Feature Request: Bring back the Multiplayer IP entry dialogue

Would you like to see the Multiplayer IP dialogue brought back?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 85.2%
  • No

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
Make sure you guys leave some comments as to why you want the capability back as well. Telling KE you want this back via the poll is great but, if they can read your reasons as well it may help them to decide to bring the feature back.

Two more votes in the positive since yesterday!

Current totals:

01.Dec.09 10.20 CDT

23 = Yes
03 = No

88.46% of all respondents want the IP entry dialogue back! Keep them coming!
 
I'd still like to know how many people voted yes thinking it would eliminate the need to configure the router for portforwarding. Direct ip entry would not negate the need to forward ports. It would probably eliminate the verification step, but not the need to forward ports. That's a problem.
 
jeffpn said:
I'd still like to know how many people voted yes thinking it would eliminate the need to configure the router for portforwarding. Direct ip entry would not negate the need to forward ports. It would probably eliminate the verification step, but not the need to forward ports. That's a problem.

I'm sure KE, in their infinite wisdom, could figure out a way to incorporate a port test into the host portion of the software if they felt it necessary. I think it really goes back to this being an alternate method of connection to other players.

Since it's an alternate method of connection, and not a primary means of connecting, the majority of users would still be utilizing the list server as their primary means of connecting to other users. That being the case, they would still be required to have their ports opened and forwarded properly to utilize the list server. If not, and they want to use the IP entry box as a way to skirt the port check, then if/when they get poor results and complain they can be pointed to the beloved MP configuration sticky. :rolleyes:
 
I think it would be the primary method of connecting for the people who can't figure out portforwarding, and therfore can't use the list server. So I guess those people in that category would post their IP address in a hosting thread, and I could ignore it, knowing they are probably not stable sessions. And you could invite people privately, people you know who are networked properly, so you know you wouldn't have a problem. Like you said, if KE incorporated verification that would solve the problem, as well. And yes, that is an awesome thread you mentioned! ;)
 
Yes, I agree that it would be the primary means of connecting to others for people who couldn't or refused to figure out how to configure their ports. That group would be pretty small though since most people would want to use the list server to find other people to connect to. This statement is synonymous with the idea that walking will be the primary means of transportation for people who can't or chose not to use other means.

Since it would be more of a hassle to go find active sessions posted in a forum as your primary method of joining a MP session, even those having trouble configuring their ports would find it advantageous to figure it out so that they could use the list server.
 
js3862 said:
.Since it would be more of a hassle to go find active sessions posted in a forum as your primary method of joining a MP session, even those having trouble configuring their ports would find it advantageous to figure it out so that they could use the list server.
And to continue your analogy, people who find it too time-consuming to walk should figure out how to get a car. I don't understand the relevence of your analogy. Just as there are those who would like to buy a car but refuse to get a job, there will always be those who can't or won't forward their ports. Doesn't mean they aren't there.
 
jeffpn said:
And to continue your analogy, people who find it too time-consuming to walk should figure out how to get a car. I don't understand the relevence of your analogy. Just as there are those who would like to buy a car but refuse to get a job, there will always be those who can't or won't forward their ports. Doesn't mean they aren't there.

The relevance of the analogy is to show that you can make the sort of statement you made about people wanting to skirt the port tests concerning just about anything and any group of people you would like. Yes there will exist a group of people who would chose to use that as their primary method of connection but their circles would be limited to only those who can't or won't figure out their ports. If they chose not to deal with the configuration that would be their choice not to do so and wouldn't affect me either way under normal circumstances.

The group that would use this as their primary connection method would be a limited number of people and the incentive would still be there for them to fix their ports to gain access to the game and other hosted sessions. IMO I don't see this as having much potential for being a problem in the bigger scheme of things.
 
This feature would offer no more incentive to learn how to forward ports than the current way to join a mp session does. There will always be people who can't or won't forward their ports, incentive or not. If they can't do it, they can't do it. Like you said, it would be a secondary way for most people. But it would be primary for those who don't have their routers set up properly. I have nothing against KE implementing this feature if they write in a port verification script. Heck, I'd probably never use it, so it wouldn't affect me anyway. To me the only time this feature makes sense is for the less than one percent of the time that the server is down. But I don't NEED to mp. I'd rather see KE spend their time on things everyone would benefit from, like the initial crash lag issue, and things like that.
 
jeffpn said:
I'd rather see KE spend their time on things everyone would benefit from, like the initial crash lag issue, and things like that.
Ahhh... There is rational thought... :)

Regards
Michael
 
theluthier said:
Ahhh... There is rational thought... :)

Yeah, anything you disagree with is always fair game for the being a 'waste of the developers time' shtick. Because, as we all know, it takes the entire staff to work on bugs all day, everyday leaving nobody with any developing skills to work on feature requests. :rolleyes:

If fixing bugs was the only priority they had we wouldn't be installing a new version of the product with a lot of great new features. No, I'd rather have a balance of new features and fixes. Personally, I think the guys at KE are smart enough to handle scheduling of development time in order to handle feature requests, changes and bug fixes all at the same time.
 
Think of it this way: tens if not hundreds of thousands of copies of RF have been sold. Log onto the list server. How many customers actually log in with any regularity? Not very many at all. I bet 250/week is being generous. Of those 250 customers, or even 500 customers if you think it's more than 250, a very small fraction of those would be interested in your feature. It's the people who mp who may be interested in your feature. So let's say 20 people are interested. Truly interested. Not the, "Hey, I'm all for a new feature, I'll vote on it" people, but the people like yourself and a couple other people who posted who have expressed a sincere interest in the feature. I just don't see where it's a feature that needs to be implemented. Like I said earlier, the list server is rarely down, and that's the only viable reason for your feature, in my opinion. If you want a private session, make it password protected, and get over the fact that it's a posted session. It's not a big deal.
 
jeffpn said:
If you want a private session, make it password protected, and get over the fact that it's a posted session. It's not a big deal.
To me, the biggest + of G5 next to the performance improvements...

regards
Michael
 
Except for clicking the yes option, few people actually expressed an opinion. I think most of the 23 either would never use the feature, or just wanted it because they would say yes to any new feature idea. Few of the 23 have thought it through, IMHO. js3862, pilgrim, and toad were the only ones to spell out their reasoning for it. There may be others who follow their thoughts, and therefore didn't post, but I bet for the most part people were thinking, "New feature? Sure! Let's have it! What is it?" On the other hand, I'd say 1 of the no votes just likes to dissent. So the final vote, therefore, is 8-3 in favor of adding the feature. When does it go into effect?
 
Last edited:
I disagree but, without their input we won't know. The same could be said for the no votes, without their reasons posted we could reasonably assume that they are just people that would vote no just because they would vote no to anything other than bug fixes. It cuts both ways.

Of course it could be that they all either agreed or disagreed, as their votes indicate but, they wished to do so without having to explain their opinions.
 
Back
Top