Comments on: Preparing our items system

By: Dan Alex

Dan Alex — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 17:20:46 +0000

i still dont understand why did you do such a “special” item case… the tables would go easier with item(id , name , atk, def , etc…) | invetory wich gets items id from items database and battle wich also gets items id… and the system would be the same you change something in items table and it would change every where…

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:57:58 +0000

It looks like they might be! I guess that's a typo.

By: Devin

Devin — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:55:59 +0000

Hi Luke, I'm really enjoying this tutorial! However, I have a question about the “user_items” table here. It seems like this is the same table as the “user_inventory” mentioned on the “Designing your game's database” page. Are they the same? Thanks .

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:52:27 +0000

The best way to do this would actually be to create unique tables(and
columns) for all of your different inventories; the reason that we did it
differently in the tutorial was so that we could quickly expand on our items
and add new item types as we needed to.

By: Luke

Luke — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 16:52:27 +0000

By: spatlabor

spatlabor — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:25:10 +0000

It worries me a bit that the user_items table can become very big especially if the user can poses lots of different items (skills, ships, planets, etc).
I wondered what you think about an approach that does the following. If you consider a fleet that are composed of multiple types of ships you create a table fleet with a tinytext field that stores [ship_type:nb:ship_type:nb:ship_type:nb: etc]. The same could be done for players skills [skill_type:value:skill_type:value:etc].
Of course this would mean more processing but would decrease the number of entries in the database significantly.

My question could be: what is the most cpu efficient? Big database with lot of search/insertion or more php parsing?
Thanks