Would a perpetual game server be possible?

[Buttons840]

After reading this tread, http://arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,1456.0.html , I was reminded of an idea I had.

It would be cool if someone could set up a perpetual AI War server where any registered (registration is to prevent team grieffing) could join and play for as long as he liked with anyone else who happens to be on the server, and then leave when he needs and hopefully other will join to take his spot.  The server would then start a new game (with randomized settings) when the current game was completed.  The game would be paused when nobody was online to play.

I guess the first question is, would it work well with AI War even if it was possible?  Next, could it be made possible though external scripting or added feature to AI War (maybe an API for external scripts)?

[Hellheart]

That would be such a massive headache. Think about it - whenever you join, you have no idea what the system looks like going in, or your fleet makeup, or the status of pretty much anything. You may be Player 1 the first time you play, but Player 3 the next. There'd be no sense of continuity or advancement, and there'd be plenty of times where you'd suffer quite a few losses before you had any idea what was going on.

I think the short-term goals would be somewhat rewarding for this type of play, but it's just not something I could see many people going for because you can't pause it when you load it to assess the situation. Also, if it's a full 8-player game, any single person on there is going to find it impossible to control everything.

If you tweaked the mechanics and added/dropped players effectively, and modified the game a bit, I could see it being possible, but it's just such a headache to even think about what could be going on with you jump into the game.

[Buttons840]

Fair enough.  I agree with you now that I think about it more.  Just thinking out loud I guess.

[Ktoff]

I think this could be done relatively easily with the existing system:

It wouldn't be a 8-player game, but a n-player game where n is the number of players present at the start of any given game. You already can drop in and out of games in progress. So what you would need is a server that automatically opens all slots to incoming players and you have what you want. (In a very rudimentary version)

Now for more advanced options you would need a restart by popular vote (say everybody type in /servermsg reboot) and other tools for the players to control what is happening.

Of course you wouldn't be able to see what game you have etc...etc... but the goal of such a server would not be to find a perfect game with super-longterm strategies but rather to spend an hour or two playing with other people, trying out new stuff and enjoying AI multiplayer on a much smaller scale. If you meet people with similar schedule this could even work as an aditional meetingground...

This idea might still need work and i have no idea how hard it might be to implement, but if implemented, this could add greatly to the game experience. Basically this means a dedicated server option for AI war or simpler... a bot for adding players and keeping the game alive

[keith.lamothe]

I've actually wondered why I didn't see people doing this sort of thing.  Is there a particular reason you can't right now?  It's a little clunky but:

1) Start a thread somewhere, advertising the plan and the time to start, etc, asking for people to sign up for when they're willing to play (sort of like a succession game).
2) Have the host start a game normally, could even be 1-player
3) Distribute connection info to the initial set of players, and get started.
4) When someone needs to leave, do the usual save-manage-players-bit and pull in the next person on the list (probably want to plan those handoffs in advance, but if you have to have a gap for a bit you can control the disabled players' stuff).
5) If the host needs to leave:
a) But they can leave the computer on, just make sure they have the ally-control control node built and the others should be able to keep it going ok.
b) If they have to shut the computer down, or for whatever reason you don't want the slot taken up, save the game, quit, and pick a new host (you'll need to make sure folks are given the right connection info, etc), and continue on your merry destructive way.

[superking]

I still think AI war would benefit massively from having a central lobby system where players could easily find eachother and start games. renting a server surely wouldnt cost upward of $600/year and I think the increase in popularity the game would gain from easy online play would easily account for what, 100 sales required to cover the server cost?

[keith.lamothe]

Well, there's the server and then there's the software.  We've investigated coding our own but that would be a fair bit of effort.  We've investigated all the currently available 3rd party options but none of them meet our needs without requirements that would annoy significant distribution partners.  There's another 3rd party option coming onto the scene later this year or maybe next year that may work.

[Ktoff]

The way Keith suggests it works not exactly like the initial idea.

With the possibility to automatize the hosting player (while maybe not even taking up one slot) could solve it. With one player hosting and leaving the computer the game would crumble when noone plays and the host would have to reset the game (so no leaving the computer run for a weekend)

The idea is similar to an open hosted game, only that the hoster is a bot

Cheers,
KToff

P.S. I would also really like tho online meeting place with a central lobby system, even if i know why you guys have not implemented it. Posting my IP on a public message board is not a thing i really like to do...

[superking]

Even just a chat lobby built into the game- nothing but a built in IRC channel, through which player could then trade IP addresses- would centralise the community ingame

[Ktoff]

Even just a chat lobby built into the game- nothing but a built in IRC channel, through which player could then trade IP addresses- would centralise the community ingame

I second that!

[Thud13]

The central chat lobby in the game would do a lot actually. I know as it stands now, we have a ton of people owning the game over a variety of platforms... the steam chat room never has more than 1-2 people in it. Providing people with a convenient and readily accessible chatroom would be awesome and would facilitate multiplayer games rather well.

I'm in.

[superking]

link it upto the IRC client channel

jobs a good un

[TheMachineIsSentient]

I think the story here is that folks want better community options. Maybe the original idea won't work, but I think the spirit of the question is valid.

[Thud13]

Any way that we could get a build in chat client on the community DLC poll?

[Ktoff]

Any way that we could get a build in chat client on the community DLC poll?

Suggest it in the next communitypoll suggestions (sticky at the top :-) )