Bitfighter Forums

Hmm is it possible to display a server name and description for servers that currently just show "Ping Timed Out" and 999 red ping? Like some kind of system where a player connects to the master, identifies that a ping timed out server belongs to him/her, then edits the name and description for the listing on the lobby screen.

Like a real life analogy would be to grab a menu and paste a sticker stating "chocolate chip cookies" right on the top of the lobster entry. You're not actually changing the food's name or ingredients, just what people see.

Idea being that when my servers end up as Ping Timed Out players can still join, but may not know that. So to address this, allow the server name and description to be cosmetically changed so folks still try to join the server. Also helps to differentiate if there are multiple Ping Timed Out servers up at one time.

Maybe the clients could get the info from here.

ahem this is on the wrong thread place it on the metaforum or bitfighter features thread.

but yes getting client info would be nice.

This is an issue:
https://code.google.com/p/bitfighter/is ... ail?id=457

It is doable, but it will require some thought and probably significant code changes.

Ok, glad you're already aware of it. Consider it low priority, I'll try to figure out what's causing the Ping Timed Out on my end. Thanks!

Funnily enough I reqested for this back in in a earlier version and it was deemed not important enough to implement only to come back as a important issue thats being implemented.

I'll be honest and say I don't fully understand the ping timeout issue; I suspect it has to do with the server rejecting packets from unknown clients. When you join a server, the master server arranges the connection such that it appears to be coming from a known server, and I think the pings the clients send in the lobby do not use the arranged connection method. I suspect making them do so would fix the issue, but I'm not really sure.

That said, this would be 1) a fair bit of work, and 2) would fix a problem I personally find highly annoying.

I wrote a detailed response that explains the issue, here:

https://code.google.com/p/bitfighter/is ... ?id=457#c6

why dont you jsut have the systewm get step 3 when it does step 2.