[Freeciv-Dev] Re: client/server authentication (PR#1767)

["Per I. Mathisen" <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 24 Mar 2003, Mike Kaufman wrote:
> > Nice. But I think "take" is a better name for the command than "takeover".
> > Also "Take a player's place in the game" is better.
>
> you've got readline. I always use 'take' as the command anyhow.

Which is why it is bad to have "takeover". If everyone talks about "take",
new players will wonder where that options is, and what "takeover" is...

> Hmm, well this provides maximum description. Say I start a game with 2
> humans and 2 AI and I want people to join the game and take over for the
> AI... When a someone logs on, they see "Server AI" being played by AI.
> ("Unassigned" will work here as well) If they become that player (actually
> I'm going to disagree with you, I like 'take' better). then the username
> switches to that connection's login name. If someone leaves the game for
> whatever reason, the AI will take over, but the connection's username will
> remain. If that player logs back on, and there is a player with his login
> name, he will be automatically attached and join the game. So you want
> "Unassigned?"

It is better.

I think that a player with a username should be reserved for this user,
for example by having a password that only the server and that user's
client knows. Then there should be a way for the cmdlevel ctrl user to
make a player unassigned.

I don't remember how you tried to solve this in your previous auth patch.

> > Finally, the 'list' command should show all connected users, even if not
> > related to any player.
>
> try 'list connections'. remember that my original auth patch had all sorts
> of bells and whistles like this. My current approach is a barebones auth
> with snazziness coming later. I plan on switching the default so 'list'
> shows connections rather than players.

I didn't try that. I think the default 'list' should list both players and
connections, and that should be done in this patch, since the result
without this will be much confusion.

> this is where people and I are going to disagree I think. I am against
> having observation where you get to see the whole map (the dead hack).
> Observing should mean observing one player only at a time (and that player
> will control 'obsconnect' (as well as 'multiconnect') for himself.

Global observation is much used on pubserver, AFAICT. It is a very nice
feature, both for players and for debugging. Please provide arguments why
this feature should not be present.

> which brings me to my next point. There is a potential for abuse here.
> somebody could fill up all the allowed connections for example.

A general catch for many of these problems is to have the pubservers reset
to default settings once there are no connections logged in and no game is
in progress. (If a game is in progress and no players are logged in, the
servers will already reset.)

  - Per