Thank you Stormbinder!

[Gandalf Parker]

See? No difference from the players perspective. The only difference is that cheat is impossible. If you don't believe, try me! Tell me how you would cheat with the above setup?

That would be very possible. The give/take would be the processing requirements being higher at the host end but for a pbem game that isnt supposed to matter. The solo players might hate it but they are low on the considerations anyway. Might even possible to have a level of checking avialable so that solo or hot-seat players dont have to wait for it.

Another nice advantage is that if everything is stored by commands instead of interface/results, it might open the door for scripting which would open the door for programmed bots which would open the door for player-programmed AIs. But lets not go there today.

If I were to make such a game, I would make at least these separate components:

• libdom2rules --- the actual game engine, which knows about gems, spell, movements and so on.
• dom2processor --- Uses libdomrules to processes turn files into new turn data files, ready to be sent to the client
• client --- Can represent the client
• ipserver --- Accepts files over IP, checks passwords and so on.
• mailsserver --- The same over SMTP or MTA or whatever.

The work is about the same, but using a software stack instead of one gigantic program makes every much more flexible.

I definately see the "web based game server" thinking showing there. In many ways that duplicates requests Ive made. Seperating host from client, and especially the IPserver, would go far toward good management for hosts.

I did understand the response I got about them not wanting to update multiple programs. Just the game and demo have floated quite a ways apart from each other.

[Esben Mose Hansen]

That would be very possible. The give/take would be the processing requirements being higher at the host end but for a pbem game that isnt supposed to matter. The solo players might hate it but they are low on the considerations anyway. Might even possible to have a level of checking avialable so that solo or hot-seat players dont have to wait for it.

Thank you! I'm sorry for being so persistent, but being a mathematician AND a software engineer, the *can't be done" Messages annoyed me too much to ignore. There are many unsolvable problems, but this isn't one of them.

Another nice advantage is that if everything is stored by commands instead of interface/results, it might open the door for scripting which would open the door for programmed bots which would open the door for player-programmed AIs. But lets not go there today.

I almost wrote something to that effect, but tried for a simple, clear message instead. Yes, the interface to libdom2 could be published, and players could come up with all sorts of stuff

I definately see the "web based game server" thinking showing there. In many ways that duplicates requests Ive made. Seperating host from client, and especially the IPserver, would go far toward good management for hosts.

I did understand the response I got about them not wanting to update multiple programs. Just the game and demo have floated quite a ways apart from each other.

Yes, duplicate code is evil, as the demo demonstrates. And redoing dom2 in the mold I've sketched above now would be a major undertaking. I was just a) trying to illustrate my point and b) secretly hoping IW reads this and gets that detail right for dom3

And in reply to Arryn,. and as I have written (but not in this thread, alas), IW has done an amazing job. I'm very impressed, and doubly thankful for them providing a linux Version, without which I would have missed this game entirely. Expensive as the game was, it is definitely well worth it. I hope IW does make a bit of a profit of it...

[Stormbinder]

That would be very possible. The give/take would be the processing requirements being higher at the host end but for a pbem game that isnt supposed to matter. The solo players might hate it but they are low on the considerations anyway. Might even possible to have a level of checking avialable so that solo or hot-seat players dont have to wait for it.

Actually I think all security checks, especially time-intesive ones, should only be applied to MP games, that's the whole point of them. If player wants to "cheat" in SP game, by giving himslef some advantage, it's his own business. After all the AI is unlikely to complain about it on the board....

I definately see the "web based game server" thinking showing there. In many ways that duplicates requests Ive made. Seperating host from client, and especially the IPserver, would go far toward good management for hosts.

I did understand the response I got about them not wanting to update multiple programs. Just the game and demo have floated quite a ways apart from each other.

IMHO security concerns should not be a problem with demo since nobody play it in MP mode anyway, at least seriosly. Personally I don't see and real need to update demo with improved security, if it would take some serious additional efforts, since it is not an issue there.