Aleixs wrote: > I think that Warrigal's concerns are valid. The only reason that the asset > rules work so well is because they've been well-tested and worked out. > Changing the base away from them to something else is entirely viable; it > would require care and likely plenty of time while things get worked out, > but there's no reason it couldn't be done. And more importantly, perhaps, a > highly pragmatic system would make this less of a concern.
While I agree the asset rules' smoothness is a result of their maturity rather than some inherent benefit of the model itself, I don't think it's reasonably possible for fault people for not wanting to change something that is proven to work when new things so rarely work properly at the first time of asking. In my opinion, both this and Warrigal's initial complaint about parallel gamestates sometimes having to be recorded share the root cause that when bugs make it past the proposal process, it's not possible to fix them quickly enough to stop inconsistencies from propagating. We desperately need some way of testing rule changes, especially complex ones, before they are enacted. -twg
