 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was so inspired by the Sloyd games that I decided to make my own
derivitive, Sloyd^3, which wraps around a cube. I'm not sure if this has
been done yet. Actually, I'm not even sure Sloyd is a common game -- I only
found it as meaning "woodworking" in sveedish. Am I infringing on somebody's
copyright by using the name Sloyd?
This is a WIP still -- looking for feedback. I'll get the registration thing
in sometime. It is 4:34am here and I have to go to bed because, tomorrow, I
have research papers to write.
http://<broken link>/games/sloyd3/
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The winning condition isn't clear. Where are the red, yellow, and blue
supposed to end up.
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Very professional looking, but I'm not any good at these games. :P
Skip
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Wilcox" <awilcox@unpuzzled!.com> wrote in message
news:405db46b@news.povray.org...
> The winning condition isn't clear. Where are the red, yellow, and blue
> supposed to end up.
>
> AW
I need to make a tutorial for it yet :-) The gems are supposed to end up on
the face with the same color.
Is anyone else having problems with the sound? Mine cuts out for some
reason.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
good stuff and the sound is very clear :)
only the objective of the game isn't clear enough (yet).
and now who's going to do sloyd^4 ?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
| I need to make a tutorial for it yet :-) The gems are supposed to end
up on
| the face with the same color.
Oh, ok, then I win in 106 moves. It should be possible to do better
though...
| Is anyone else having problems with the sound? Mine cuts out for some
| reason.
|
Nope, worked fine here (mozilla 1.6 for linux, flash plugin 6.0r79)
Jerome
- --
******************************
* Jerome M. Berger *
* mailto:jbe### [at] ifrance com *
* http://jeberger.free.fr/ *
******************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFAXd6IqIYJdJhyixIRAv6kAJ41//m6flh/q7s9iB3l6QW8c5n22gCgloXl
FHcUVHNI2ed+qYOLMxqZU7Q=
=X1R4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hm, I solved the puzzle in 102 Moves, whats the record ?
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Hm, I solved the puzzle in 102 Moves, whats the record ?
I got 58.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Thies Heidecke" <h3i### [at] gmxnet> wrote in message
news:405ddf0e@news.povray.org...
>
> Hm, I solved the puzzle in 102 Moves, whats the record ?
>
> Thies
Thanks guys! I have yet to write a part that records a score.
I fixed the sound problem by making sure the movie was not compressed. Also
added some instructions.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmm, now I see those arrows. I think the faces of the cube should be more
color apparent. It looks like you used a light source of the appropriate
color for each face, but I can only see it now that i really look.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Apache wrote:
> good stuff and the sound is very clear :)
>
> only the objective of the game isn't clear enough (yet).
>
> and now who's going to do sloyd^4 ?
>
>
hm, sloyd^4... like the pieces are moving themselves, thus introducing
time as 4th dimension? or were you thinking about a hypercube? that
would be rather brain-melting i think... sounds like fun :-D but it
would be hard to track the pieces that move in the direction of the
fourth dimension, cause we couldn't see them anymore...
bye,
Marc
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I got 58.
>
> - Slime
Dang 63.
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew Wilcox" <awilcox@unpuzzled!.com> wrote in message
news:405dea19$1@news.povray.org...
> Hmm, now I see those arrows. I think the faces of the cube should be more
> color apparent. It looks like you used a light source of the appropriate
> color for each face, but I can only see it now that i really look.
It might work better if I deepen the color of the light shade. Also, if I
make the cube just a bit darker as well. Thanks for the feedback!
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Dan P" <dan### [at] yahoocom> wrote in message
news:405df07e$1@news.povray.org...
> "Andrew Wilcox" <awilcox@unpuzzled!.com> wrote in message
> news:405dea19$1@news.povray.org...
> > Hmm, now I see those arrows. I think the faces of the cube should be
more
> > color apparent. It looks like you used a light source of the
appropriate
> > color for each face, but I can only see it now that i really look.
>
> It might work better if I deepen the color of the light shade. Also, if I
> make the cube just a bit darker as well. Thanks for the feedback!
>
Of course, now I have research papers to write *sigh*.
Struts, here I come ;-/
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
The safest way is to let a server-side script replay the game and calculate
the score by itself. This creates some barrier that might prevent people
submitting a hiscore without playing the game.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:405dfde9@news.povray.org...
> The safest way is to let a server-side script replay the game and
calculate
> the score by itself. This creates some barrier that might prevent people
> submitting a hiscore without playing the game.
That would definitely keep people from not playing the game to submit the
score. It would be an awful lot of work, though. There has to be a way to
just send a score and be absolutely sure it came from the script. The best
method I can think of is the HTTP_REFERRER method, but that one is crackable
too. There has to be a really easy solution that doesn't violate my first
promise to my users: "I will keep it simple." No matter what I do, though,
all a person has to do is sniff the communication channel between the
browser and server and spoof the message. So far, it looks like your method
is the only way to guarantee the person actually played the game. Does
anybody have some insight on how to do this without having the server-side
play the game? By doing so on the server-side, it introduces complexity that
may lead to failures.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
oh boy! i just realized that you can jump over stones and not just move to
adjacent holes :|
That explains however the great score-difference =)
I'm trying again now with my new knowledge...
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Beat this !
I got 54 =)
Thies
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Hmmm, 58, too. I wonder if there's any shorter?
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Beat this !
> I got 54 =)
>
doh!
AW
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Woohoo! 53 :)
But I'm sure it can be done in less.
--
Tek
www.evilsuperbrain.com
"Thies Heidecke" <h3i### [at] gmxnet> wrote in message
news:405e1e1a$1@news.povray.org...
> Beat this !
> I got 54 =)
>
>
> Thies
>
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Yea! I beat that number anyway. Proof in screenshot:
http://www.3digitaleyes.com/misc/sloyd3-in50moves.jpg
Great fun to play, always liked these for there simplicity and yet takes
some thinking too. Good work on it Mr. Prust.
There is a peg game my Dad helped with for Junior Achievement (kids learning
about business) here in the USA way back in the 1970's. They made them out
of wood, were triangle shaped and used golf tees stuck in the holes. Looking
for a picture of one I found this instead, looks more interesting:
http://www.golfun.net/PegGolf.htm
Bob H.
"Tek" <tek### [at] evilsuperbraincom> wrote in message
news:405e36a9$1@news.povray.org...
> Woohoo! 53 :)
> But I'm sure it can be done in less.
>
> "Thies Heidecke" <h3i### [at] gmxnet> wrote in message
> news:405e1e1a$1@news.povray.org...
> > Beat this !
> > I got 54 =)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Hughes, B." <omn### [at] charternet> wrote in message
news:405e52ee$1@news.povray.org...
> Yea! I beat that number anyway. Proof in screenshot:
>
> http://www.3digitaleyes.com/misc/sloyd3-in50moves.jpg
>
> Great fun to play, always liked these for there simplicity and yet takes
> some thinking too. Good work on it Mr. Prust.
Thanks!!!! :-) I was really inspired by Apache's work. I only wish I could
have made it look as good as he did :-)
> There is a peg game my Dad helped with for Junior Achievement (kids
learning
> about business) here in the USA way back in the 1970's. They made them out
> of wood, were triangle shaped and used golf tees stuck in the holes.
Looking
> for a picture of one I found this instead, looks more interesting:
> http://www.golfun.net/PegGolf.htm
Oh, now I remember this game! I used to play it when I was little. I just
didn't recognize it because it wasn't triangular. Cool! That explains the
name, too.
Thanks for the encouragement, guys!!!
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
My perl script actually replays the game. In fact it does exactly the same
as the actionscript (flash5) does when it checks wether a move is possible
or not. I have numbered every square at the board and the client simply
sends the whole sequence of squares clicked on. It has never failed on me,
but of course move sequences of 4000 clicks won't fit in the 255-orsomething
character maximum of a get.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:4066171f$1@news.povray.org...
> My perl script actually replays the game. In fact it does exactly the same
> as the actionscript (flash5) does when it checks wether a move is possible
> or not. I have numbered every square at the board and the client simply
> sends the whole sequence of squares clicked on. It has never failed on me,
> but of course move sequences of 4000 clicks won't fit in the
255-orsomething
> character maximum of a get.
I was thinking of sending the XML from the game encrypted. I could use a key
that only the server and the client knows about. The tough part of that is
making it so that a person could not extract the key from the SWF file. I
figure the way to do this would be to disable debugging, enter a password,
and just for good measure, use a very cryptic key as well. Then, I could
package it into a standard movie and drop it into future FLA files to add a
level of security to score reporting. This is /still/ not completely secure,
though; any solution that puts anything in client memory will not be
completely secure by design. This would just be theft deterrant. But, it
just seems like a lot of work for little gain.
Maybe just using SSL would help somehow?
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Any flash file can be reverse-engineered, so if I were you I wouldn't do any
hardcoding of keys with flash clients. It's quite simple to decompile them
or to read the bytecode! But it will lower the amount of people who actually
succeed in cheating considerably, especially if you run the thing over
https. (That's secure http which runs over an encrypted port 443 if i'm
right.)
Believe me, it's much easier to replay the game server side than *trying* to
secure the thing client side.
The make cheating as even more difficult: use https, replay the game
server-side and prevent client-side browser caching as much as possible (if
that doesn't happen already because of https). But that involves much more
data transfer on later visits or page reloads.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:40662233@news.povray.org...
> Any flash file can be reverse-engineered, so if I were you I wouldn't do
any
> hardcoding of keys with flash clients. It's quite simple to decompile them
> or to read the bytecode! But it will lower the amount of people who
actually
> succeed in cheating considerably, especially if you run the thing over
> https. (That's secure http which runs over an encrypted port 443 if i'm
> right.)
> Believe me, it's much easier to replay the game server side than *trying*
to
> secure the thing client side.
Thanks for the advice! You make a good argument for running the game on the
server-side, even if it is just to compute the score. It is the only way I
can think of too that would truly be secure.
> The make cheating as even more difficult: use https, replay the game
> server-side and prevent client-side browser caching as much as possible
(if
> that doesn't happen already because of https). But that involves much more
> data transfer on later visits or page reloads.
Another great idea!
For my next game (after I finish the DML transfer to C++) I will make Flash
just the display module and keep everything on the server. I'm not sure what
Cedant's policies are on running server processes of my own, though. They
have such an awesome service, I wouldn't be surprised if it were allowed.
--
- Respectfully,
Dan
http://<broken link>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Dan P wrote:
> "Apache" <apa### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:40662233@news.povray.org...
>
>>Any flash file can be reverse-engineered, so if I were you I wouldn't do
>...
BTW: I don't know if anybody is interested, but if they would like the
source .fla file for the game, please feel free to ask.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
