TS 5: Feature requests (collection thread)

[Trunkz Jr]

Then TeamSpeak would have to redevelop a complete friend system, simply add one as a friend and seeing where he is, is a bit creepy

Teamspeak 3 has been out for like 10 yrs I think they've had more than enough time to upgrade and provide something better to gamers it's sad it took something like Discord to begin this, I doubt they would say it's because of that but let's all be honest here.

Feature wise teamspeak isn't terrible, visually tho while the layout is great (I hate the layout of discord) everything is outdated, even channels to make them nice using *cspacer just to make some channels more organized all these need to be easier done.

[fspower]

Why exactly?

Because it is easier and faster to use common HTTP libraries than to use telnet parsing. Including \r\n.

[AndryGabry]

removed unsupported language

English:
create an immutable / masquerable id and create a type of ban for that id, because it is not possible for one to restart the modem or use a proxy / vpn to evade the ban

everything can be changed, even the hardware id

they already said they wont do that and i understand why.

I know that everything can be changed, I speak of a more complicated system to change, a system that does not allow an 8-year-old to go download software and break without even committing a bit, it does not have to be hardy hwid but at least something more substantial than the ip address

removed unsupported language

[numma_cway]

This is technically impossible.

[florian2833z]

Encrypt absolutely everything (including file transfer)

[MarkL4YG]

Because it is easier and faster to use common HTTP libraries than to use telnet parsing. Including \r\n.

Can you provide a source for that claim?
I would say using HTTP communication adds so much overhead that the performance would be equivalent (if not slightly worse) than a highly specialised and improved parser for a protocol?
However, I too think that upgrading to a less outdated technology for tool<->server communication would be a benifit. At least TLS should be supported in my opinion.

[fspower]

Can you provide a source for that claim?
I would say using HTTP communication adds so much overhead that the performance would be equivalent (if not slightly worse) than a highly specialised and improved parser for a protocol?
However, I too think that upgrading to a less outdated technology for tool<->server communication would be a benifit. At least TLS should be supported in my opinion.

Easier: a oneliner curl call vs. multiple lines
The "faster" is meant as faster development time, because you don't need wo waste time implementing a broken telnet interface. Performance would not be much different.
Also you can use the existing HTTP infrastructure. Basic Auth, TLS, Certificates, Reverse proxies like nginx.

[SONIYATSI]

It'd be really useful if you could use Teamspeak on devices like the Raspberry Pi which is ARM based but there are no ARM TS builds... so some ARM support for TS 5 would be nice.

[rommyappus]

I know this is more of a server side type of request but with respect to encryption I'd like to see the ability to import a cert chain, matched against the server's hostname, to be used for encryption.

I don't know how teamspeak handles voice encryption now without a certificate or chain of trust but it would make the encryption more robust I would think if we can use strong ciphers and forward secrecy.

[Col_Crunch]

On the topic of permissions:
The #1 thing I would like to see is better channel access permission options.

It is a pain to organize channels when access is determined on a >= basis. Some times I want only this one, or couple of groups to be able to join a specific channel. I cant give them more join power than another group, cause then they can join channels that I might have restricted for the other group, but then if I set it lower the other group can join this channel.

Edit: I get that channel groups exist, but that unnecessarily complicates things, especially when all we need to do is restrict access.

[Dimos]

On the topic of permissions:
The #1 thing I would like to see is better channel access permission options.

It is a pain to organize channels when access is determined on a >= basis. Some times I want only this one, or couple of groups to be able to join a specific channel. I cant give them more join power than another group, cause then they can join channels that I might have restricted for the other group, but then if I set it lower the other group can join this channel.

Edit: I get that channel groups exist, but that unnecessarily complicates things, especially when all we need to do is restrict access.

+1

Channel group management sucks. Its more complicated because its an extra layer of permissions and is also kinda invisible and hard to manage.
Why not just utilize the server groups further and make it a easy "rock, paper, scissor" thing?
Channel X needs group A, B or G to join.
Channel Y can not be joined with groups C or D.

[famous]

Hi guys,

After my first thread about this, I need to talk about it:

I think it would be very nice to have the opportunity to do video conferences on TS5.
And this simply, just in his channel with a button to activate his webcam.

Thank you, Hugo.

[MacNTu]

I think it would be a good feature, but it should be optional. The server administrator must be able to enable or disable this feature, since it will consume more server resources.

[MarkL4YG]

(...) Reverse proxies like nginx.

Just to be correct: You can already to that as nginx can tunnel any kind of TCP connection just fine. Even optionally disabling/enabling TLS encryption. Which I just added support for in my plugin framework by the way so that claim is tested .

[RandomHost]

What we might really need later this year is the ability to disable all upload features in order to comply with new EU copyright laws.