Can you provide a link to your library, RB[0]? I googled Galaxymage but I keep bumping into galaxymage.org, and the address is cybersquatted from here.
I understand what you said about the routing issues, and that's quite true and I run into that problem quite often and shamefully enough, I haven't considered that. I'm pushing on anyways and finishing a first draft of the first bot (to which I won't give that much more thought if someone else is willing to take the job) and then I'll get a minimalist client and network game going. But thanks a lot for the input. =) -Thiago On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 7:41 PM, RB[0] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm, perhaps I should explain better. > The users/hosts wouldn't interact on the master server, except to connect > to game servers, start servers and possibly chat. > The game servers would be programmed by the games using them, so either one > server = one game, or like in GMR, one game server hosts multiple games... > > > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:39 AM, RB[0] <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Well, this is something we had an issue with in GMR. >> Not everyone can "host" a game, if you have a router like mine is it is >> quite nearly impossible to create a server that others can connect to. >> The way we planned to do it in GMR, was to have people create their own >> server, and register it with the master server. >> The master server in turn would check to ensure the game server was really >> visible, then load up it's data (game, version, max users/games, password, >> etc.) and provide that to people wanting to use the service. >> >> You could do this via irc, but I think a simple PB solution would be >> simpler and more extensible. But if you make this up and it takes off we'll >> definitely at least support it in GMR :) >> >> >> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:37 AM, Thiago Chaves <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Missing end of sentence here: a default bot could/should exist for use by >>> developers with no interest in customizing it for their own game, or to be >>> extended by developers who want to add other features specific to their >>> game. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Thiago Chaves <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> It's very cool to hear about two other people so soon after the initial >>>> post interested in getting this going. =) >>>> >>>> For purposes of not commenting about how much I'd like to get a better >>>> name for the thing everytime I mention it, I'm gonna use "Pyttle.net" on >>>> the >>>> email, but leave here stated that I'm not suggesting this as a name for the >>>> system. =P >>>> >>>> So, things I was thinking of: >>>> >>>> 0. Users have a collection of more than zero games that support getting >>>> started by Pyttle.net / having matches started by. >>>> 1. Chatting between users, emoting actions, registering and confirming >>>> of usernames is handled by the chosen protocol and the chosen protocol's >>>> servers. >>>> 2. The client connects automatically to the chat server(s) and joins >>>> channels according to the collection of Pyttle.net-capable games present in >>>> the user's machine. #fog-of-war-chess, #galaxymage, #ssof, for instance. >>>> 3. Each game/channel has it's own bot running in there, which deals with >>>> negotiation of matches, scorekeeping (if there's any interest in the game >>>> for that), messages-of-the-day, etc. A default bot could/should. >>>> 4. Once a match has been arranged, the bot informs all involved clients >>>> that the match is gonna start, who are the players and in which IP's they >>>> can be found. >>>> 5. Once a client has been informed of a match, it takes care of >>>> launching the game and it deals with the network connections and data on >>>> its >>>> own accord. >>>> 6. Once a match is over, if there's interest by the developers to have >>>> some scoreboard, the clients inform the results back to the bot, who logs >>>> it >>>> and whatever. >>>> >>>> I'm totally open to negotiating/discarding/changing any/all of these. I >>>> want something like a game-agnostic "battle.net" to happen. =) >>>> >>>> Opinions? What is missing? What could be added? What is poorly >>>> explained? >>>> >>>> -Thiago >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Alex Nordlund < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 7:22 PM, RB[0] <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> > I've been reading Twisted documentation and this sounds like a >>>>> > less-than-guru-level thing to build on top of the IRC protocol. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to contribute to this project! >>>>> >>>>> I enjoy IRC and have been building bots that play games over IRC for a >>>>> while. >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> //Alex >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
