So how would you handle multiple players looking at eachother? For a single player game this would a much simpler (not simple, simpler :p) task.

Or what if two players are watching the same mob?

English wrote:

So how would you handle multiple players looking at eachother? For a single player game this would a much simpler (not simple, simpler :p) task.

Or what if two players are watching the same mob?

The players' screens are just a bunch of images -- according to Shadowdarke's analogy this is a bad thing, but if you keep the screen size only to the size of the player's viewable area, then it becomes less of a bad thing and more of a way of simplifying the entire process: the chances of dozens of players being on the same screen at the same time are next to nil unless every single player deliberately attempts to do so (and unless they were stress testing the game (with or without permission) that's extremely unlikely).

In other words, any number of players can look at any number of objects simultaneously. It creates image representations of them for the players to see, so if three players are all looking at a single world in an equilaterally triangular formation, each player will see an almost exactly similar thing as the others, except the ships themselves and the planet's orientation are likely to be different.


Anyway, I'm not really in the mood to set up and design this system, though. I have other pressing matters. =P

The players' screens are just a bunch of images -- according to Shadowdarke's analogy this is a bad thing, but if you keep the screen size only to the size of the player's viewable area, then it becomes less of a bad thing and more of a way of simplifying the entire process: the chances of dozens of players being on the same screen at the same time are next to nil unless every single player deliberately attempts to do so (and unless they were stress testing the game (with or without permission) that's extremely unlikely).

It really depends on the type of game, haveing 5-7 players bunched together is actually pretty likely because many people play online games for the interaction and cooperation. Having even 5 players together would mean having representations for each player on each of the 5 players z layers. These "fakes" would have to mirror what the actual players do, meaning every action actually results in 5 actions (one for each fake and one for the actual player). That is duable but seems wasteful and the lag could create some odd interactions (such as attacking the character that was killed on another z-layer but hasn't fully registered yet).

In other words, any number of players can look at any number of objects simultaneously. It creates image representations of them for the players to see

Yep, but the problems start when they start taking actions other than just moving.

Anyway, I'm not really in the mood to set up and design this system, though. I have other pressing matters. =P

Neither am I, so I guess it's settled :p

oh, i just love seeing what peeps write while im gone

If you were gone all the time, you'd be able to see more.

jobe wrote:

Spuzzum wrote:

Foomer wrote:

Ugh... There's nothing worse than hitting the "edge" of space.

Well, of course there's an edge of space -- there's an infinite amount of edges of space, actually.

After all, anything that isn't space is obviously on an edge of space. Earth, for example, is one of the edges of space.

(Hee hee, I'm glad Jobe isn't wandering around much any more. I can talk nonsense that seems to make sense and no one really objects!*)

haha.. i got you now spuzz! Area is space, and area weather ocupied or not by matter is still area.. witch in trun is space. so while matter may be finite there still has to be something outside of that... there is not space

It all depends on your definition of space.

Mathmatically, it can be argued that an area is a two dimensional space, but that is an extremely limited definition which doesn't even apply to this case. In a three dimensional space (a volume), a 2 dimensional object with only a 2 dimensional area takes up no volume at all, so it takes up no 3 dimensional space. I challenge you to find 2 dimensional matter to place in your "area space", since matter is composed of atoms which have 4 dimensions in spacetime. In the same way, a one dimensional object (a line) would take no space in a 2 dimensional area. Yet distance, a one dimensional measure, is the space between objects in any number of dimensions, 1, 3, 4, or more. Such a limited mathematical definition as "area is space" will not suffice for astronomical purposes. You must at least expand it to 3 dimensions.

I believe Spuzzum was working with a definition of space as "the void between celestial bodies". In that case, a celestial body is by definition the edge of space.

Surprisingly, I could find this definition at neither www.m-w.com nor www.dictionary.com, though it seems a perfectly valid definition to me and is one of the definitions I use for space. Both dictionaries had the following humanocentric definition of space, which is widely accepted in the astronomy community and would set Earth as the edge of space.

space: the region beyond the earth's atmosphere

Once humanity leaves the boundries of our Earth, no doubt the astronomers will stop thinking of that planet as the center of the universe and will amend their definition to more closely match Spuzzum's and mine.

jobe wrote:

ah... there is too much space between your ears.

you know.. that sad thing is... that would only be an insult if i were using you definition.

I guess my cranium is rather large compared to the human norm, but I don't find that insulting.

As I said, I use several definitions of space depending on context. Something you seem sadly unable to grasp. You can not apply the "void between celestial bodies" definition to my head, because I am within the Earth's atmosphere and part of this celestial body.

The thing that I find is truly sad, is that you are trying to start an argument over your silly inability to recognize context. I feel a certain degree pity for you, but I am not insulted by your limitations.

My appologies then. I never did get your humor.

oh, well i dont eather. im also not sure if i get language or thought at all. for some reason i lack the ability to be "aware" of myself while still encomapsing some sort of intelect. it seems after i thought about phisics and quantum macanics long enof i began to realize that my "awareness" dosent even exist. at his point i started to stop realizing all together and just let my nural pathways interpet information and react. after about 27 days of this all former "awareness" was gone unless my pathways were recalling some part of memory that requires me to be "aware" that i am "unaware". this has been the most "aware" i have been in a long time. but for some reason i cant get over the fact that it dosent exist.

what the f do you mean?