Jump to content

MOTDFile option required


Killing

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

I think we are missing the point here. There is no way to tell the server to use a specific MOTD file e.g.

Server1

motd_server1.txt

Server2

motd_server2.txt

This could be done by the addition of MOTDFile to the config file e.g.

MOTDFile "server1/motd.txt"

In the same vain as:

LogFile "server1/mtaserver.log"

BannedFile "server1/banned.lst"

That are already availiable

Link to comment
There's a real need for a MOTDFile directive for dedicated servers so that each server can have its on MOTD, a real must for clanservers.

im sorry maybe im being dumb or something but i really dont understand what you are saying there that cant already be done

Link to comment

1- put a different directory, it's not that much more work.

2- if you do #1, theres no point to changing the name of the motd.txt file. i could see the usefuillness of having it adjustable if you were running about 10 servers all off 1 bann file or config file, but not 2

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I agree with Killing. Why should you install the game more than once to run multiple servers, waste of HD space tbh. Besides, why bother with the conf option allowing different configs to be run from the same install if you have to have multiple installs just to support motd, doesn't make sense.

Link to comment

You don't make sense. How the hell did you come to the conclusion you'd need multiple game installs to run multiple servers on the same machine? And waste of HDD space? Rofl. I bet the server dir with all the assorted tools (which BTW shouldn't need to be copied anyway) wouldn't even exceed the 5MB point.

Jeez ppl, next time you decide to jump in to a discussion make sure you know what the hell you're gonna talk about, will ya?

Link to comment

He does have a point though. We allowed multiple config support and overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD. We have a lockdown on features for 0.4 at the moment to try and get the first 0.4 version polished to a releasable point but your request is noted for later releases.

Link to comment
He does have a point though. We allowed multiple config support and overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD. We have a lockdown on features for 0.4 at the moment to try and get the first 0.4 version polished to a releasable point but your request is noted for later releases.

Thanks for that MrBump most appreciated.

Link to comment
You don't make sense. How the hell did you come to the conclusion you'd need multiple game installs to run multiple servers on the same machine? And waste of HDD space? Rofl. I bet the server dir with all the assorted tools (which BTW shouldn't need to be copied anyway) wouldn't even exceed the 5MB point.

Jeez ppl, next time you decide to jump in to a discussion make sure you know what the hell you're gonna talk about, will ya?

Unfortunatelly your not seeing the big picture here. Yes the size is small but its just as much a logistical issue as anything else. When you run a GSP like we do one of the key issues for supporting a game is that you only have one game install and then each game instance has its only set of configs, logs etc. As MrBump has acknowledged the facility to do just this was added with the config command line option but the MOTD.txt was missed. Its a simple thing, easy to miss and we look forward to getting it when the dev's can fit it in.

There's no point in going off on one insulting people when you yourself dont comprehend the issue at hand. Please dont turn this into another thread like:

http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?p=102973

Where someone who thinks then know everything has to have it spelled out for them that they dont.

Link to comment

Well, first of all, I was replying to Say_Ten who somehow assumed that the game would have to be installed as many times as the desired servers on the machines for them to work, which is just not so; the serv SW doesn't even need to run the VC executable - hacked or otherwise - to begin with, something that has been said even by the devs a dozen times. I stated that his post made no sense, but I hardly see how that's an insult. That means you needn't install anything other than the server proggy yourself as well. The whole game would just eat up space and be useful only if you'd want to play locally.

Second, it is really as much a logistics issue as it is one of simplicity, regardless of whether you're running an ISP yourself or a mere home server. Personally I wouldn't bother coming here asking for multiple MOTD handling, when the way to take care of it on my own is so obvious. Even when it's clear that multi-instance was meant to be the idea form the get go, it's just so minor. Anyway, I guess since you're getting what you want eventually, maybe we should just leave it at that (and be happy)?

Still, what do I know? I don't even comprehend the issue at hand here...

Link to comment
Well, first of all, I was replying to Say_Ten who somehow assumed that the game would have to be installed as many times as the desired servers on the machines for them to work, which is just not so; the serv SW doesn't even need to run the VC executable - hacked or otherwise - to begin with something that has been said even by the devs a dozen times.

Yes I was quite well aware you where responding to Say_Ten as I read the thread, something it seems you didn't.

He was repling to:

1- put a different directory, it's not that much more work.

2- if you do #1, theres no point to changing the name of the motd.txt file. i could see the usefuillness of having it adjustable if you were running about 10 servers all off 1 bann file or config file, but not 2

Its clear here that slothman is, quite rightly suggesting, that its possible to have the server installed into multiple dirs; but as we are dealing with X servers ( where X is no fixed number ) this is not practical.

So, as we do with all other servers, we would like to use the provided interface of specifing a config file per server instance.

This was the reason I started this thread, to point out this was the case, which it has done thanks again MrBump.

I stated that his post made no sense,

So then Prokopis which part of his post makes no sence? Lets break it down shall we?

I agree with Killing.

First I see him agreeing with my inital post, no rocket science here.

Why should you install the game more than once to run multiple servers, waste of HD space tbh.

Then stating that multiple installs are a waiste of space, which they are no matter how small the install.

Besides, why bother with the conf option allowing different configs to be run from the same install if you have to have multiple installs just to support motd, doesn't make sense.

Finally backing up the previous statement by showing that, by adding the config file option it was the developers intent to be able to run multiple instances from one server install. Which MrBump has kindly confirmed was the case.

So which part of that didnt you understand? Was there some hidden subtext that I didnt see. Or perhaps I have some mystical talent at following threads on forums?

but I hardly see how that's an insult.

Hmm I think I just might have been refering to the following:

Jeez ppl, next time you decide to jump in to a discussion make sure you know what the hell you're gonna talk about, will ya?

And as he quite clearly understood the thread I can take no other meaning to your sentence than as an insult.

That means you needn't install anything other than the server proggy yourself as well. The whole game would just eat up space and be useful only if you'd want to play locally.

Ooo dont think any one here said that "game" ment client install did they? Im sure we where all talking purely about the server here. Another misunderstanding / misread on my part?

Second, it is really as much a logistics issue as it is one of simplicity, regardless of whether you're running an ISP yourself or a mere home server.

So if I give you what... lets pick a number out of my head 500 servers on 50 machines, and tell you to run them all from the different directory installs that doesnt shout at you "Logistical nightmare!!!" when you could so easily run 10 instances from the same install on each machine if you could just specify the MOTD.txt like you can ban file and log file within the core server config file?

Personally I wouldn't bother coming here asking for multiple MOTD handling, when the way to take care of it on my own is so obvious. Even when it's clear that multi-instance was meant to be the idea form the get go, it's just so minor. Anyway, I guess since you're getting what you want eventually, maybe we should just leave it at that (and be happy)?

I suppose thats where you and many other people differ. Lets take a simple example:

If the score where always wrong at the end of the game "it's just so minor" you "wouldn't bother coming here asking" for it to be fixed. Why do I think that you would!

Just because is trivial and doesnt affect you personally doesnt mean that:

1. There's no point in mentioning it.

2. Its not an issue.

3. That it shouldnt be fixed.

Its the small things in life that when added up can prove the largest burden. As you so rightly said, we have seen that the devs just "overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD" and will be rectified in a future patch so yes I will "leave it at that (and be happy)" thank you :)

Still, what do I know? I don't even comprehend the issue at hand here...

Not a lot from your comments. You seen to have shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, you didnt comprehend most of which was said in a good portion of thread.

Nuff said :P

Link to comment
Just because is trivial and doesnt affect you personally doesnt mean that:

1. There's no point in mentioning it.

2. Its not an issue.

3. That it shouldnt be fixed.

Its the small things in life that when added up can prove the largest burden. As you so rightly said, we have seen that the devs just "overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD" and will be rectified in a future patch so yes I will "leave it at that (and be happy)" thank you :)

Hear hear. Despite the fact that I would not have a use for such an option, I respect the fact that I do not represent the entire MTA community.

Link to comment
He does have a point though. We allowed multiple config support and overlooked the fact each server may need its own unique MOTD. We have a lockdown on features for 0.4 at the moment to try and get the first 0.4 version polished to a releasable point but your request is noted for later releases.

Thanks muchly :)

Link to comment

Tsk, tsk tsk...

Before you went to open the most cliche phrases trunk for internet debates and throw me the first thing you came across, did you stop to think if there'd be any point in using it at all, or were you just filling lines? Yeah dude, I didn't read the thread. I just saw a new topic and strolled in here to randomly reply to anything that might've been said. You'd think ppl would be tired by now of that stereotypical bullshit gettin' written again and again every time. But since you wasted everyone's time for that, I'll just waste yours here.

Now what else is there to say? Ah yes, why Say_ten's post made no sense. Well quite simply cause he said:

[...]Why should you install the game more than once to run multiple servers, waste of HD space tbh.[...]

There's nothing that needs to be installed more than once to run multiple servers, much less the game itself (~1GB in size I believe) and that's the only thing anyone could possibly refer to as "waste of HDD space". Even if MTA was what he meant by "game", I don't believe that is the case either; server tools and files are seperate from the MTA installation. Not to mention that comments such as "multiple game installs are a hassle/waste of HDD space..." are usually made in regard to ppl saying they maintain different VC installs for their various gaming needs (mods, total game conversions, MTA, tests, etc), completely irrelevant and not previously mentioned in this discussion. Later on he just uses the phrase "multiple installs" again and this time it could mean anything, so I'd be glad to grant you that this time he was talking about the serv SW. Still that leaves the first part unaccounted for.

For all the above reasons, Say_Ten's post strongly suggested he didn't know what he was talking about concerning what doesn't need to be there to run a serv, hence my reply to it - which BTW was more of a general plea to ppl posting similar stuff lately than anything else. I tried to say that once before in my 2nd post, but obviously you got God knows what from my comment, certainly not the point I was trying to make anyway.

On to this part:

[...]So if I give you what... lets pick a number out of my head 500 servers on 50 machines, and tell you to run them all from the different directory installs that doesnt shout at you "Logistical nightmare!!!" when you could so easily run 10 instances from the same install on each machine if you could just specify the MOTD.txt like you can ban file and log file within the core server config file?[...]

Probably yeah, but those numbers for MTA and for a single person to run are only figments of your own daydreaming and yes, dreaming can sometimes give you nightmares - even logistic(al) ones. Please give me a single example of a host that runs more than 3 MTA servs at any time. Hell, give me any example for any game where 50 seperate game server processes are run on a single machine. Anyway, if I had to tell you how I'd cope with 500 servs on 50 machines (MOTD patch or not), I'd expect no less from you than to tell me how you'd cope with walking if all of a sudden you were turned into a caterpillar. We'd be equally overwhelmed I trust...

On a final note, I didn't say any of the following myself:

[...]

1. There's no point in mentioning it.

2. Its not an issue.

3. That it shouldnt be fixed[...]

To think you even quoted the part of my previous post that states my view on this subject right before you wrote this makes me wonder even more why you keep pushing this. No one said it shouldn't be fixed and nobody flamed you for coming here and asking for its inclusion. You got what you wanted, good for you; I merely said I - that's just me - personally wouldn't bother to do any of that since just putting my 2nd server in another dir would end the story right there. You yourself said that many ppl may differ on this, apparently you and I certainly do. Still, if you feel you've achieved a victory here and saved current and future server admins from bearing a possibly "large burden", even better for you: you could well be on your way to becoming a hero! But as far the rest of the community's reaction to this goes, it's probably viewed as another tick in a pretty long list.

PS: Lol @ ranting for one page after you misinterpreted almost everything I've written and then typing "Nuff said" in the end. How'd you manage to misuse such a commonplace phrase is just beyond me.

Incomprehensively yours,

Prokopis

Link to comment

After Shadowing these forums for MTA, you're post has finaly pushed me to register just to reply to you're wonderful post.

First of all, lets look at what you are saying about the logistics of server hosting, now, I'm sure you know that MPUK hosts servers now as well as it's lan partys, so, how about I point you in the direction of Here and ask you to look at all the servers they host, in particular the Medal Of Honour Section wich takes up a large proportion of servers, now, I doubt very much that all of these clan servers will have an individual box for them, now, while it may not be the numbers used, it is still a large ammout spread out among each box, I'm sure you'll agree.

Consider this: What if MTA gets larger? Now, this may be a trivial thing to you, but, belive it or not, clans may actualy want their own MOTD file for their hosted server, and, if MTA did get larger, it would take up more space, and to have repeated copys of this so that the customers can have their own MOTD seems pointless.

The original point was made, and the Dev's responded, but you seem to drag it out of proption by saying that it is Simple to make more copys and why bother with the feature that would create a lot of ease simply because you seem to like trolling peoples posts.

Now this may be my first post, but I have been watching the MTA forums with intrest for some time now. I dont like to jump into things untill somthing grabs me to do it.

P.S. Oli, where the hell is Spikoz hanging about these days?

Link to comment

I'm just amused that something so simple has had 2 pages-worth of discussion.

I mean, it's simple to incorporate and will take virtually no time at all for the devs, and, however small, there is a demand for it. So therefore I don't see what anyone has to lose by incoporating it, or indeed why there is such heated debate over something so trivial.

Link to comment

I agree this thread has served is porpuse and has turned out into somethign completly different then the original poster had intended and if it keeps goign like this it will only go up in flames .So with that said

=============================================== :arrow: Locked

Ps: welcome to the forums Flufball ( funny name ) hope you post more.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...