New Poll. RE: Server Lobby.

[Muttley]

In the discussion in the related thread it has been
brought to my attention I could have done the poll
better.

I had suggested that there be some sort of server/lobby
system inplemented/intergrated into FG2. Please post your
thoughts on this in this thread.

My current thoughts are to keep the option to direct host
the game, and have an extra option to log into some sort
of hosted lobby, where people can log into and host their
games from there.

[Spyke]

Hi Muttley, I hope this isn't coming across as too picky, but I reckon you'll get a near 100% on 'like to have it as an option' with this question. That will give an idea of numbers who wouldn't be upset if the option existed, but to make a difference to the developer the poll needs to be phrased as "would you use this option". That would give numbers for those who would actively want to see such a feature implemented.

Spyke

[Spyke]

Another thing I would add, is that if we did go down the route of an optional lobby/central server, I would want it to go much further than just a lobby. I would want the lobby features to be integrated with the game scheduling on the FG website, and integrated with deeper social networking features throughout the FG website, so that you could create gaming groups, schedule events *, invite players and save and share logs.

Spyke

EDIT: * by this I mean integrating the calendar and groups with the lobby and triggering games. I'm aware that we can already create and schedule campaigns for players. I'd want these features to be improved.

[Fenloh]

I am sorry to say so, but i voted against this Idea.

For one, i wouldnt want to have a change like that in FG2. Second to that you would need Resources to host that kind of lobby/Servers. Resources cost money. You cannot expect, that you get something for nothing. If you have something like a Floating Licence or a Subscription Licence or something where monthly fees can be covered and exeeded, then it would be an option, but most of the comunity is against monthly fees.

Also i believe, that you didnt really think your Idea through. To have an Idea is one thing, to follow it through and explain how this could look like and what Ressources are needed, not only computers, but also the human power, is another. What do you think should this look like? What Platform should be used? Graphical, only Text? Is there already a platform that could be used? Who is to moderate all that? What features would you need and finaly how much do you think is it worth in money? What other advantages do you see for the comunity other than easier hosting and maybe finding a "quick" game?

Fenloh

[Spyke]

Ha! That's shown me. Someone's voted 'no'. ;-)

I'm interested in why someone wouldn't want this as an option ?

The question doesn't take into account resource use on other development, etc, it's a pure question of like or dislike.

Spyke

EDIT: ninja'd.

[Muttley]

The idea would be:

Upon loading FG2 there would be an option to log into
the FG2 lobby. There you can chat with other FG2
users, join a scheduled game, join/spectate a game
in progress. A feature I would like to see added as part
of this would be whoever is hosting the game is able to
set 'roles' for people logged in. IE: Player, lurker, GM etc.
I feel that having a chat feature would help build the
community,as you get the oppurtunity then to talk to
other players outside of the game in a realtime enviroment.

I am more than aware that implementing this can incur
extra costs which is why I would want people to discuss
the idea. I know ORPG has such a system in place. Im not
sure how server costs are met in that case. There are a lot
of games/programs that hve lobby systems that dont charge
the end user. Perhaps looking at those models, and how they
cover the cost might be an idea.

[Edit] I love the idea of intergrating the game calendar into
a lobby system. I might try make up a screenshot of what this may look like.

[Valarian]

No need for one, if the Game Calendar were to be cleared or tidied up then this would effectively be what you are looking for.

[Spyke]

No need for one, if the Game Calendar were to be cleared or tidied up then this would effectively be what you are looking for.
It would still be a separate tool. We're suggesting here that (if we did move to a lobby/server option) the calendar would become an integral part of FG2, much more visible to all users, and so would get more use and, along with other integrated social networking tools, would help to build the community.

Note that the argument about how much this would cost, how much time it would take, how much resource would be diverted from other aspects of development, etc., is a separate one. I would disagree with building a lobby/server option for those reasons, but if one was available I would want to see social networking options on the site fully integrated with the FG client.

Spyke

[Muttley]

OK here are a couple of screen shots.
They are are bit rough (Im no artist). They are just
to give a basic Idea of how it might look like. You will
notice I have made the the listings in the event calendar
'hyperlinks'. These can be linked to the relevant event
on the FG2 website.

https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/6342/001cu.jpg

https://img10.imageshack.us/img10/980/002aq.jpg

[Spyke]

Thanks for those mock-ups, Muttley. Yes, that's the sort of thing I was thinking of as well. I would actually have the calendar and a listing of 'My events' available from the FG log-in screen, replacing the version notes (these could be on a separate tab).

You would start FG, then, if there was an active internet connection, it would update the calendar and the listing of your events. If one was about to start and there was an active server indication you could click on it and it would take you straight in, as player or GM as relevant. Otherwise you could browse and filter the calendar listings, and sign up for games. This functionality would also be available from the website itself.

You would also have a lobby button, taking you into a screen similar to the one you mocked up, to chat with other users, and work with the calendar. This is where you would see upcoming events that had places free, in addition to your own upcoming events.

But... I would prefer to see other developments of FG more, such as native Mac support and token facing.

Spyke

[Leonal]

Hmm, interesting concept.

You could take it further so that after clicking join ("apply for" fits better perhaps) you would have a space to write up a character concept and why one would like to join, which the GM could review before accepting applications.
This could also be done in chat, of course, but if there was a feature for saving notes locally (due to varying rulesets character sheets would be more difficult I guess), then those could be imported when applying for a game for quicker access.

Options to show GM/Player bandwidth and the like could also be relevant I suspect.

[Fenloh]

Well done!

And you see, as soon as you put some more of your Idea down, you have several People agreeing with you.

For V5.2 I am still not areeing, but i admitthat it is an Idea, that I would support for V5.3.

Thanks,

Fenloh

[Muttley]

Thanks for all your replies people. Given me some food for thought.
There are probably some more options I could have done in the poll.

*Not currently but it is something I may like to see in the future.

*I would use this feature if it was there.

*I would not use this feature if it was there.

We live and learn.

[Valarian]

I'd rather the functionality be kept completely separately from the application to avoid bloat of the application itself. It's not necessary for arranging or for running a game. As an enhancement to the Game Calendar, maybe. But community website functionality - not part of the software. A nice idea, but not for the application itself.

[Moon Wizard]

I voted no personally, because I would have no use for the feature, and it would take development effort away from the core product.

Cheers,
JPG

[drahkar]

Personally I voted no because I think there are other areas of development that would be better focused on right now. Its really a novelty feature at best because in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really add anything to the environment.

The only thing it might add is some means for people to address not having port forwarding ability. But I think if we were to focus on that we should attempt to find another way of addressing it that is more focused on the actual problem of port forwarding.

[Spyke]

The only thing it might add is some means for people to address not having port forwarding ability. But I think if we were to focus on that we should attempt to find another way of addressing it that is more focused on the actual problem of port forwarding.
I asked this question on another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well: is it possible to build a standard VPN client into FG itself?

You'd have an option to 'Use VPN' on the login screen, and the app would start by creating a VPN connection. This would presumably mean that Smiteworks would have to host a VPN server, but that would be cheaper (presumably) than rewriting the product to work with a central server.

Another option, which we've asked before, would be to implement UPnP (I think), but not all routers have this functionality, so it's only a partial solution.

Spyke

[sondermann]

I voted no personally, because I would have no use for the feature, and it would take development effort away from the core product.

This.

Cheers.

[unerwünscht]

I voted no because there are already a few chatrooms out there that NEVER get used. Maybe if we start filling up some of the other chatrooms, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

[drahkar]

I asked this question on another thread, but it seems appropriate here as well: is it possible to build a standard VPN client into FG itself?

You'd have an option to 'Use VPN' on the login screen, and the app would start by creating a VPN connection. This would presumably mean that Smiteworks would have to host a VPN server, but that would be cheaper (presumably) than rewriting the product to work with a central server.

Another option, which we've asked before, would be to implement UPnP (I think), but not all routers have this functionality, so it's only a partial solution.

Spyke

The problem with the VPN idea is that you still have the same problem. Ports have to be opened for the VPN to work.

No, the only way I can think of solving this is to integrate the alias system with a proxy back end. That way people who are stuck behind a unchangable firewall can pay to have the server go out, connect to the proxy engine, configure an alias/port for the specific instance and allow people to connect to that proxy location to facilitate communications.

[Sigurd]

All in favour of having Muttley set up a lobby server, we may or may not go to but he will definitely care and pay for....!


AYE!


That's one, but so far it's unanimous :)

[Foen]

I voted 'no' but I'm not against the possibility: I just wouldn't use it and think SWUSA has more than enough on its plate right now.

Stuart

[Muttley]

I voted no because there are already a few chatrooms out there that NEVER get used. Maybe if we start filling up some of the other chatrooms, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Knowing where these chatrooms were to begin with might help.
I had tried starting up something on IRC (Unsuccessfully). If
we had one single facility instead of numerous it may get more
usage. Its not just there to chat it would have a lot of other
functions also, and direct hosting would still feature. Its just
something to concider for future development.