Re: Net Game Showstopper

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[tsbvc]

Doh, that's right, 2 players should work fine.  I'll be on IRC (Undernet, channel #xconq, 10:30 EDT/9:30 EST) as I mentioned before, and Robert, Jim, and anyone else who wants to try can stop by.

-Tom

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Eric McDonald]

tsbvc@tds.net wrote:

> Doh, that's right, 2 players should work fine.  
> I'll be on IRC (Undernet, channel #xconq, 10:30 EDT/9:30 EST) as I mentioned before, 
> and Robert, Jim, and anyone else who wants to try can stop by.

I just uploaded a new Windows installer so if you and Robert want to use 
that to have compatible versions, then go for it:
   http://eric_mcdonald.home.comcast.net/xconq/

Jim, could you just apply the patch I sent you during the week and build 
from the latest CVS sources, if you plan on playing a net game? That 
should be equivalent to the sources used to build the Windows app.

Elijah, this is _not_ the new Windows installer that I told you I would 
make. I will still let you know when I am ready with that one (might be 
tomorrow); the one I just uploaded does not have all the various 
bugfixes (to cXP and the SDL interface) that you will probably want.

Eric

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Robert Goulding]

Dear all:  Sorry to be a party-pooper (though it seems it can only be a
2-person party anyway...) but something's come up tonight and I can't make
it.  I would love to try some other time, though.

Here's a question.  If I were to send an email to the list saying that I'm
starting up a game, and for anyone who happens to be at their computers and
interested in joining, here is my IP address - is that at all a security
risk for me?  If not, I'll give it a try some time during the week.

Cheers (and hope it goes well, for those who try it out tonight - post a
report!) - Robert.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <tsbvc@tds.net>
To: <mcdonald@phy.cmich.edu>
Cc: <xconq7@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Net Game Showstopper


> Doh, that's right, 2 players should work fine.  I'll be on IRC (Undernet,
channel #xconq, 10:30 EDT/9:30 EST) as I mentioned before, and Robert, Jim,
and anyone else who wants to try can stop by.
>
> -Tom
>
>

We Need a Forum

[Elijah Meeks]

I love the mailing list, but we should really have a
forum up and running, it's easier to keep track of
issues and more user-friendly for the casual fan.  We
could split it into Player/Designer/Coder areas.  I
tried to get one through sourceforge, but it didn't
work out (I guess they didn't think a designer-only
project for XConq was worth their time).



		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush

Re: We Need a Forum

[mskala]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Elijah Meeks wrote:
> I love the mailing list, but we should really have a
> forum up and running, it's easier to keep track of

In a word, eww.
-- 
Matthew Skala
mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                    Embrace and defend.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Eric McDonald]

Robert Goulding wrote:

> Here's a question.  If I were to send an email to the list saying that I'm
> starting up a game, and for anyone who happens to be at their computers and
> interested in joining, here is my IP address - is that at all a security
> risk for me?  If not, I'll give it a try some time during the week.

It would probably be a better idea just to announce your availability 
(from when until when), and request that any interested party send you a 
private email.

Eric

P.S. If you announce sometime during a weekday evening, I might play.

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Lincoln Peters]

On Sat, 2004-08-28 at 17:55, Robert Goulding wrote:
> Dear all:  Sorry to be a party-pooper (though it seems it can only be a
> 2-person party anyway...) but something's come up tonight and I can't make
> it.  I would love to try some other time, though.
> 
> Here's a question.  If I were to send an email to the list saying that I'm
> starting up a game, and for anyone who happens to be at their computers and
> interested in joining, here is my IP address - is that at all a security
> risk for me?  If not, I'll give it a try some time during the week.

It depends on what's running on your computer.  It is (theoretically)
perfectly safe if you can ensure that no servers of any kind (other than
Xconq) are running on your computer.  If any other kinds of servers are
running, it could be a security risk, depending on the security of the
server(s) in question.

---
Lincoln Peters
<sampln@sbcglobal.net>

Westheimer's Discovery:
	A couple of months in the laboratory can frequently save a
	couple of hours in the library.

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[mskala]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004, Robert Goulding wrote:
> starting up a game, and for anyone who happens to be at their computers and
> interested in joining, here is my IP address - is that at all a security
> risk for me?  If not, I'll give it a try some time during the week.

If you send a message to the list, then you probably reveal your IP
address anyway, because it appears in the headers.  At the time you sent
the above, it appears that your IP address was 68.251.117.96.
-- 
Matthew Skala
mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca                    Embrace and defend.
http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Eric McDonald]

mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:

> If you send a message to the list, then you probably reveal your IP
> address anyway, because it appears in the headers.  At the time you sent
> the above, it appears that your IP address was 68.251.117.96.

And it is on an Ameritech DSL connection by the looks of it.

Nonetheless, it is probably not a good idea to go around putting one's 
IP address in a public forum, where it is easily accessible, since many 
ISP's will renew a DHCP lease over and over again using the same 
address, which prolongs the period someone may be a more highly visible 
target.

Eric

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Robert Goulding]

> mskala@ansuz.sooke.bc.ca wrote:
>
> > If you send a message to the list, then you probably reveal your IP
> > address anyway, because it appears in the headers.  At the time you sent
> > the above, it appears that your IP address was 68.251.117.96.
>
> And it is on an Ameritech DSL connection by the looks of it.
>
Wow, I feel naked...  But thanks for the advice. I'll coordinate off-list if
I want to get a game going. - Robert.

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Jim Kingdon]

> Dear all:  Sorry to be a party-pooper (though it seems it can only be a
> 2-person party anyway...) but something's come up tonight and I can't make
> it.  I would love to try some other time, though.

If we had 4 people, we could have had 2 2-person games.  If we had 3
people, we probably could have 3 2-person games (with each person
playing two).

Sadly, though, you never really know at the start whether you are
going to have a real game or a brief debugging session.  Tonight we
had the latter (see separate message).

Oh, and for the record Tom was playing the Vietnamese and I was
playing the Mexicans.  He was not to stand a chance against the
onslaught of Mariachis which I was going to send at him.  Just in case
you were wondering.

Re: xconq net game: loss of sync

[Jim Kingdon]

Oh, a bug in the supply code is sort of what I was insinuating before,
but there is at least one other possibility: whether I really ended up
with the same version of xconq as Tom.  I did a CVS update and applied
Eric's patch ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/2004/msg01014.html
).  So assuming that is what Eric did, this probably isn't it.  But I
thought I'd mention it just in case.

(Insert random boilerplate grumbling about how fragile xconq's
protocol is, compared with a freeciv-style one (as I understand the
latter, anyway).  Insert groveling about how I shouldn't really gumble
so much unless I'm volunteering to fix it).

Re: xconq net game: loss of sync

[Eric McDonald]

Jim Kingdon wrote:

> Oh, a bug in the supply code is sort of what I was insinuating before,

It could also be due to the fact you guys may not have saved at exactly 
the same point, and some automatic things (plan executions) continued 
even after you got out sync, and thus some parts of the game diffs are 
present for that reason.

> but there is at least one other possibility: whether I really ended up
> with the same version of xconq as Tom.  I did a CVS update and applied
> Eric's patch ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/xconq7/2004/msg01014.html
> ).  So assuming that is what Eric did, this probably isn't it. 

This is exactly what I did before building the Windows executables.

>Insert groveling about how I shouldn't really gumble
> so much unless I'm volunteering to fix it).

;-)

Eric

Re: Net Game Showstopper

[Eric McDonald]

Jim Kingdon wrote:

> If we had 4 people, we could have had 2 2-person games.  If we had 3
> people, we probably could have 3 2-person games (with each person
> playing two).

One would have to be careful with the 3 2-person games scenario. No 
person could host more than 1 game, or else you would have to fiddle 
with port numbers. Also, real time constraints on turn length would 
probably need to be set up to prevent someone from spending too much 
time on one game (and just to add to the adrenaline level :-).

A "simul" (to use chess jargon) is a fun idea though.

Eric