I'm really curious about your website now and I want to play. Has this been an advertisement the whole time ��

It's just a type proxy server so fact our origin servers are .net doesn't make any difference (my assumption). Yeah it blows, oh well thanks for your help!

I was thinking something a little bit different, not exactly about .net per se.

If you are using a Linux as a proxy, you are now routing all of your requests through that one IP address. This could look like a DOS to your server's firewalls, and that connection may be dropped by the windows server.

The simple idea is to be sure the IP address is white-listed, but I'm not sure what other blocking or rate-limited parameters are set, for example.


***

@Grue;

If you want to block IP addresses, using iptables may help a bit....

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ip-how-437675/

As far as I recall, Windows computers are dynamic IP Addresses, so you'd need more sophisticated blocking mechanisms.

The easy way is to either block all Windows users* or just use Cloudflare for user blocking. Cloudflare is definitely worth it for the free SSL alone.

*(I'm kidding about the war hammer approach)

working with some interview video which is of course in java script but got damn i know why they say ruby is a language based on developer happiness. so here is mergesort in ruby, (in the example we are just starting with two array and we do not have to create a pivot and split a single array and run a recursive function etc.
So i have 7 lines of ruby code, she has 52 lines of js... i have no idea what the gibberish she has written means...

def mergesort(left, right)
result = []
until left.empty? || right.empty? do
result << (left[0] <= right[0] ? left.shift : right.shift)
end
result + left + right
end

well that's a merge function, not mergesort

this is your code in js,

This is wrong, the p2w element is extremely small in LoL. Paying is mostly for cosmectic stuff.

You can get all the game-influencing stuff by playing, paying just speeds up that process. Which is really not necessary, since you don't need to play all that much to access most of it (eg most runes and a decent hero pool).

I think optional paying (and having it speed things up) absolutely fits in the p2w category, but there are certainly different levels of p2w.

If you do some client to client handoff you can't figure out who is DCing, but this should be the standard way you handle anything where you can tell.

You're correct. Just like anything else, there are multiple ways to implement monetization mechanics. You need to either grind or pay in most MOBAs for access to characters to be better.

I don't know what the game is. That said, just add some freaking timers. Chess it timed, Scrabble is timed, Go is timed, Stratego is timed, all turn based games on the internet is timed, and none of them use a karma system. Karma systems make more sense if you're using social media, such as upvoting, downvoting. Last thing some users such as myself want to do is to invest even more time after wasting several minutes.

All games are p2w to an extent. People are doing this to win, so there are always some no matter what game it is will turn it into p2w, except maybe Candyland.

Um, no? I definitely disagree with you unless you have a weird all-encompassing definition of p2w. I would say p2w is a very very very tiny minority.

How is Starcraft p2w? Diablo? Rocket League? Madden? Mario Kart 64?

I must have a different definition, because they all look like play to win. As a kid I'd try to get better at Unreal Tournament, Madden, and Mario Kart, and just play to get better and better. I think also play to win fits as a player type even more so than a game type. A person doesn't have to play these games to win, but some do.

Mario Kart was especially serious business with my friends.

Pay, not play

Never mind

Yea p2w = pay 2 win not play. As in, there is an in-game mechanic to purchase upgrades or something with real money.

Were people thinking p2w = play to win?

Hahaha, yes, at least I was. My mistake.

I'm totally out of my area, but I would have thought 'play to win' was a thing in some games.

Games where you get XP and level up and become more powerful and easily able to beat opponents who haven't put in the time.

That's different than something like starcraft where the more you play the better you get, but there's no game mechanics that actually make you stronger.

Yeah I feel like that's a thing to. And defending a pay to win game by saying "sure you can buy these things but you can also grind them out in game" is a fairly weak defense - I think it makes it a bad game.

There seems to have been a focus on making games take a long time as a measure of value. A lot of modern games (like say the Fallout series, or Just Cause, or Far Cry, whatever, these big FPS sandbox games) just have ridiculous amounts of repetitive stupid side quests, that are essentially required to make your character strong enough to progress through the "main" quest.

Compare to, say, Doom or the Half Life series. At certain points in the game you get better weapons, sure, but no amount of grinding is going to get them earlier, or make them better. It's up to you to be good enough to win the game. I feel like a ot of modern AAA games are literally "keep playing until you win"

And that's fine I guess, but also, I'm not interested.

In addition multiplayer games where you can level up by grinding have the component of "if you don't play this much, or pay this much, it will be very hard for you to compete against your peers" which I find distasteful.

That's just an RPG. Pay to win is where you can trade money for time and upgrade your gear and character without having to play. It generally pisses off the people who can't afford to pay and who have a ton of time invested in the grind. Far as I remember, WOW was where it started accidentally, Blizzard didn't set up the external market or do anything to monetize it, but tried to stop it.

When you start charging per month for access to the game you have incentive for games to be a grind. Why pay 15 bucks a month if there is only a few hours of new content, so you get to spend your time running around a map or loading into an instance or doing "patrols" in order to burn up time.

It's not just games with monthly charges - it's literally nearly every major label game for consoles or PC

I don't know what the split in revenue is for the on-line content on console games requiring paid memberships with Sony or Xbox is, but that's the incentive for console games to be grindy. I also expect time to play and replayability often get interchanged when they shouldn't.

Additionally, some customers will complain if the game they spent x dollars on doesn't have y+ hours of content. That puts pressure on the devs to make longer games.

It's not just RPGs. I use to play an online first person shooter (Something around wolfenstein) and the more you played the more skills you got. It was actually kind of annoying because if you started playing on a server where XP rarely reset you just got crushed for the first X hours because everybody had advanced skills.

And yeah, I realize the difference with 'pay to win', just commenting that 'play to win' also seems like a thing.

fyp