Re: cheating & LOS

["Carl Edman" <cedman@cedman.remote.Princeton.EDU>]

From: philb@cats.ucsc.edu
> I think you're missing something here, Carl. You're claiming LOS is
> BETTER than full transmission, in this case??? But you're forgetting
> the new right side of the corridor in yours, I think.
> 

> You cannot do better than full transmission of maps (with scrolling
> extension) because under current rules, "blank" is just another face,
> or "MAP".
> 

> Either method HAS to transmit a 11x11 grid, PLUS 11 "new" faces for
> each step east after that. blank, or not blank, you still transmit
> them the same way.

No, absolutely positively not.  How often do I have to repeat that the  
protocol I proposed is _NOT_ *NOT* _NOT_ a series of graphical  
instructions to a dumb terminal which can display graphical characters.   
A majority of the criticisms of the protocol labour under that  
miscomprehension.

The server does not tell the client what to draw when and where.  It  
tells the client what it sees.  Where it sees nothing because it is  
behind walls, it does not send map commands.  The client knows for what  
areas it has received map commands and it only displays those.  Those  
areas which are not mapped in, it can display whatever it wants and it  
doesn't need any instructions for it.

BTW, you are a very strange person.  Less than an hour ago you attacked  
the proposal in email for telling the client what items are in plain  
view.  You claimed that obviously I was just trying to make it "easy"  
for players.  Now you criticize the protocol for not telling the client  
what is located behind solid walls.  Is there any consistency to this ?

> The "typeahead" movement thing, should be chucked, IMHO. The client
> checking for key down is fine. But otherwise, it's too much like
> making the player a robot. And that is dangerous to do in the server.
> The client should be able to overide any time, but this might not
> happen, netlag being what it is.

The client can override at any time by sending a new MOVE command.   
However if your client prefers not to send any commands unless there is  
a clear line, it should certainly feel free to.  Just don't write to  
the crossfire list complaining that first your connection was frozen  
and then you were frozen by a chinese dragon.

> The client could implement the "typeahead" completely in itself with
> no problems.

Sure.  If you don't mind another multiplication of the latency.

	Carl Edman