Jake Eakle on Fri, 15 Dec 2006 14:41:19 -0700 (MST)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [s-d] [s-b] Reconciling physics

I really like this. A few comments:

On 12/15/06, bd <nomic@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Immediately after a Transaction Succeeds, Annihilation occurs. If the
> number of point-antipoint pairs that would be destroyed in that
> Annihilation is less than the number of point-antipoint pairs Fluxed in
> that Annihilation, the Transaction fails.

I'm not sure what this means. Should the last instance of 'Annihilation' be
'Transaction'? If so, why should your transaction fail just because you
somehow managed to get rid of some antipoints? I think it should only fail
if you have more antipoints than points, not the other way around.
Alternately, it wouldn't have to fail even then - you could just have a rule
under which terrible, terrible things happen to players with only antipoints
after annihilation occurs. Perhaps they would lose their status as players
entirely, and have to rejoin the game and start from scratch.

On 12/15/06, shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx <shadowfirebird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> For example, we can't have a shop where items are purchased with points.

Why not? Even under the current wording, you could have one of these. If you
tried to Flux a bunch of points to buy more stuff than you could really
afford, the transaction would just fail, but if you just bought things with
the positive points you have, it'd be fine.

spoon-discuss mailing list