Invite-only games - needed or not?

[grzywacz]

That's more or less how it works now, but some people on IRC have suggested, that having password protected games might be a better solution.

That way, if you want to play with some friends, you can just share a password with each other, no need to invite everyone every new game. Server-side it's almost the same, so both solutions are ok.

[Chris Byler]

Wouldn't a simpler solution just be to make kicks permanent? I.e. if player X is kicked from game Y, he cannot rejoin game Y as long as it continues to exist?

Then you don't have to worry about designing, let alone implementing, the mechanics of invitations or password protection or anything like that. In fact it hardly requires any new interface at all: just a notification to player X explaining why he can't join game Y anymore.

Just let the game creator say get out *and stay out*.

This also lets the creator behave differently toward players and observers if he/she chooses to do so (while not forcing private games to allow observers if they don't want to).

[JW]

Sounds like people should be using the :ban command.


......you can't use commands in the start screen though right? So why not add a ban option from the drag-down menu? I think that would solve all of these issues.

[Woodwizzle]

I've not needed this is Wesnoth but I have needed it in commercial games that have a much larger online community. I've played Wesnoth games that I wanted to be private and usually I just set up the game and the other person I want to play with signs in first. Occasionally someone else will sign in but I either get them to leave politely or sometimes we play a new 3 player game anyway. I'm not a hard ass about private games =) I see no downside about adding the feature and if Wesnoth's multiplayer community gets big enough it will be vital. Might as well preemptively add it before its absence becomes a nuisance.

[Zhukov]

I've not needed this is Wesnoth but I have needed it in commercial games that have a much larger online community. I've played Wesnoth games that I wanted to be private and usually I just set up the game and the other person I want to play with signs in first. Occasionally someone else will sign in but I either get them to leave politely or sometimes we play a new 3 player game anyway. I'm not a hard ass about private games =) I see no downside about adding the feature and if Wesnoth's multiplayer community gets big enough it will be vital. Might as well preemptively add it before its absence becomes a nuisance.

Ditto.

[server]

Sounds like people should be using the :ban command.


......you can't use commands in the start screen though right? So why not add a ban option from the drag-down menu? I think that would solve all of these issues.

Also add the kick option....

[JW]

Also add the kick option....

-yes, yes!

...for some reason I already thought there was one when I knew there wasn't. Although, I wonder what would be done about observers (non-slotted players) if the option were only present on the drag-down? I guess you could slot, kick, reslot...

There has to be a different way to do this...

[Yogibear]

For observers the question is if you don't want certain ones to see the game or if you don't want to hear their comments.

For the latter, there is a fantastic new command: mute or even muteall .

[Duffchong]

I have been in a lot of 2v2 games where the host has one friend that he wants to join, but would like to open up the remaining slots for anyone.

What about reserved slots? If the host could specify that 1/4 player slots is reserved (restricted) to a specifically named player (let's call him Shnagster). So even before Shnagster has joined the game, the lobby GUI reads "Vacant Slots 2/4" (assuming the host is the only one currently in his game).

Then Shnagster would then see a simple note on his screen that reads something like "A spot has been reserved for you in BoogleBoogle's game". This way there could be invited players and humble-friendless-newbees in the same game. Or of course you could still play with only players that you reserved slots for (i.e. that you invited).

Please let me know if I don't make any sense.

EDIT: tried to clarify my post, but did the opposite

[Viliam]

How about each game slot having one of the possible states:
- human (someone is already there)
- computer
- open (anyone can join there)
- closed (no one can join there)
- invite: <player name> (only the player with such name can join there)

In lobby you see a number of "open" slots. If you are invited, instead of number of open slots you see INVITED message.

If you join a game, if there is a slot with your name, you are automatically put there. Otherwise, you are automatically put to the first "open" slot.

A creator of the game can use "invite" slots to invite people, to assign their order (important in 2v2, etc). When slot is changed to "invite", a dialog box is displayed for entering the name. This allows creating a private game, creating a game for your friends vs unknown people, etc.

[Duffchong]

How about each game slot having one of the possible states:
- human (someone is already there)
- computer
- open (anyone can join there)
- closed (no one can join there)
- invite: <player name> (only the player with such name can join there)

In lobby you see a number of "open" slots. If you are invited, instead of number of open slots you see INVITED message.

If you join a game, if there is a slot with your name, you are automatically put there. Otherwise, you are automatically put to the first "open" slot.

A creator of the game can use "invite" slots to invite people, to assign their order (important in 2v2, etc). When slot is changed to "invite", a dialog box is displayed for entering the name. This allows creating a private game, creating a game for your friends vs unknown people, etc.

A problem with being able to give an invite to a player for a specific slot is that the host would then be deciding the teams. Sometimes ending up on a team with people I don't know and against my friends has been a nice touch to WN multiplayer. I like how it is now- the semi-random teams created by the randomness of the order of joining.

If only there was a way to insert the invited player into the next available slot. This sounds harder in terms of programming, which I have little knowledge of.

[JW]

People can always join as observers and you can slot them over someone who currently possesses a slot.

How is that a problem right now?

The problem is when people keep repeatedly joining when you don't want them to and they don't get the idea. In order to keep them out you must either:

1) prevent them from joining (private game)
2) prevent them from returning once kicked (ban command)
-actually, the kick command would need to be implemented as well at this step from the start window.

A complicated invite system sounds (1) odd to implement, (2) only semi-intuitive, (3) more hassle than asking someone while you're both in the lobby, or sending them a whisper.

[FleshPeeler]

How about each game slot having one of the possible states:
- human (someone is already there)
- computer
- open (anyone can join there)
- closed (no one can join there)
- invite: <player name> (only the player with such name can join there)

In lobby you see a number of "open" slots. If you are invited, instead of number of open slots you see INVITED message.

If you join a game, if there is a slot with your name, you are automatically put there. Otherwise, you are automatically put to the first "open" slot.

A creator of the game can use "invite" slots to invite people, to assign their order (important in 2v2, etc). When slot is changed to "invite", a dialog box is displayed for entering the name. This allows creating a private game, creating a game for your friends vs unknown people, etc.

(I assume this is a variation off of Duffchong's idea)

I like. A lot.

The argument Duffchong brings up (that of the host defining who is on what team) is something that already exists. A host can move players around however they want, and as long as the host is a responsible one this isn't a problem.

The only thing I would add is this: Should a player decline an invitation to a game, they will not receive any more invites from that host as long as that game exists. Making "Invite" a slot option makes it HIGHLY spammable, so let's make it a bit more inconvenient for spamming. Also, a player who is currently in a game may not be invited to a different one.

[borisblue]

Yes, I'd say that private games are a good idea.
It's not really intuitive how to block people- the first few multiplayer games I created I had people just sit in a spot I'd reserve for a friend and then refuse to leave, i only figured out how to kick people a lot later. I think a lot of newbs will be in the same position.

I'd prefer password protection rather than invites myself, but either would work fine.

[Qwerty Cake]

I say yes, wanted. I've had many experiences where I call my friends up and aske them to play wesnoth. I get on the server and create a game, and I have to tell somebody that joined to scooot because I wanted to play with my cousin.