Search Results

Search found 25946 results on 1038 pages for 'cost based optimizer'.

Page 3/1038 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • ODI 12c's Mapping Designer - Combining Flow Based and Expression Based Mapping

    - by Madhu Nair
    post by David Allan ODI is renowned for its declarative designer and minimal expression based paradigm. The new ODI 12c release has extended this even further to provide an extended declarative mapping designer. The ODI 12c mapper is a fusion of ODI's new declarative designer with the familiar flow based designer while retaining ODI’s key differentiators of: Minimal expression based definition, The ability to incrementally design an interface and to extract/load data from any combination of sources, and most importantly Backed by ODI’s extensible knowledge module framework. The declarative nature of the product has been extended to include an extensible library of common components that can be used to easily build simple to complex data integration solutions. Big usability improvements through consistent interactions of components and concepts all constructed around the familiar knowledge module framework provide the utmost flexibility. Here is a little taster: So what is a mapping? A mapping comprises of a logical design and at least one physical design, it may have many. A mapping can have many targets, of any technology and can be arbitrarily complex. You can build reusable mappings and use them in other mappings or other reusable mappings. In the example below all of the information from an Oracle bonus table and a bonus file are joined with an Oracle employees table before being written to a target. Some things that are cool include the one-click expression cross referencing so you can easily see what's used where within the design. The logical design in a mapping describes what you want to accomplish  (see the animated GIF here illustrating how the above mapping was designed) . The physical design lets you configure how it is to be accomplished. So you could have one logical design that is realized as an initial load in one physical design and as an incremental load in another. In the physical design below we can customize how the mapping is accomplished by picking Knowledge Modules, in ODI 12c you can pick multiple nodes (on logical or physical) and see common properties. This is useful as we can quickly compare property values across objects - below we can see knowledge modules settings on the access points between execution units side by side, in the example one table is retrieved via database links and the other is an external table. In the logical design I had selected an append mode for the integration type, so by default the IKM on the target will choose the most suitable/default IKM - which in this case is an in-built Oracle Insert IKM (see image below). This supports insert and select hints for the Oracle database (the ANSI SQL Insert IKM does not support these), so by default you will get direct path inserts with Oracle on this statement. In ODI 12c, the mapper is just that, a mapper. Design your mapping, write to multiple targets, the targets can be in the same data server, in different data servers or in totally different technologies - it does not matter. ODI 12c will derive and generate a plan that you can use or customize with knowledge modules. Some of the use cases which are greatly simplified include multiple heterogeneous targets, multi target inserts for Oracle and writing of XML. Let's switch it up now and look at a slightly different example to illustrate expression reuse. In ODI you can define reusable expressions using user functions. These can be reused across mappings and the implementations specialized per technology. So you can have common expressions across Oracle, SQL Server, Hive etc. shielding the design from the physical aspects of the generated language. Another way to reuse is within a mapping itself. In ODI 12c expressions can be defined and reused within a mapping. Rather than replicating the expression text in larger expressions you can decompose into smaller snippets, below you can see UNIT_TAX AMOUNT has been defined and is used in two downstream target columns - its used in the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT plus its used in the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT (a recording of the calculation).  You can see the columns that the expressions depend on (upstream) and the columns the expression is used in (downstream) highlighted within the mapper. Also multi selecting attributes is a convenient way to see what's being used where, below I have selected the TOTAL_TAX_AMOUNT in the target datastore and the UNIT_TAX_AMOUNT in UNIT_CALC. You can now see many expressions at once now and understand much more at the once time without needlessly clicking around and memorizing information. Our mantra during development was to keep it simple and make the tool more powerful and do even more for the user. The development team was a fusion of many teams from Oracle Warehouse Builder, Sunopsis and BEA Aqualogic, debating and perfecting the mapper in ODI 12c. This was quite a project from supporting the capabilities of ODI in 11g to building the flow based mapping tool to support the future. I hope this was a useful insight, there is so much more to come on this topic, this is just a preview of much more that you will see of the mapper in ODI 12c.

    Read the article

  • CIC 2010 - Ghost Stories and Model Based Design

    - by warren.baird
    I was lucky enough to attend the collaboration and interoperability congress recently. The location was very beautiful and interesting, it was held in the mountains about two hours outside Denver, at the Stanley hotel, famous both for inspiring Steven King's novel "The Shining" and for attracting a lot of attention from the "Ghost Hunters" TV show. My visit was prosaic - I didn't get to experience the ghosts the locals promised - but interesting, with some very informative sessions. I noticed one main theme - a lot of people were talking about Model Based Design (MBD), which is moving design and manufacturing away from 2d drawings and towards 3d models. 2d has some pretty deep roots in industrial manufacturing and there have been a lot of challenges encountered in making the leap to 3d. One of the challenges discussed in several sessions was how to get model information out to the non-engineers in the company, which is a topic near and dear to my heart. In the 2D space, people without access to CAD software (for example, people assembling a product on the shop floor) can be given printouts of the design - it's not particularly efficient, and it definitely isn't very green, but it tends to work. There's no direct equivalent in the 3D space. One of the ways that AutoVue is used in industrial manufacturing is to provide non-CAD users with an easy to use, interactive 3D view of their products - in some cases it's directly used by people on the shop floor, but in cases where paper is really ingrained in the process, AutoVue can be used by a technical publications person to create illustrative 2D views that can be printed that show all of the details necessary to complete the work. Are you making the move to model based design? Is AutoVue helping you with your challenges? Let us know in the comments below.

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • Doing powerups in a component-based system

    - by deft_code
    I'm just starting really getting my head around component based design. I don't know what the "right" way to do this is. Here's the scenario. The player can equip a shield. The the shield is drawn as bubble around the player, it has a separate collision shape, and reduces the damage the player receives from area effects. How is such a shield architected in a component based game? Where I get confused is that the shield obviously has three components associated with it. Damage reduction / filtering A sprite A collider. To make it worse different shield variations could have even more behaviors, all of which could be components: boost player maximum health health regen projectile deflection etc Am I overthinking this? Should the shield just be a super component? I really think this is wrong answer. So if you think this is the way to go please explain. Should the shield be its own entity that tracks the location of the player? That might make it hard to implement the damage filtering. It also kinda blurs the lines between attached components and entities. Should the shield be a component that houses other components? I've never seen or heard of anything like this, but maybe it's common and I'm just not deep enough yet. Should the shield just be a set of components that get added to the player? Possibly with an extra component to manage the others, e.g. so they can all be removed as a group. (accidentally leave behind the damage reduction component, now that would be fun). Something else that's obvious to someone with more component experience?

    Read the article

  • How to update entity states and animations in a component-based game

    - by mivic
    I'm trying to design a component-based entity system for learning purposes (and later use on some games) and I'm having some troubles when it comes to updating entity states. I don't want to have an update() method inside the Component to prevent dependencies between Components. What I currently have in mind is that components hold data and systems update components. So, if I have a simple 2D game with some entities (e.g. player, enemy1, enemy 2) that have Transform, Movement, State, Animation and Rendering components I think I should have: A MovementSystem that moves all the Movement components and updates the State components And a RenderSystem that updates the Animation components (the animation component should have one animation (i.e. a set of frames/textures) for each state and updating it means selecting the animation corresponding to the current state (e.g. jumping, moving_left, etc), and updating the frame index). Then, the RenderSystem updates the Render components with the texture corresponding to the current frame of each entity's Animation and renders everything on screen. I've seen some implementations like Artemis framework, but I don't know how to solve this situation: Let's say that my game has the following entities. Each entity have a set of states and one animation for each state: player: "idle", "moving_right", "jumping" enemy1: "moving_up", "moving_down" enemy2: "moving_left", "moving_right" What are the most accepted approaches in order to update the current state of each entity? The only thing that I can think of is having separate systems for each group of entities and separate State and Animation components so I would have PlayerState, PlayerAnimation, Enemy1State, Enemy1Animation... PlayerMovementSystem, PlayerRenderingSystem... but I think this is a bad solution and breaks the purpose of having a component-based system. As you can see, I'm quite lost here, so I'd very much appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • State Changes in a Component Based Architecture [closed]

    - by Maxem
    I'm currently working on a game and using the naive component based architecture thingie (Entities are a bag of components, entity.Update() calls Update on each updateable component), while the addition of new features is really simple, it makes a few things really difficult: a) multithreading / currency b) networking c) unit testing. Multithreading / Concurrency is difficult because I basically have to do poor mans concurrency (running the entity updates in separate threads while locking only stuff that crashes (like lists) and ignoring the staleness of read state (some states are already updated, others aren't)) Networking: There are no explicit state changes that I could efficiently push over the net. Unit testing: All updates may or may not conflict, so automated testing is at least awkward. I was thinking about these issues a bit and would like your input on these changes / idea: Switch from the naive cba to a cba with sub systems that work on lists of components Make all state changes explicit Combine 1 and 2 :p Example world update: statePostProcessing.Wait() // ensure that post processing has finished Apply(postProcessedState) state = new StateBag() Concurrently( () => LifeCycleSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag () => MovementSubSystem.Update(state), // populates the state bag .... }) statePostProcessing = Future(() => PostProcess(state)) statePostProcessing.Start() // Tick is finished, the post processing happens in the background So basically the changes are (consistently) based on the data for the last tick; the post processing can a) generate network packages and b) fix conflicts / remove useless changes (example: entity has been destroyed - ignore movement etc.). EDIT: To clarify the granularity of the state changes: If I save these post processed state bags and apply them to an empty world, I see exactly what has happened in the game these state bags originated from - "Free" replay capability. EDIT2: I guess I should have used the term Event instead of State Change and point out that I kind of want to use the Event Sourcing pattern

    Read the article

  • Any multiplayer webgame engine based on Flex

    - by Hongyu Ouyang
    My team is developing a multiplayer webgame (like a virtual world) in a short time(several months using after-school time), and I wonder if there are any webgame engine based on Flex. When I googled it I got many results related to HTML5, but I doubted if it is suitable for quick development. Do anyone have the experience of developing a webgame using A good engine? Are there any engine recommended? I prefer actionscript and flex to a javascript or HTML5 solution.

    Read the article

  • Adobe Air turn based multiplayer Game, sockets vs http bandwidth

    - by Arin Aivazian
    I am developing an Adobe Air multiplayer game for iPad. It is turn based and not realtime. It is like checkers game. I want to use a client server model. I have found 2 options to connect to server so far: socket connection and http requests My question is: Is the bandwidth requirement for socket connection vs http requests different? I need the game to work with very low speed internet connections

    Read the article

  • Component-based Rendering

    - by Kikaimaru
    I have component Renderer, that Draws Texture2D (or sprite) According to component-based architecture i should have only method OnUpdate, and there should be my rendering code, something like spriteBatch.Draw(Texture, Vector2.Zero, Color.White) But first I need to do spriteBatch.Begin();. Where should i call it? And how can I make sure it's called before any Renderer components OnUpdate method? (i need to do more stuff then just Begin() i also need to set right rendertarget for camera etc.)

    Read the article

  • Turn-Based RPG Battle Instance Layout For Larger Groups

    - by SoulBeaver
    What a title, eh? I'm currently designing a videogame; a turn-based RPG like Final Fantasy (because everybody knows Final Fantasy). It's a 2D sprite game. These are my ideas for combat: -The player has a group of 15 members (main character included) -During battle, five of the group are designated as active, and appear in the battle. -These five may be switched out at leisure, or when one of the five die. -At any time, the Waiting members can cast buffs, be healed by the active members, or perform special attacks. -Battles should contain 10+ monsters at least. I'm aiming for 20, but I'm not sure if that's possible yet. -Battles should feel larger than normal due to the interaction of Waiting members, active members and the increased amount of monsters per battle. -The player has two rows in which to put the Active members: front and back. -Depending on the implementation, I might allow comboing of player attacks and skills. These are just design ideas, so beware! I have not been able to test this out yet- I have no idea yet if any of these ideas bunched together will make for a compelling game. What sounds good on paper doesn't necessarily have to be good in practice! What I'm asking now is how to create the layout for this. My starting point are the battles in Final Fantasy VI, with up to 5-6 monsters on the left and the characters on the right- monsters on both sides if it's a pincer attack. However, this view would not work feasible with my goal of 20 monsters and 5 characters. All the monsters on the left would appear cluttered unless I scale them far far back. If I create a pincer-like map, then there would be no real pincer-attack possible. If I space the monsters out I force the player to scroll the screen- a game mechanic I've come across and not enjoyed imho. My question is: does anybody have any layouts or guides for designing battle maps in turn-based RPGs, especially with a larger number of enemies taken into consideration? How should it look? I am not asking for specific combat mechanics, just the layout for the moment.

    Read the article

  • Cost of creating exception compared to cost of logging it

    - by Sebastien Lorber
    Hello, Just wonder how much cost to raise a java exception (or to call native fillInStackTrace() of Throwable) compared to what it cost to log it with log4j (in a file, with production hard drive)... Asking myself, when exceptions are raised, does it worth to often log them even if they are not necessary significant... (i work in a high load environment) Thanks

    Read the article

  • What platform to use for browser based turn based strategy game

    - by sunwukung
    I want to write a browser based strategy game that can be played by two players in separate locations. The game itself is predominantly turn based. To that end, I want to determine the correct platform on which to build this game. To prevent gamers "gaming" the system, the business logic needs to reside in the server. I could arguably use AJAX for a large part of the games functionality, but at two key points in the game loop, the opposing player can "counter" the current players move. In addition, when it's time for the players to swap, AJAX polling is likely to fall short, so it's starting to look like WebSockets is going to be a requirement to pull this off smoothly. So, the remaining question is regarding the back end. I'd kinda like to build this in Python/Flask - but this is primarily out of wanting to tackle a project with that language, not neccessarily because it's the appropriate tool for the job. The next most likely candidate has got to be NodeJS given it's (apparently) tighter integration with the WebSockets protocol. My question, then, is regarding the best platform on which to pursue this objective.

    Read the article

  • Time complexity with bit cost

    - by Keyser
    I think I might have completely misunderstood bit cost analysis. I'm trying to wrap my head around the concept of studying an algorithm's time complexity with respect to bit cost (instead of unit cost) and it seems to be impossible to find anything on the subject. Is this considered to be so trivial that no one ever needs to have it explained to them? Well I do. (Also, there doesn't even seem to be anything on wikipedia which is very unusual). Here's what I have so far: The bit cost of multiplication and division of two numbers with n bits is O(n^2) (in general?) So, for example: int number = 2; for(int i = 0; i < n; i++ ){ number = i*i; } has a time complexity with respect to bit cost of O(n^3), because it does n multiplications (right?) But in a regular scenario we want the time complexity with respect to the input. So, how does that scenario work? The number of bits in i could be considered a constant. Which would make the time complexity the same as with unit cost except with a bigger constant (and both would be linear). Also, I'm guessing addition and subtraction can be done in constant time, O(1). Couldn't find any info on it but it seems reasonable since it's one assembler operation.

    Read the article

  • Building a home cluster - hardware and cost analysis

    - by ldigas
    Does anyone know some links / books / anything you can think of, that describe the process of building a little home cluster (when I say home, it doesn't necessarily mean for keeping at home - just means it's relatively cheap and small) for experimental purposes, with a special emphasis on what hardware would be adequate today, and some kind of cost analysis ? Although, if someone here's done it, I'd appreciate all the experience you can share.

    Read the article

  • how should I network my turn based game?

    - by ddriver1
    I'm writing a very basic turn based strategy game which allows a player to select units and attack enemy units on their turn. The game is written in Java using the slick2d library and I plan to use kyronet for the networking api. I want the game to be networked, but I do not know how I should go about it. My current idea is to connect two users together, and the first one to join the game becomes the game host, while the other becomes the client. However after reading http://gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/ it seems my game would be suited to a peer to peer lockstep model. Would that make programming the networking side much easier? Any suggestions on how I should structure my networking would be greatly appreciated

    Read the article

  • iOS Game Center - Quit turn-based games for previous version of app

    - by rasmus
    I have a game on the iOS App Store that uses Game Center for turn-based multiplayer (GKTurnBasedMatch). I recently updated the app with a new game mode and I had to change the network protocol for that to happen. As a result I marked my new version as incompatible with the old one. That is, you cannot see the old games within the new app and you cannot initiate a game with someone with the old version of the app. This works as expected. However: The old games remain active after updating. There seems to be no way to quit them. What is worse is that they still count to the maximum number of games you can start. I have been contacted by players that can only start 1-3 games without hitting the roof. Have anyone experienced this before? Is there any way to quit the games? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • component Initialization in component-based game architectures

    - by liortal
    I'm develping a 2d game (in XNA) and i've gone slightly towards a component-based approach, where i have a main game object (container) that holds different components. When implementing the needed functionality as components, i'm now faced with an issue -- who should initialize components? Are components usually passed in initialized into an entity, or some other entity initialized them? In my current design, i have an issue where the component, when created, requires knowledge regarding an attached entity, however these 2 events may not happen at the same time (component construction, attaching to a game entity). I am looking for a standard approach or examples of implementations that work, that overcome this issue or present a clear way to resolve it

    Read the article

  • Using idle time in turn-based (RPG) games for updating

    - by The Communist Duck
    If you take any turn based RPG game there will be large periods of time when nothing is happening because the game is looping over 'wait_for_player_input'. Naturally it seems sensible to use this time to update things. However, this immediately seems to suggest that it would need to be threaded. Is this sort of design possible in a single thread? loop: if not check_something_pressed: update_a_very_small_amount else keep going But if we says 'a_very_small_amount' is only updating a single object each loop, it's going to be very slow at updating. How would you go about this, preferably in a single thread? EDIT: I've tagged this language-agnostic as that seems the sensible thing, though anything more specific to Python would be great. ;-)

    Read the article

  • Using heavyweight ORM implementation for light based games

    - by Holland
    I'm just about to engulf myself in an MVC-based/Component architecture in C#, using MySQL's connector/Net for the data storage, and probably some NHibernate/FluentNHibernate Object-relational-mapping to map out the data structure. The goal is to build a scalable 2D RPG. Then I think about it...and I can't help but think this seems a little "heavy weight" for a 2D RPG, especially one which, while I plan to incorporate a lot of functionality and entertaining gameplay, may be ported to something like Windows Phone or Android in the future. Yet, on the other hand even a 2-Dimensional RPG can become very complicated, and therefore must incorporate a lot of functionality. While this can be accomplished with text/XML/JSON for data storage, is there a better way? Is something such as Object-Relational-Mapping useful in such an application? So, what do you think? Would you say that there is a place for such technologies? I don't know what to think...

    Read the article

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Turn based battle and formula

    - by Mark Chapman
    I'm building a game called DVP(Digimon Virtual Pet), and in this game other than taking care of your digimon, You can also battle and breed them. I'm working on the battle system (making it first cause the actual pet system will be easy compared to the netplay, or 39DLL)but here is the problem I don't want it to be "too" simple or "too" complicated, but I do want to go by a certain formula. There are str, def, spd, and int. Strength: How hard the attacking digimon is hitting Defense: How much damage your digimon can defend when being attacked Speed: The chance of you missing the enemy Intelligence (battle knowledge): The chance of you hitting a critical hit or defending a critical hit. I can make a super simple turn based example, but I don't know how exactly to make the formulas for what I've explained above, any help?

    Read the article

  • Projectiles in tile mapped turn-based tactics game?

    - by Petteri Hietavirta
    I am planning to make a Laser Squad clone and I think I have most of the aspects covered. But the major headache is the projectiles shot/thrown. The easy way would be to figure out the probability of hit and just mark miss/hit. But I want to be able to have the projectile to hit something eventually (collateral damage!). Currently everything is flat 2D tile map and there would be full (wall, door) and half height (desk, chair, window) obstacles. My idea is to draw an imaginary line from the shooter to the target and add some horizontal&vertical error based on the player skills. Then I would trace the modified path until it hits something. This is basically what the original Laser Squad seems to do. Can you recommend any algorithms or other approaches for this?

    Read the article

  • Are there existing FOSS component-based frameworks?

    - by Tesserex
    The component based game programming paradigm is becoming much more popular. I was wondering, are there any projects out there that offer a reusable component framework? In any language, I guess I don't care about that. It's not for my own project, I'm just curious. Specifically I mean are there projects that include a base Entity class, a base Component class, and maybe some standard components? It would then be much easier starting a game if you didn't want to reinvent the wheel, or maybe you want a GraphicsComponent that does sprites with Direct3D, but you figure it's already been done a dozen times. A quick Googling turns up Rusher. Has anyone heard of this / does anyone use it? If there are no popular ones, then why not? Is it too difficult to make something like this reusable, and they need heavy customization? In my own implementation I found a lot of boilerplate that could be shoved into a framework.

    Read the article

  • Component based design, but components rely on eatchother

    - by MintyAnt
    I've begun stabbing at a "Component Based" game system. Basically, each entity holds a list of components to update (and render) I inherit the "Component" class and break each game system into it. Examples: RenderComponent - Draws the entity MovementComponent - Moves the entity, deals with velocity and speed checks DamageComponent - Deals with how/if the entity gets damaged... So. My system has this: MovementComponent InputComponent Now maybe my design is off, but the InputComponent should say things like if (w key is down) add y speed to movement if (x key is down) Trigger primary attack This means that the InputComponent sort of relies on these other components. I have to do something alone the lines of: if (w key is down) { MovementComponent* entityMovement = mEntity->GetMovement(); if (entityMovement != NULL) add y speed to movement } which seems kinda crappy every update. Other options? Better design? Is this the best way? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Turning a board game idea into a browser based, slow paced gameplay

    - by guillaume31
    Suppose I want to create a strategy game with global mutable state shared between all players (think game board). But unlike a board game, I don't want it to be real time action and/or turn-based. Instead, players should be able to log in at any time of the day and spend a fixed number of action points per day as they wish. As opposed to a few hours, game sessions would run over a few weeks. This is meant to reward good strategy rather than time spent playing (as an alternative, hardcore players could always play multiple games in parallel instead) as well as all kind of issues related to live playing like disconnections and synchronization. The game should remain addictive still have a low time investment footprint for casual players. So far so good, but this still leaves open the question of when to solve actions and when they should be visible. I want to avoid "ninja play" like doing all your moves just a few minutes before daily point reset to take other players by surprise, or people spamming F5 to place a well-timed action which would defeat the whole point of a non real-time game. I thought of a couple of approaches to that : Resolve all events in a single scheduled process running once a day. This basically means a "blind" gameplay where players can take actions but don't see their results immediately. The thing is, I played a similar browser game a few years ago and didn't like the fact that you feel disconnected and powerless until there's that deus ex machina telling you what really happened during all that time. You see the world evolve in large increments of one day, which often doesn't seem like seeing it evolve at all. For actions that have an big impact on the game or on other players (attacks, big achievements), make them visible to everyone immediately but delay their effect by something like 24 hours. Opposing players could be notified when such an event happens, so that they can react to it. Do you have any other ideas how I could go about solving this ? Are there any known approaches in similar existing games ?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >