Selon Noy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Couple of responses. > > > * Multiplayer > > > > - - simple password/nickname in MP, like in IRC? > > We talked about adding some simple nickname registration like it is > > done in IRC > > with the tool named "nickserv". That means that you can basically > > register a > > nickname/password combination for the MP server. This nickname > > registration is > > *only* about the nickname itself, no stats are meant to be saved. > > This feature > > is meant to allow players to be more confident in knowing who they > > play with, > > that is the user named "abcdefghij" will, if he is registered, be > > the same today > > like he is tomorrow, where without such a feature everybody can say > > that he/she > > would be "abcdefghij". > > No opposition here.
I'd would be all for a non intrusive solution like i've seen in BZFlag: - registration is not mandatory - user registered appear differently (reistered or unregistered users appear with a leading + sign IIRC) so they don't collide with unregistered users - you can play unregistered with a registered nick (since the two namespaces don't collide), but it is visible that you're not the original one Additionnally it might be good that the system try an alternate name if your name is already taken (as an unregistered user or reconnecting, it can happen sometimes...) > > > > - - simple rooms in MP, like in IRC > > We talked about the possible addition of some room system for > > multiplayer, so > > that players could define rooms for multiplayer campaigns, > > tournament games, > > 1vs1 only, LANGUAGE only and so on. This is also meant in > > conjunction with a > > possible ability of some kind of "server rotation" to allow a better > > scalability > > if we need serverpower for more users.An example of how such a > > rotation could be > > done can be seen in IRC where many servers do form the network named > > "freenode.net". This way the server could scale better even when we > > have many > > more users simply by adding one extra server. I think the main concern here is the server scalability. That's the main reason for doing this. We have some time before it will become a problem, but it's better to anticipate... For the moment, the maximum amount of user online typically several hundreds and the lobby chat is still usable. But in the future we might have thousands of users online : - the main chat bight become unusable because too much people are speaking at one - additionnally (but much later) we might need to split the server into several servers linked together to deal with all those connections So having the possibility of having seperate rooms is IMHO desirable. But : - you'll still be able to be ins several rooms at once (like on IRC) - by default i guess all the user would be joined in the same, big room. > > > > - - Should we support more "experimental" multiplayer content? > > We talked about adding more multiplayer content that does not focus on > > competitive tournament like multiplayer, like for example the rumble > > add-ons and > > other things like more RPG like content. In general we came to the > > conclusion > > that this might be a good idea, even knowing that balancing for this > > content > > will not be perfect. We also talked about the addition of other > > factions. Those > > would not be added in the default era, since it would basically be > > impossible to > > balance *everything* with all of them. The discussion was very > > controversial and > > we had no clear decision if we should allow addition of new factions > > like the > > Kalifa or not. There will have to be some further discussions, but > > the main > > direction was that *if* we add some faction, it should play > > differently compared > > to what we currently have and be an interesting alternative (yes, we > > know that > > this is not much and our normal standard...). > > I'm quite wary of adding new "features" of this type to mainline, > partly because if we're trying to put together a more professional > product adding content that is markedly inferior to the rest of the > game doesn't really do us much good. I'm all for creating a content > guidelines that would establish a process for adding such content into > the game. The problem however is that such a criteria would be for the > most part subjective, and ever increasing in standards as we continue > to refine mainline product. I can see the counter argument argument > that by adding it into mainline it might inspire more people to work > on it, but I don't believe it will work out as such. Maybe Jetryl can > chime in here, but right now we only have only three sprite artists > that can consistently produce art that is fit for mainline (I might be > wrong about this, but if there are more please tell me so I can start > bribing them to work on the Kalifa.) In addition the unit balance all > over the map. If anything I see EE as what would have happened to > default if the devs weren't as discriminating about adding new units > +factions. Including it now kinda seems a bit like a step in the wrong > direction. I don't think these add-ons have a "visibility" problem, > being on the campaign server... just that they are not ready to be > included into mainline, and given our present situation, unlikely to > be ready for quite some time. I think it would be nice to add some new kind of multiplayer content, mainly multiplayer campaigns (one or two scenario with some new original gameplay might be good, but i don't think there is a lot of room for this currently). About new factions for the moment i think it's hard to add something in the default era. About new eras it might be nice to add some, but it will be a tough job to balance everything for every map (balancing is already hard with 1 era and 6 factions...). I think the place where we could easily add new factions is multiplayer campaigns. In this area it's usually easier to balance things because you have a better overview of what will happen and you can tweak more parameters. One problem on non-mainline addons is it's harder and harder to fit our mainline requirements. Actually the best chance for an addon to meet theses requirement is to being mainlined... Our standards are now so high that now almost none of the addon will ever meet theses requirement without being ever mainlined at some point. We did this with some campaigns, it is possible to do this with ome other content. I would be personnally interested in : - one or two MP addons with some new and original type of gameplay (like "Undead Empire") - some RPG scenario (we could say single scenario multiplayer campaigns, like some of Bob the Mighty's stuff) - multiplayer campaigns (we could add many, though there isn't many for the moment) One or two new eras might be nice too, but for me while it will be a big job to maintain (lots of sprites and more complex balancing -- as a big era maintainer i know those things require a lot of time to maintain), it doesn't add a lot to the game. _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
