There are three situations in this book that make me bald. The first is content that I think readers may not like very much, so I accelerated it and was ridiculed by the crowd. The readers are quite welcome.

The second type is content that I think is pretty good, but it was collectively boycotted.

The third type is a plot similar to this paragraph. I know it is boring and the reading experience is indeed a bit bad, but I have to write it because there is a big category in the pursuit of this book that is imagining some modes that are still in a vacant state under the conditions of existing technology and social resources. For example, the PVP battle mode of "The Unfaithful Lord".

Readers may feel that I am a waste of time, but this kind of content is actually very difficult, much more difficult than driving, and it is very slow to write. I saw some people saying that writing games is so detailed and it is to count words. I have to lose money by relying on this one... What is most suitable for me to count words is the exploration of business model and how to brag, and that one is very fast to write...

Because I need to repeatedly deduce the game's implementation logic many times, and then confirm that such a mechanism can be made by programmers and can be implemented as a product. The key is how the effect is, and I need to do ideological experiments. In the actual development process, many effects are done by programmers according to the needs of the planning plan, but the effect is completely different, because many places where game designers did not expect, but the program is cold, and any defects in the design model will be reflected.

As for the physical collision distance I wrote, the output is actually incomplete, and the more boring logical argumentation process has been deleted, that is, both sides of the battle must first define three states: attack, standby, and defense. One side must not suddenly turn into an attack state when one side is beaten. Then, when a side a starts attacking, b checks whether it is in standby state at the same time. If so, both sides enter the moving state at the same time, and the movement direction is a random angle in the direction a to b, and the relative distance remains unchanged, b enters defense.

After the a attack is over, b counterattack, so that the screen will show the visual performance of the fierce battle between the two sides. All of these will be written into papers, but in fact I have deleted most of them. And we must also consider the choice from the developer's perspective, not just from the author's perspective. For example, this mechanism abandons the posture of dying together, and cannot attack at the same time. From the developer's perspective, the development of the first online version is definitely based on stability, and balances the playability of the function and the online time.

Therefore, even if you can add a mechanism of death to the death, such as judging the killing line by the defender's health, and taking a special mechanism offline; or just to pursue the visual effect of a final battle state, both sides will attack at the same time and have a more gorgeous and imposing attack. However, in terms of functional rationality, the logic of this implementation becomes super complex. Therefore, ordinary developers, except for those who have the right to be unlimited to postpone their votes, dare not do this. They would rather develop a stable and playable version first, and then slowly iterate the product after it is launched.

Otherwise, the performance of this very high-end function is indeed very good with a very poor cost-effectiveness, but after it is launched, the effort will be in vain. The key is that the failure may be caused by other factors, or even the operation and issuance factors. This function is impeccable and dies of non-war crimes. Experienced developers must balance development costs and risks, no matter how rich the company is.

These thoughts cannot be written into the book because they are really explanatory texts.

So this third article is what I am most confused about. I won’t write it at all. The readingability of this book has indeed increased, but it is no different from other people’s articles. It only has fun but no wisdom. If you write too much, you will definitely be scolded.

For example, the difference between forced displacement brought by skills and active displacement brought by collision volume and conflict handling in implementation should be something that most readers don’t care about, but it reflects my contempt for standing stubborn chopping. Moreover, the 1v1 battle also stand stubborn output, and the visual performance is particularly boring. What should I do?

So after losing a few precious hair, I wrote it like this now...

By the way, I really grew up watching the book "The Resurrection of China in Different Times and Spaces". I guess many new readers have never heard of it. This is the first novel in the history of online novels to be put on the shelves for VIP sales. Before that, there was no paid reading, and there was no so-called authentic concept. It belongs to the xxx level in history.
Chapter completed!