Degree of power a host should have

Page: 1 2 3 4
ID:29263
 
Apr 7 2007, 5:07 am
Keywords: thesis
The age old conflict.

Please note, I'm talking as a developer here, not myself (because I obviously haven't created anything where any of this applies, but if I had...). Also, all the conditions I stipulate are only in accordance to the fact the game is being hosted publicly. Personally, I as the developer, don't care if the game is hosted privately between the host and their friends. They can do what they want then, but when it's public, it's my domain.


Android Data wrote:
Unfortunately for you, they're right: they have more authority, because it's their server. It doesn't matter if it's your game or not: their computers are hosting it.

It's their server? It's my game. I made the game, I put hours upon hours of effort, time and possibly money into this, there is no way I am going to allow someone to deny me the right to play it publicly because I wouldn't make them or their friend a moderator.


Android Data wrote:
The pager-ban system is just the system in-between. They can use a firewall in conjunction with your IP address to prevent you from connecting to their server to begin with.

I can easily create a Ping-Pong system to coincide from the game server to my IP address. If the user doesn't have a good enough pong to ping ratio, I can suspend their hosting ability. The only reason I do not wish to do this, is because if I have a power outage, they can not host. So to cover for that, I'll just implement a remote shutdown procedure which can be called from any computer.


Keeth wrote:
The person hosting the game should have the power.
That's how things work.

You can say, "they're hosting it, therefore they own that game session" where I will simply reply: "I'm not forcing them to host the game, they chose to do it themselves, therefore they are donating their resources to further the games reputation and development."
Because, that's really how it is. A host is mealy a conduit for which the game can be enjoyed. They are donating their resources to me and I as the developer have the right to terminate their ability to host or play the game. Not the other way around.


"But the host has a right to chose who connects to their computer!"
As I stated, during their hosting session, their donating their resources to me. Their computer, becomes my computer to the extent, I control who enters the game, and who promptly leaves the game.
To put it bluntly: If I have to put a disclaimer at the bottom of every hub page stating:
"By hosting this game you agree that you are donating your computer and it's resources to further development of the game. You agree that you have no say over game control short of removing troublesome players at the time. Please be aware, although you have people pager-banned, we will honour your wishes of not including these players into the welcome list of the game. However, if you attempt to pager-ban the owner or any of the game staff, you will be warned. Should that ban not be removed within a minute of warning, your hosting rights shall be suspended until you have done so. By hosting you agree that you will not, in any way, take advantage of the power you have been given in any other way then what is best for the game and it's development."
If I place that in my hub page, all your arguments about "it's the hosts game session they have the right!" just flutter away. They now know what their dealing with and what rights they have. It is then up to the host to decide if they want to host the game.

This is why I disagree with the new Dream Daemon and it's inability to be overridden. It breaks my power over the game I created. And because of this, I as the developer, have been forced to add in methods of game control I originally didn't want to implement. Be it a "Ping-Pong" system to my own network (in the instance that once of my computers is online at all times) to the ability to remotely shut-down the hosts server and remotely disable their ability to host under any key.

All this is also the reason why I disagree with near-everyone's theories that the host is in charge. This just simply isn't true. Why even bother hiring a game staff in the fist place if the host has all the power? A host is a dedicated player who is kind enough to offer the resources at their disposal towards game development and enjoyment, think of it as a "Helping out in any way I can, sir!". The way I see it, if the host treats my game with respect, I'll treat them with respect. Because, although the host is a friend, the host is also an enemy. The host could be the user who just wants power in a popular game. And if they abuse said power, they could deter the games playerbase to another game (or even BYOND users away from BYOND. Imagine what a new user will think if they joined a game hosted by a bad host who has all the game staff banned, and attacks this poor fellow. He'd probably think "bugger this, I'll go check out that 'game maker' link I saw in google") and murder the games popularity.

As it stands, if I put my little disclaimer in the hub page, I should then retain any and all right to the games control. The host is just donating resources. Nothing more. If I decide to give the host a little bit more power to thank them, that's my prerogative, isn't it?

--

Yes, I'm well aware that:
A: No one will care about this rant.
B: No one will be persuaded by this rant.
C: Lummox JR wont change the functionality of his new Daemon because of one users dislike for it.
D: Chances are, all the BYOND Staff agree with the new Daemon's functionality.

You could also say, that the removal of my ability to fight bad hosts is the reason I gave up on DM, because no matter what I do. People will always side with the bad host, and I'm not going to spend hours and hours implementing systems I shouldn't have to, to see I can play the game or the user can't host.

--

One final idea I had was to use my server as a central port. When the PC is turned on, it generates a signal to all online servers that it is online, it then proceeds to ping and receive pongs every one minte. Should the signal fail to reach a server (IP Ban), the server will terminate. (This can be done with an external webserver, and banning it wont work, because I have more than one at my disposal. Hell, even a free host with PHP power would do the trick.). And upon shutdown of the server, it'll run a script to tell the individual servers that it has been shutdown, so it wont be sending out a signal to make sure it is being reached. Thus, when I'm off-line, I don't really care if I can play my game, do I? This is of coarse, the final last ditch effort to securing the ability to play the game.

--

To all those who just skipped to the Comments section, a two sentence sum up is:

If the host is hosting publicly, their server is under the developers control. If they are hosting privately, it's up to them who the give the link out too and thus, which may or may not be the developer.
Apr 7 2007, 5:25 am
Well, I do think I have a choice as to who connects to my computer, but you, as the developer, have the right to refuse me access to your product for not following the agreed upon terms. The best thing to do is to make people loose their hub password if they cannot connect to you(Or your web-server). Allowing you to basically punish a host without preventing them from hosting. Basically making them "private" by making them no longer listed on your hub entry. Although I would never implement a system like that, I would call it a fair trade off.

As far as I am concerned, a host should be able to host however she wants, and that includes banning the game creator. Granted, if someone was a real dick about it, I would just hard-program a hosting ban into the game and change the hub password, effectively killing their hosting ability.
Apr 7 2007, 5:30 am
I can't really agree with this. If you publicly allowed a host-able binary to be downloaded from your Hub page, you're effectively giving up all rights to control the game. This is, of course, assuming that you haven't hard-coded in any specific control mechanisms already. I'm just talking on principle here. You knew the risks before you posted the binary and you did it anyway. You can't simply expect people to respect you because you developed the game they're playing. You could be a total jackass, or just out of the loop. Programming a game doesn't mean you're fit to run one well.

Showing up in a server and demanding you be given privileges or listened to because you helped write the game is solely up to the wishes of the host. It is their machine. It is their time. It is their server. Your code may be running on it, but you aren't there policing it or keeping the clockwork running. Even if you are, there's the chance no one asked you to or wants you to. If you want more control, slip some remote-control code in and warn people about it.

I'd certainly draw issue with an opinionated developer showing up in a nice game of whatever I happened to be running and throwing his weight around, banning players or what have you. There's hardly a point in bothering to try and run a well maintained server if someone you don't know or don't trust logs in and effectively throws a monkey wrench in the whole ordeal. There's no guarantee the developer's going to be an intelligent or rational individual. Honestly, why bother worrying so much about what happens in other servers anyway? So it's a piss poor server - migrate over to another one; a decent one. If one doesn't exist, then make one. It isn't that hard.

Any potential "new blood" that can be deterred by a single bad experience is probably too stupid to be a contributing member of the community in the first place. Even looking at BYOND from an outside-looking-in sort of viewpoint, the fact that servers are often run by non-gamestaff-members is glaringly obvious. The newbies that don't recognize this are probably too young, anyway. There's a lot of probablies there, but the alternative is a developer scourging his own (potentially good) game with whatever twisted version of server rules he'd like to see enforced. Sort of defeats the purpose of having multiple servers if they all have to play by the exact same (usually stifling, when people are this strict about power distribution) rules.

None of this is a problem, of course, if the developer in question is pretty reasonable and laid back about things. Really though, why demand power if you don't plan on using it? Better to leave the server in the hands of its hosts, I say. Or don't distribute the bloody binaries in the first place and just host it on your own.
Apr 7 2007, 5:51 am
Evre wrote:
You could be a total jackass, or just out of the loop. Programming a game doesn't mean you're fit to run one well.


It's been my experience that in that sentence, you've mixed hosts and developers up.

Apr 7 2007, 6:01 am
Tiberath wrote:
Evre wrote:
You could be a total jackass, or just out of the loop. Programming a game doesn't mean you're fit to run one well.


It's been my experience that in that sentence, you've mixed hosts and developers up.


Well, there are two options I can see readily available here;

1) The developer has the final say in every running instance of the game, period. Any server running his code is subject to his decisions in bans, mutes, exclusions, inclusions, invites, whatever. The power is centralized.

2) The host has the final say in their own server and exactly zero in any others (barring a staff position granted by another host). A single server is subject to this host's decisions and administrative style. The power is decentralized.

In option 1's case, if a player happens to enjoy a particular game but absolutely abhors the developer's methods of administrating the server, there isn't much they can do. No matter what server they go to, the same rules will be in effect. They are inescapable unless the player abandons the game and plays something else.

In option 2's case, if a player happens to enjoy a particular game but disagrees with a particular server's policies, they can simply jump ship and find another hosted instance of the game. There's the chance they'll run into the same problems they did with the first. There's also the chance they won't. If they can't find a server they like playing on, it's always possible to simply host their own and implement their own rules.

The way you're putting it right now, it sounds like you want free hosting, but you'd rather the host have no say in what happens in the game. Sort of a "I take everything, you get nothing" situation there - leaves little room for dissenting opinions.
Apr 7 2007, 6:03 am
Evre wrote:
In option 1's case, if a player happens to enjoy a particular game but absolutely abhors the developer's methods of administrating the server, there isn't much they can do. No matter what server they go to, the same rules will be in effect. They are inescapable unless the player abandons the game and plays something else.

As I stated: "Host privately and only give the link out to friends".

That solves your host problems.
Apr 7 2007, 6:05 am
Tiberath wrote:
Evre wrote:
In option 1's case, if a player happens to enjoy a particular game but absolutely abhors the developer's methods of administrating the server, there isn't much they can do. No matter what server they go to, the same rules will be in effect. They are inescapable unless the player abandons the game and plays something else.

As I stated: "Host privately and only give the link out to friends".

That solves your host problems.

I don't see how that helps a player who disagrees with your policies at all. They have to have connections just to play a server that isn't yours.
Apr 7 2007, 6:06 am
If the host decides to ban the creator...the creator should just release a new version of the game(as a required update) with said host codebanned. Bwahahahaha...

Of course, that only works if the host isn't smart enough to backup old host files of the game. But the old versions, and therefore, his server, would become obsolete if the creator decides to do a nicely sized update.
Apr 7 2007, 6:07 am
Evre wrote:
Tiberath wrote:
Evre wrote:
In option 1's case, if a player happens to enjoy a particular game but absolutely abhors the developer's methods of administrating the server, there isn't much they can do. No matter what server they go to, the same rules will be in effect. They are inescapable unless the player abandons the game and plays something else.

As I stated: "Host privately and only give the link out to friends".

That solves your host problems.

I don't see how that helps a player who disagrees with your policies at all. They have to have connections just to play a server that isn't yours.

The developer can't disrupt the server if it isn't in a public domain. Because the developer A: wont be able to find it; B: Shouldn't really care because the hosts actions wont negatively effect the games reputation.

--

If the developer is a tardass prick, don't play their game. That's the one underlying thing you're forgetting in all this. It's not so easy the other way around.
Apr 7 2007, 6:13 am
Tiberath wrote:
The developer can't disrupt the server if it isn't in a public domain. Because the developer A: wont be able to find it; B: Shouldn't really care because the hosts actions wont negatively effect the games reputation.

--

If the developer is a tardass prick, don't play their game. That's the one underlying thing you're forgetting in all this. It's not so easy the other way around.

I'd say the developer is a prick if he's going to horde all the administrative abilities for himself. I don't know what kind of bad experiences you've had with crap hosts or whatever, but it's been my experience that players have ruined games reputations, not hosts. Hosts are there to deal with bad players. If the host is bad, the players leave. It's a problem that fixes itself. If the players are bad, the host fixes the problem. The host can't do that if the developer decided to take it upon himself to police every possible instance of the game (or not police, as the case may be).

I can only imagine how horrible Space Station 13 would be if the only people allowed to deal with crappy players were the developers. It's just too much for one or a couple of people to deal with across multiple servers. And private servers don't get any play if you're just browsing the Hub page and don't see any games live. That link's there for a reason - the listing's there for a reason. It connects players who'd otherwise be oblivious to one another.

In the end, it is the Developer's decision, because it is their game. I just think it's a bad one, is all.
Apr 7 2007, 6:14 am
Bwgmon wrote:
If the host decides to ban the creator...the creator should just release a new version of the game(as a required update) with said host codebanned. Bwahahahaha...

Of course, that only works if the host isn't smart enough to backup old host files of the game. But the old versions, and therefore, his server, would become obsolete if the creator decides to do a nicely sized update.

Or rig up some code to see if the game version is less than a required version number, thus warning them that they have to upgrade and than shuts down the server (eg: game hosted is version 2 but the required game version is 5), though this is kind of a sketchy method. I like to have that type of safety in because I once remember I released an updated version where (my fault for unchecking the test.dm I was using) everyone got admin powers and a lot of.. special commands. Fortunately, it was caught before the main server was updated... if it was left in, chances are nobody would've upgraded to any newer versions as tey knoww they may lose it , that is, if was a decentralized game :S
Apr 7 2007, 6:50 am
Honestly - As soon as you deliver a piece of software to someone, you are entrusting them with something. Its your responsibility to find a host which does not abuse said responsibility; Just as it is your responsibility to make sure that the game staff you hire, treat their powers with respect. Just as it is your responsibility to secure your software.

Any host worth anything won't meddle with a game at all, unless some sort of agreement between the game owner and the server host specifies otherwise. Find a solid host and your problem goes away.

As for all of the comments on whether developers, hosts, et cetera should moderate, they're all pretty much moot IMO - The title of a person partly responsible for bringing a game out (host, programmer, game designer, audio/visual design, etc) has nothing at all to do with their ability to moderate a game or not.

Typical design would indicate that the game owner calls the shots inside the game itself, and the host calls the shots as to things related to, well, hosting. If the game owner wants to make the host a moderator, that should and can have nothing to do with that person being the host, but with the abilities of that person as a moderator.

If you find a host which demands some sort of in-game compensation for hosting, you've found what amounts to: A bad host.
Apr 7 2007, 7:22 am
Amen tiberath Amen!
Apr 7 2007, 7:23 am
I didn't read the rest of the comments because I'm short on time, but I agree with you, Tiberath.

If a host is publically hosting your game on your hub entry, then what they do reflects on what the players think of your game. If you get a bad host who randomly boots players, calls people derogatory names, and thinks he can do whatever the hell he wants, it's bad publicity for your game at large. There might be a few people smart enough to give the game itself a chance and just host their own server, but a majority will, as you said, just move on to something else.

Here's an analogy for those for of you who don't quite follow what I'm talking about. Say a group rents a room at their local library to have a meeting. Now, overall, the library won't care what you're doing. However, if what you're doing begins to reflect poorly on the library as a whole (nobody likes having people sacrifice lambs and virgins while they're trying to read a good book) don't they have a right to kick you out? Well, let's say they lock the door and don't want to leave, what now? People are beginning to leave the entire library just because of the activities in this one room. Obviously in the real world you call security, on BYOND you call an admin (one of the games, not BYOND's staff) and try to get them to shut it down. But, oh my, they've barricaded the door with tables and chairs, and even your key equipped admin can't get in. What now? What can you do short of calling the police/firemen? Do we even have something like that unless we code it into our games ourselves?

I've got nothing against hosts, in fact I greatly appreciate them. It's unfortunate that there are a few bad ones who force developers to goto extreme lengths.
Apr 7 2007, 7:32 am
Evre wrote:
I'd say the developer is a prick if he's going to horde all the administrative abilities for himself.

I don't think he's saying he only wants developers to have administrative powers, but to be able to moderate hosts that are bad. He's not going to go around servers inforcing an iron grip on all the players. He just wants to be able to shut a server down if it gets out of control and is hurting his player-base, something he has a right to protect.
Apr 7 2007, 7:35 am
DarkCampainger wrote:
Evre wrote:
I'd say the developer is a prick if he's going to horde all the administrative abilities for himself.

I don't think he's saying he only wants developers to have administrative powers, but to be able to moderate hosts that are bad. He's not going to go around servers inforcing an iron grip on all the players. He just wants to be able to shut a server down if it gets out of control and is hurting his player-base, something he has a right to protect.

Quite so, and to be honest, it's a lot easier to do if I can just enter the game, and do it using the mighty administrative powers I've granted myself. Not by going to a webbrowser and typing something like: http://www.tibbius.com/games/admin/ shutdown.php?action=kill&ip=[game_ip]&reason=Troublemaker&ba n_host=1&suggest_good_server=[AnotherIP] and whatever else I'd have to put in there.
Apr 7 2007, 10:41 am
I usually like to be quick about these sort of things, so I also didn't read more then 50% of the below posts.

I agree with this rant with every fiber of my being. The developer is the ruling entity in their BYOND games and should always be as such. Hosts should not be allowed to deviate from what the developer desires. However, as was said, hosts need to be able to protect their servers, within doing so, they're protecting the developer's game.

(I think.. I had this conversation with someone before.. Deja vu.)
Apr 7 2007, 10:59 am
Well, if you mean dedicated hosts, than sure, you should have the ultimate power. My cases was one in which the players are also the hosts, and not paid to do it. Sure, Microsoft shouldn't be able to do whatever they want on my system just because I'm running a Microsoft branded software. On the other side, dreamhost doesn't have a right to go in and use my bandwidth because they feel like it, despite my site being hosted on their servers.
Apr 7 2007, 11:09 am
Danial.Beta wrote:
Well, if you mean dedicated hosts, than sure, you should have the ultimate power. My cases was one in which the players are also the hosts, and not paid to do it.

Even non-official hosts can hurt a game's standing in the community by being jerks. It's you're hub entry and your game's image. If they want to push people around, they can do it privately. Otherwise they're using the reputation of your game to attract good players into their trap.

On the other side, dreamhost doesn't have a right to go in and use my bandwidth because they feel like it, despite my site being hosted on their servers.

True, but you paid for that service so they have a contract to follow.

Apr 7 2007, 12:57 pm
Nicely put, Tiberath. I agree with what you said, and yeah, the new DD is fairly annoying with those aforementioned features, and developers shouldn't have to resort to such methods (remote-shutdown, etc) if they want to be able to control their game.
Page: 1 2 3 4