The Castle Doctrine Forums

Discuss the massively-multiplayer home defense game.

You are not logged in.

#1 Re: Main Forum » Server Help?!?!?!?!?!? » 2014-03-04 14:35:48

It's something to do with checking where a request came from.  In this case I think somewhere you have something off about the hostname somewhere, or the IP you are accessing it from or running the server on, possibly in the web server config or the machine itself.  I think as a workaround you can perhaps turn off or comment out this referrer checking to just make it work, but at the risk of some other vulnerabilities.

I had this problem at some point but I can't recall the exact solution I used.

#2 Re: Main Forum » Can Coop robbing be possible in a future patch? » 2014-03-04 09:13:13

This would be an enormous amount of code to change in the client and server.  Almost a completely different game in a way.

What you are talking about is a synchronous setup with persistent communication (even if it is still turn by turn).  A total rewrite of all the netcode in the game.

The way the game code is setup now is almost entirely asynchronous.  The only thing the client and server do while you have a house "checked-out" is a little active ping so people can't just idle away forever and lock down another players house.  There is no meaningful communication back until you provide a complete "check-in" which will be validated, so the whole process of simulation would need to be retrofitted as well.

It is of course possible, but only if you have a LOT of free time to spend on it, not a small project by any means.  You could of course keep the rendering, input, assets, a few other things, but it's not an incremental change.

#3 Re: Main Forum » I just relaized what this game is missing that would change everything » 2014-02-26 12:43:40

I can imagine a lot of cursing at other players.  Full out FFA PvP style doesn't generally encourage the best in communication.  Maybe this community is slightly more mature, but in general I'm thinking this would just offend more people than it would add actual value.

If there was at least some small postage cost it would at least cut down on totally random insults, so maybe that would be a workable solution.

#4 Re: Main Forum » Total (own house) kill/attempt numbers should be visible » 2014-02-26 08:41:14

Oh right, I forgot that number was steps on that screen, you are right.  The tape and house list display share a lot of common code so I get a bit confused when swapping between them.

I guess what you'd need is a function to total the quantity of tapes until you hit a zero line on kills.

#5 Re: Main Forum » Total (own house) kill/attempt numbers should be visible » 2014-02-26 08:25:29

Take a look at the 2 numbers last number on your Security Tapes lines.  Those are the numbers you want.  Gives you kills at least.

#6 Re: Main Forum » No redirected output from headless game client? » 2014-02-25 06:09:37

What I'm starting to suspect is I simply need to put an fflush() in somewhere.  My guess is the output is just getting buffered up and hasn't reached the point anything cares about getting it synced to the file system.

Has anyone else running a server cared to check on the simulation output yet?  I know there's at least a few people with these up and running.

#7 Main Forum » No redirected output from headless game client? » 2014-02-24 17:14:10

Replies: 5

I'm trying to look at the output redirected from this command in the text file:

nohup ./CastleDoctrineHeadless > headlessLog.txt 2>&1 &

But the text file never gets any of the prints in it?

Is the only way to see the output to run it in foreground on a terminal?  Running it directly produces obvious output.

I'd expect to see something like this in the text file:

L4 | Mon Feb 24 20:09:34 2014 (801 ms) | general | Height in grid per timbre = 10

L4 | Mon Feb 24 20:09:34 2014 (801 ms) | general | Max note length in song = 3

Waiting for connection on port 5077, password = 'secret'
Got connection
Simulation took 0.013000 seconds

#8 Re: Main Forum » Is it safe... » 2014-02-22 05:50:39

Hah, uh... you might not want to do that.

#9 Re: Main Forum » The prevalence of clocks (Warning, rant) » 2014-02-19 13:09:52

MMaster wrote:

Just build your house to be more inviting and don't be impatient.

I think this is something a lot of people overlook.  You don't need to have immediate commit gates.  Having a little "play" area that has nothing to do with getting through but looks like a convincing decoy can pay off a lot, especially if said play area happens to occasionally get deadly if you play too much.  Although it seems that having a weak commit, like 1 dogmeat or 1 water breakable will still draw in a lot of people.

All that being said, it's hard to gauge how much room is worth using on something that doesn't bulk up real defense.

#10 Re: Main Forum » Decent 4-Day Run, Upper Middle Class, Bested by the Allure of the Void » 2014-02-19 09:49:45

I think it would be relatively easy to write a few lines of code and not allow player movement on pit tiles (well, specifically, I guess only pit tiles that don't have ladders).  I've been considering doing so, it doesn't really feel too unfair to me in terms of any real advantage, only stops a few extremely terrible key-presses.  Then again, it would mean I would be unable to join with the void.

I always feel a little paranoid when standing right next to one.

#11 Re: Main Forum » Come and Get Me » 2014-02-18 16:11:55

I take it you are Kaufmann?  The one with the Backgammon board entrance?

#12 Re: Main Forum » New Server Idea : Bots / AI Robbers » 2014-02-18 13:31:14

What I'm considering mapping out for electricity is a large table that contains every switch state combination as input and generates a separate map.  I think this data would be something like 2^(switches) possible maps.

Then identifying which of those states create conflicts with a vault path line (this is the first step to compute) and identifying which map states allow passage vs which create conflict.

Those two data sets would be pretty close to solving a basic combo lock if you had paths established to switches (or at least the minimum diff state from entry state).  This is still somewhat far from doing magic dance.

I think an ideal solution would be a combo of heuristics and some minimal brute mixed in when that fails.

#13 Re: Main Forum » New Server Idea : Bots / AI Robbers » 2014-02-18 11:41:50

@MMaster: You are probably right, even getting a half functional bot that could solve even a few simple houses would be quite an achievement.  Until anyone can show that type of progress I don't think people would get very exited about even trying it.  Jumping onto a full out multi-player concept is probably the totally wrong angle to take on it, even a research project to prove out a simple solver and share some ideas would be a big goal.

@jere: That might be possible in terms of structuring some framework where users could focus on just one area rather than hunting all over (I'm not even to this point).

@Archonn: The map data is relatively simple, it's basically just an array of "ID:State", separated by index with # tags.  Playing around with for a couple minutes you can get a pretty quick picture of what the formatting is like.  Once this comes it'll get split out into separate things, but at some point it's all just clumped together in there.

Right now, what I'm most strongly considering is a totally offline solver that would take a string like seen @ and operate on that independently.

#14 Re: Main Forum » New Server Idea : Bots / AI Robbers » 2014-02-18 07:39:05

Pandamonium wrote:

what do you mean by "peek map"?

I mean a non-restrictive policy on the complete house data, look at whatever you like.  Something that would give you a huge advantage if it was running a normal server.

#15 Re: Main Forum » New Server Idea : Bots / AI Robbers » 2014-02-18 07:12:21

I've got nothing to hold up as proof-of-concept so you might be right about it on the complexity side.  I've already got ideas for things way more than mazes though.

#16 Main Forum » New Server Idea : Bots / AI Robbers » 2014-02-18 06:13:22

Replies: 14

This is an idea I got from another thread, which I have posted a little there but it was a bit off-topic.  So to reiterate, I wanted to make a real topic for it to gauge any interest level in doing this.

My idea is for a Bots/AI Robbing server.  I mean this just for the offensive side of game-play, actual human players could still play on it to build their own defenses, but it will be impossible for anything but a bot to rob people based on extra limitations.  This would be an expected "peek map" server, with very tight timing constraints enforced on robbing.  Essentially it would be your program against a short clock.  So just building a sufficiently complex house could easily kill AIs even if you have no threatening traps.  In fact complexity will be preferred because of the forced commit mechanic, all bots will be considered committed at entry.

Due to the odd constraints other variables could and would be tweaked such as extra starting money or increased bounties to give defenses more ability to "timeout kill" robbers.  It's expected that if your program can't solve in the required time it simply not even bother doing a check-in on the house (non-solution will be death) but just timeout die.

    Specific Additional Server Rules   

No tools allowed - The idea is you have to brute force or elegantly solve the map using a computer program within a small amount of time.  Tweaking other money sources would be arranged to keep the economy viable.

Wife & Kids removed - Without tools on the server it doesn't make any sense to have them in, and only vault robbing will be considered success.

Leaving not allowed (except by vault) - If a bot enters a house it is considered to be "fully committed" to doing a successful run.  This is necessary to enforce timing parameters and so the bot cannot do "offline" solving and come back later with a solution prepared.  Only a vault penetrating solution will keep a "player" alive after entry.

Extra length chills - Since this is a "peek map" server, players would need to re-layout their home after anyone has their chills run out.  A longer chill timer would allow extra buffer time for necessary house changes.  Due to the forced layout changing, additional money over time (salary) could be provided to players.

Very short robbing check-outs - Houses would only be allowed to checkout for a very small amount of time (possibly just several seconds).  No active pinging is accepted, just check-ins.  This is where ruling out human offense comes in, it will be some value unrealistic to actually play the game at on a keyboard and monitor.  Since it's a peek-map server any human player could work it out given even a minute to play, so the robbing time allowed will be much lower.  Once people have actually functioning bots this number could be adjusted more to allow actual AI competition based on real solve times, and provide additional risk for lower performing bots or even simply risk in very complex houses.


Like I mentioned on the other thread, if there are enough people actually interested in playing or collaborating, either as pure defensive players or as a mix of both defense and programming, then I would consider setting such a thing up or helping run it.

Unfortunately my guess is this would not generate enough interest to be an actual sustainable server, but maybe there are enough code enthusiast (& defense only) players to make it.

#17 Re: Main Forum » Stranger things happened... or do they ? » 2014-02-17 16:52:41

Pandamonium wrote:
PlasmaChroma wrote:

Exiting the house via entry way results in death

You'd have to turn off the "Chills" timer?
OR you'd have to turn "visibility" on?

I think chills could stay on (in fact, it would have to so people don't slow solve and come back with a cached solution), but I am assuming here people let their bots access the complete map (a mandatory cheat server).  Basically it's your AI against a short clock, pure and simple.

Essentially create a scenario where bots are the only thing which could compete.  It's not expected for people to play on manual control except for maybe the build-phase.

Granted, the performance of your machine and the amount of memory could play into exactly how short you could chop the timer down to, so even hardware could give an advantage.

#18 Re: Main Forum » Stranger things happened... or do they ? » 2014-02-17 16:41:06

This actually raises a really interesting idea (to me anyway).  I wonder if enough people would even be interested in trying to compete on a "bot only" server setup.  This would essentially be a server only for programmers to realistically play on.

--- Extra Rules ---
* Exiting the house via entry way results in death
* Wife and kids removed from game
* No tools purchases allowed ever
* Timeout on check-outs is set to some very short time (something near human-impossible), no active pinging is allowed, only a completed house check-in

Somehow I doubt there would be enough interest in doing it, but if there was enough people who wanted it, I would consider setting up or collaborating on a server config for this.

#19 Re: Main Forum » Destroying houses for fun? » 2014-02-15 17:55:49

Pandamonium wrote:
PlasmaChroma wrote:

Ditching some tools around the block can help with that.

You lose tools but they don't get any when you don't die and just leave right?

Nope, they get nothing if [they] leave, but [their] house gets the small benefit of possibly being less of a target.  And sometimes, it's worth doing.

#20 Re: Main Forum » Destroying houses for fun? » 2014-02-15 16:41:50

Immhotep wrote:

What you had is not something which doesn't make sense, people got frustrated from keep dying and just want to make other's life miserable by using 2k tools on less than 2k houses... But what I've experienced earlier today was really strange, I had 4.3k at that moment, someone came into my house with 4.6k tools and left within 3 turns without doing anything! He might be on drugs or something I'd say...

Possibly just someone looking to lower their net-worth.  Once you get too high, the justification for absolute brute force break-ins gets too tempting.

If you leave your value below the total cost of a brute force, you are a lot more likely to stay safe from it.  Ditching some tools around the block can help with that.

#21 Re: Main Forum » Destroying houses for fun? » 2014-02-15 14:33:47

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

After losing everything, being forced into a suicide restart, just lashing out and hitting anyone at all can be a desirable experience.

I'd even go as far to say this game encourages that kind of spiteful playing.

#22 Re: Main Forum » Windows 8 Bugs » 2014-02-15 11:23:40

Some of your issues can be resolved by using certain utilities to disable either specific buttons or the charms feature.

Personally I prefer "StartIsBack" (it's like $3) but there are some free ones which do nearly as much.

#23 Re: Main Forum » Rob List - Hugeify Edition » 2014-02-14 16:50:56


To address the comment about the high commit ratios, unbelievably I get it from this entry setup.

I think you can pretty much guess how it goes.


#24 Re: Main Forum » Rob List - Hugeify Edition » 2014-02-14 15:28:33

I was going to post source for this, but I haven't had a chance to look at v32 yet and I think I have some merge work on this.

I know some things got changed about how the rob list works now with "value" matching, and it's likely in the same files I'm working in.

#25 Re: Main Forum » double chihuahuas chessgame » 2014-02-14 11:51:51

42dustman wrote:

I like it, it's pretty creative, but I think it might have a weakness: What's to keep the burglar from simply breaking through the wall/glass, club the chihuahuas and press the right buttons himself?

Probably just add the meta-standard protection techniques anyone uses in similar puzzles.  More gap, pits, closing doors, whatever you want.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB 1.5.8