Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain V2

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

DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain V2

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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.

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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,

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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)

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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

DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

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