Password control a server?

[Mr.Burns]

I seem to recall some time ago reading in the CRMod manual that you could apply a password to a quake server to ensure only invited guests who had the password could successfully join the game. Does anyone know if this is possible with the Runequake mod or derivatives thereof? I can't see see any mention of it searching through the config pages so the signs are not good but wondered if anyone had managed to do this.


Regards

Monty

[Lerster]

I'm sure someone that codes can impliment it easily.

They'd just clone the admin pwd and put an if else statement in there or a switch.

Either or would work.

I'm sure it could be done.

[Baker]

I seem to recall some time ago reading in the CRMod manual that you could apply a password to a quake server to ensure only invited guests who had the password could successfully join the game. Does anyone know if this is possible with the Runequake mod or derivatives thereof? I can't see see any mention of it searching through the config pages so the signs are not good but wondered if anyone had managed to do this.


Regards

Monty

Answer = yes.

Years back, there was a RuneQuake tournament and the people running that tournament (Ben of the TLTQ plus some other guys) made it so you had to enter in a 6 digit password to join a game.

Here is what I imagine he did, RuneQuake and CAx require entering in an admin code to activate admin. I'm thinking Ben made it so you had to enter in an code to do anything other than observe (so if you pressed 2 to join the game it asked for your code).

[Baker]

Another option: pq_password

Limited to ProQuake and possibly Qrack clients. Unfortunately other clients like glquake, DarkPlaces and JoeQuake and DirectQ would not be able to connect ... EVER.

[Mr.Burns]

Thanks Baker,

Unfortunately a friend of mine has been suffering some very similar experiences to those on some US servers reported (at great length ) on other threads. Normally I'm all in favour of a free and open server policy as personally I believe it promotes the game and encourages people to join in and play.

However there are times when admins, and to some degree the other players too, just want to relax and enjoy a game and really don't feel like having to deal with such behaviour on such a frequent basis, and I'd hoped some sort of changeable password access system on a secondary port might help him out. I'll have a look and see if there's anything we can do with pq_password. If you happen to know how it's implemented would you mind PMing me the details?

Longer term I wonder if any engine coders out there would consider adding this "private server" option to prevent known "spoilers" from joining and wrecking games/tourneys and so forth with their behaviour? By all means still keep all the "open" server ports but perhaps have a private one too, for the known regulars who just want to play nice. That way if the primary port gets "attacked" and they can just flip over to the private one to continue their game in peace with or without an admin.

Thanks as always

Monty

[Baker]

Unfortunately a friend of mine has been suffering some very similar experiences to those on some US servers reported (at great length ) on other threads. Normally I'm all in favour of a free and open server policy as personally I believe it promotes the game and encourages people to join in and play.

However there are times when...

I agree with everything you said including the non-quoted part.

I have a very large arsenal of resources at my disposal including accumulated ones, but I have been studying this type of issue as the primary threat to any Quake "resurgence".

I mean, what good is a resurgence that dies stillborn due to people acting like jerks. Very little. And it is simply isn't worth the effort for something destined to die.

Most problems in Quake are "social problems" and the solution is a little bit "jackbooted" from the freedom perspective but strictly admin'd servers are the answer and the way is very strong administration controls.

And I plan on doing them.

I don't have time at the moment and it may be several months off, but long story short it is going to require whitelisting. The theme of my particular implementation concept involves slight modification to the QuakeOne member profiles which exports a simple database that servers download once per 30 minutes with authentication credentials.

Plus "incident" reporting involving server logs creating concise excerpts.

Anyway, the scheme kind of works like this: server privileges based on length of registration (prevents people constantly re-registering) where things like chat and joining a game are not automatic rights and servers can filter based on credentials and people who are banned or muted on one "QuakeOne" server are banned and muted on them all.

Far easier than it sounds, but not coming soon either (if you define soon as today or July). But soon in the sense of permanence.

The limitations and caveats of Quake admin controls are feeble in today's modern world. The black and white "banned or not" based on ip address is inadequate.

Obviously coming with the eventual server framework idea is the idea of social groups (not hard) and the idea of "only anonymous servers" with no chat and other such server admin variations.

And obviously Universal Server is one piece of the idea too, so that these enhanced controls are a piece of a universal server administration solution

Now ... if only I had more time right now. But I don't. So this is going to have to wait.

But for sure as the problem is real, so is the solution. At the expense of a bit of flexibility ... only ProQuake and Qrack are likely to make "the journey" as permitted clients due to the modifications required to authenticate.

[Patton]

Sounds great. A Solution to a problem. Badaim would finally be able to sleep at night.

[Zop]

Hopefully, at least, "new" users can be voted into the game by the regulars of the server, otherwise I don't see them coming back a second time.

[Mr.Burns]

Hopefully, at least, "new" users can be voted into the game by the regulars of the server, otherwise I don't see them coming back a second time.

Interesting idea Baker and Zop does have a very valid point as the issue of attracting new or casual players would need some careful consideration (which I'm sure you would give it anyway). It's a tricky but manageable balance of trying to make getting a game as easy as possible whilst at the same time detering those who wish to spoil the enjoyment of others and providing a safe playground and "nice play to be" for the existing players.

At present the private server option seems the most suitable for the problem at hand as all the players (usually 8 to 10 at least ) that are expected to turn up are old hands, are well known to the admin and for the most part trusted to just play. I will test the pq_password option but if there is anything else that springs to mind in the interim (hoping Rook/MH's ears prick up intently) I would be grateful.

Kind regards

Monty

[Mr.Burns]

Follow up:

Well whilst Baker does his best on the coding front and just for those that may want to add a more "private" server port pq_password did in fact work for me. In the hope that it may assist others all I needed to do was first add the following to the autoexec.cfg of the server

pq_password 12345678

where 12345678 is your eight digit passcode

and then start the server. at this point only those players that have the same password in their autoexec.cfg werel be able to join the server. Any attempts to join a server without the password are refused. Although it would be interesting to hear what the coders think I have to say that this interim measure was quick, simple and very easy to change on the fly.

Being a proquake user I haven't yet tested it with other clients, I will if I get time this weekend, but if there's enough demand, and judging by the number of postings on ruined games that does seem highly probable, then perhaps the ever helpful MH, Rook and even lord havoc may consider adding the feature or something even better.

Just a thought

Kind regards

Monty

[foq]

I see Baker's whitelist idea as bringing the end of Quake.

Seriously, all that needs to be done to solve the kimp problem is give a few trustworthy regular players that aren't total idiots admin privledges. If Kimp comes on, ban that IP. When he comes back, ban him again. Share banlists between servers, so that any IP Kimp uses on any server gets banned from ALL the servers.

[Mr.Burns]

Hi Foq,

To deter anyone wanting a fair, sporting and fun game from being able to connect to any server and play is probably the last thing Baker wants. His suggestion would certainly need some discussion and something of a buy in from server admins.

One of the reasons the private server port appealed to me was the fact that the server admins retained control over their own server and it was so easy to set up.

However a simple mechanism for the sharing of blacklists (rather than whitelists) is also a another potential idea that could cut down on some of the admin overhead. On the plus side new players can just join and play and if you leep your nose clean you won't have a problem. One potential pitfall is proving that if player abuses one server then he will automatically abuse the next one. If a player is banned from one does he deserve to be banned from servers on which he/she may have done nothing wrong? especially as there could be local factors on that server such as abusive players who may have antagonised the situation. Although there are of course exceptions such as a certain New Jersey resident we've all heard too much about already. Additionally, although I was probably one of the strictest admin/owners on the planet, overly so in some cases, some admins are more lenient than others or may have different definitions on what constitutes a ban.

From what you say it does sound as though, at least until a more robust solution comes along, a few servers might need an extra admin or two to help keep the servers problem free, or alternatively a private password controlled port that trusted players can hop on to in order to continue their game in peace as and when they feel like it.

It will be interesting to see is this plays out and in what direction it may go.

Kind regards

Monty

[foq]

Hm, there's an idea. Set up a Quake server on some port other than 26000 and specifically invite players to it. Other players wouldn't even know it existed.

[Mr.Burns]

Yes indeedy, that was the initial idea plus restrict it further by a password which should take all of 1 maybe 2 mins to set up each time the admin changed the password. In not certain of just how secure the server would be which is why it would be interesting to hear the opinions of the engine coders, but just imagine a private, clean, "guests only" server port available in case the normal public port gets unwelcomed guests...

[tical]

mIRC irc.gamesurge.net #quake1