Re: [spoon-discuss] Materiel

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday, December 29, 2003, at 06:01 AM, SkArcher wrote:

> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 21:23:00 -0600, Baron von Skippy <bvs@xxxxxxxxxx>  
> wrote:
>
> > > Mr. in a Spacesuit had an interesting idea in terms of having more  
> > > than one type of
> > > resource unit, but tried to develop it in far too arbitrary a  
> > > fashion.  Might I suggest
> > > something more similar to that used in Star Wars Galaxies?
> > <snip>
> >
> > -I like your idea, but I worry about the distressing trend toward  
> > pre-planning that I'm seeing in this game. The seat of /my/ pants  
> > still have wings, what happened to the rest of you?

My wings are on my other pants.

> > Be that as it may, this seems like a good idea, and one that can be  
> > used with my old idea to allow people to make Stuff from a list of  
> > components - this organizes those components nicely. So... yeah, I'm  
> > game for it. One question, though: Say we have  
> > Inorganics->Metals- 
> > >Iron,Gold,Copper,Lead,Silver,Zinc,Aluminium,etc... and I want to  
> > throw in another layer, say Metals->Valuable, and stick Gold and  
> > Silver into it - how is that done, especially if Gold and Silver have  
> > lower-level materials beneath them?-

It's really simple - "Make a new Material Entry, Metals->Valuables, and  
move Metals->Gold and Metals->Silver to it."

If you wanted to be more precise and thorough, you might say "insert  
two entries into the Material Tree: Metals->Valuables and  
Metals->Invaluables; move Metals->Gold and Metals->Silver to  
Metals->Valuables, and move all Metals->* that haven't been mentioned  
yet to Metals->Invaluables".


> > > So...what should the first top-level categories be?  Matter and  
> > > Energy?
> > -I suppose so, although Organic/Inorganic might be better unless  
> > someone thinks we really might need just "Matter" as a component  
> > (maybe in a Mr. Fusion reactor, I don't know).-
>
> To be honest with you I don't think separate matieriels is a good  
> idea, it is going to lead to too much book keeping.

I agree that if we're going to use it like we used the old RUs, we  
should keep it to basic RUs. On the other hand, metallurgy and alchemy  
could become a major component of the New Grid, in which case we'd best  
be prepared for it now.

After all, it's much easier to reduce this system to a single resource  
type than expand a single resource to cover dozens of subtypes.

> If you do insist on developing seperate resource above and beyond  
> standard RUs, may I remind you that you don't have to be bound by real  
> world physics. For all the difference it makes you could call the  
> minerals Baronium, Glotmorfogen and Administratum

I would love to reforge my Master Sword using Uinium - a sword of +8/+8  
against Administration entities.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss