Why end uff server?

[Seleucids]

uff has pioneered hosting remote servers with fully automatic management - a step closer to games rooms hosted not on players' hardware dependent computers. This was a valuable experiment and his servers were very stable and fast in comparison to many player hosted games. 

From a moderation perspective, he has not beached any TOS and has behaved well in the lobby. his mods contributed to moderation. It really baffles everyone why he is forced to stop his valuable contributions. 

@Dunedan any explanations from your side? 

[Dunedan]

4 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

uff has pioneered hosting remote servers with fully automatic management

You might not be aware, but uff wasn't the first to do that. @victorcrimea is working on this topic as well (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/victorcrimea/0ad/src/branch/feature/dedicated-server/server) and at one point had a bot, similar to uffs, running in the lobby as well.

8 minutes ago, Seleucids said:

From a moderation perspective, he has not beached any TOS and has behaved well in the lobby. his mods contributed to moderation.

He registered and used multiple accounts, which violates the terms of use. In addition, as a general rule, we don't allow any kind of bots in the multiplayer lobby. That's primarily to prevent abuse and protect the privacy and security of all users and it's also why @victorcrimea wasn't allowed to run his dedicated hosting stuff in the official lobby any further.

That said, I suggested to uff yesterday to get in contact with @victorcrimea to collaborate on dedicated server functionality so we get something we can supported officially. We're an open source project after all, so we expect such contributions to be made using our usual processes and not in a way without us even knowing. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to better explain that to uff.

[Seleucids]

Thanks for the explanation 

What are your proposals regarding dedicated server functionality? 

There are for sure bots inside the lobby such as moderationbot and wfg bot. Could we make the uff-bot an approved one too?

I understand the concerns regarding privacy. However, I'm not sure why that is worse the current human hosts, who can obtain the IP address and GUID of all players who join 

[Dunedan]

2 hours ago, Seleucids said:

There are for sure bots inside the lobby such as moderationbot and wfg bot.

Sorry, my statement was incomplete: bots run by players aren't permitted, the ones run by Wildfire Games are of course permitted (and are actually necessary to run the multiplayer lobby).

2 hours ago, Seleucids said:

What are your proposals regarding dedicated server functionality?

What we need is a server, which can run headlessly, so without requiring a graphics card. It also has to be resource efficient, easy to isolate (e.g. by running it inside a Firecracker micro VM) and maintainable (so no re-implementation of the required functionality, but reuse of code we already have in pyrogenesis).

Additionally it should be integrated into pyrogenesis and XpartaMuPP, so whether or not to use a dedicated server is an option in the game UI rather than sending chat messages. That'd also allow us to use it for rated games, something which isn't possible with an unofficial solution.

It's probably also a good idea to get in touch with us developers while developing such functionality, so we can provide guidance where necessary, to avoid work which results in something which doesn't fit our needs and standards (for example a change of the network layer from UDP to QUIC is in the works right now (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/pulls/8925), which would require changes to a dedicated server as well).

That said, if we're talking about ways to improve the ability of players to join multiplayer games and improve their performance, proper support for IPv6 (https://gitea.wildfiregames.com/0ad/0ad/projects/9) is something I personally would like to see as a step before adding dedicated server functionality. 

[Dunedan]

7 hours ago, Dakara said:

yes my message is useless, but how you know it is a bot? maybe it just someone copy paste a lot of command ! 

Bots usually behave notably different than humans. Most of them also aren't even designed to hide the fact that they're not a human user. So in most cases it's quite obvious.

7 hours ago, Dakara said:

Why a bot is not allowed? what the purpose? 

I believe I have explained that already in my earlier response. Anything I should clarify about that?

[Dakara]

you already remove the feature of remplace someone just by IP and now this possibility too , for fake reasons of security. 

[0 calories]

Funny topic, so if I make mod to host a game as player I guess all is ok here? Please clarify

[Dakara]

The principle of tolerance must be applied; moderators have brains, and they need to use them. They are not judges who are out of touch with reality.

[Genava55]

14 hours ago, Dakara said:

bullshit

yes my message is useless, but how you know it is a bot? maybe it just someone copy paste a lot of command ! 

you privacy about multi account is so retarded

it is like a religion and religon suck 

rules are here for change. Why a bot is not allowed? what the purpose? 

Fais un effort pour répondre de manière constructive. Tu donnes une mauvaise image de toi-même. 

[Dakara]

15 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Fais un effort pour répondre de manière constructive. Tu donnes une mauvaise image de toi-même. 

it happens when we are not a robot and we see unfair stuff 

[Martial fart]

18 hours ago, Dunedan said:

What we need is a server, which can run headlessly, so without requiring a graphics card. It also has to be resource efficient, easy to isolate (e.g. by running it inside a Firecracker micro VM) and maintainable (so no re-implementation of the required functionality, but reuse of code we already have in pyrogenesis).

We understand that the developers are volunteers and that they don't owe the players anything, but you have to admit that currently game hosting isn't convenient for a variety of reasons (IPv4 CGNAT issues, P2P etc.) if anything players hacking their own solution by paying for their own servers to host the game should be at the very least tolerated.

In my opinion the game develops very slowly (that's how open source community driven works) and human nature implies that if you people aren't given an option they'll come up with their own solutions and they can't be blamed for that.
I don't see how a single player creating a single dedicated account to host games is any different than a player forgetting his credentials and creating another account to host games, especially considering that it was done with no malicious intent and with well thought safe guards (spam protection, moderator player system etc.)
So far everyone who played on those hosted servers had a great experience and they're pushing back on your decision (and rightfully so) because they see how a very efficient and convenient way of playing the game is being taken away from them over technicalities.

As for what should be done next I think uff (and other selected players) should be allowed to host a fixed number of server instances (at least 1, more if the mods allow it) since so far it's only been positive until a true functioning headless 0ad server is released.

[kheeva]

The concern about "protecting privacy and security" doesn't feel entirely convincing, given that the current hot-seat setup already leaves privacy and security largely in the hands of the players. For instance, anyone hosting a game can see connecting IP addresses and can already run the game on a modified host anyway.

As for the second account, it didn't seem like uff was trying to hide anything, especially since the username was so similar to his main one. It looks like he only did it to work around current system limitations so he could actually host and play at the same time.

I actually had similar ideas about setting up my own hosts, but I didn't want to pay for a GPU-enabled hosting service, and I haven't yet found the time to modify the engine. Specifically, it requires decoupling XMPP from the GUI in C++, exposing the Lobby API to headless mode, and writing an autostart JS script to manage the server without rendering.

IMHO, volunteer-run hosts significantly improve matchmaking queue times, ultimately making the game much more accessible to everyone.

[Seleucids]

19 hours ago, kheeva said:

actually had similar ideas about setting up my own hosts, but I didn't want to pay for a GPU-enabled hosting service, and I haven't yet found the time to modify the engine. Specifically, it requires decoupling XMPP from the GUI in C++, exposing the Lobby API to headless mode, and writing an autostart JS script to manage the server without rendering.

I have some machines which can be used as dedicated servers for 0ad, but I am not fully sure how to achieve a constant lobby presence. Also how to handle the end of a game session 

If you are willing, we can work together to pull this off. I can commit my main account to host for people while I'm sleeping. This does not breach TOS as there are no bots (in the sense of xmpp bots) inside the lobby and there is no use of multi accounts.

I have seen some promising progress from sanafur who was automating his host largely yesterday evening. Players can allocate themselves and start game by typing commands so that sanafur doesn't have to read the chat and do things manually. It's a good starting point and people with the resources can carry on

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Seleucids

[ffm2]

20 hours ago, kheeva said:

For instance, anyone hosting a game can see connecting IP addresses and can already run the game on a modified host anyway.

As for the second account, it didn't seem like uff was trying to hide anything

Yeah, that was the thing.

As I understand it wfg can't just let any bots run on the lobby. Uff was honest about his bot, but it wasn't approved (yet). I can understand that some boundaries have to be set e.g. to avoid adds, spam etc.. But I liked uffs host. I can also understand that it is not so attractive for a developer to have everything approved of the ideas one wants to try out.

For me, I would appreciate such a host in combination with a fast automated pairing system like the LocalRatings Team-Balancer Mod. The hoster could build up a better database than I could by only manually spectating and playing games. This way one could also experiment more with parameters of the pairing system.

[guerringuerrin]

I've been fairly absent from the lobby lately, but I did get to see Uff's hosts, and I think they're a very interesting development. I'm sorry to read that he left over a disagreement. I can understand the frustration, but I can also understand that it isn't easy for the developers to establish rules and enforce them. 

If anyone is in contact with him,it would be good to tell him not to burn any bridges. It's not worth throwing everything away over the first disagreement. I'm sure there is common ground to be found that could benefit everyone. Of course everyone needs to be willing to compromise on something and work together on any aspects that require coordination with wfg.

[Martial fart]

7 hours ago, Seleucids said:

I have some machines which can be used as dedicated servers for 0ad, but I am not fully sure how to achieve a constant lobby presence. Also how to handle the end of a game session 

game hosting isn't about hardware, it's a network problem.

you could get 0ad run on a toaster if there was a headless version/mod to the game but that's not the actual issue preventing people from enjoying the game:

1. not being to join certain games, or hosting games at all
2. lag
3. players dropping out

 

All of which can be fixed with a server in a data center, which currently cannot be made to run headless/seamless.
Once a solution to that is found then yeah multiplayer as a whole will be actually functional.