Login
User Name:

Password:



Register
Forgot your password?
Vote for Us!
tintin++ ogg sound player script for linux
Author: Robert Smith
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons ogg Soundpack
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
6Dragons 4.4
Author: Vladaar
Submitted by: Vladaar
LoP 1.46
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
LOP 1.45
Author: Remcon
Submitted by: Remcon
Users Online
CommonCrawl, Google, Bing, DotBot

Members: 0
Guests: 9
Stats
Files
Topics
Posts
Members
Newest Member
481
3,739
19,386
621
KellieBusb
Today's Birthdays
There are no member birthdays today.
Related Links
» SmaugMuds.org » General » User Lounge » Multiple ports?
Forum Rules | Mark all | Recent Posts

Multiple ports?
< Newer Topic :: Older Topic > Good idea gone wrong?

Pages:<< prev 1 next >>
Post is unread #1 Apr 19, 2004, 7:32 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Odis

GroupMembers
Posts46
JoinedMar 8, 2005

In the default SMAUG/SWR code it comes with the ability to run the same base on multiple ports. Does this mean that you can have builders on one port, while having players on the other, and when the areas are installed they are installed to both muds? Sounds like a good idea to me, rather than having duplicate codebases and transfering finished area files. I've heard a lot of bad stuff about multi-port configuration. What all is really wrong with it? (though I'm not sure why most people would want to do it) Also, what exactly are the bennefits, if any, to having multiple ports besides the one above it that is in fact true?

Thanks.
       
Post is unread #2 Apr 19, 2004, 10:34 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Cam

GroupAFKMud Team
Posts61
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Well... that is the way it works... kinda. Like the way we work is the play port which is obviously the main port, the code port, and the building port. Now installing an area doesn't automatically move it to the other ports. Not until u specifically tell it to. That way you can break things on the build port or the code port and you won't break the play port. That's really one of the greatest advantages. Not to mention it's much nicer to build in isolation with full concentration rather than have to deal with people wanting to talk all the time. There are obviously ways around that, such as wiz invis... but how often can u hotboot the mud to test things if you've got morts on there?

I don't know the disadvantages of it though, perhaps someone else can elaborate on that.
       
Post is unread #3 Apr 19, 2004, 2:12 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,643
JoinedJan 1, 2002

Odis,

The multiple port numbers thing is something Smaug did that was just plain silly. Opening 4 listening ports to the same copy of the mud isn't terribly productive. Nor will it acomplish what you are trying to do. What you want is what Cam described which is the multiport support found in the shell snippet. In order to make that work though you need a cpy of the mud in more than one directory. Having it all in one place wont' cut it.
       
Post is unread #4 Apr 19, 2004, 7:58 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Odis

GroupMembers
Posts46
JoinedMar 8, 2005

Heh, thats what I thought. I was just wondering. I have my mud set up how you described already, with players on one port and builders on another. I only have two ports, so my builders have to live with my coding mistakes.

Thanks for confirming my thoughts. Do any of us know what the motive behind it really was? I mean, what did the SMAUG team add it in?

Your annual annoyance,
~Odis
       
Post is unread #5 Apr 20, 2004, 12:21 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Quixadhal
Conjurer
GroupMembers
Posts398
JoinedMar 8, 2005

Actually, it's not that silly.

It's silly if you try to use it for debugging or building as if it won't affect the running game, but it's handy for other purposes.

For example, one idea I had a while back was to have the "main" port only accept new characters, and a second port only accept existing characters. When you log into the advertised port, instead of asking for a username, it throws you into character creation -- which in my idea was the middle of a battle, where the choices you make in resolving the battle determine your character type. Then you talk to one of the surviving npc's to learn about the game and provide your name/gender/etc data.

At that point, you enter the newbie zone proper, where you can wander about, chat, kill small things, keep yourself amused until an admin approves your character and gives you a key to pass into the real mud. Once authorized, you can log in on the second port to avoid having to tell the mob that you've been there before.

That's the kind of thing you can't easily do with a single port, because to have enough atmosphere to make it entertaining, it would be painful for people who just want to log into their 40th level character... By only allowing existing characters on the second port, you ensure that everyone goes through the newbie area (and thus sees what you think they need to see) at least once.
       
Post is unread #6 Apr 21, 2004, 4:36 am
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Samson
Black Hand
GroupAdministrators
Posts3,643
JoinedJan 1, 2002

As far as I recall, Smaug did it because they wanted to support multiple client program types. One of which was supposed to be a RIP based client. From what I can tell those plans never quite worked out and thus the extra ports they had were wasted. It's rather ironic too since most mudhosts I know of tend to get a bit put off by clients who open up large numbers of listening ports.

Imagine a Smaug mud using the multiport code. At full use, that's 3 muds, 4 ports each. One person has 12 listening ports bound for no good reason. it doesn't take much of a leap to see why hosts might not appreciate this

As for Quixa's idea, that's probably a much more justifiable use of extra ports. Though I'm not sure if that would prevent a veteran player from creating a new char and using the second port unless that second port is hardcoded to enforce that you exist first. I like the uniqueness of his battle resolution as well. Nifty.
       
Post is unread #7 Apr 21, 2004, 5:14 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Odis

GroupMembers
Posts46
JoinedMar 8, 2005

Indeed.
       
Post is unread #8 Apr 22, 2004, 2:04 pm
Go to the top of the page
Go to the bottom of the page

Quixadhal
Conjurer
GroupMembers
Posts398
JoinedMar 8, 2005

Yeah, I think you might be able to get away with that... unless you either force a logout once you use the "key" to get into the main mud (anyone remember the old untermud portals?).

If you used restricted multiplayer bans (that is, multiple connections from the same IP had to justify themselves to an admin -- who could then flag those players as ok), you could limit it somewhat also.

I think what I'd do is just require a valid email address that gets a validation email sent to it by the gamedriver after an admin authenticates you (or after creation, if that system is disabled). Much like the auth system in most message boards, just bury a link in it so if you click the link, it runs a script that says the account it came from is real, and then lets that character in on the real port.

Now, what I'd *really* like to do is what Dworkin did over in the DGD camp just recently... namely allow SSH connections and use public/private keypairs for login validation. Each character gets an ssh keypair at creation and that handles your login. Up to you if you want to email them a private key, or have them upload a public key (obviously, the upload is more secure for them -- but the email is more secure for you).

       
Pages:<< prev 1 next >>