I suggest you guys add more revision choices for the server status list or just allow us to input our own revision instead of a drop-down menu of revisions.
Add more revisions for the server status
The reason its a dropdown is because mopar has login checking for those specific protocols to make sure its an actual RSPS and not just a webserver.
[quote=“Davidi2, post:2, topic:544239”]The reason its a dropdown is because mopar has login checking for those specific protocols to make sure its an actual RSPS and not just a webserver.[/quote]I didn’t see anything like that in the git repo.
So a bot logs in to each of those servers whenever they’re pinged?
[quote=“zuppers, post:3, topic:544239”][quote author=Davidi2 link=topic=663120.msg4431768#msg4431768 date=1403555273]
The reason its a dropdown is because mopar has login checking for those specific protocols to make sure its an actual RSPS and not just a webserver.
[/quote]I didn’t see anything like that in the git repo.[/quote]That’s why it was added originally, I think he removed it when there were so many servers that didnt match those revisions.
[quote=“Davidi2, post:5, topic:544239”][quote author=zuppers link=topic=663120.msg4431769#msg4431769 date=1403555434]
[quote author=Davidi2 link=topic=663120.msg4431768#msg4431768 date=1403555273]
The reason its a dropdown is because mopar has login checking for those specific protocols to make sure its an actual RSPS and not just a webserver.
[/quote]I didn’t see anything like that in the git repo.
[/quote]That’s why it was added originally, I think he removed it when there were so many servers that didnt match those revisions.[/quote]Right, so at this point why not just have it a user set variable.
IMO it would be better to go the other direction and re-add the login checking. Its because of that being disabled we have so many duplicate servers and servers that use a webserver or something to keep 100% uptime.
[quote=“Davidi2, post:7, topic:544239”]IMO it would be better to go the other direction and re-add the login checking. Its because of that being disabled we have so many duplicate servers and servers that use a webserver or something to keep 100% uptime.[/quote]I was just suggesting the easier of paths because apparently the login protocol checking idea didn’t pan out initially?
^We need more server protocols added in along with the 317 and 508 being re-added (like the login check).
Idk when it was enabled it worked fine for me when I put servers up.
Well it was obviously removed for a reason. I guess only mitb knows?
Probably like davidi said. When people started putting servers up that weren’t the two revisions it would show a fail, because the login protocol is more than likely different. And skiddies on here complain when it doesn’t show green.
I think some custom clients have different log in protocols even for the same revision. I haven’t been able to connect to any of the 317 servers with the Mopar web client. And the high/low detail links don’t seem to do anything.
I’m pretty sure some people also modify their login protocols. Anyway someone needs add support for all the changes among the login protocol across all the client revisions.
Or just make it a user set variable because if someone was going to do this they would of done it by now surely.
Instead of a login bot, or anything like that. MITB could have a TCP port white or blacklist. He could also just have an automated system that checks for unusually high uptime and flags suspicious servers. Blacklisting Jagex IP ranges from the server list would help too. If we want to go down the login bot route. An attempt at a basic login handshake whilst checking for any signs of a web server might work. (A solution to a login bot compatible with multi revisions) Of course something like that could and will break with heavily modified clients. For high revision servers, it might be a good idea to check if the JS5 server has a valid reference table.
I think there should be an enforced login protocol to be listed since that would force server owners to let the mopar client work on their server but that’s my two cents.
With all server/clients ranging from revision #194 all the way past #800, the likelihood of that even working out is slim to none.
317 anyway. Fair enough.
Just be like RuneLocus and make a dropdown for port also. No need to worry about web servers then.
[quote=“arham 4, post:18, topic:544239”]Just be like RuneLocus and make a dropdown for port also. No need to worry about web servers then.[/quote]You can run a webserver and change the port (or forward 43594 another to 80 as well and have the gameserver on a different one), avoiding your server looking offline if it crashes etc.
I don’t see there being a clear circumvention around making it not look like a server is offline.