MT 1.3b15 update

Progress reports and musings from the developers on the current gaming tools.

Moderators: dorpond, trevor, Azhrei

User avatar
trevor
Codeum Arcanum (RPTools Founder)
Posts: 11311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by trevor »

Azhrei wrote: Once trevor has the XML code integrated, I'll check to see what might be an easy way to generate XML for 1.2 and then look into writing some XSL to convert from one to the other.
It should be relatively straightforward. For this first step, I've decided to forgo any formal XML design, and let other tools do it for me. It'll at least get us in the right direction.

Check out XStream at http://xstream.codehaus.org/ . We could probably use the 1.2 code to load an existing campaign, then just use XStream to serialize the campaign to xml, use XSLT to change some of the structure around, load it up in 1.3, then save it again so it packages it up correctly.

My xslt is a bit rusty, so anyone with some mad XSLT skills would be very useful
Dreaming of a 1.3 release

Phergus
Deity
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, NM
Contact:

Post by Phergus »

trevor wrote:...

On the other hand, it's trivial to put a password in that also sticks for every run that prevents people from connecting. But has the added benefit of creating a "buzz". It's so much more valuable opening up the tool and seeing 10-15 games running right now, instead of the 2-3 of the people that want to publish their games.
I had thought about this as well. I have some small concerns about security but it was mostly just privacy aspects.

How about if it listed that their were X many private servers along with the list of "public" servers.

It would be very cool though to sign on and see 20-30 games running. Heck I was jazzed when I hooked up earlier and saw your test server, my test server and 4 or 5 others. I was grinning like a fool. :)

I do feel that with this step that MT needs much more extensive player permission controls implemented sooner rather than later. A GM should be able to lock down pretty much every aspect of the players UI. Drawing, tokens, movement, maps, chat, everything.

If someone could put up a server where the only permissible action was to change maps and scroll around, you (or someone) could have a demo server running all the time with cool maps up.

User avatar
trevor
Codeum Arcanum (RPTools Founder)
Posts: 11311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by trevor »

Phergus wrote:I was grinning like a fool. :)
Ahh, I see that you had the same reaction that I did, and the motivation for my decision to make them all publicly visible (if not connectible)
Phergus wrote: If someone could put up a server where the only permissible action was to change maps and scroll around, you (or someone) could have a demo server running all the time with cool maps up.
We're thinking along the exact same lines. In fact, I was thinking of putting in an "Observer" player type that had different permissions than "Player" so that people could jump in and look around without disturbing anyone (other than taking up more bandwidth, which should be resolved with remote repos anyway)
Dreaming of a 1.3 release

User avatar
Hawke
Great Wyrm
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2007 12:12 am
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post by Hawke »

Phergus wrote:I do feel that with this step that MT needs much more extensive player permission controls implemented sooner rather than later. A GM should be able to lock down pretty much every aspect of the players UI. Drawing, tokens, movement, maps, chat, everything.
My primary plan for MT is to use it in a competitive PvP wargame - as I state frequently. It definitely will be useful to be able to lock down a lot of that - including editing properties of units, who can move what, etc. to make the game immune from cheating when running a persistent game server.

Man I'm so excited for the next versions!

Cweord
Great Wyrm
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Midsomer Norton, (Near Bath), UK
Contact:

Post by Cweord »

I like both ideas, being able to control what your players can do helps prevent the temptation 'just this once' to misbehave (and will probably prevent a lot of pain on games running on April 1)

The observer option is good as well, though it would be nice to be able to turn it off as the GM, so that if your doing a closed session for one player who has snuck away from the others, then the others cant look in.
Cweord

This message has been spell checked by Freudcheck - any mistakes are purley a figment of your imagination.
-------
My Tokens Directory
http://gallery.rptools.net/v/contrib/Cw ... er_Tokens/

User avatar
trevor
Codeum Arcanum (RPTools Founder)
Posts: 11311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by trevor »

Cweord wrote: The observer option is good as well, though it would be nice to be able to turn it off as the GM
Observer mode would probably be a switch "Allow observers" or something
Dreaming of a 1.3 release

User avatar
snikle
Great Wyrm
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:45 pm
Location: Clarksville, TN
Contact:

Post by snikle »

I think an observer mode (maybe with the ability to only make comments as whispers to the GM), would be excellent in the eyes of publishers to help encourage the use of MT.
• snikle •
snikle.wordpress.com

User avatar
Veggiesama
Dragon
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:18 am

Post by Veggiesama »

My suggestions:

There should be four different user "states": Admin, GM, Player, and Spectator (or Observer/Lurker/whatever).

Admins are just like GMs, except they can boot and ban other GMs and can't be boot themselves.

GMs have all the normal permissions, plus the ability to change permissions on the fly. They can boot and ban players and spectators.

Common permissions would include:
  • Map creation/deletion
    Changing topography layer
    Changing fog of war
    Seeing fog of war as opaque or transparent
    Token/stamp/object creation/deletion
    Token movement (subdivided into its own list of permissions, like how it is currently; still, a blanket "stop all token movement" would be nice in a pinch)
    Drawing tools (and AoE templates)
    Whispers
    Chat
(probably more that people could think of)

Players also start with most of the permissions, with a couple "off" by default (like the ability to add/change maps). The exact permissions should be configurable in the server window and saved. If a GM was so inclined, it'd be nice to temporarily give players the full powers of a GM by turning on all permissions.

When the server is started, Spectators could be toggled on/off with a checkbox. If they're on, an optional password box should be there for them too. Spectators probably should receive the most minimum of permissions, like being able zoom and scroll around on the map.

Anyway, I think it'd be nice to see EVERY server on the list (like an FPS server browser), but just have the totally-passworded servers greyed-out. It'd also be cool if it tracked how many players were connected to all servers at the same time, so you'd get "Total # of Users: 3607". ^_^[/list]

User avatar
trevor
Codeum Arcanum (RPTools Founder)
Posts: 11311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by trevor »

Veggiesama wrote: When the server is started, Spectators could be toggled on/off with a checkbox. If they're on, an optional password box should be there for them too.
It would seem though, that since observers are severly limited in functionality, there doesn't seem to be a reason to password it, since if you want to allow spectators, why only let the people you've personally contacted observer ? Wouldn't those people be the ones you want to be "players" ?

I love the player could idea.
Dreaming of a 1.3 release

User avatar
RPTroll
TheBard
Posts: 3159
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:26 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by RPTroll »

I think allowing observers into the game should be optional. You might have some custom art you want to protect or you might be developing an adventure to market on FUM that you don't want others to see.

Which brings up another permission to allow/disallow; cut and paste of tokens/images.
ImageImage ImageImageImageImage
Support RPTools by shopping
Image
Image

Phergus
Deity
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, NM
Contact:

Post by Phergus »

trevor wrote:It would seem though, that since observers are severly limited in functionality, there doesn't seem to be a reason to password it, since if you want to allow spectators, why only let the people you've personally contacted observer ?
Well one reason is that observers would have an impact on the game in terms of portions of the GM's bandwidth. (Remote repositories are a solution only for some people and would require knowledge above the norm.)

Will need to be able to limit the number of observers
trevor wrote:Wouldn't those people be the ones you want to be "players"?
Random people you've never had contact with before?

I don't think so.

User avatar
trevor
Codeum Arcanum (RPTools Founder)
Posts: 11311
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Location: Austin, Tx
Contact:

Post by trevor »

Phergus wrote:
trevor wrote:Wouldn't those people be the ones you want to be "players"?
Random people you've never had contact with before?

I don't think so.
Specifically, you'll have to have a way to distribute the password, how else will you do it and keep control of it other than by personal contact with the potential observer, which really defeats the purpose of an observer mode.

I think having an observer limit like you suggest is probably a good solution to the resource usage issue.
Dreaming of a 1.3 release

Cweord
Great Wyrm
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:49 am
Location: Midsomer Norton, (Near Bath), UK
Contact:

Post by Cweord »

It might be nice to have a user definable observer limit, so they can base it on their bandwidth.

I know one UK company (unfortunately not available in my area yet) that has 24 Meg down and 2.5 meg up.

That could host a lot more observers than my 256 up.
Cweord

This message has been spell checked by Freudcheck - any mistakes are purley a figment of your imagination.
-------
My Tokens Directory
http://gallery.rptools.net/v/contrib/Cw ... er_Tokens/

User avatar
Mortani
Giant
Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:00 am

Post by Mortani »

I like putting a limit on maximum number of observers instead of a password because as Trevor said, it sort of defeats the purpose of an Observer.

Phergus
Deity
Posts: 7132
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 8:56 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere, NM
Contact:

Post by Phergus »

Mortani wrote:... it sort of defeats the purpose of an Observer.
There needs to be a definition of what the purpose of an Observer is before that point can be debated.

Post Reply

Return to “Developer Notes”