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