MUD-Dev
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: [MUD-Dev] Room-based vs. coordinate-based
In <01IK40LS7M3690PX67#nova,wright.edu>, on 06/15/97
at 03:31 PM, S001GMU#nova,wright.edu said:
>From: clawrenc#cup,hp.com
>>In <01IK0ROHGSBM90PQJB#nova,wright.edu>, on 06/13/97
>> at 09:29 AM, S001GMU#nova,wright.edu said:
[Shoehorn, 2 people and 15 tiny objects.... ]
>>>I'd be tempted to add a scale to each neighborhood. The scale would
>>>be a range of object sizes allowable within that neighborhood.
>>>anything too big or two small gets shuffled into a neighborhood of
>>>the appropriate scale, creating a new one if none exists.
>>>Neighborhoods of differing scale can overlap eachother with no real
>>>problems.
>>
>>The problem is that scale does not denote suitability for receiving a
>>message. Should the player currently inhabiting the body of a flea
>>not receive the mesage while the troll he's biting will receive the
>>message?
>A tiny creature has a vastly different range of vision from a giant
>creature (in general... yes I know there are exceptions on both
>sides). A flea on the rabbit that got pulled out of the hat may only
>know that suddenly it is light out rather than dark, and a dragon in
>the next room may not even notice that those puny mortals are doing
>much of anything. What you see is entirely a matter of scale.
The exceptions that you reference are what define this as an invalid
model. We cannot safely define the suitability of an event for an
object as a function of the object's size. What's worse, we can't
even define the suitability as a function of size, and then add in a
special-case function to track the exceptions -- it just gets too
nasty.
>>I don't see that scale offers a value here.
>I disagree. :)
Now this not to say that neighborhoods should not segregate their
members on the basis of some criteria so that two neighborhoods which
occupy a single coordinate range may each contain objects the other
does not. *That* I think is a profitable avenue to explore. Its
using scale as the criteria that I don't see as workable.
>>>Are there any glaring problems with that? I've had some difficulty
>>>following exactly what you guys are talking about, but that probably
>>>stems from not really reading the first couple of messages too
>>>thuroughly. Will have ot go back and re-read those. ;)
>>
>>Marian asked a similar question. I'll attempt to recap later today or
>>tomorrow.
>Thanks. :)
Its now obviously later than that tomorrow. I'm still trying to
scrape time together for a summary. I hope by tomorrow.
--
J C Lawrence Internet: claw#null,net
(Contractor) Internet: coder#ibm,net
---------------(*) Internet: clawrenc#cup,hp.com
...Honorary Member Clan McFUD -- Teamer's Avenging Monolith...
- Thread context:
- Testing.,
coder coder#ibm,net, Mon 16 Jun 1997, 04:58 GMT
- Room-based vs. coordinate-based,
S001GMU S001GMU#nova,wright.edu, Fri 13 Jun 1997, 21:42 GMT
- List message losses,
coder coder#ibm,net, Thu 12 Jun 1997, 12:21 GMT
- Digest support,
coder coder#ibm,net, Thu 12 Jun 1997, 12:15 GMT
- Re: mention from Mud-Dev,
clawrenc clawrenc#cup,hp.com, Wed 11 Jun 1997, 00:45 GMT
- Commercial interests and rules,
clawrenc clawrenc#cup,hp.com, Tue 10 Jun 1997, 22:26 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]