[MUD-Dev] Re: DIS: Client-Server vs Peer-to-Peer

Nathan F Yospe yospe at hawaii.edu
Wed Dec 9 12:04:52 New Zealand Daylight Time 1998


On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Ling wrote:

:On Thu, 3 Dec 1998, Niklas Elmqvist wrote:
:> On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Ling wrote:
:> > On Mon, 30 Nov 1998, J C Lawrence wrote:

:> > > This sounds a whole lot like a number of ideas that Ling has been
:> > > talking about for a while now...

:> > Oh, is this a prompt for ME! :)  How timely!  I've just been doing some
:> > thinking along those lines.

:> I did not realize that you had some similar idea brewing -- please tell us
:> more about it. 

:I can't claim to be a budding game designer if I haven't at least thought
:about all the different types of games possible! :)  I think JCL is
:referring to my thoughts about teamwork and how games orientate around
:"Only You Can Save Mankind".  I'm all in favour of wingmen running around
:getting in your way when you're about to do something that's quite vital
:and would probably save their butts too (which happened to me whilst
:playing some game last week).

Pratchett is genious. I couldn't help thinking about Nintendo "Starfox",
and the "teammates" you have to save when I read that. I've had a little
bit of thought in the same direction, especially with the teams for GURU
and the battalions for Singularity 2. Sing 2 shouldn't have that many of
the NPC teammate types...

Unless you weren't refering to the Pratchett book by that name? There is
some need for thought in the area of goals and division of glory when in
a massively multiplayer setting. I used to approach it with split story,
multi-continuity approach (see my old posts on story fragments), but now
am looking at regenerating clones of the same story in a new world, with
new characters and settings. The variables for this sort of thing are at
least dynamic enough for some "freshness" with a cloned story. The least
recognizable aspects are all that remain... the old plot/quest elements.

:> Not sure what you're getting at with "orientation" here, but I tend to
:> agree on the cyborg bit (if I understand you correctly). Dying as a GI in
:> an Omaha beach scenario would probably transfer your control to another
:> soldier in the same unit (or at least someone of the same rank and class) 
:> -- if the cyborg did not take care of diving into cover automatically, the
:> player might find himself walking through a line of characters in a few
:> seconds' time if that MG-42 opens up at an unfortunate time. 

:Ever played X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter?  In that, you pilot a craft in a
:squad.  Dying means you are shunted to another craft in the same squad. 
:When this does happen, I usually take at least a second to check where I
:am, my status, who's on my tail and ohmigosh I'm about to fly into a Star
:Destroyer!  (that's actually happened)  In any case, it's worth looking
:into the game to see what commands for wingmen has evolved over the years. 
:Stuff like attack my target, scram and target the unit that's targetting
:my target. :) 

That could be fun... I've never really considered doing something like a
body-switch on death. If a character has a clone waiting, the mind moves
into the clone in whatever clone-bank is being used. If not, the player,
bereft of one character, is prompted to animate another character from a
list of currently owned characters, or create a new one. It might be fun
to allow the player to select a comparable NPC at the time of death, but
not randomly.

:Back to orientation, a particularly keen enemy could figure out which unit
:is the player, shoot that.  Spot the next unit, etc. 

That's what I don't like about the body-switch approach. That, and it is
a good way to limit the game to combat tactics only...

:> > Or what if the person next to me joined the game on the opposing side to
:> > act as a spy for me?  

:> Well, this is a potential problem in almost any multiplayer game, but in
:> practice, it doesn't seem to be much of one. I have never noticed anything
:> special, at least.

:Maybe it's coz they're too frantic for a spy to relay information that's
:worth anything.  Quake is one.  Hardly anyone ever talks coz you're prolly
:gonna die if you do.  Even if a team member told you that Bubba was in the
:lobby, unless Bubba had a defensive style of play, he's gonna be a
:lightyear away by the time you've digested the snippet of information. 
:Voice communication might change things.  I'll report back whenever I stop
:being too scared to play Half-Life, overcome my motion sickness and work
:out how to use the operator headset. 

:For muds, it's different, I've planted people in other parties to see what
:they're doing whilst I go around setting things up for an ambush.  We did
:shortcut coz the plant is usually a friend who's playing in the same room
:as me.

And this is the reason for the player accounts and the fact that I have in
the client a bit of code to prevent multiple running versions. There would
have to be a second computer on a second provider acting as the plant, for
someone to pull this off. That, or two people with a telephone...

--

Nathan F. Yospe - Born in the year of the tiger, riding it forever after
University of Hawaii at Manoa, Dept of Physics, second year senior (joy)
(On Call) Associate Algorithm Developer, Textron Systems Corp, Maui Ops.
yospe#hawaii.edu http://www2.hawaii.edu/~yospe Non commercial email only





More information about the MUD-Dev mailing list