Metanet Forums

BE_nSPIRED wrote:You could possibly work this into AltArc

jackass wrote:That would be fully awesome, so would it be like an online ned were there are servers for different collabs?

ganteka wrote:I think this would just cause bickering, honestly. It's a cool idea, but everyone would take initiative and do things their self and contradict each other. People's progress could be lost when another user undoes it.

jackass wrote:

ganteka wrote:I think this would just cause bickering, honestly. It's a cool idea, but everyone would take initiative and do things their self and contradict each other. People's progress could be lost when another user undoes it.

That could happen anyway, they could send back the map data with half his work gone, no dif exept its easier to fix up ''Uz's way''
And Why would someone collab if theyre not going to accept eachothers ideas?

Unreality wrote:why flash player 7?

kkstrong wrote:it would be cool if you could set it so that each player had a certain amount of time with the map, say like 15 seconds or something. then you could have literally two melding ideas working against eachother.

Kablamo_Boom wrote:nice idea, and excatly why am I the one who is doing the mistakes?!?! :P

TribulatioN wrote:That's a pretty good idea.
Amadeus, the two collaborators would still have to agree on things, it's not like you're with a random person who you don't know and you have one screen to make two different maps... They'd agree on who's making tiles first, who has first object placement etc. etc. regardless of that fact that each person has the power to edit the map at anytime.

I wrote:Let's say PALEMOON and I want to collab a map, so we both go to therealn.com/collab and enter one of the five available "tables" (more tables could be added as time passes). The table could be password-protected for secret collabs (PALEMOON could simply PM me the password) or be open for viewers who could watch the magic for themselves. (There could be multiple collabers and multiple watchers, depending on how much bandwidth it would use.) On the table would be a simple left-side Ned and right-hand chatroom-style message program. (This is loosely inspired by Pogo.com's game setup.) The first at the table would get control, and could kick watchers or add them to the collabers at will.

The table's version of Ned would follow the same basic principles and setup, but would support collaboration tools. The table "op" could set limits on objects and tiles (if PALEMOON only wanted mines and chainguns as enemies) or a timer (for true five-minute-maps). Other user-suggestions could be added if practical. To playtest a map, a collaber (PALEMOON for now) would click in the upper-right corner of the map on the PLAYTEST button, which would send a message to other collabers saying, "PALEMOON would like to playtest this map" with an allow button or deny button. If they allow the playtest, the other collabers would temporarily forgo access to the map, and give all control to PALEMOON. He would click it again to return control to the users.

After the map is finished, it would be added to NUMA. This is where AltArc could come in with its collab-map feature. A Submit to NUMA button next to the Playtest button would open a pop-up version of the standard NUMA map submission page, which the collabers could fill in. A Submit to AltArc button would do the same, but for AltArc. (This one would support multiple authors, a big plus.) A link would display in the chatroom to the map page to make accessing the newly-completed easier. All the collabers leave the room, opening it up for the next group. (A person joining therealn.com/collab to see all the tables are full will enter a queue for a first-come-first-serve access to tables.

Life247 wrote:

Let's say PALEMOON and I want to collab a map, so we both go to therealn.com/collab and enter one of the five available "tables" (more tables could be added as time passes). The table could be password-protected for secret collabs (PALEMOON could simply PM me the password) or be open for viewers who could watch the magic for themselves. (There could be multiple collabers and multiple watchers, depending on how much bandwidth it would use.) On the table would be a simple left-side Ned and right-hand chatroom-style message program. (This is loosely inspired by Pogo.com's game setup.) The first at the table would get control, and could kick watchers or add them to the collabers at will.

The table's version of Ned would follow the same basic principles and setup, but would support collaboration tools. The table "op" could set limits on objects and tiles (if PALEMOON only wanted mines and chainguns as enemies) or a timer (for true five-minute-maps). Other user-suggestions could be added if practical. To playtest a map, a collaber (PALEMOON for now) would click in the upper-right corner of the map on the PLAYTEST button, which would send a message to other collabers saying, "PALEMOON would like to playtest this map" with an allow button or deny button. If they allow the playtest, the other collabers would temporarily forgo access to the map, and give all control to PALEMOON. He would click it again to return control to the users.

After the map is finished, it would be added to NUMA. This is where AltArc could come in with its collab-map feature. A Submit to NUMA button next to the Playtest button would open a pop-up version of the standard NUMA map submission page, which the collabers could fill in. A Submit to AltArc button would do the same, but for AltArc. (This one would support multiple authors, a big plus.) A link would display in the chatroom to the map page to make accessing the newly-completed easier. All the collabers leave the room, opening it up for the next group. (A person joining therealn.com/collab to see all the tables are full will enter a queue for a first-come-first-serve access to tables.

squibbles wrote:That does sound good, but the timer should definately stop for playtesting time if it is chosen to be set.

Amadeus wrote:

jackass wrote:

ganteka wrote:I think this would just cause bickering, honestly. It's a cool idea, but everyone would take initiative and do things their self and contradict each other. People's progress could be lost when another user undoes it.

That could happen anyway, they could send back the map data with half his work gone, no dif exept its easier to fix up ''Uz's way''
And Why would someone collab if theyre not going to accept eachothers ideas?

Yes jackass, it would be different.
Firstly, what if two people put a different tile in the same place. People would start getting frustrated, because they couldn't completely show their ideas.
Also, data would be lost and not saved (in a traditional collab, there is the data from the older version, whether in pastebin or notepad). Here, it would be lost if someone accidentally deleted or replaced it.