www.ClassicTW.com
https://mail.black-squirrel.com/

Remote Access for TWGS
https://mail.black-squirrel.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11018		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  fuseblown [ Fri Mar 29, 2002 2:41 am ]
Post subject: 
I think I mentioned this to JP about a year ago, but I could be mistaken. Something I would like to see on the TWGS-end of things is a way for remote administrators or game-ops to control the TWGS in more ways than they are presently able to do.

What I mean by this is to be able to telnet into the Administration port of the server, be able to take the player port of the server offline to do BigBangs (which require the server to be shutdown before you can proceed) or whatever, but still be able to stay connected to the TWGS via the Admin port. Not sure if that makes any sense...

Say, for example, that the Home Sector TWGS still exists right now. I was a Sysop/Gameop along with EleqTrizi'T, except that I'm on the other side of the U.S. and unable to access the TWGS directly to take the server down and BigBang a new game. I've FTP'd the files to the server already and put them in the appropriate game directory, but I have to wait for Eleq to get home from work to BigBang the game for me, since he has direct access to the TWGS.

Would there be a way for us to do such a thing? Right now there's an option to "Disable Server" from the remote command menu, but there's no way you can bring it back online remotely. Instead, could it be made to Disable the server, except for the Administration port and menus? That way games can be rebanged and such without the server owner being there to do it for them.

Feel free to add any ideas to this topic...I just think that it would make lives easier if there were more remote options added to the back-end of the server software. It may, however, require a bit of restructuring of how the TWGS server actually work, but I dunno.

Just some thoughts. ;)

Fuseblown
http://www.thestardock.com

Edited by - Fuseblown on March 28 2002 11:42:48 PM
Author:  fatcat [ Fri Mar 29, 2002 5:12 am ]
Post subject: 
I was going to ask the same Question :)
if the bigbang was setup in remote menu
sysops could run TWGS from a real server
with a T3. I was checking into this befor
it hit me that I can not rebang the games.
and its not likly a ISP or major Host would
let me come to there shop to do it :(
This would be great for sysops.


TW Free Play
http://www.twfreeplay.com
telnet://12.219.136.27
Author:  fuseblown [ Fri Mar 29, 2002 6:31 am ]
Post subject: 
Exactly. Some friends of mine are supposed to be purchasing a large ISP in State College, PA real soon. The ISP has 2 DS3 connections (45Mbps up and down for a total of 90Mbps -- the equivalent of about 60 T1 lines) and if and when the deal goes through, I'll be working for them or possibly even part owner. I was thinking of hosting servers for people off of the high speed connection, but need a way for them to access as much as they can from the remote TWGS menu, without being in front of the screen or me or one of my friends having to keep an eye on things 24/7, because we wouldn't be able to.

Plus, in general, this might help sysops who have other people around the world help them admin or gameop the server and if they trust the person enough, they could give them access to these extra commands for their use.

Fuseblown
http://www.thestardock.com
Author:  Jeren [ Fri Mar 29, 2002 7:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
A feature allowing GameOps and Sysops to edit games from remote locations sounds great. But, until then, why not use remote software, like PC Anywhere, to allow that person access to the server? Yes, it opens that person up and lets them see everything, but hopefully, if they are a sysop or gameop, they can be trusted not to mess anything up.

Sound crazy? That's how I'm doing it.

Have you met my p-torps?
Author:  Rave [ Sat Mar 30, 2002 2:29 am ]
Post subject: 
I've discussed this in detail with JP in the past. I have a web based application that allows you to BigBang games. The server only has to be down if there are active Gold Aliens in the game you're rebanging. New games can be created via the web as well. Of course, if you rebang a game that has an active player in it, you're asking for serious trouble. ;o)

Full remote administration might happen sometime... it's just a matter of when it will happen. ;o)

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave
Author:  Darax The Good [ Sat Mar 30, 2002 3:24 am ]
Post subject: 
I'd rather see dev time go toward features in the actual game. There are plenty of remote administration options already.

I've never seen the code and I can't imagine this would be too difficult. There would probably be a lot of 'state' bugs introduced by making a change like this. Debugging issues like this eats up time hat they could spend by creating new attributes for ships or whatever.
Author:  fuseblown [ Sun Mar 31, 2002 2:30 am ]
Post subject: 
quote:
A feature allowing GameOps and Sysops to edit games from remote locations sounds great. But, until then, why not use remote software, like PC Anywhere, to allow that person access to the server? Yes, it opens that person up and lets them see everything, but hopefully, if they are a sysop or gameop, they can be trusted not to mess anything up.

Sound crazy? That's how I'm doing it.

Have you met my p-torps?



If the remote operators were on dial-up connections, or something slow like that, remote access software wouldn't cut it. That's how Eleq and I eventually did it, but it took me forever to even simply rebang a game via dial-up using that, waiting for the screens to reload after each click, etc. It was just a real pain that way, I felt.

Fuseblown
http://www.thestardock.com
Author:  fuseblown [ Sun Mar 31, 2002 2:40 am ]
Post subject: 
quote:
I'd rather see dev time go toward features in the actual game. There are plenty of remote administration options already.

I've never seen the code and I can't imagine this would be too difficult. There would probably be a lot of 'state' bugs introduced by making a change like this. Debugging issues like this eats up time hat they could spend by creating new attributes for ships or whatever.



Personally, I don't feel the actual game should be receiving a ton of *new* features. Fixing bugs and such, yes, but not adding new elements to the game like new ship attributes as you mentioned. That's what v4 will be for (as I see it)... I just think the actual server back-end is missing a few needed elements, such as proper security against dupes (which is being worked on) and some tools to help out administrators, so that they don't necessarily have to host the server on their home connection. That way they can run it properly from their homes, without having to make calls to the third-party hosting it for them everytime the sysop wants to bang a game.

Fuseblown
http://www.thestardock.com
Author:  Rave [ Sun Mar 31, 2002 5:00 am ]
Post subject: 
quote:
I'd rather see dev time go toward features in the actual game. There are plenty of remote administration options already.

I've never seen the code and I can't imagine this would be too difficult. There would probably be a lot of 'state' bugs introduced by making a change like this. Debugging issues like this eats up time hat they could spend by creating new attributes for ships or whatever.


Very few changes are planned for v3 aside from bug fixes. It's quite conceivable that v3 could move into a Final Release sometime this year (which would allow more time for other projects). There are many, many ways to enable full remote administration of a game (including creating/deleting/adding new games, BigBanging them, etc) for anyone to pursue if they -really- want full-featured remote hosting.

quote:
Personally, I don't feel the actual game should be receiving a ton of *new* features. Fixing bugs and such, yes, but not adding new elements to the game like new ship attributes as you mentioned. That's what v4 will be for (as I see it)... I just think the actual server back-end is missing a few needed elements, such as proper security against dupes (which is being worked on) and some tools to help out administrators, so that they don't necessarily have to host the server on their home connection. That way they can run it properly from their homes, without having to make calls to the third-party hosting it for them everytime the sysop wants to bang a game.


Agreed. Antiduping strategies and software add-ons is one of the many TWGS/TW-based projects I have on my own plate at the moment, but its on the backburner for the time being to free up more of my own time for -other- TWGS/TW related work. (Wow! That was a roundabout loop if I ever saw one!)

Lisa M. Wilson
aka Rave
Author:  XenoPhage [ Tue Apr 02, 2002 10:03 am ]
Post subject: 
I would love to see the ability to bigbang while other games are running... This may be possible already, ???

As for remote administration, I use Terminal Services on Windows 2000 and Windows XP... Let me tell ya, it's 1000% better than PC Anywhere.. It's actually usable over a 19.2k baud CDPD connection via a wireless modem... If I can remote administer that way, then a 56k dialup should be even better.. Yeah, it can be a little slow, but then, CDPD is the extreme case .... :)

--------------------------
~~ XenoPhage ~~
--------------------------
Author:  fuseblown [ Tue Apr 02, 2002 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yeah, I was thinking about using Terminal Services for the Admin part if I would happen to start hosting servers for other people...unless some more remote features are added to TWGS itself, then I would use those first. But anyways...there are a lot of options...I was just hoping for more features on the TWGS software itself.

Fuseblown
http://www.thestardock.com
Author:  Jeren [ Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
I'm using Terminal Services now. Its not the same as working on the actual machine, but, if you don't have access, I find it perfect.

Wog's Server
[url]tw.computerwave.com[/url]
Enjoy the Star Trek aliens...before they enjoy you.
Author:  siglinp [ Sat Apr 13, 2002 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
I use vnc and if I were to rebuild my server under win2k I would use the terminal services in win2k to do it. I am with Fuse I think there should be more dev in bug fixes then features..I would like to see the ability to telnet in and do a rebang..I would also like to see the ability of not having to bring the server down to bang a game..
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/