For a more development-focused timeline: http://xiphoseer.github.io/flow.html

However that also gets rid of my control who I allow on the server.

Not true. It’s as simple as setting up an auto-ban once a user joins, which many early servers did. You could also have signup disabled, registering manually with some auto-generated password, email it to the user, and have them log in to change it.

But if you can see passwords, I would not support allowing you to advertise here. In fact, the Launcher is still vulnerable using an MD5 hash with no salt (there was a server whose database was compromised, and at that point we realized that whoever had access to the usernames and passwords could potentially find the passwords even with the hash). I would highly suggest fixing the hashing (adding a salt at the very least). Even if you are trustworthy, which we have no way of verifying (no offense to you, but this is how the internet works), but we certainly can’t trust whoever sees your server as a soft target to hack.

I honestly think you all are overthinking this. What the rep says means nothing to if this is actually being considered. How LEGO CS works with suggestions such as this is either they give you a non-answer, an affirmative «NO», or something like this.

@Xiphoseer, I believe the differing text size is normal from CS responses I’ve gotten (they’re response is different from the default ‘letterhead’). The padding is due to the snipping tool, it automatically adds padding, and it’s kept because he colored out into it.

I can indeed verify having heard similar things to these about «if we get many emails such as this». I’d bet it depends on how well trained the rep is (ie, if they’d dealt with LU at the time of its closure, they would have that boilerplate down pat), and also how thought out the email is (ie, just a simply «you need to bring it back!» will not garner the attention that a thorough analysis of why and how it would be possible/sensible would).

Can’t say that it’s likely that a return would be likely, but I am hoping that LEGO will finally decide to implement a «service» game again. MLN and LU are both defunct, with nothing to replace either style. LEGO, in my mind, is really missing something with true collaboration & community, imagination, expansive role-playing and environments/exploration, economy, etc. It fits so well, but it doesn’t exist (and, you know, the teen community is left pretty well out to dry, without really trying to bring in the content that would appeal to us, ie more serious, more than giant expensive things, and keep the adventure).

There’s one rather important oversight: UGC. Either the microserver admin doesn’t get to control UGC (forum posts, user creations, custom names, etc.), that needs to be split into separate databases, database columns need to be added for which server the data applies to, or everything runs on a separate DB (lough accounts would still need to be separate, in order for mods/admins to be selected based on server). This is something where the DB infrastructure could be built to allow this, but at the moment, it isn’t.

Bingo Xiphoseer

1, 5, 6, and 7 are disqualified. LEGO is VERY specific in their Fair Play policy that their logo should not Be used.

Love 3 and 4… Could there be a version of 4 with the U in italics, and maybe one with everything in italics, as well?

Erm, Tim, why does it link to the LU page on your website? 😛