Opinion from Community - Page 3

KingMort · #31 03-29-2009, 07:12 AM

Image keep up the good work I think you have a really good idea with this..

As you have seen in my other posts I think we need to take every step united and not split off into nothingness...... I do not think your idea will make the people disconnect themselves from each other in fact it would probably have the opposite effect...

It would again unite everyone as EQUALS in the community which in some ways... has not been done in years...

King

hiddenvirus01 · #32 03-29-2009, 08:12 AM

First off this may take some downloading on the client end but if it works it would be great. Now to the how to. have the public LS as it is and the private LS owner would have to talk to the Dev’s to get there server info added to the splash screen in a drop menu (protecting those who don’t want there info for public use). Now say the public LS is down you can select the private LS from the drop down and it would run a script that would change the eqhost.txt to point to the right server then wala you are logged into the server you want with your toon you like to play. Also the end user would require minimal intervention and everyone is happy. I know it is not as easy as that but fill free to rip this idea apart and change or flame as needed. added a link to the Idea in a pic.

KingMort · #33 03-29-2009, 08:37 AM

This could totally bring people together, even though at first glance it doesn't appear to be that way and it's not what a lot of us are used too (Especially me hehe)

But mind you DAOC EMU <like you said> worked out great and they were all VERY VERY united... So have alot of other emu projects....

I just feel we need to stick together .. whatever it is we do we have to remember we are actually a family (not to get mushy) but still.....

Some of us like myself have been doing this for numerous years and wish to continue to do so..

King

PS: Angelox We still really need your help , and anyone else who has felt left out over the years.. don't feel that way please!!! We value you very very much

slynnes · #34 03-29-2009, 09:09 AM

One of the joys of playing on eqemu current setup (this is as a very active player) is to search the server screen list and try out new servers. How will this work and how will I connect up with brand new servers?

BWStripes · #35 03-29-2009, 10:07 AM

People just want a login server that works. People who try the emu like the fact that it is also free. Independent of "freedom", "choice", "admins", "bad code" or anything else.

Yes, the LS is currently a single point of failure/attack. We recognise that the people attacking the LS do not want to play.

If I understand correctly, the attacks are DoS, rather than DDoS. So, even with the added emergency state, the people attacking it reduce it to zero functionality, achieving their aim.

The admins, having other real commitments, react as well as is possible for a service with limited access. This is not a business service with admins sitting on it 24/7.

Good firewalls can be configured to recognise and block attacks, but would it be fast enough stop the LS collapsing? VPNs would help shut out the attacks, but are perhaps beyond the technical ability of many.

A distributed LS can be more resilient, but it will still be attacked, especially if people are targeting the LS because of an issue with a particular server, or person.

In this age of script kiddies, if you want resilience and stability, use adult tools and services. If that means getting a commercial host, then so be it.

WillowyLady · #36 03-29-2009, 10:34 AM

A solution that keeps this community together, rather than letting it fragment would be, I feel, desirable.

I am sure the present situation will resolved, seems like a series of hoops and hurdles have to be overcome.

All good things are worth waiting for.

Xzam · #37 03-29-2009, 11:11 AM

Why not release what you have and let others look at what you have as with many great ideas that I have seen here. Many came up with great ideas, put them up for others to look at, revised them as a PROJECT. There are serveral in this community that have the knowledge to add to this and make it work for all and they will always support the ideas of others good or bad. I personally would like to see a LS that works 100% of the time however I would not ever use anything that was not part of this community.

Alby · #38 03-29-2009, 11:30 AM

I support this. I'm not sure what is going on with KLS - but the whole donation and update process seems to have disappeared. It would be nice if those who donated could get an update on what's going on. I think the bottom line is something needs to be done quicker than what is being done now, this project is starting to lose people.

Angelox · #39 03-29-2009, 11:39 AM

I trust KLS, don't worry about her, for now we should trust all those people in the Project who work for us.
There's a reason why they are not speaking up, so give it some time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alby

I support this. I'm not sure what is going on with KLS - but the whole donation and update process seems to have disappeared. It would be nice if those who donated could get an update on what's going on. I think the bottom line is something needs to be done quicker than what is being done now, this project is starting to lose people.

image · #40 03-29-2009, 12:05 PM

I see what we are getting at with the shared LS, we would need a way to generate UNIQUE id's that way, sort of like how everquest has those item id tags.

The reason I say this is, if I have LSID account 1 on my public server (which we obviously do), the private server would have LSID 1 of a different user. The Login server uses the LSID to identify and pass. Yes you can setup a private password with #setpass if they have the tables meshed in the same database, but the LSID would still be an issue.

So I think this would require a bit of re-work.

Edit: The reason I want unique LSID's is there still are a lot of database functions/calls that use the LSID and this would cause problems with login and world.

Jexl · #41 03-29-2009, 02:14 PM

I support the Private LS option (unlimited accounts and 1 or 1-3 world servers).
I also support the unified website with stats and all those details for servers. (People can advertise their servers here and have all the details needed.)

I also support the unity that the EQEMU team has shown me in the past few years.
I might be a lurker, I can't offer as much as i have obtained from this community, however this will make lots of people happy, and lots of people won't feel tied to having a LS they don't have any control over.

**AndMetal** · #42 03-29-2009, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevius

The whole concept of this idea would be to have dual LS capability for server. People would set their server to connect to the public LS just like normal (though, that would be optional and not required if you just wanted to use the Private one). Then, they would also set it to use the Private LS running on their own server and using their own accounts database at the same time. Ideally, servers would be connected to both all of the time. But, in the case that the Public LS goes down for any reason, their players could then change their eqhost.txt to point to the private one for that particular server. Also, if people wanted to avoid the Public LS even when it was up, they would still be able to use just the Private LS for that particular server since they would both be connected at all times.

The private LS wouldn't use the LS account ID numbers like the Public one does. Authentication for the private LS would ignore the "lsaccount_id" field completely since it would have no way of knowing what it should be. Instead, it would use the password field when people log into their private LS and then just forward any accounts that pass the authentication check at that point straight to the server as authenticated. That is it.

I second.

I think it would be good to have an option to turn off the "public" part of it for those who either just want to play on a LAN, or just don't want to be connected to the public login server (either in the short term during development, or in the long term for whatever reasons).

I think ideally it would be best to incorporate this into world, but we'd need to keep the crypto out of the source (.dll, .so, etc) so others can't just start packet sniffing client authentication & reverse the username/password hash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by image

I see what we are getting at with the shared LS, we would need a way to generate UNIQUE id's that way, sort of like how everquest has those item id tags.

The reason I say this is, if I have LSID account 1 on my public server (which we obviously do), the private server would have LSID 1 of a different user. The Login server uses the LSID to identify and pass. Yes you can setup a private password with #setpass if they have the tables meshed in the same database, but the LSID would still be an issue.

So I think this would require a bit of re-work.

Edit: The reason I want unique LSID's is there still are a lot of database functions/calls that use the LSID and this would cause problems with login and world.

I think if we change to use the id rather than the lsaccount_id from the account table, that should help clear that up. Then, if an account authenticates via the public login server instead, we can update the lsaccount_id column with the info, but still use the local id.

After brief digging into the world source, I wasn't able to determine how dependent we are on the lsaccount_id, so I'm not really sure how difficult of a change this would be.

**trevius** · #43 03-29-2009, 05:18 PM

Image, if your last post that mentioned "shared LS" was a reply about my idea, then I still don't think you are understanding the idea. There would be no sharing of the Login Server. There would be a public (optional) Login Server connection and also a private (unshared and also optional) mini-login-like connection.

Here is a simple example of how it could work:

[Client]--->[Public Login Server]--->[Authenticate to Public LS Database]--->[Server]

Or

[Client]--->[Private Login Server]--->[Authenticate to Server's Account Table]--->[Server]

No sharing involved :P

image · #44 03-29-2009, 05:31 PM

I don't think I am able to express the design limitations of this to you, so I am just going to leave it at that.

KingMort · #45 03-30-2009, 10:19 AM

Well folks you know my stance .. Have gained heated discussion in other topics..

I 100% support EQEMU but everyone knows that the Eqemu staff may resolve to go open source... and maybe they don't... that's fine too.....

This is no time to lose confidence the team is making MUCH PROGRESS .....

Funds will be given and things will move forward as always...

REMEMBER we are a community... and we must NOT split up by any means .....

I don't care what happens to my own server as long as we pull together in these hard times...

Do not make the mistake to totally disregard Eqemu.... Do not make the mistake to totally disregard other options...

I strongly believe that KLS and Doodman and the other team members will pull through this.. However it's good that folks have been working on other options...

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK !!!

King