Forums

ForumsNews, Feedback and Suggestions

Armor Games v3 Should have a chat system

Thread Locked

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 7:28pm

XSilentPhantomX

XSilentPhantomX

327 posts

im not sure if this is a remake, but yeah. A instant chatting system like on facebook with those online, would be a remarkable edition for something such as this. With good direction, this could become even MORE of a social site.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 8:05pm

cormyn

cormyn

2,863 posts

Knight

Chat servers take a lot of resources, and the sheer number of users we have online at a time would make a live chat scroll by so fast you wouldn't be able to read it. :o)

We have discussed the idea before though. We'll have ways to comment on things going on around the site, but a live chat isn't something we're considering right now.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 8:09pm

thaboss

thaboss

882 posts

i don't think that a chat system would be a good idea. AG will always be more of a gaming site than a social site. I mean, it still is a social site but a chat system would just be extra stuff that you don't need.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 8:15pm

cormyn

cormyn

2,863 posts

Knight

Oh, we'll be adding social aspects to the site in AG3, but a live chat would be too resource-heavy.

Perhaps a one-on-one chat, like the private chat that Facebook lets users do with one friend at a time, maybe, but not for launch.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 9:39pm

25wes25

25wes25

317 posts

What about a chat system that has multiple lobbies for community, each thread and each active topic the the creator attaches.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 9:50pm

2014631

2014631

1,770 posts

Perhaps a one-on-one chat, like the private chat that Facebook lets users do with one friend at a time, maybe, but not for launch.

That's what I was thinking. On my website, I have a one-on-one chat that is way more commonly used than the other chat room, because with the private chat, you can go on something, or play a game at the same time, while talking. Also, I think that they should get to talk on messages, but not chat, unless they're friends. Because a spammer would very likely talk to random people. But you could always stop that problem with a "block" button.

 

Posted Oct 4, '10 at 9:54pm

slayguy8

slayguy8

510 posts

yeah i like the 1 on 1 idea it would help instead of waiting for comments and hi 201 sorry last part random

 

Posted Oct 5, '10 at 12:42pm

MrDayCee

MrDayCee

8,319 posts

Moderator

The 'one-on-one' version sounds good to me! :)

But for the 'open' version, I don't know... I've been to several chats before in the past and at one particular time SO many people would enter at the same time, that it would become completely clogged and you had to be Superman with his X-Ray eyes to read all the entries! @.@

My vote goes to the 'one-on-one' version! =)

 

Posted Oct 5, '10 at 12:47pm

Freakenstein

Freakenstein

8,148 posts

Moderator

Well I guess we can say goodbye to CountingTime if we get 1-1 Chats!

That way we can gossip about certain users fufufufufufufu....

1-1 : all    Community Chat: zero

Aside from the "so fast you cannot read the messages" problem, there's also the fact that some of the messages may be questionable. That was certainly a problem back then, and it will be a problem in the future ;(

 

Posted Oct 5, '10 at 2:26pm

knight_34

knight_34

11,455 posts

I personally have nothing against a chat system. I believe by the time AG is able to implement a live chat system, it will be built on or hosted with an effective platform (differing from Meebo used for the last system) and it will be properly moderated this time. That is definitely not when AG3 is released.

As for "too many people entering at once", that's why you have separate chat rooms. :D Yes, I'm in favour of both suggestions.

Well I guess we can say goodbye to CountingTime if we get 1-1 Chats!

The only point CountingTime has is that we can all chat to each other simultaneously, in one place. Didn't you already realize that? If I only needed to chat to one person, I would of picked up their IM usernames already.