Glonbal Hall of Champions compatibility
Moderator: George Gilbert
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Glonbal Hall of Champions compatibility
I just wandered how this worked - if people like Gambit (or Lunevar if he does one) a DM variant that was basically still DM but with cool stuff, could it still get counted in the Hall?
- George Gilbert
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3022
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Sounds a good idea.
The whole question of having some kind of "approved" (or perhaps that's the wrong word, but you get the idea) set of dungeons is something that's crossed my mind before but hasn't really needed addressing yet.
The method of marking the dungeons (to show that they havn't been fiddled with) is obviously something that shouldn't be widely known, but I can discuss in private how to do it with people who produce "competition" dungeons which are likely to be played by lots of people (and therefore suitable for highscore tables etc).
Each dungeon however should have its own separate high score table (because variations like damage from charged weapons will change its difficulty), but I'd be happy to host them for the most played dungeons.
The whole question of having some kind of "approved" (or perhaps that's the wrong word, but you get the idea) set of dungeons is something that's crossed my mind before but hasn't really needed addressing yet.
The method of marking the dungeons (to show that they havn't been fiddled with) is obviously something that shouldn't be widely known, but I can discuss in private how to do it with people who produce "competition" dungeons which are likely to be played by lots of people (and therefore suitable for highscore tables etc).
Each dungeon however should have its own separate high score table (because variations like damage from charged weapons will change its difficulty), but I'd be happy to host them for the most played dungeons.
In that case I suggest having not 200 variant DM dungeons hosted, but instead inlcude one more beside O-DM and RTC-DM in the RTC download, maybe called experimental RTC-DM, where many recent suggestions that Sophia commented to be already doable are included.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
- George Gilbert
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3022
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
Indeed - it would make sense to have an "enhanced" DM dungeon which included all the updated high-resolution graphics and any additional changes to the mechanics in it.
Obviously, that would require a team effort, and so would depend on the various people producing these things wanting to work together. Of course, if one person was willing to do it all then that'd work too, but that's quite a substantial effort...
Obviously, that would require a team effort, and so would depend on the various people producing these things wanting to work together. Of course, if one person was willing to do it all then that'd work too, but that's quite a substantial effort...
- George Gilbert
- Dungeon Master
- Posts: 3022
- Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2000 11:04 am
- Location: London, England
- Contact:
I agree that security through obscurity is no security but disagreeing with my statement doesn't logically follow.Sophia wrote:I disagree. Security through obscurity is no security.George Gilbert wrote: The method of marking the dungeons (to show that they havn't been fiddled with) is obviously something that shouldn't be widely known
You could use the common, well-known, and rather secure method of md5sum + crypt.
For example, lets say that I marked files using a well known algorithm but for my own personal reasons wasn't telling you about it. That scenario fits with my statement but not your disagreement.
BTW - you do need more than just knowing a trick to produce marked files. I am aware of such issues
- Sophia
- Concise and Honest
- Posts: 4240
- Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 9:50 pm
- Location: Nowhere in particular
- Contact:
I was disagreeing with the "obvious" part. I don't see how it is at all "obvious" the the method should not be widely known. A sound algorithm would not suffer in the least from being public.George Gilbert wrote:I agree that security through obscurity is no security but disagreeing with my statement doesn't logically follow.Sophia wrote:I disagree. Security through obscurity is no security.George Gilbert wrote: The method of marking the dungeons (to show that they havn't been fiddled with) is obviously something that shouldn't be widely known
I am aware that with the smallishness of this community, such things will probably not be an issue. However, it probably only takes a little more work to do it right than to do it wrong, so I thought I'd throw this out there while any such things were in the early stages.
Of course. I was simply trying to be concise.George Gilbert wrote:BTW - you do need more than just knowing a trick to produce marked files. I am aware of such issues