| Noob questions |
Sat, 24 September 2005 14:04  |
|
 opusaug |
 | Civilian |
Messages: 1
Registered: September 2005 | |
|
I've played Stars several times in the distant past, usually solo and in email games with an old buddy. Recently, we simultaneously got the idea to find our old CD cases and fire up a new game, and I was just about to create the host files when I stumbled on the AutoHost site when looking for the latest patch.
On the "Starting a New Game" page, it suggests that "games are almost always approved" but also warns that "Games with only 2 human players have about a 5% chance of being approved". The page seems to hint the 2-player thing was necessary when there was a waiting list, but since the site "only" has 55 out of a possible (?) 100 games listed, does this mean there is currently no such waiting list? Would a request for a 2-player game still be viewed unfavorably, or was that put there for another reason? And would "three or more players" include observer-players, or just competing players?
Looks like you've got a great community here (and a great service, Ron!), so we may start up a game and ask for players regardless. But for now, if possible, I'd like to avoid having to meet the expectations of players I have to actually be polite to (unlike my best friend, hehe).
Thanks ahead of time for any response.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Noob questions |
Sat, 24 September 2005 21:09  |
|
| Ron |
 | Commander
Forum Administrator
Stars! AutoHost Administrator |
Messages: 1231
Registered: October 2002
Location: Collegedale, TN | |
|
| Should SAH allow 2-player games?[ 24 votes ] |
| 1. |
Yes |
 17 / 71% |
| 2. |
No |
7 / 29% |
| opusaug wrote on Sat, 24 September 2005 14:04 |
On the "Starting a New Game" page, it suggests that "games are almost always approved" but also warns that "Games with only 2 human players have about a 5% chance of being approved". The page seems to hint the 2-player thing was necessary when there was a waiting list, but since the site "only" has 55 out of a possible (?) 100 games listed, does this mean there is currently no such waiting list? Would a request for a 2-player game still be viewed unfavorably, or was that put there for another reason? And would "three or more players" include observer-players, or just competing players?
|
The 2-player policy was put into place to avoid having AutoHost filled with duel games so that larger games couldn't get a slot. Its so easy for anyone to host a 2 player game, just email the turns back and forth.
On the other hand, with the existance of a hacked .exe floating around that lets anyone open any turn file regardless of turn password, and certain people having knowledge and tools to decrypt turn files perhaps Stars! AutoHost is the only (?) way to play securely since turn upload/download can only be done with a password...
I may have to re-consider the policy.
Here's a poll:
Should Stars! AutoHost allow 2-player games? (if we get close to 100 games then I'll consider raising the limit)
Ron Miller
Stars! AutoHostReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
| Re: Noob questions |
Sat, 24 September 2005 23:05 |
|
| dethdukk |
 | Chief Warrant Officer 3 |
Messages: 200
Registered: June 2005 | |
|
Even if you can hack into somebodys game, I'm sure that most of the peaple around here are decent, so putting it on autohost would stop only 2-3 cheaters, but have the cost of taking up more server space, and a reseting of the autohost limit. In my opinion, if peaple are worried, or it's part of a tournament, sure, let them use autohost, but on a general basis, dont.
[Updated on: Sat, 24 September 2005 23:10]
If you cannot love, you will always hate, and in hate there is only death.
[img]http://dragcave.net/image/XIJh.gif[/img] <--- is teh dragon!Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Noob questions |
Sun, 25 September 2005 14:10 |
|
| iztok |
| Commander |
Messages: 1202
Registered: April 2003
Location: Slovenia, Europe | |
|
Hi!
| Ron wrote on Sun, 25 September 2005 03:09 |
Should Stars! AutoHost allow 2-player games? (if we get close to 100 games then I'll consider raising the limit)
|
I voted for yes, BUT ONLY of it doesn't disrupt creation of games with more players. I'd say reserve last 10 slots for those games.
BR, Iztok
[Updated on: Sun, 25 September 2005 14:10] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Noob questions |
Wed, 28 September 2005 16:54 |
|
| NingunOtro |
 | Master Chief Petty Officer |
Messages: 105
Registered: September 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium | |
|
| Dogthinkers wrote on Sun, 25 September 2005 09:03 |
I voted yes - I'd love to be able to put duels up, but more for convenience than anything else.
If you wanted to eliminate the possibility of cheating you'd still need to use a third party host to set up the game and also to administer the hosting page once it's up...
|
I'm building on Dogthinkers idea of uselessness, so I do not have to express it again as I completely agree.
I just wanted to add that I think that it is usefull to take measures to preserve the continuity of a game for all players involved against cheating participants or even dropouts, even more if even the host could be the one involved. But certainly, I can not imagine what kind of game there is left to play when either of the two involved in a duel drops out or is banned for cheating. No matter what we might think, the game is automatically over, so who would any protecting measures benefit?
If we were esteemed intelligent 'enough', they would have contacted us.
If we can not find them, either we are not smart enough, or they are smarter at hiding.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
 Re: Noob questions |
Wed, 28 September 2005 19:35 |
|
|
|
| NingunOtro wrote on Thu, 29 September 2005 06:54 |
I'm building on Dogthinkers idea of uselessness, so I do not have to express it again as I completely agree.
I just wanted to add that I think that it is usefull to take measures to preserve the continuity of a game for all players involved against cheating participants or even dropouts, even more if even the host could be the one involved. But certainly, I can not imagine what kind of game there is left to play when either of the two involved in a duel drops out or is banned for cheating. No matter what we might think, the game is automatically over, so who would any protecting measures benefit?
|
I think the intention of placing the game on AH is to remove/reduce the opportunity to cheat, rather than to try to rescue existing games. Prevention, not cure!
There are several areas that AH could help with:
1) With a game on AH you wouldn't have to worry about things like the hosting player regening multiple times to get nice battle results etc.
2) To remove the danger of host viewing the other player's turn you'd also need to introduce a third party host to manage the game page.
3) To remove the risk of prescanning, the third party host would also need to gen the game.
To be honest though, as I said before, I'd *love* to be able to put duels on AH just for the convenience factor. The rest is a (not inconsiderable) bonus.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Noob questions |
Sun, 16 October 2005 21:02 |
|
| Ron |
| Commander
Forum Administrator
Stars! AutoHost Administrator |
Messages: 1231
Registered: October 2002
Location: Collegedale, TN | |
|
2 players games are now allowed on Stars! AutoHost. There will be a limit on the # of 2-players that can run concurrently.
Ron Miller
Stars! AutoHostReport message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
