[tetrinext] Re: let's talk about the chat interface MODULE.

[Kevin Kreamer <kkreamer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 6 Mar 2000, Jared Johnson wrote:
> 
> aahhhhhhhh.
> 
> now i understand.
> 
> what you said before brought me back to the time i was on AOL and downloaded
> this visual basic "connect four" game that worked by sending game data
> in regular
> text into the AOL public chat.  <shudder>
> 

That is almost exactly what I'm thinking :-)  Scary, isn't it?

> the idea of sending it over an irc-type connection, though i really know
> nothing about it, really really appeals to me =) -- not only because the idea 
> just
> seems to jive with the whole way that we want TINT to be -- but also because 
> there
> have been hardly any ideas posted about the protocol that is to be used in 
> TINT!
>  please share your thoughs :)
> 

Well, the way it might work is that every move I make in my client is
broadcast on a specific IRC channel (either as plain text or encoded in
some way).  My client also keeps track of all the moves I received from
the channel by all the other players.  The server(s) would be a few bots
on the channel keeping track of everyone, but not playing.  My client
could ask one or more of the authorative servers what their idea of the
current game state is (which means this whole plan hinges on a consistent
idea of time across all players).  The servers' job would be to stay in
constant agreement as to the current game state.  Lurkers on the channel
would be disply bots, displaying the current game state, but not playing.
A client could conceivably ask a lurker what the current game state is
also, with the caveat that it's not an authorative answer.  Anyway, the
servers (in agreement) decide scores and winners as well as keep track of
them.  They could also provide for the next block or special trick or
whatever.  The servers would each act basically like a Dungeons &
Dragons-style dragonmaster, but they must agree with each other.

The way a machine gets to be a server is that they become ops on that
channel.  One possible rule is that there must be at least 3 servers for a
counted game to happen (counted as in that it affects ranks and stuff).
Lurkers are basically servers, but are not authoratative and also displays
the current game state to their users (the servers could also, I guess,
but wouldn't necessarily).  A game player would be a registered lurker to
whom the servers listen.  That registration would happen before that
particular game of course.  A nickserv type bot (possibly using PGP/GPG)
could insure that I (FsckIt) don't play as Jared (solomon), for example.

I'm not sure of the details, though.  I'm also not sure about performance
or how to keep consistency.  Like I said, an idea but not necessarily a
*good* idea.

> on another note -- if I had told you that it was stupid, would you really have
> shut up??  you are such a wuss!
> 

Hey, you're the old-skool AOL-luser \\'4r3z and pr0n puppie!  Wuss?  Ha!
:-)

> that sounds pretty nifty.  portability is a bit of an issue, but then this
> thread is about the chat interface MODULE so that's actually not such a big 
> deal is
> it.  Also, it makes me all horny just thinking about using epic4+splitfire to
> chat while playing tetrinet.

Down boy!  If epic4+splitfire gets you horny, just imagine how you'll feel
with a woman.

> which makes me wonder.  what about a graphical client?  what about getting to
> have xchat jump into and out of my game's window, with tabs for all my normal
> channels as well as the TINT chat.  and getting to type commands to start the 
> game,
> etc. from that same window.  makes me very horny.  and yet it is so beyond me
> that i really have no idea if it could be done, or how, or whether it would
> really be worth it ;)
> 
> i guess it's this kind of innovative thinking that led microsoft to introduce
> visual basic -- the same sort of provocative thought that eventually led to 
> their
> invention of symbolic links!  hrmmmm...
> 

No comment.

-- 
Kevin Kreamer
FsckIt on #debian