join a running game

[aegis]

Don't you think that adding a feature to send whole game state would be much easier then mysterious bot recording replays?
...
The game could even be paused while new player is connecting (assuming host must accept any player willing to join already running game)

much easier

:/

[SinbadEV]

And.. how big the game state be? 5MB? 10MB? We're waiting much more for maps dl before the start.

The answer to that question is complex, but basically I think that there is a "save" function in the current code... whatever file that spits out is the equivalent of a gamestate. (I think it's /savegame )

[aegis]

and the game must be paused from when the state begins to save to however long it takes the person on the other end to load

games could be stopped for a minute every time someone joins

[malric]

Also, this would be good if your connection drops for a short period - you could rejoin and continue play.

[CarRepairer]

I say forget the "ingame joining" thing. Focus on the video stream idea. It wouldn't require any engine changes and is probably a lot simpler. It would of course require hosting with decent bandwidth, but it's got a big pro of letting a lot more people "spec" the game without slowing it down. If they want to chat to ingame players, an autohost could relay chat from its battle window into the game.

[Tobi]

and the game must be paused from when the state begins to save to however long it takes the person on the other end to load

games could be stopped for a minute every time someone joins

Not necessarily, there are also smart solutions to this problem

(But it would be (much) more work of course.)

[BaNa]

Hey for a low-tech solution I would be happy if the game would broadcast frames of the minimap status back to the battle room. very slow speed is ok, like 0.5 fps or less. That way people waiting in the battle room could look at the minimap and see the battle status by the dots.

[malric]

What about cheating then ? People could alt-tab and check what others are doing.

The lobby could show a probability that game ends soon (for example the ratio of production... if someone produces 2 times more m/e/units is highly probable the game will finish soon)

[CarRepairer]

What about cheating then ? People could alt-tab and check what others are doing.

You could also make a discreet second account and spec your own game from another computer. Or you could install a game-genie in your floppy drive and find the secret code to give you a million M.

[malric]

I think 'another computer' involves a bit more effort than 'alt-tab' .

And anyhow the map is not a clear indication of what happens (the players will not be able to determine how long the game will take)

[Google_Frog]

You can run multiple lobbies on the same computer and alt-tab between the games.

[malric]

I know people are inventive at finding workarounds and cheat.

I was analyzing the solution proposed, and pointed out it makes cheating TOO EASY, without adding much knowledge to how long the game will last (a combination of factors like production count, killed units, total amount of key presses and so on would give better idea).

[Google_Frog]

Production count gives away even more info than a minimap.

[malric]

I was saying to combine the information into a time estimate. (like : estimated 10 minutes to finish).

[Saktoth]

As long as it locks people out as soon as they join the game as a player, i think a minimap status thing would be great. You could run two clients but its not as if cheating isnt easy in spring anyway.

Someone has to actually go make it though....

[BaNa]

First of all, it would be trivially easy to only display the minimap to NPC's. Second, protip: there are easier and more informative ways to cheat. Not cheating is not a question of can't but a question of won't.