Add more revisions for the server status

#21

As if our toplist is even all that proper. The servers that have 100+ votes could be lower than a server with 2 votes…

#22

[quote=“arham 4, post:21, topic:544239”]As if our toplist is even all that proper. The servers that have 100+ votes could be lower than a server with 2 votes…

[/quote]

Because it is sorting by the date it was added.

#23

[quote=“sk8rdude461, post:11, topic:544239”][quote author=zuppers link=topic=663120.msg4431787#msg4431787 date=1403558115]
Well it was obviously removed for a reason. I guess only mitb knows?
[/quote]
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.[/quote]

I think any server owner would complain if their server was falsely displayed as being offline, not just “skiddies”…

#24

the login checking doesn’t seem like a good idea for some people who might have changed around the protocol (sending/receiving extra data)

#25

Honestly there could easily be a JAR written that is strickly a seperate serverSocket that runs alongside of the original server using a very lightweight system. Shouldn’t take but maybe 20 minutes tops to write a simple server JAR to run alongside of the server. From there it shouldn’t take 5 minutes tops to port over the old code simply stripping out the login protocal and changing the port. Yes it would be more of a hassle, but you could have this as an optional thing. Maybe a “confirmed” logo on their little bar?

#26

Not all servers are running on Java. I would think if there was a separate way to authenticate it would be even easier to fake 24/7 uptime.

#27

[quote=“Death Style, post:26, topic:544239”]Not all servers are running on Java.[/quote]Find me three on the server status page that aren’t running Java

[quote=“CoonHunter, post:25, topic:544239”]Honestly there could easily be a JAR written that is strickly a seperate serverSocket that runs alongside of the original server using a very lightweight system. Shouldn’t take but maybe 20 minutes tops to write a simple server JAR to run alongside of the server. From there it shouldn’t take 5 minutes tops to port over the old code simply stripping out the login protocal and changing the port. Yes it would be more of a hassle, but you could have this as an optional thing. Maybe a “confirmed” logo on their little bar?[/quote]That completely defeats the purpose? The reason to do the login check is to see if the server is a RSPS and that it is running properly (by running properly I mean even if the socket is open, the game still properly logs you in). If you give them another thread to run a server that wont crash because of game logic errors, you are completely negating the point of the login check. It also makes it easier for people that abuse webservers to just run the little jar you give them there as well and then they dont even have to recreate the login protocol in PHP or something similar. How nice of you to help them abuse the system

#28

If I put mine on there that’d be at least one.

#29

OR MAYBE, or maybe the idea of uptime isn’t even important in the first place :expressionless:

The server status list isn’t a huge pivotal feature for the site.

#30

[quote=“sinisoul, post:29, topic:544239”]OR MAYBE, or maybe the idea of uptime isn’t even important in the first place :expressionless:

The server status list isn’t a huge pivotal feature for the site.[/quote]You’d be surprised, it’s pretty popular. The main thing is users that register for it tend to not use the forums so it doesn’t realllly matter.

#31

Pretty popular being how many unique visitors/views a month? IIRC Runelocus hits about 1,000,000 views a month, idr how many unique visitors.

#32

Popular meaning relative to these forums

#33

That’s not much of a comparison though, the forums are active but not overly popular. I think those statistics are more relevant to determining popularity. Comparatively that’s like saying “They’re active”. A lot of that activity might be botted too.

#34

The toplist used to be quite popular. They’re pretty silent now.

#35

Arham 4, what’s wrong with you? :palm:

Update the whole website, not some stupid revisions.

#36

What revisions should there be? I’m open to adding any of them. We already have a ‘protocol blacklist’.

#37

^The real question.
Did anyone even have thought of what revisions should be added?

I’m thinking that 7XX needs to be added, but I wouldn’t know the most popular revision for the 700’s.

#38

What’s that?

#39

Is there a reason to not allow all revisions?

#40

Where did MITB say he wouldn’t allow revisions?