This would undo EFDoA; you should to update the asset generation rule text
in your proposal to reflect that it was amended by EFDoA:
replace the first item on the list with the following two items,
renumbering the other items
appropriately:
1. if the facility is built on unconserved Public Land
Title: Gray Land and the Fountain
Co-authors: Aris, Cuddle Beam, Gaelan, Trigon
AI: 2.0
Contents: {
Amend "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
Create a new rule "Facilit
I derped lol. But yeah, I agree with an "other" category.
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
> Agreed with Gaelan re teleporters and ornaments, unless I'm misreading what
> you're saying, Cuddle Beam.
>
> An example of two categories would be a unique (Agoran Monument) producti
Agreed with Gaelan re teleporters and ornaments, unless I'm misreading what
you're saying, Cuddle Beam.
An example of two categories would be a unique (Agoran Monument) production
facility like a wonder in Civ. You can imagine a race to build it/steal it
from other players, with whoever has it hav
Ornaments and teleporters would both fit in an "other" category—they wouldn't
need to be both production and processing.
Gaelan
> On Mar 3, 2018, at 3:37 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> I suggest adding an example along that extensibility to market the idea of
> it better. Swag purely aesthetics
I suggest adding an example along that extensibility to market the idea of
it better. Swag purely aesthetics ornaments, walls and teleporters,
perhaps? (Not entirely necessary though, it just makes it look better
because it has a purpose instead of being blank)
On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Aris
I'm happy to admit that I may have been wrong on this one. However,
extensibility is important. I was hoping we could do it in a short
paragraph, not a whole rule. What do you guys think?
-Aris
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:05 PM Gaelan Steele wrote:
> Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I
Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I think unless we have a use case
for facilities with multiple types, we should just have a simple
production/processing/{monument,other} option. This is well-written, but until
we need it I think it would be better to avoid the complexity.
Gaelan
On the use of switches: Is it appropriate to have something be a switch if
there isn't really any case in which its value would change other than a
rule change? I originally had a facility's Categories and Allowed Land
Types as Switches but I couldn't find any examples of them being used like
that.
Comments inline.
On 3/2/2018 2:37 PM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
Create a new rule
Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
A Category is an entity
I think non-Proc/Prod facilities would be great. Walls or streets for
example would be cool.
On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 1:01 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'd go with solution 2, but modified. What if we made it so that each
> facility could fit into (0 or more) "ca
I'd go with solution 2, but modified. What if we made it so that each
facility could fit into (0 or more) "categories", and defined Production
and Processing as categories. That way, we could extend it later without
dealing with an exponential increase in the number of types. It also leave
flexibil
I ran into a problem that I figured I'd share and ask for input.
"Asset Generation with Facilities" specifies that "Each facility is either
a production facility or processing facility". The draft up there specifies
that a fountain is a facility, but that it neither produces nor processes
anything
Comments inline.
On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:22 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> I like this. I'll have more detailed comments when it's typed up in a
> proposal, but I think that this fits with the spirit of what we're going
> for. Certainly it is a good idea to have a neutral spawn point, even if the
>
I like this. I'll have more detailed comments when it's typed up in a
proposal, but I think that this fits with the spirit of what we're going
for. Certainly it is a good idea to have a neutral spawn point, even if the
colors don't mean that much yet. I suggest just calling the facility type
"fount
A very rough draft for a proposal. I'm going to hold off on writing it up
until the current mess is resolved, but I wanted to get feedback on whether
the idea is interesting to people
The proposal would: {
Create a Land Type of "Gray". Land that has Land Type "Gray" is gray land.
Gray land canno
17 matches
Mail list logo
