David Haley said:
As Xtian said, grouping with NPC henchmen in games is not only possible, it actually happens. I'm not sure we should be taking WoW as the reference point for all aspects of the design.
No, agreed. However WoW with its 10+ million users must be doing something fundamentally right with its overall user-interface.
David Haley said:
SMAUG doesn't really have GUIDs although it does have the pointer addresses, which would work at least as unique during the lifetime of the objects in question. But presumably, if a server wants to make use of session-unique numbers, they will be willing to cooperate enough to add these numbers.
Agreed again, and indeed Aardwolf did just that for objects.
David Haley said:
Well, you could color things if they're water, and sort them by whether you can pick them up or not; perhaps your presentation layer will entirely separate decorative objects from objects that can be manipulated. Etc.
My reference point here was what you currently see when you look around a room. A one-line description of things. Then I noticed that Smaug coloured some of them, so added enough extra information to colour them too.
I don't know that, for the purpose of a quick "glance around the room" you want to send down weight, cost, all possible flags, etc. when you have no plans to use that data.
What *might* be useful is a "can interact with" flag. Eg. in WoW things you can interact with make the mouse pointer turn into a gear shape as you move over it. So for example, fountains can be drunk from, objects can be picked up, food can be eaten, corpses can be looted. That could certainly be useful. This is heading towards what you do with MXP and its popup menus of interaction.
David Haley said:
This is part of what I was getting at with the complexity of ontologizing this stuff.
Ah, religion again. :P
David Haley said:
I get nervous about fixing concepts too rigidly like enforcing types, and would prefer a more free-form list of properties simply because it's extraordinarily difficult for us to capture all existing uses, let alone predict future uses.
What I was thinking of as a next iteration is to do this:
- Allow free-form types to be sent which in themselves have no specific meaning
- As part of the "hint" message state a relationship between types and the colours to display them (eg. "water" = "blue").
As for flags, I think a type is unique to the object (it is water or it is food, etc.) however other flags like ("can wear it", "can move it", "can sell it") are more like a set.
Again, I think this extra detail might be better implemented as part of something you do when you "look", "examine" or "consider" the object.
Actually in my next iteration I think I'll try to make things more efficient, thus solving these extra issues you raise (like supplying more detail) but sending even *less* data every time you walk into a room. The word "cache" springs to mind here. |