On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Shevek:
>
> > What I would like is having separate energie for:
> > - shield
> > - attack
> > - move
> > And one main energie type, which can be transferred to (not from) those types.
> > To make this work, it will be useful that transferred energie cannot be used
> > in the same turn as it was transferred. Otherwise, everybody would just have
> > all his/her energie as shield at the end of every turn, which would make the
> > separation useless.
>
> I think there should be only one energy supply (make life simple!)
Simplicity is indeed a very good argument. :-)
> [dead robots]
> > I'd like them to stay, but if anybody has good arguments for removing
> > them, it's fine with me. I think it would be nice if in a scan, you can't
> > see if a robot is alive or not.
>
> [scanning and looking]
> > I'd say that with short range scanning (looking) you can see also the
> > ID-number of the robot and its communication at channel "local".
>
> Ehm.. I thought we would have an 'anonymous' system: no IDs :-)
Oh, right. I like to have ID's. I stated before you don't need them, but
that doesn't mean you shouldn't...
> >> Team play has not been discussed at all (apart from mentioning it w.r.t.
> >> the energy packets), so all other robots are of type enemy :-)
> > I agree.
>
> Then why do you propose a means of communication?
To the scanner, all other robots are enemies. Not to the program.
> > For communication, I suggest the following method: Every robot can send
> > signals at certain channels:
> > -local:only readible for robots that can see the robot. Costs no energie
> > -group:readible for every robot of a certain group (It does not have to be
> > it's own group) Should cost energie (How much?)
> > -all:readible for everyone. should cost energie (how much?)
>
> IMHO any form of communication makes the robots and the handling of them much
> too complex. No communication is the best. It is fine to me if robots are
> able to identify each other. That could be embedded in the communication
> that each robot sends anyway (e.g. each datablock could start with (short)
> name)
You don't have to use comunication. It's just useful when you're playing
with teams. I would like to have the commands, but in case of all against
all, you would not use them, of course.
> > A compiler would be very hard, I think. What is easier is to write the sourc
> > and encode it before it can be executed.
>
> Which is about exactly what a compiler does :-)
Not at all. A compiter makes it ready for execution. This code would would
not make it executable, but the os could decode any file before it
executes it, which would make it necessary to encode it. It looks the
same, I agree. But a compiler creates ml and this one wouldn't.
> >> I think it would be fun to have the compiler and executor separated. In that
> >> way you can create your own robot, and distribute the _compiled_ code, so
> >> others can test/play with your robot, but not hack it easily...
> >
> >Not to code easily, eighter...
>
> ?? Why?
What I was talking about is a compiler which turns the robot-program into
ml. That sounds quite hard to me. Not impossible, but hard.
Bye,
shevek
****
MSX Mailinglist. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put
in the body (not subject) "unsubscribe msx [EMAIL PROTECTED]" (without the
quotes :-) Problems? contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] (www.stack.nl/~wiebe/mailinglist/)
****
