On Wednesday, 22 May 2013 16:46:54 UTC+8, Daniel Wright wrote: > Thanks everyone for your replies, in particular: > > Mikera: Glad to hear we're along the right lines, and thanks for the > extra advice. I've found your blog series on Alchemy very helpful while > considering this stuff. This game is a little different, and I'm mainly > concerned with what's going on server-side, but a lot of the fundamental > structure is going to be quite similar I think. Definitely going to > take a look at Ironclad too. >
No worries. Ironclad is much more useful to look at from the server perspective: although it's currently set up as single player, it's been designed to allow multiplayer operation in the future. e.g. map updates have visibility filters so that you only send updates to players that can see the area under consideration. This is one of the advantages of the message -> [collection of updates] model. I didn't bother with this extra layer of complexity for Alchemy since it's intrinsically single-player, but my long term plan is to make a split between the Ironclad client and server so it works as a multiplayer strategy game. -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
