you see any please report either to this thread or the usual bugtracker.

edit: relay hosts are broken, as usual

yes masterbel?
"(2) Email verification for new accounts, see viewtopic.php?f=64&t=37758."
this gonna upset some trolls, but it might help moderators.
Am I not allowed to be happy for this?

abma wrote: ↑28 Jan 2019, 09:34 afaik 103.0 has a crashbug which allows spectators to crash the running game. I'm pretty sure this will lead to more players leaving than the few osx players we have.

That is not the point I was trying to make (btw I can't remember the last time someone (aka Mando) crashed a host). The problem is that currently the game that is most popular is BA9 (I think). As it is not compatible with engine 104 this engine ban basically denies players to play the game they chose. So I am afraid some players will be pissed and might decide to leave. Again more drama. In my opinion we had more than enough drama in the last 6 months. But ok, seems like you decided.
Players do not care about engine version numbers, they only care about the game.

This is not about BA9 vs BA10. It's just a question if it's ok to ban the game that is currently played the most by players. We are not talking about some niche game that might still be running here and there.

BA10 is very close to BA9, no big deal. BA9 is without devs since few years, better focus on BA10 anyway.

Knowing that people like myself reside in this community, i do not want to entrust it with my email adress.

I was kind of hopeful that BAs issues could be had in a separate thread, since we might actually need this thread to discuss lobby server development... so I reserve the right to split if this goes on too much ...

BA10 is ... BA9 is ...
It's just a question if it's ok to ban the game that is currently played the most by players.

For just over half of its lifetime the Spring server forced every single project to use the most recent engine - during that time no one thought of this as "banning" anything.

Moving back to compulsory engine updates is not an edict from on high that any BA version or developer is greater than any other. It's a judgement that someone else's needs have become more important - in this case engine development.

As a serial believer in middle ground, I'm glad that the two most extreme options for BAs future ("the one true BA10 enforced on all", "eternal zombiefication on 9.46/103") are precisely the ones that have been ruled out first, and that Shox is leading a serious attempt to find a good compromise. Migrating from one (in this case, good, stable!) engine version to another (good, stable!) engine version is not exactly hardship, nor is it a new experience for BA players. I guess everyone expects that BA will go through some period of uncertainty while the options are tested out; it will be interesting times and we may well get a few emotional users, but it remains to see if it will match the dizzying excitement of previous episodes.

More generally, we'll think about when to turn on the various features listed in the OP after we've finished with the code updates, and we'll try to ensure that devs/hosters who need time to prepare do get it.

Silentwings wrote: ↑28 Jan 2019, 17:06

BA10 is ... BA9 is ...
It's just a question if it's ok to ban the game that is currently played the most by players.

For just over half of its lifetime the Spring server forced every single project to use the most recent engine - during that time no one ever thought of it as "banning" anything.

You don't think there is quite a difference between a technical limitation (which it was many years ago) and an arbitrary rule that is enforced by admins (in a technical way)? Like nobody would consider not being able to run C&C on spring engine as a ban of C&C.

I won't comment on your BA10/9 aspects as I agree that this isn't the place.