I've started TA Spring just yesterday. :) And I have some suggestions on it.
- In the TA Spring Client, I want see the status of battle rooms, like "playing", "chatting", "closed", "opened" or something.
- I wish people could change the room name and map after creating.
- Making a name of battle room is too restricted. (Even spaces is not allowed)
- I want Original TA style mouse control. (Of course, current mouse control has to be supported)
- Automatic map downloading system from other players who have it. (like Starcraft)
- Originally and automatically supported game types - like East vs West, Top vs Bottom, Free for All, ...
If I make new ideas, I'll report later. :)
Suggestion : Battle Room Status and some..
Moderator: Moderators
Howabout you can also kick players and force start the game. Iv been irritated countlessly by AFK players who wont comeback! Also it would be realy nice if you could arenge the teams more, cause the whole one team, ten players and one comnader is fine, but their sould be a way to tell who can be the comander. So you can say Player One is comander while Players Two, Three and Four are controllors. You could leave the comander soice box unselectd so that anyone can be the comander. That would require more comminication.
Actually, I think the TA ready system is great. Then you don't get ridiculous situations like in custom games of Warcraft III where people join and then the host jump starts because he doesn't want people to leave, and then people either quit in the next two seconds, or alt-f4 during the load process. Everyone looses like that.
The other problems will be adressed, but this is a beta.
The other problems will be adressed, but this is a beta.
-
PauloMorfeo
- Posts: 2004
- Joined: 15 Dec 2004, 20:53
Re: Suggestion : Battle Room Status and some..
That would be very hard to modify. You can check this discussion:daybreaker wrote:...
- I want Original TA style mouse control. (Of course, current mouse control has to be supported)
...
http://taspring.clan-sy.com/phpbb/viewt ... c&start=20
This has been discussed many times.
Or maybe you just want to have the top-down camera mode that TA had?
If so, check the README. There is an option to put camera into TA's mode. Then, when you use the arrow keys, it will move just like TA.[/url]
-
jouninkomiko
- Posts: 436
- Joined: 26 Aug 2004, 08:11
oh sorry, i dont really make it clear in the lobby. The host CAN change the map after hosting. However, changing the battle name doesn't really make much sense and adds a good deal of complexity to a system i think needs to be as simple as possible. as far as battle status is concerned... im working on putting that in after finishing unit syncing and finding that strange, strange server bug...
as for booting people? a .net bug forced me to unlink the boot command. until i find a workaround, i don't really have a good way to do this.
furthermore i'll take the restricted battle name into consideration. when i get a better system going, i'll make the name less restrictive. also, the current implementation makes the first person to join a team the team leader, and hence the commander in game i suppose. i had planned on adding the "set team leader" functionality to the battle room, but want to wait until i can clean up some of the other problems. hell, i even have a set team leader function thats never called :)
as for booting people? a .net bug forced me to unlink the boot command. until i find a workaround, i don't really have a good way to do this.
furthermore i'll take the restricted battle name into consideration. when i get a better system going, i'll make the name less restrictive. also, the current implementation makes the first person to join a team the team leader, and hence the commander in game i suppose. i had planned on adding the "set team leader" functionality to the battle room, but want to wait until i can clean up some of the other problems. hell, i even have a set team leader function thats never called :)
I'd like to put a vote in for the 'no force start function'. There's no point having a ready button if the host can start the game whether you have it ticked or not. What's the solution? I dunno, a really loud .wav of a bell/claxton that the host can play on the machine of the only person not to have ready clicked perhaps.
Actually, last night while I was on crack... yeah anyways, I had a good idea for the hosting process for later down the road.
What would happen is in the configuration, either people would manually enter their maximum throughput, or there would be a system to test it and enter it for them. Anyways, in addition, there would be a checkbox that people would check if they wanted to be a potential host.
In my futuristic battle room, there is no guarantee that the person hosting the battle room will be the host for the game. Instead, everyone sends latency information for themselves with respect to everyone else to the "host" machine. This information would be displayed in the form of a complete n-graph, where each node represents a player. A node would be green if the player is a potential host, and red if they can't host. The lines between each node would be colored between green and red to represent the latency between each player.
I'm sure you can see this coming now - the system or the "host" player can then select the optimal host for the actual game. :)
You could then make the process even smarter, by adding a ranking system of some sort - if the host bails on everyone else, other players can vote down the host.
I know it's a complicated idea, and would be tricky to implement properly, but I think it's a good idea, and i've never seen anything like it done before (not visibly at least). :)
What would happen is in the configuration, either people would manually enter their maximum throughput, or there would be a system to test it and enter it for them. Anyways, in addition, there would be a checkbox that people would check if they wanted to be a potential host.
In my futuristic battle room, there is no guarantee that the person hosting the battle room will be the host for the game. Instead, everyone sends latency information for themselves with respect to everyone else to the "host" machine. This information would be displayed in the form of a complete n-graph, where each node represents a player. A node would be green if the player is a potential host, and red if they can't host. The lines between each node would be colored between green and red to represent the latency between each player.
I'm sure you can see this coming now - the system or the "host" player can then select the optimal host for the actual game. :)
You could then make the process even smarter, by adding a ranking system of some sort - if the host bails on everyone else, other players can vote down the host.
I know it's a complicated idea, and would be tricky to implement properly, but I think it's a good idea, and i've never seen anything like it done before (not visibly at least). :)
The solution is the boot command when it's fixed.Gurkha wrote:I'd like to put a vote in for the 'no force start function'. There's no point having a ready button if the host can start the game whether you have it ticked or not. What's the solution? I dunno, a really loud .wav of a bell/claxton that the host can play on the machine of the only person not to have ready clicked perhaps.
Ok, here's my concept visually:
I revised the initial idea so that a black node represents a non-host, and then the color of the node can represent the amount of bandwidth available to that potential host (and hence one of the two factors in selecting the best host). :)
In the image above, Storm is selected as the best host, because he has a large amount of bandwidth, and the average latency of all players to him is the lowest. :)
I revised the initial idea so that a black node represents a non-host, and then the color of the node can represent the amount of bandwidth available to that potential host (and hence one of the two factors in selecting the best host). :)
In the image above, Storm is selected as the best host, because he has a large amount of bandwidth, and the average latency of all players to him is the lowest. :)
I think the idea of a load sound is pretty good and funny for the host to use. Something like Click in you fools!!
Like in ta i'd like to see you be able to change your state from spectator into player etc. More like the ta battleroom. Then the thing about teams I really don't get this. If you ally the same number but also have 1 1 and the other guy has 1 1 are you then both commanders?
Like in ta i'd like to see you be able to change your state from spectator into player etc. More like the ta battleroom. Then the thing about teams I really don't get this. If you ally the same number but also have 1 1 and the other guy has 1 1 are you then both commanders?