[crossfire] Improving IRC availability with a chat bridge
Hi all, In the IRC there's been talk of making it easier to join and contribute in the chat by setting up a bridge between the IRC channel and another chat service. Both Slack and Discord have been mentioned as possibilities. In the last 24 hours, I just set up a basic functional bridge, so we know its possible, and that it works relatively well. However, Nicholas pointed out (rightly so) that we should proceed with caution, and ensure we get everything down pat before we consider it finalized. The Freenode policies (freenode.net/policies) state that to "publish logs", we must follow several guidelines: "If you operate a service that scrapes internal channel content or publishes logs, always make sure to obtain permission from the channel owner or freenode staff before you start publishing logs or other data, and ensure that there is an easy way for projects to opt-out later and to request removal of previously published logs or data. You must respect the opt-out requests in a timely manner." There appears to be no other specifics about operating bots or bridges to other services. So, with that being said, I understand that mwedel is the "official" CF project manager, and Leaf is the IRC "owner". Could I get one or both of you to weigh in with thoughts on whether this is something that we want to do, and if so, what limitations should be imposed? In particular, some things that should be addressed: * Which bridge services should be acceptable * Chat history retention time * Either querying or notifying the "active people" on IRC to ensure they consent * Moderation and regulating access to the Discord (will there be a need to appoint moderators, for anti-spam or other reasons?) Of course, input from all others is welcomed as well! And now, my personal thoughts: I think that one of CF's greatest problems is that of attracting and retaining new players. After all, the bigger the community is, the more likely it is to survive, and have active development. Currently, there are several issues that make it more difficult for new players to pickup the game, enjoy it, and join in the community, but one of those issues is that communication is handled almost exclusively through ingame chat, IRC, and the mailinglist. Unfortunately, the mailinglist web server is down, and IRC is not a popular chat system these days, so new community members find it difficult to engage using either of those methods. Many people who play videogames are already familiar with other chat services, in particular Discord, so I believe it would greatly increase the ability for others to join if we had a bridge set up to such a service. There are other things that I think it would help too, such as those who do not have an IRC client running perpetually in a shell account, or or those who would like to communicate using their smartphones while away from their computer. For example, if my machine crashes, or I reboot and forget to relaunch my IRC client, I may miss some hours of discussions in chat, but with a service like Discord, I can access it from any device, and simply scrollback to see what I missed. There are certainly valid objections to be made, and so I would like to hear what everyone has to say. One of the biggest items is that of privacy, and rightly so. From my perspective, Discord as a company is minimally different from that of Freenode, I have to trust them to keep my chat history private, and to "not be evil". Some people may take offense at Discord's desktop app being a bloated Electron-style system, but remember, they also have mobile apps and a web interface as well. And besides, for those who prefer IRC, this is merely a bridge, not a replacement. Another common objection is that of stored history; IRC traditionally has the feeling of being rather ephemeral. I personally enjoy having all the scrollback on tap (and searchable), possibly more so because I never really assume privacy on the internet anyway. However, if the amount of material contained in the scrollback becomes a problem, then there are certainly some solutions available, depending on what chat platform we would be integrating with. Thoughts/comments/questions/concerns? --DraugTheWhopper ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] building very old versions
> Use polymorph spell on the summoned pet until they morphed in to the Hyperkobold. It took enough tries to get a hyperkobold that it usually helped to first summon an entire "cloud" of pets, on the order of 15 or 20, so you could polymorph half a dozen with one bolt. Also, me and my brother (who also toyed with Linux in the day) could never get much past level 20 or 30, since we weren't particularly smart players. This may have been on a later version, but I also recall petering out around 10 or 15 before we realized how to use the old restoration potions (I think?) to counteract stat depletion. ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] building very old versions
> A question would be what exactly are you looking for in those old versions? The retro graphics, old maps, old gameplay, etc? Like many things Linux, I cut my teeth on whatever was included with SuSE 7.2 Pro. I think it was something in the .90 era, probably color. Some highlights: The layout of cfclient remains my favorite to this day. About the best improvement since then was splitting the message window into high/low priority. Sorry to whoever heads it up, I still can't bring myself to stomach the JXclient. The tileset was much more cohesive (than it is now), including the environment, monsters, and items. The art style was simple, and the isometric look was implemented well. The gameplay was much different, even "twitchy". I'm sure this stems from various reasons, including the metalforge-style melee balance, the lack of latency when running the server on my own machine (no internet access back in the day), and other quirks like spellcasting taking little or no time. Regardless, I'd love to see a more responsive gameplay experience, although I understand that there are such things as technical constraints and design decisions. Polymorph. Just polymorph. Although there were some interesting exploits, like polymorphing your pets until you got a hyper kobold. --DTW/Draug ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Version bump request?
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Kevin Zheng wrote: > On 12/27/14 18:38, DraugTheWhopper wrote: > > Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline > > changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt > > to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may > > have been at 1.60. > > The latest release is 1.71.0, available from SourceForge. For some > reason the JXClient is stuck at 1.60, I'm not sure why. > > We haven't been keeping up with Windows builds for various reasons. > Windows support in the GTKv2 client has greatly improved since the last > build. You can find some experimental client binaries here: > > http://partmedia.users.sourceforge.net/ > > They're not official because they're missing important pieces; in this > particular client build it's because metaserver support is missing. > > Thanks, I hadn't even checked SF. crossfire.real-time.com only lists the new client for Linux, I assume this is leaf's responsibility? --Nathan ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Version bump request?
Now that some more time has passed with (I assume) more mainline changes, is there a chance of cutting a new release again? Wouldn't hurt to have a Windoze release this time too, since it looks the last one may have been at 1.60. More thoughts: What is the current dominant client? I heard someone say once that GTKV2client had fallen by the wayside in favor of JXClient, but I hope that's not the case, as I much prefer the cfclient layout, etc. Has any thought been given to using GTK vs QT? Are there any thoughts on portability to Wayland/Weston? --Nathan On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Richard Tanner wrote: > On 3/31/14 1:47 AM, Mark Wedel wrote: > > > > I'm pretty sure I wrote a wiki doc on > > the release process that describes all the steps. > > Yes, it was documented at: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_guide > > And some info on release numbers: > > http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/crossfire_release_cycle > > As always.. updates, clarifications and updates are always welcome. > > > ___ > crossfire mailing list > crossfire@metalforge.org > http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire > ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
Re: [crossfire] Game change proposals
> > What about "mini-games"? > > For instance, instead of a mere lockpicking, you actually have to use the > picks in the right order in a limited time to pick a lock - if you fail, > you > trigger the traps, of course. > Don't think I like this. Maybe as some people suggested about using a minigame for important doors, but I don't think minigames are very conducive to CF's atmosphere. > What about changing alchemy (including the jeweler etc. variants)? > > For each formulae you start with a ~3% chance of success. You succeed? Get > 3 > to 5 points. Failure? Get 0-1 point (failure is a valuable lesson, after > all > :)). Capped to ~90%. And maybe not giving global experience. > > What about random (ie player-dependant) parameters? You have more success > during certain hours, or outside vs inside, or...? > Nice. I'm interested in ways to revamp crafting. Then reduce the dropped items. I mean, so much junk! > All part of the fun! After all, real adventurers would need to wade through corpses, body parts, and paraphernalia to find the valuables. > Then, slowing (a lot) combat, making it more tactical. Instead of a zillion > monsters, some hard to defeat monsters, where you can use all your skills > and > items, and attempt various combinations. > > Then various effects on weapons: stun, knock back, confuse, slow, etc. > > Reduce the zillion elemental attacks to a lower number (6? 8?), other > things > are side effects. > > Interesting, but I fondly remember the twitchy, fastpaced nature of CF in the old days(think monochrome cfclient). Granted, I was playing that on a LAN server rather than internet, and that was before spell casting took time, etc. Just my two cents. I have strong feelings about many things, so I have to be careful how I let them out. :) --Nathan ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
[crossfire] Version bump request?
*Tap* *Tap* *Ahem* (Is this thing on?) Right, so assuming that this email gets to the intended place [crossfire], here's a request: is there any chance of getting a new official upstream release? So the story is as follows: I do no coding or developing, but know enough about Linux to run Debian Testing. However, the current upstream version of CF is 1.70.0, which as of a week ago, is about two years old. If i understand correctly, all trunk improvements since then are not in any official upstream release, therefore never get packaged for Debian, and so are not seen by the casual people who merely "apt-get dist-upgrade" occasionally. Is there a chance a version 1.70.x could be released periodically, or is there a 1.99 that could be packaged separately, or should someone just start packaging nightly builds as "crossfire-client-unstable"? Please pardon my ignorance and correct me as necessary. --Nathan ___ crossfire mailing list crossfire@metalforge.org http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
