Re: [s-d] [s-b] Ordainment + Unique Game Object Names Consultation

[Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>]

BTW, I'm thinking the best resolution to the problem I laid out below (if
you agree it's a problem) would be to get rid of the piece of 4E42 that says
a game object can't come to have the same name as another game object, and
simply rely on individual restrictions where they are needed. e.g. as
already exist for player name changes or for submitting contracts.

It really doesn't matter if two weapons have the same name, I think (as long
as we're clear about usage permissions based on ownership)

Sound good?

BP

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Jamie Dallaire <bad.leprechaun@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Craig Daniel <teucer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
>> <penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 22 Jan 2009, at 15:22, Jamie Dallaire wrote:
>> >
>> >> - Teucer/teucer... lucky duck, teucer, with your lack of
>> capitalization...
>> >
>> > Thankfully, he registered prior to E5.
>>
>> Yes. A while ago I called a Consultation on whether individual ndays
>> were game objects out of a fear that if the answer was yes that rule
>> would mean that my presence prevented nday 10 from happening in the
>> first nweek of the era, though. Also, the holder of the Monster may be
>> called whatever you want to call em, but it might be without effect.
>>
>> As for weapons: I believe they have names, but we don't know what they
>> are - just as Fred always had a name distinct from "the OCB", but it
>> took an Oracularity to define what it was. For all we know my
>> Well-Sharpened Pencil is named Wooblesbane.
>>
>
> The names of weapons still intrigue me, because:
> {
>
> These types of Weapon exist:
>
>    - *Name:* Well-sharpened pencil, *Cost:* m10, *Range*: 1 square, *
>    Damage:* 2, *Usage Cost:* m1, *Lifespan:* 10, *Targeted*
>    - *Name:* Knife, *Cost:* m25, *Range*: 2 squares, *Damage:* 10, *Usage
>    Cost:* m10, *Lifespan:* 10, *Targeted*
>
> }
>
> ehird was arguing that the name is the name of the types of Weapon, not the
> name of the Weapon itself, which I initially agreed with.
>
> But if that holds, the very same logic would dictate that the lifespan (+
> cost/range/damage/etc) listed for any of the entries in that list is that of
> the type of Weapon, and not the lifespan of the Weapon itself.
>
> Reading other pieces of the weapons rule, however, makes it -very- clear
> that Lifespan is an attribute of the Weapon. The phrase "If the Weapon has a
> Lifespan" comes up. It doesn't say "If the type of Weapon has a Lifespan".
>
> I think it's hard to argue that weapons have a defined lifespan given by
> this rule, but that they have no defined name given by this rule. Both
> attributes come from the same list.
>
> So I'd say weapons are broken. Either because it's impossible to buy a
> weapon with a name that is identical to that of a weapon currently owned by
> any Player. OR because weapons not only have no (defined) name, but also
> have no range, damage, etc.
>
> BP
>
>
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss