Follow-up Comment #8, patch #4156 (project freeciv):

> You've nothing to worry about with your tone.
Glad to hear it.

> I hope you didn't take any offense from mine
Not at all.

----

I did some work on server side action enabler evaluation last week using the
two bit vectors approach. It wasn't posted since it wasn't finished.

> This way, the uncertainty is signalled to the player by the lack of a
percentage chance that's usually there.
I like this idea. It should be broken down in smaller steps. By (at least
temporarily) adding a special value for "probability not correct yet" the
probabilities can be added in follow up patches. I'll try to port the work I
did last week to this approach.

> here's a message sequence chart showing how the revised interaction would
work: 
I think it should be modified so it won't present the player with possible
outdated information. Especially if the player must pay for it.
The approach I have used in my existing work is to add an extra round trip in
cases where the server discover that multiple actions are possible. When the
server discover many alternatives exist (say in a move) it will send a hint
(actor and targets) to the client. The client will then queue the hint. When
time has come to process it the client will ask the server about what the
choices are in the same way as if the player took initiative to do a
diplomatic action without moving the unit. (This will also fit better with the
information price you are suggesting) The client then chooses like in your
diagram.

> We might want to add the option for the client to try a particular action
"blind" without getting the menu first
My plan is to add something that in the client will appear like "go to and do
$ACTION".

> Exactly how much ruleset authors get to configure what the server sends for
these action "menus" I'm less sure about.
I'll probably end up generalizing actions. Cost (and when its payed) should
then be configurable.

----

> one thing I like about moving to this model is that it allows actions other
than movement/attack to be made by other kinds of units
Not trying to argue against sending the probability (your UI idea convinced
me). How would the 3 states design would prevent this? Since I had moving
regular attacks, movement and more to it in mind when I created it I would
appreciate to know what I did wrong so I can learn.

----

> Whether an action is reported as chance=-1, probably via the effects system
As "counter effects" probably will show up as well a new concept may be
required to make room for an extra requirement vector.

> I'd rather not add a third kind of thing like that.
If it is server side it could use requirement vectors, become rule set
specific and be combined with the above.

Hmm... It we rename meta knowledge to "sensors" and rename "actions" to
"actuators" our terminology will match the one used in AI text books.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://gna.org/patch/?4156>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Gna!
  http://gna.org/


_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to