Network Game Server/Lobby Preference

[pmprog]

Super JumpKick Turbo, despite being released a couple of days ago, had been sat around for a while, and I have a few other projects on the go. One of them is coming along nicely, and the core mechanics are pretty much done.

It's a turn-based multiplayer game up to 6 players (1 to 3 players per team, 2 teams max), and I was wondering how people perfer to connect and play multiplayer games.

SJKT basically forced one player as the server, and the other as a client. This meant to play across multiple computers you needed the IP/computer name, and in the case of over the internet, set up port forwarding etc.

As this game is designed to support more users, I didn't know if it was worth creating a server that hosted games that you could go join rather than having people try and set their own up?

If people consider the remote server, I might consider making a "Hub" API (again) that we could maybe provide to any network games, kind of like how C4A is a common API for high-scores. Not sure how useful that would be though, as most releases tend to be ports

 

[rygD]

If you are running your own server does that mean other people need to know that, or that you coordinated that you were going to play together?

I like just clicking something and if there are no games starting one, but the second option in your poll is best to keep it alive in the future.

 

[levi]

I voted for 'run your own server' as well as 'log on to a remote server'.  It seems to me that a server process for the first option could also be run on a suitable exposed public server, so one feeds into the other.  A server process can also run concurrently with the client game so long as it isn't too resource hungry, so to my mind the second option comes automatically out of the first anyway.

Whether you'll get enough users for a hub api is not something I can answer, but I'd have hoped that with the Pyra coming soon there'll be a lot more software coming out, and even if a game is a port, especially if it's an older game where you configure servers and ports manually, a server discovery api that could be plugged in there would make discovering games easier.

 

[pmprog]

If you are running your own server does that mean other people need to know that, or that you coordinated that you were going to play together?

People would need to know where to connect to when running your own server - so the server's name or ip address. You'd also have to check firewall settings if running over the internet.

The latter is more where they'd just have to launch the game at the same time, and they'd all connect to the same external server (think battle.net, if you play any Blizzard games)

 

[pmprog]

I voted for 'run your own server' as well as 'log on to a remote server'.  It seems to me that a server process for the first option could also be run on a suitable exposed public server, so one feeds into the other.

I guess yes, wouldn't be much different from having a public and private server. Both will run the same code.

A server process can also run concurrently with the client game so long as it isn't too resource hungry, so to my mind the second option comes automatically out of the first anyway.

Most of my games are simple enough to juggle server and client Esp' with this being turn based, there's plenty of time to process and transmit the required data to all parties.

a server discovery api that could be plugged in there would make discovering games easier.

Hmmm... Going back to the owned/external server. The Hub API might just be better for registering servers of various games. Making it a true Hub...

 

[rygD]

If you are running your own server does that mean other people need to know that, or that you coordinated that you were going to play together?

People would need to know where to connect to when running your own server - so the server's name or ip address. You'd also have to check firewall settings if running over the internet. The latter is more where they'd just have to launch the game at the same time, and they'd all connect to the same external server (think battle.net, if you play any Blizzard games)

I wasn't clear with what I was trying to ask.  Glad you understood.  I knew the firewall stuff and what was meant by an external server, I just wasn't sure if what you were saying was what I thought (and on second thought, I don't know of any other really simple way than an external server, or maybe a server list that is checked by default when someone tries to play online, which isn't really practical for devices where most of the time a server isn't going to be up.  Is there any way to have a decentralized, yet somewhat secure, way to connect to a community generated list of servers?  I can't think of anything, but maybe a friend list that checks for people you have manually added to see if their server is up, or their client if the server is built in.).  I think it is best to make it as simple for users to connect as possible, so a remote server might be easiest, unless what you mentioned by the hub might work.

I never said what I voted for.  I picked server integrated in client and remote server.  The first option would also be fine, but may be a couple extra steps that some people will be less likely to bother with.

 

[levi]

a server discovery api that could be plugged in there would make discovering games easier.

Hmmm... Going back to the owned/external server. The Hub API might just be better for registering servers of various games. Making it a true Hub...

Yes, that's the kind of thing I was imagining.  Although having written a load of guff (and deleted it again), I've convinced myself that you could write an API developers can use to construct data packages to send to your server - it sounds like a useful accompanyment to be honest.  A game discovery server might still be useful, but is a different thing;  I suspect I misread the poll to begin with.

 

[pmprog]

Hmmmm, are people here not actually that interested in network games? I guess the Pandy isn't the greatest for such things. Maybe I just consider a single player game

 

[TrashyMG]

Hmmmm, are people here not actually that interested in network games? I guess the Pandy isn't the greatest for such things. Maybe I just consider a single player game

Multiplayer games to me have a bit more of a commitment than I can put into an evening now a days after work.

 

[pmprog]

I hear that...

 

[Ziz]

I would love more multiplayer games. But it doesn't seem to be very popular in this community. Probably because of Trashy's reasons. However I myself made a game compatible to mobile network, too. I think the problem is, that we are too few. If we would be so much users, that always SOMEBODY is online to play (like in the #openpandora channel, where almost always somebody is online), I think more user would join to check. Atm it is quite hard to find partners for Hase. And if they are always the same 5 persons idling in the channel...

So I like the hub idea. But it should run in a window as side process with some chat possibilities, at best using irc, so that everybody is able to keep an eye even without having the pandora by hand. However this doesn't work for Hase atm, dunno whether it will work with a more generic game hub.

 

[edgex004]

So I like the hub idea. But it should run in a window as side process with some chat possibilities, at best using irc, so that everybody is able to keep an eye even without having the pandora by hand. However this doesn't work for Hase atm, dunno whether it will work with a more generic game hub.

This is exactly one of the projects I have had in the back of my mind. I have instead been working on my own multiplayer game at the moment (that may never materialize).

I love that the Hub could have an API that developers would add to their games. It would also be great if it could be modified to support specific games that are already released. OpenTTD for instance allows for multiplayer games to be launched from the command line. It would seem reasonable to be able to organize players in the hub and then launch into OpenTTD utilizing a script/command prompt. This way both new games and already compiled games could easily be launched. Maybe the hub could be the next evolution of Pandafe and C4A: be able to launch any game (single, multi, emu), make the organization of multiplayer games and chat much more seamless, as well as incorporate C4A scoring. Suddenly I feel like I'm advocating for an open source version of Xbox Live. Maybe I am, but I've never used it before, so I could be interpreting it wrong.

Since we have a such a small community, the true key is unification. The more games that are supported, the more people will log into the Hub. You might boot up the Hub to play a C4A game, but then are lucky enough to see a game of Hase starting that you decide to join instead.

EDIT: Also, since games like Hase and Super JumpKick Turbo support multiple devices, there is no reason the Hub shouldn't either. It could even be a goal to eventually connect Pandora/Pyra/PC users all in one network. It might even end up drawing more PC users to the Pyra community.

 

[pmprog]

Maybe the hub could be the next evolution of Pandafe and C4A: be able to launch any game (single, multi, emu), make the organization of multiplayer games and chat much more seamless, as well as incorporate C4A scoring. Suddenly I feel like I'm advocating for an open source version of Xbox Live. Maybe I am, but I've never used it before, so I could be interpreting it wrong.

To be honest, this was one of my plans with the original Tournament Hub I wrote back ages ago, when C4A was just starting up. Not so much as listing mutliplayer games, but a very basic friends system/chat, highscore, and potential user-content sharing (custom maps for games). I even wanted to hook the screen like WizardStan's DragonBox Compo Entry and add an ingame overlay.

That said, some people didn't like the non-unixy-philosophy of an all-in-one solution. Other people had issues running Tournament Hub (which I now know why, and only found out ages later when Sky Supreme suffered the same issue), and some people were an arse about the whole thing, so I just left it rot. When I see my old YouTube vids I still think it could have been great.

Almost feel like I should try again ready for the Pyra.

 

[edgex004]

Tournament Hub was one of my inspirations. I loved the idea/look and wished it had gone further. I didn't have a Pandora at that time as I was waiting for Craig to respond (or more accurately, never respond) to my plea to fix my faulty unit. Otherwise I would have been around to voice my support.

I would love to help to resurrect the project if there is anything I can do to make that happen.

Tournament Hub for Pyra and Pandora with multiplayer game support would be such an amazing way to "Pass the baton" as it were.

EDIT: Actually, the timeline in my head might be a bit off in regards to when I had my pandora and when it was broken. Either way, I didn't get logged into C4A until well after TTH lost steam. Either way, I still very much support a revival.

 

[pmprog]

Well, I've registered a new domain (with hosting) for the new Tournament Hub. My plan is to put together the website, and a multi-platform UI. If it doesn't get anywhere, it's not cost a lot, but hopefully this might push me that little bit more to work on it (when I get free time).

At the start, it'll be user registration, friends list (maybe simple chat), and maybe C4A integration.

BTW - If we have any web designers (php & mysql), who's interested, drop me a PM.

 

[rygD]

Hmmmm, are people here not actually that interested in network games? I guess the Pandy isn't the greatest for such things. Maybe I just consider a single player game

I strongly desire more of them.  The reason TrashyMG gave is one of the reasons I think it is best to simplify the process, not that it will help get more people playing.  When was the last time I played Hase against other humans?  

I like what edgex004 suggested.  Something like a Pandora/Pyra community hub that lists all supported games, and tells you when someone else is looking for other players might get more people to use it.  I think the IRC thing sounds good too.  I don't think the friend and high score stuff needs to be included yet since we don't know if anyone will even use it.  If it is simple to add, go ahead and make it fully featured from the start.

I see 3 people with the technical skills in this thread that could help out with the Tournament Hub.  Although I can't help out with much/any of the behind the scenes stuff I can probably spare a little time each week to helping out in other ways if you want.  Just let me know.  This is something I would love to see available early in the life of the Pyra.

 

[edgex004]

I think I could to learn how to help, but do not have a useful level of experience yet. If no one steps up for web design, I can take a look at that.

pmprog: Do you intend to design a brand new UI? Or build off the original TTH? I really liked the UI design, and was thinking of something pretty much identical to organize scores and games on the new Hub, but simply add a basic chat tab and game-room-list tab. Adding a new game room to the game-room-list tab could be handled a few ways:

1. Add a branch to the original game listing from TTH, and simply check if multiplayer is possible for a user-selected game. If so, offer the user the option to start a new room.
2. Have a "new room" option in the game-room-list tab. When it is selected, a list of installed multi-player games would come up, and the user could select from there.

I think it is smart that, from what I can tell, you plan to focus on first developing the features that were not a part of the original TTH (the chat side). I would think it could be smart to integrate that into the old UI if it could potentially reduce work load.

EDIT: Also, on the multi-platform chat front, perhaps it would be useful to leverage Ziz's work on text input for devices without a keyboard. (glutexto for gp2x, wiz, caanoo and gcw)

 

[pmprog]

Well, if I ditch the existing Tournament Hub code (which was written using Allegro), I can move to Sparrow, which actually has Ziz's keyboard, and also some C4A integration IIRC. But yes, I plan to keep the graphical design - and try and keep the website looking similar

Also, It'd be handy to be able to run in Windowed mode as well (which isn't allowed in Allegro, because of the GLES usage)

It'll take me a bit to set up some basic stuff - both from the website and the UI. I'll see how far I get...
 

 

[edgex004]

Sounds great. I love what Ziz has done, have played with sparrow a bit, and want to take a look at sparrow3d at some point too. The portability is perfect for this type of project. Good luck with your work!

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[PowerGod]

I'm more of a single player gamer because I need my time to look at things, in multiplayer I always have to rush...

Anyway when I played Diablo, AVP (2000) or Alien Swarm, I appreciated the fact that the servers where also local, with just an online index, that's convenient to find/connect players, but not required to play on a lan (that still will needs IP and all)