Forum

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 151
  1. #16
    Join Date
    December 2015
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    76
    I should say, before anymore of these threads are created..

    Competition isn't bad, certainly wasn't when vent, mumble and teamspeak were the main goto voip applications for communities. Vent stopped producing updates. Mumble wasn't known and was a bit hard to setup.

    I don't know the reason to stop using teamspeak because of it's UI, get a theme pack.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,365
    I actually prefer software that fits in the user's desktop design. If you want another look, change your desktop design, so will TeamSpeak.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    November 2015
    Posts
    3

    Angry

    Not even a generic "we cannot discuss details but we are always looking for ways to improve our service" reply in 10 months. If they can't even be bothered to reply to a page long thread of loyal customers begging them not to become irrelevant and how much they would miss the service.. well, seems they really couldn't care less, huh?

    Last edited by bakala; October 20th, 2016 at 10:48 PM.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    October 2015
    Posts
    34
    They can be silent, that's not an issue, as long they keep improving their software, and they're doing so, especially with their programmatically api, which is quite great.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    November 2015
    Posts
    3

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxDev View Post
    They can be silent, that's not an issue, as long they keep improving their software, and they're doing so, especially with their programmatically api, which is quite great.
    I have returned to admit that I am wrong(ish). I've been reading over all the past update logs and in fact it does seem like at least someone cares. I'd even go as far to say I'm rather excited about a handful of recent changes in the beta.

    I wasn't just trying to be obnoxious.. my friends and I have been genuinely concerned about the diminishing user base for a while due to new shiney services. Over the years I have stumbled on so many simple feature suggestions on this forum that have been responded to with something like "this has been suggested so many times before. We will not be implementing this feature!!111". I'm definitely not alone in thinking that if something simple has been "suggested so many times before" and each one of those threads have a handful of positive replies mostly from administrators who actually interact first hand with tens, if not hundreds of TeamSpeak users on a daily basis then maybe once staff could agree (or at least humour us). Most of the time its gamers saying we want more colours AND flashing lights AND animated gifs. Hell, if they want that and you don't agree it suits TeamSpeak or would look bad make it optional. If a server administrator wants their TeamSpeak to look like a tardis, so what? At the end of the day, they are the ones paying and usually know what their playerbase want.

    Basically, despite my waffling, I think I had the wrong impression from the forums and I'm really glad to see how things are progressing with TeamSpeak. I look forward in anticipation

  6. #21
    Join Date
    September 2012
    Posts
    12

    Feedback: I am an ATHP and i feel STUPI* about that.

    Years ago to be a "Authorized TeamSpeak Host Provider" i had to send my business papers, picture, signature and after that month by month pay the Teamspeak3 license in term to find now that using cracked servers would have been much smarter. Because Teamspeak "piracy" support gives a shi* about cracked servers.
    Half of the tickets i open about that ends in "The reported TeamSpeak server is currently offline or their address has changed. Please reply back to this message if you have further information regarding this report." The ticket is closed and it's always the copy/pasted same sentence only to find that the server still online, so i have to reopen the ticket.

    Also if you report a server with password, forget about having some justice if you don't know the password. It's a lie that they have to enter the server to find if it's licensed or not, i think a lot of ways to know that from their side.

    When you finally get some "justice", you find that offender only receives a dumb message "You are connecting to a TeamSpeak server that seems to be using an invalid license." You can easily skip that by simply clicking on "Connect" and that's it, you are enjoying the benefits of a cracked and free teamspeak server.
    This has been like this for years and what brings me here to make this post is that i recently found an ATHP with presense in a lot of countries in the TeamSpeak 3 Hosters list using cracked servers.
    After filling a report, that company simply changed their ip addresses and the dumb message simply disappeared. I notified this to teamspeak but they did nothing. This company still apears in the TeamSpeak 3 Hosters list.

    TeamSpeak makes it hard for you to report cracked servers and punishment is a joke, i don't know exactly why, maybe because since teamspeak was bought they did't implement anything new and only dedicated to doing minor security maintenance.
    Now they are losing users and maybe they think beeing soft with cracked servers makes them last a little longer in the market.
    But it is unfair for those who pay license like me.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    March 2011
    Location
    Worldwide
    Posts
    6
    Another ATHP here.

    Involvement with the community is one thing, there was a time (years ago) when the TeamSpeak-team actually sent a Christmas card to their ATHPs, signed by hand
    Last year was our 10th anniversary as an ATHP (we paid hundreds of thousands of USD in license fees over these years), we didn't even get a "thank you for your loyalty" email. To me that would have been customer relationship 101 and a gesture I would have really appreciated.

    Another thing is that we're seeing customers of us jumping ship over the past 4-5 years or so, esp. in the recent 1-2 years. The reasons behind this development seem to be other ("better™") alternatives as we're getting that feedback from people who cancel their services.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    September 2016
    Posts
    76

    Lightbulb

    I'm not a hosting provider, but the one thing I am is a server owner. A server owner of a non-profit entity running a public server for everyone to use at their wish.

    Now. The problem I face is not maybe to do with no thank you's from TeamSpeak as I don't expect that, I run a server for my development and for my own skill-improving practises to do with coding and unix machines and all of that.

    However, the one thing which remains as an "annoyance" that I share with the others who have replied here, is definitely the cracked licensing issue. Like I've said before, and will iterate again because it seems I'm not the only one and you're still not understanding, is the cost this is summing up to. I've been doing whatI have for the past 2 years, hosting a forum (so web server) and the teamspeak itself.

    For TeamSpeak, being the buggy (yes, still buggy because I get the feeling that you make two steps forward but then 3 backwards) app it is, the amount of hours etc. which I've (alongside others) had to put in to make my servers stable and all sorts is just ridicoulous - and I don't say this just to hate. I say it, because ultimately, it pisse* me off on a daily basis to see someone else - who hasn't had to put in the time and effort as well as the work of other people - get a license and do get away with not doing everything the way it should be done.

    I've heard you're planning to do something about that. Either way its a few years too late, and another reason why some people don't like TeamSpeak. Why? Let me explain.

    These cracks, sometimes might get turned off every now and then, or they might struggle with the port thingie or whatever - this either switches them off or causes restarts etc. In turn, people don't care - they think its a DOS or what have you and assume its the unstable application. And you can explain all you want, but they see it as a danger and not something they struggle with to the same extent as they would on Discord and Ventrilo (back in the day). The difficulty of the permissions system is another - of course, to us who use it all the time its fine, but to knewbies and others who have little to do with things like this, its quite stressful when it really could not be. That's up to you and personally I'd say the permissions system is a strength of this application, but thats me.

    Overall, I'm writing the same thing again. Are you planning on paying back all of those who follow your rules, by at least removing those who crack and do things which are at the end of the day illegal?

    Another point, why can't you shut down domains rather than IP's? Those people just buy a new VPS and they're online again - domains would make this slightly more tricky.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,365
    The easiest thing would be a whitelist rather than a blacklist. Then you start your server, it sends its license along with all bound IPv6 and IPv4 (binding to :: or 0.0.0.0 won't be possible anymore) to the whitelist server. If you connect to a server, the client check the whitelist for that IP. Maybe only if more than 32 clients are either reported or visible and if the server is not running on default port using IPv4.
    Thing is that blacklist will be pointless with IPv6. Servers come with different numbers of IPv6 addresses. My internet connection has /56 (that's 4722366482869645213696 addresses), my primary server has /80 (281474976710656) and my backup servers have a handfull of random addresses from /96 or /112.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    September 2016
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by numma_cway View Post
    The easiest thing would be a whitelist rather than a blacklist. Then you start your server, it sends its license along with all bound IPv6 and IPv4 (binding to :: or 0.0.0.0 won't be possible anymore) to the whitelist server. If you connect to a server, the client check the whitelist for that IP. Maybe only if more than 32 clients are either reported or visible and if the server is not running on default port using IPv4.
    Thing is that blacklist will be pointless with IPv6. Servers come with different numbers of IPv6 addresses. My internet connection has /56 (that's 4722366482869645213696 addresses), my primary server has /80 (281474976710656) and my backup servers have a handfull of random addresses from /96 or /112.
    They couldn't secure ipv4 properly so I assume they won't be able to do ipv6 either. Instead of making it easier they've complicated it.

    Once again though, why can't we block domains and assign licenses to domains rather than all of this faffing around with IP's and what not?

  11. #26
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,365
    Because not everyone has a domain. That's how the internet works.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    September 2016
    Posts
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by numma_cway View Post
    Because not everyone has a domain. That's how the internet works.
    For the ones that do then, can't TeamSpeak just block the domain? Not being funny its always the same domain that gets used by these servers so if that was shut down that would hurt them much more than just an IP block

  13. #28
    Join Date
    June 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    4,365
    What's wrong with the whitelist idea? It's much easier to implement.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    April 2011
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,266
    Quote Originally Posted by numma_cway View Post
    What's wrong with the whitelist idea? It's much easier to implement.
    I'd like a whitelist... I think it's more secure then a blacklist. But it has a little draw back... if the whitelist server fails no client will connect to any server... if the blacklist server fails the client will connect anyway. Implementing a similar feature, that the client will connect to a server if the whitelist server is unreachable, for a whitelist would make is useless because I'd only need to block client access to whitelist.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    Secret Base in Arctic Region
    Posts
    1,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Pantoflarz View Post
    They couldn't secure ipv4 properly so I assume they won't be able to do ipv6 either. Instead of making it easier they've complicated it.
    What does this have todo with Teamspeak?
    They are developing a voice chat software, not internet protocols...

    @Barungar, numma_cway: Yes, whitelist sounds nice. But only if the ts-server can connect to the master server.
    If someone manipulates the server binary (guess there are already ones available), he could run the server as he likes.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Future of TeamSpeak3
    By Kubuxu in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: June 30th, 2014, 01:19 PM
  2. Teamspeak not adapted for the new and future MMO market?
    By Humanvoice in forum General Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: November 8th, 2012, 03:47 PM
  3. TS3 Future Updates
    By SightUp in forum Suggestions and Feedback
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: December 16th, 2009, 07:52 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •