Thank you for your kind response as always.
Have a great day!

Thank you for your helpful response. I will proceed as you suggested.

Hi @noah ,

This support has already been added to the Builder API. The new options can be specified when importing app configuration data OR when deploying an app.

When importing app configuration data, there is a new optional 'preserveDivisionSetConfigsOverride' parameter that can be specified. If not specified, it will default to whatever the value is for 'preserveLeaderboardTournamentConfigs'.

When deploying from one app to another, there is a new optional 'divisionSetConfigOverrides' parameter that can be specified in the 'options.meta.excludes' section. If not specified, it will default to whatever the value is for 'leaderboardsTournaments'.

I will endeavour to get our Builder API docs updated with these new parameters. Let us know if you encounter any issues using them.

Thanks!
Greg

Q1: The removed player is completely excluded from reward calculation, so if the deletion happens before the job runs, that player is never iterated over and receives no rank or rewards.
Q2: Yes, the modified score will be used. The job always reads live state. Note that whether the score actually gets modified depends on the leaderboard type (e.g., for the LOW_VALUE type, only updates if the new score is less than the existing)
Q3: No backfilling, the next joiner goes to the latest instance, not the freed spot in ^2. No loop over earlier instances (^1, ^2) ever happens. The next joiner goes to ^3 (or ^4 if ^3 is full). The freed spot in ^2 stays empty permanently.

The aggregation that counts new users is not real time, it runs at hourly granularity, so there can be a delay before the stats reflect the actual number of users. At the time of checking again, the numbers had updated as follows
image.png

The structure is such that the certificate and template are distributed simultaneously.
What I need is to distribute only the template, excluding the certificate.

@moondory77 - why would you need/want to update a tournament in progress?

We consider the tournament to be a contract between the player and the game dev. You enter this tournament. You have <X> hours to compete. And you can win <Y> in prizes.

Changing the rules half-way through the tournament seems unfair? You are changing the duration? The prizes? These are both things that the player did not agree to.

Anyway - that was the assumption of the system - and it's why once a tournament is started any changes you make to the tournament get queued up for the NEXT tournament cycle, not the current one.

That said - divisions are even more complicated - as even if we wanted to there would be potentially thousands of records to update to make the change.

I need to better understand your use case to consider this request.

Paul.

Yes, the link provided in that article is automatically updated. For your reference, here is the actual embedded link behind it:
https://portalx.braincloudservers.com/dts/cloudcode_dts_files.zip

Have you checked the logs to see what those users are sending in for the country code during authentication? And can you see any commonality amongst those users?

From your stats it looks like we are correctly detecting US, Korea and Argentina... What code are we reading in wrong?

If you send us your appId (via the chat widget) we can take a better look at your users.

Hi Noah,

I don't quite understand your question.

Development Plus provides access to some features (hosting, deep data, etc.) that we can't otherwise provide access to in a free development plan...

I suppose it IS accessed via the [Go Live!] button - which can be a bit confusing - since your app isn't really "live" under Dev+. That's a UI inconsistency that we haven't addressed yet.

The full details of the various plans can be found here: https://getbraincloud.com/pricing/

I hope that helps!

Paul.

Ok, I found it. It wasn't a global setting, it was a filter on the reports. Thanks!

Cool - good to hear it. And once again: thanks for reporting it!

Apologies for the late reply, but thank you! This really clears up the flow for me. 🙂

The only thing regarding FindOrCreateLobby instead of CreateLobby is that the request to CreateLobby is deliberate. While I do intend to integrate FindOrCreateLobby as a "just throw me into a running game" option (which probably is the desired flow in most cases), I also want a player to be able to say "I want to start a game for my friends, and I also want to be the host and set the rules of the room".

I'm just clarifying that in case I'm misunderstanding the intent between the two calls, and that FindOrCreateLobby can indeed be used for either flow that I just described.

Sorry for the confusion, I was under the impression a publisher key gave you certain read-only permissions on a user given they own your game (this was silly in hindsight)

While the users in question had public profiles, their privacy settings for friends lists were set to private.

Thank you for your help! I now understand what you meant by "as long as users grant your app permission".

Please refer to the article -- Implementing Continuous Lobbies in the brainCloud Help Center for details.

No problem! glad to hear that.

Ah - perfect. Yeah - that sounds like a better option given the full requirements.

Glad you found it... and welcome to brainCloud!

Hi @PJ ,

Your usage of lobbies is exactly why we added the concept of long-lived lobbies. (Admittedly it wasn't part of the original use case - which is probably why some of the documentation doesn't seem to properly reflect that usage <-- we'll review that).

So - needless to say - keep going as you are - and reach out if you hit issues!

Happy coding!

Paul.

Awesome! Still a few things to clean up but I appear to be right back to testing within the editor, but against brainCloud's actual lobby system. The key was setting debug to true in the config.js and following the instructions at the end of the GitHub page. Thanks again!

Cool. Thanks for sharing the solution here @devsleeper !