| Jamie Dallaire on Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:02:43 -0700 (MST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| Re: [s-d] [s-b] Ordainment + Unique Game Object Names Consultation |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Elliott Hird < penguinofthegods@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 22 Jan 2009, at 23:44, Tyler wrote: > > Maybe the right solution is to call them "Rapiers" without giving them >> that >> Name explicitly. I mean, are all Contracts named "Contract"? Weapons >> shouldn't have names, they should have subcategories. Weapon:Rapier. >> Weapon:Well-Sharpened Pencil. Then the rule that prohibits identical names >> makes more sense, and we can leave it be. >> > > no it really is a stupid rule. Nobody can join named Switch right now. > Probably. Arguably there is no Switch named "Switch". They're all named things like Influential, Vested, Active, Ownable, etc. And, as I argued before, there are multiple switches that have each of these names (e.g. one vested switch for each player). The bit about gaining a property being equivalent to flipping the switch of the same NAME to on makes me say all this. That said, I think those switches were created along with Rule 5E42, simultaneously, so I don't think they were prevented from existing. 5E42 only prevents objects from getting the same name as others, not from having them. Have we toyed with any switch rules since E5 started? BP _______________________________________________ spoon-discuss mailing list spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss