Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
155 lines (130 loc) · 7.82 KB

FAQs.md

File metadata and controls

155 lines (130 loc) · 7.82 KB

FAQs

  • Why transferbypl & sel3card ACTION are not splitted?

    • As the sel3card ACTION can't be removed because of the draw case in result. There, the cards remain in escrow contract as "available" status from "selected" status.
    • So, the procedure is transferbypl >> sel3card.

  • Can cards transferred using transferbypl ACTION be of any no.?

    • Yes, it can be of 1 to any no.
    • It has been kept like this in order to transfer different type a/b cards after the result is draw.

  • During pairing, the second player selected is not the immediate next player in players_list. Shuffle is done among remaining players except player_1 (requester). Why is it so?

    • Because, otherwise, the player will be known beforehand in the backend, which can be accessed from players table
$ cleosw get table gpkbattlesc1 gpkbattlesc1 players --show-payer
{
	"rows": [{
			"data": {
				"asset_contract_ac": "simpleassets",
				"players_list": [
					"gbuser111111",
					"gbuser111114",
					"gbuser111112",
					"gbuser111113"
				]
			},
			"payer": "gpkbattlesc1"
		}
	],
	"more": false,
	"next_key": ""
}

- Here, e.g. requester i.e. player_1 is `gbuser111114` & let's say the player_2 is `gbuser111112`. In this case, the result is already known based on cards.
- That's why the shuffle is done among the remaining players except player_1.
  • What if a paired player presses the Pair button?
    • Error pops up, as the player is present in either 'player_1' or 'player_2' columns of ongamestat table of game contract.
$ cleosw push action gpkbattlesc1 pairwplayer '["gbuser111115", "simpleassets"]' -p gbuser111115@active
Error 3050003: eosio_assert_message assertion failure
Error Details:
assertion failure with message: gbuser111115 is already present with game_id: '10001729600833' in player_2 column of 'ongamestat' table.
pending console output:

  • Why disndcards ACTION is separate, not merged with play ACTION?

    • This is so because in case of nodraw result, play action calls receiverand action (by orng.wax service) which should not have any check statement.
    • Unlike, disndcards ACTION has many check code lines. So, it has been kept separate.
    • And disndcards ACTION to be called after 3 secs of success of play ACTION. Within this interval the rand ACTION can execute.

  • Is the random no. generated open to the users?

    • Yes, the random no. can be viewed in the game contract's i.e. gpkbattlesco transaction history.

  • How does the random no. finds a player as winner? Is the algorithm used open-source?

    • the random no. is calculated using this snippet:
// find game result in "a" or "b"
	inline name find_game_result(const checksum256& random_value) {
	    auto byte_array = random_value.extract_as_byte_array();

	    uint64_t random_int = 0;
	    for (int i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
	        random_int <<= 8;
	        random_int |= (uint64_t)byte_array[i];
	    }
	    
	    name res = ""_n;
	    uint64_t num1 = random_int % 2;				// produces either 0 or 1
		if(num1 == 0)
			res = "a"_n;
		else if(num1 == 1)
			res = "b"_n;

		return res;
	}

  • Is the game going to be only based on 3 cards based?

    • No, there are going to be many games in future and the corresponding cards type selection, count are different.

  • Is the game fee going to be constant i.e. "5 WAX"?

    • No, it depends on the card's category, variant, quality, based on the game type.

  • If anyone gets to buy the card from gpk website, why should I play the game then?

    • This is because here a player can win a card at a relatively lesser price as "game fee".

  • Can a player play multiple game_ids/game rounds at same time?

    • Yes, but for different assets type like simpleassets, atomicassets, etc.

  • Why the permission for execution of play, disndcards ACTION has been changed from gpkbattlesco@active to gpkbattlesco@play, gpkbattlesco@disndcards?

    • First of all, the permission is not changed inside the contract, but has been linked externally.
    • Reason: As the private key has to be used inside the front-end code, that's why custom key has been created for 2 different ACTION(s) - play, disndcards.
    • Reference

  • What if the other player in a game's round doesn't select cards for 2nd time after 1 time draw?

    • There is a time limit of 180 secs within which both the players should select cards to continue further.
    • if either of the player selects cards, then the game_fee shall only be deducted from the defaulter player

  • What if the none player in a game's round select cards for 2nd time after 1 time draw?

    • game_fee will be deducted from both the players.
    • So, this is a motivation for both the players to select cards quickly within 180s of time.

  • As we know, when a player selects cards, the player is added into the players_list. Does it also happen in case of post 1-draw?

    • No.
    • There is a check in the contract that if the player is not found in the ongamestat table, then it is added.
    • Please, see this inside gpkbattlesco::sel3card ACTION
	// modify `ongamestat` table with selected cards for respective players
	if ( (player1_it != player1_idx.end()) || (player2_it != player2_idx.end()) ) 					// player found in game_table (after 1 draw)
	{

		if(player1_it != player1_idx.end()) {
			check(player1_it->player1_cards.empty(), "cards are already present for this player. So, can't select cards again.");
			
			player1_idx.modify(player1_it, get_self(), [&](auto& row){
				row.player1_cards = card_ids;
				row.player1_cards_combo = card_ids_type;
			});
		}
		else if(player2_it != player2_idx.end()) {
			check(player2_it->player2_cards.empty(), "cards are already present for this player. So, can't select cards again.");
			
			player2_idx.modify(player2_it, get_self(), [&](auto& row){
				row.asset_contract_ac = asset_contract_ac;
				row.player2_cards = card_ids;
				row.player2_cards_combo = card_ids_type;
			});
		}

	} else {											 										// player NOT found in game_table
		// add player name into `players` table, if not already added
		action(
			permission_level{get_self(), "active"_n},
			get_self(),
			"empifyplayer"_n,
			std::make_tuple(asset_contract_ac, player)
		).send();

	}

  • In case of post 1-draw, when only 1 player selects cards, then the defrayer's cards remain selected. And in this situation, ofcourse they are not added in the players_list as well (because the defrayer already exists in one of the game_ids). So, will the cards remain selected?

    • No.
    • After play (result: 1-draw) >> del1drawgame (the defrayer's cards are also made available)

  • In case of no-draw, inside play ACTION, why there is a temporary deduction of game_fee, when the game_fee is permanently deducted during disndcards ACTION?

    • First of all, the game_fee is temporarily (remains with gpkbattlesco contract) deducted & permanently transferred to gpkbatincome account.
    • This is due to security reason:
      • the player(s) could withdraw game_fee in the time they get b/w post play & pre disndcards ACTION(s) execution. This wait time (around 3-5 sec. max. 3 mins) has to be given because of a. cloud-based triggering of requestrand-receiverrand ACTION pair. b. & then execution of of disndcards ACTION for disbursing cards to winner & loser. This disndcards is kept separate i.e. not put inside receiverrand ACTION because: - no check() condition can't be put inside. check is needed for verifying multiple conditions (put inside the code).

  • Why a player is not able to see the games like Case-1 in usergamestat TABLE?

    • Because those games were not played successfully.
    • Hence, the games of Case-2 & Case-3 are added, but not Case-1.