Schalken
-
Posts
8 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Schalken
-
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Wow, it really is so simple to do.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The actual coding would not be a quickie -
a fundamental change like this would have
sure been unreasonable after the project was
initiated. However, starting from scratch,
triple swapping is not required for security
reasons, or for any other reason, nor is it
the most efficient implementation.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm going to let this one slide
a bit because it is obvious that English is
not your native language. However, I would
advise you to choose your words a bit more
carefully.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps it was there to see if anyone would
decry and bitch. It is not necessarily easy
to notice at a glance, sometimes not even
after professional research.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And if you did mean this as an insult
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are no intentional insults in my
messages.
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Schalken, this is really a dumb discussion. Sorry to say that, but it is
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Have you noticed that jolly face is nastier
when inverted?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The way the game system works is that orders are stored then executed. There is no code in there to have orders stored for Turn X, executed, and then Turn Y's stored all in one file. That is what your proposed system (one that we thought of about 2 years ago I might add
) requires.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
P1 only needs position data and X-1 playback
he can view. It's a clean table after exec.
The following transaction will be slightly
heavier, P2 receiving P1 orders, playback
and position data.
They say that coding for too long reduces
your IQ, after which you start producing
stuff that is unnecessary heavy - tripple
swapping, 50% longer pbem mechs. Done for
greater good afterall, hot seat and TCP/IP.
I ditch the pbem alright. The game itself is
damn fine though. (was that enough foul
language to ban me so I don't have to
continue this thread any longer, please?)
-
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hunt52:
Why what you suggest won't work:
turn 1
------
Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2]
Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1]
turn 1 is executed
# On whose computer? If is is executed on
# both computers the results of the turn will
# *not* be the same. Try it out. Save a game
# and play through the same turn eight or ten
# times. They will all be different.
#
# One computer has to execute the turns which
# necessitates an e-mail bringing the total
# back to the 1.5 emails per turn mark.
- Bill<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Man, is this REALLY so hard to comprehend?
Did I say it would be executed on both
computers? No? Then why are you presenting
such a bizarre comment?
Every and each turn would always be executed
on ONE and ONLY ONE computer. On whose
computer? On the *other* guys machine - as
it is now. This part of the proposition is
identical to current implementation and thus
was not elaborated in the first msg.
However, it is different in that you'd always
get to plot orders after viewing the movie.
This has not anything to do with turn
resolution, which apparently surpasses some
peoples comprehension. Read it again and you
understand, hopefully, at least Fionn did.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR># Sorry - I have PERL on my brain.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think you have void structures on your
brain.
Live with me... -
Fionn,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe you'll find that the
onus is on you to do the basic research.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Naturally. After several hours of reading literally hundreds of messages on pbem and
cheating, I'm however unable to find the
info I'm looking for.
Steve does not owe me anything, so he can
just ignore me or ban me.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>FWIW of course one extra file swap
isn't absolutely necessary to prevent
cheating.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There we finally have it. Thanks Fionn.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HOWEVER if you READ Steve's
response you'll see he talks about
programming issues impinging on
the decision.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
These 'programming issues' are exactly what
I'm interested in. Of course, nobody is
obliged to give me a detailed answer, but
I would be greateful for it.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure that if this is such a
major problem for you you can go get another
game with a turn system u like
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd rather not change for the worse.
-
Steve,
Of course I keep missing your main point,
because you are yet to explain it in detail.
Could you please point me to the threads
you're referring to? Until then, I'm not any
wiser I was before.
In one thread BTS (was it you) said that one
extra file swap is absolutely necessary to
prevent cheating. As I explained in my first
message, this extra swap is NOT necessary to
prevent cheating.
Could you please refute this argument?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Big Time Software:
We can only have ONE method for turn
resolution. If you have ever made a computer
game of this complexity you would understand
that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would understand it simply by somebody
giving a detailed answer.
But thank you for your attempts to enlighten
me so far.
[This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]
-
Ok, after lots of tedious searching, amongst
the dozens of messages dealing with pbem
mechanism and security, only one partially
covered my proposition. It was posted by
Dar on 11-01-1999, but alas, was never
commented by BTS.
Of course each and every turn would only be
resolved on one and only computer. Either
alternating between Player A's and B's
systems or solely on A's or B's.
Thank you for your replies, but they didn't
shed any light on this. If somebody has
the knowledge to elaborate on exactly why
my proposition would not work/prevent
cheating, please indulge me. Otherwise I
have to conclude BTS has made a major
error on this one.
No offense to anyone.
[This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Schalken (edited 03-19-2000).]
-
Being new to this board, I'm sorry if this
was discussed before, but the search feature
is inconvenient and you guys are using
rather non-descriptive subject headers
anyway.
In an ideal system, movies & orders would be
combined into one file and swapped as
follows:
turn 1
------
Player 1 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 2]
Player 2 deploys and issues turn 1 orders [sends to player 1]
turn 1 is executed
turn 2
------
Player 1 sees turn 1 movie
Player 1 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 2]
Player 2 sees turn 1 movie
Player 2 issues turn 2 orders [sends to player 1]
turn 2 is executed
turn 3
------
Player 1 sees turn 2 movie
Player 1 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 1]
Player 2 sees turn 2 movies
Player 2 issues turn 3 orders [sends to player 2]
turn 3 is executed
[...]
Cheating is not possible because nobody sees
the movie after plotting (this is identical
to implementation).
A 30 turn scenario would require only 60
file swaps to be completed (CM beta demo
requires 90!). Not to mention my frustration
after seeing the movie and not getting
a chance to give orders right away. Because
most gamers have other things to do besides
playing CM, one swap a day is reasonable.
This current system unnecessarily lengthens
typical scenarios by an entire month! I can't
believe how the authors have managed to
overlook such a simple, user friendly
solution.
Live with me...
SPR: Historical & Tactical Analysis (fm PE Forum)
in Combat Mission Archive #2 (2000)
Posted
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes, SPR had lots of historical flaws
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, the combat sequence at the end of SPR was realistic. It was showing off the combat mission AI attacking.