00:13 <+Learath2> The safe way to handle new messages on 0.7 would be to port over heinrich5991's extended-protocol patch 06:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] broadcast is available clientside in 0.7, thats why i tried to implement it serverside. 12:29 <+Learath2> who killed the 0.6 masters? 12:50 <@heinrich5991> huh 12:50 <@heinrich5991> actually doesn't work for me 12:51 <+Learath2> heinrich5991: I see one singular server 12:51 <@heinrich5991> I see none 12:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] getting 0 game servers either 13:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] I'm not even getting a response from them to be exact 13:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] ```DEBUG:root:generated server token: b'\x06' 13:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] DEBUG:root:sending packet (b'xe%\x13\x00\x00\xff\xff\xff\xffgie3\x06') to 31.186.251.128:8300 13:03 <+bridge> [ddnet] DEBUG:root:received data (b'\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xffsiz2\x00\x00') from 62.210.136.156:8300``` only response I'm getting from all 4 master servers 13:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] ```DEBUG:root:generated server token: b'\x06' 13:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] DEBUG:root:sending packet (b'xe%\x13\x00\x00\xff\xff\xff\xffgie3\x06') to 31.186.251.128:8300 13:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] DEBUG:root:received data (b'\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xff\xffsiz2\x00\x00') from 62.210.136.156:8300``` only response I'm getting from all 4 master servers(all others didn't bother sending me something back within 2 seconds) 13:04 <+bridge> [ddnet] I was seeing 1 Zcatch server but it doesnt even pop up anymore 13:06 <+breton> oh, so i am not the only one 13:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] Nope 13:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] @DaRealFreak do you see count responses from the masters? 13:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] Only got one all other servers didn't respond within 2 seconds 13:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] @DaRealFreak from master2 presumably? 13:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] (me too) 13:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] 62.210.136.156 can't check which one it is rn 13:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] yep, master2 14:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] so what happened 14:06 <+bridge> [ddnet] ? 14:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] down.png (380×323) 14:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/293493549758939136/502094511208398848/down.png 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] - teecloud is dead (since the same time as the master servers have problems so I listing it too) 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] - master servers aren't sending any responses(master1, master3, master4) 14:25 <+bridge> [ddnet] - master2 is sending only a count response, nothing else 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] - teecloud is dead (since the same time as the master servers have problems so I'm listing it too) 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] - master servers aren't sending any responses(master1, master3, master4) 14:26 <+bridge> [ddnet] - master2 is sending only a count response, nothing else 14:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] hmmm 14:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] masters are being dos'ed 14:38 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://ddnet.tw/stats/server/ 14:50 <+bridge> [ddnet] but isn't it strange that master2 is still returning the count response but not the list response? 14:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] it's just broken right now 14:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] perhpas different filtering on dos 16:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] @DaRealFreak maybe because teecloud is hosting one of the master servers? :) 16:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] @heinrich5991 masters dont require much respurces right? 16:55 <+bridge> [ddnet] I can run a new one if needed 19:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] what about moving the master server protocol to http and taking cloudflare as a ddos protection layer 19:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] you also could add new or remove masterservers while not forcing to update the teeworlds client 19:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] + cloudflare could show a saved response of the website if all masterserver go down 19:33 <+bridge> [ddnet] + it'd allow to have the servers on multiple countries, which'd take the nearest one whereby the response time would decrease 19:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] + the advantages which http has 19:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] + the advantages of http 19:37 <+bridge> [ddnet] + i could help with writing the master server if you want to stick to php 19:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] @heinrich5991 is already working on it 19:54 <+bridge> [ddnet] Probably in rust I'd assume 19:57 <+bridge> [ddnet] yeah that's a great idea 19:58 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Marcel the advantage isn't rly about http, but tcp directly 19:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] with a simple firewall you could ask him to block all packets that aren't already established 19:59 <+bridge> [ddnet] & ❤ lava lamp wall ❤ 20:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] haha yes lava lamp ❤ i love the idea to generate randomness 20:00 <+bridge> [ddnet] yea i did not want to go into detail 20:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] https://i.imgur.com/UP4kDkg.png 20:18 <+bridge> [ddnet] 0.7 still works though xD 21:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] where can i define a var like POWERUP_WEAPON? 21:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] where can i define a var like ´POWERUP_WEAPON´? 21:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] where can i define a var like ´POWERUP_WEAPON´ 21:05 <+bridge> [ddnet] where can i define a var like `POWERUP_WEAPON`? 21:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] everywhere 21:58 <+breton> so... any idea when the master servers go up? Are they still being ddosed? 22:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] Will ddnet Update to 0.7? 22:16 <+bridge> [ddnet] somehow i want it :D 22:17 <+bridge> [ddnet] but the menus would need a rework i think xd they are so messy imo 22:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] @Learath2 what do you think? will we have ddnet in 0.7? (client+server) 22:27 <+bridge> [ddnet] Probably but its gonna take a long time xD 22:28 <+bridge> [ddnet] ye xd 22:29 <+bridge> [ddnet] But i think we just have to go with the time. Staying on older versions is dumb too; No new players, maybe unsupported sooner or later... 22:30 <+bridge> [ddnet] But: Porting such a big project like ddnet to a new tw version will be take its time xd 22:31 <+bridge> [ddnet] @heinrich5991 is it possible to add a CNetMsg without editing the hash for the server? Because then we could add Broadcast again (its still in the client code) 22:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] the hash for the srv? @fokkonaut 22:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] the hash that you find in the `generated` folder 22:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] well didn't look at this part 22:34 <+bridge> [ddnet] if it is not the same as the client hash you cant join the server 22:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] ah ok ik what you mean 22:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] and it will change if you edit network.py 22:35 <+bridge> [ddnet] and it will change if you edit `network.py` 23:07 <+bridge> [ddnet] We need to decide on it first 23:08 <+bridge> [ddnet] After that it'll take some time but its doable 23:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] Greyfox did the last major update and ddrace was much simpler then ddnet 23:09 <+bridge> [ddnet] It'll be so much pain 23:13 <+bridge> [ddnet] wait, ddrace is already on 0.7? 23:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] i know its a long way till we actually have 0.7 ddnet, but im just wondering, will you add /whisper for everyone who is used to it or will you only allow the whisper system in vanilla,m 23:19 <+bridge> [ddnet] i know its a long way till we actually have 0.7 ddnet, but im just wondering, will you add /whisper for everyone who is used to it or will you only allow the whisper system in vanilla? 23:21 <+bridge> [ddnet] if you are typing a message, you can auto complete using tab, but can you also go a step back using Shift+tab? 23:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] why would it be not allowed for others 23:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] i mean the system from vanilla 0.7 23:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] they have their own clientside whisper 23:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] i mean client and serverside, but its not a chat command there 23:22 <+bridge> [ddnet] ah 23:23 <+bridge> [ddnet] well didn't look at all the changes 23:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] back to the tab question: if youre using the whisper, you have to select a player using tab (like in chat autocomplete), i think we would need a picker like rshift in spectator mode. because imagine whisper to a person on a full server and you need to find him Just by rotating through the Players with tab xd 23:24 <+bridge> [ddnet] i should probably write these suggestions when we actually at the point we have ddnet in 0.7 xD