Two types of MP games

[ozymandias]

Just one point to make:

I think private games should still be open to observers by default (you can disable observers in the game setup normally), since the aim is to reduce misunderstandings when people want to play with a specific set of players. Also, you could still ask for an invite then if you wanted.

All in all, I think the pros would outweight the cons here.

[irrevenant]

[some stuff]

I just bolded some parts that you might want to look at. Your presuppositions are many, and may cause some of the things you wish to be rid of. Just a thought.

We all have presuppositions. I have a number of them.

One of mine is that (like most good things) open communication is good in general but is not desirable 100% of the time.

I agree with a lot of what Flametrooper said with one (major) change; where he sees stupidity as the problem, I see 'laziness' - or more accurately; differing focus. The vast majority of Wesnoth MPers are perfectly capable of in-depth communication, but that's not what they're here for; they're here to play Wesnoth. They don't want to have to jump through communication hoops in order to do what they came here for.

I appreciate your concerns, but I believe the way you propose to resolve them is counterproductive. If you force people into communications they don't want in order to get to what they do want (ie. a game of Wesnoth) you'll get exactly what you're getting now; people who are apathetic, haphazard and resentful about communicating because it's an unwanted obstacle between them and their goal.

Encouraging a community feel on the MP server is a great goal and I wholeheartedly support it. But when someone is trying to join a game is probably the single worst point at which to try and insert it (even during a game is better).

btw, if I sound like a guru it's only because I try to learn from them.

A good practice.

[bioman]

JW: how on Earth are you going to tell someone that it is a private game if you both speak different languages? A lock symbol, on the other hand, is pretty much as universal as it gets.

[Toadhead]

I'm for a private option as well. Its realy useful if you want to play against friends. You don't need to worry all the time that some other dude comes in. Ofcourse you can kick them but a password system would be much better. Preventing is better than solving right.

[tsr]

A quick fix, would be to be able to use somekind of smilie-behaviour so that a specific string inputs a padlock image in the game-name. Then in the lobby let people know that the padlock means that the creator only accepts invites.

(Instead of padlock, maybe something else, but 'invitational' seems harder to depict in a i18n way than 'locked'.)

[JW]

JW: how on Earth are you going to tell someone that it is a private game if you both speak different languages? A lock symbol, on the other hand, is pretty much as universal as it gets.

I think most people understand the English word "private" which you can put in the title of your game.

And, opposed to irrevenant, I think the most appropriate time for communication is before the game - especially if the game is timed.

Anyway, I don't stand strongly on this matter, but there's my opinion.

[irrevenant]

And, opposed to irrevenant, I think the most appropriate time for communication is before the game - especially if the game is timed.

Don't get me wrong: discussion before (and after) the game is fine - Wesnoth should (and does) provide support for people to loiter in the lobby and natter to their heart's content. But when people join a game they're implicitly stating "okay, that's enough nattering for the moment; I want to play now". Requiring additional nattering at that point will be universally seen as an annoyance not an opportunity.

I also didn't mean to imply that discussion during a game is an ideal time for discussion (especially if the game is timed): just that even then is a better time than during the game-joining process.

[JW]

I also didn't mean to imply that discussion during a game is an ideal time for discussion (especially if the game is timed): just that even then is a better time than during the game-joining process.

So it's better to "natter" when action is supposed to be taking place than when it isn't? Also, who is requiring any of this "nattering?"

[irrevenant]

I also didn't mean to imply that mid-game is an ideal time for discussion (especially if the game is timed): just that even then is a better time than during the game-joining process

So it's better to "natter" when action is supposed to be taking place than when it isn't? Also, who is requiring any of this "nattering?"

Alright, perhaps I've misunderstood your position. Let's take a step back.

Here's how I understand the discussion to date:
1. Someone proposed that private games be password lockable so that players don't have to (on the one hand) keep entering games where they aren't wanted to find an open one and (on the other hand) keep telling other players to leave so that they can have a private game.
2. You argued that this telling players to leave is something that players should be doing to encourage discussion within the community.
3. I argued that this is a bad point in the process for discussion and encourages entirely the wrong sort of discussion (irritated, frustrated discussion between people who just want to play a game).

Now, having established that, to answer your question: Nattering is required because the lack of any technical solution (eg. password locking) forces people into a situation (a pending game) where talk (or rudely leaving/kicking) is required to resolve the situation.

Please forget the whole "talking in the middle of the game" bit; it was only ever intended as an aside, and it seems to have become the focus of the thread. The key question of this thread is: "Is it better to offer a technical solution to keep private games private or should players be forced (as the only alternative) to resolve the issue through dialogue?". I prefer the former.

[JW]

Like I said, my preference isn't strong to the one side. I was just raising a philosophical perspetive that may very well be outweighed by the practical gains.

It's up to the coders and devs now.

[Dacyn]

A padlock is a form of communication too, it's just slightly more narrow.

[Zhukov]

My god, you people do go on.

[irrevenant]

My god, you people do go on.

I thought it was obviously a good idea that warranted minimal discussion, but not everyone agreed. That's how open discussion works; it's more verbose than not talking.

Still, I think you're right; we've covered all the pros and cons now. Probably the best way to go now is to lodge a feature request and let the Devs decide (keeping in mind that it won't happen until after 1.2 now).

[Dragon Master]

Someone who comes up with a locked and unlocked padlock will help this thread greatly too.


*edit* you're welcome, hopefully they get put to use.

[JW]

Add a turned key in the unlocked one and you have my approval to put it in no matter the philosophy. Very cute.