Saturday, March 06, 2010

Proposal: Blueprint: You can do everything with the basics!

Timed out 13 votes to 0. Enacted by Kevan.

Adminned at 09 Mar 2010 04:03:18 UTC

Add a new subrule to Rule 2.2 (Inventions) called “Basic Improver”:

Cost: -5 Cogs, -2 Gems   Power Requirement: 20
If an Invention, which consists of a “Basic improver”, would have a Cog or Gem Amount lower than zero, the Amount of the Ressources lower than zero would be 0 instead. If not, this Part has no other effect than reducing the Composition costs.

There were so many “positive Cost, negative Power reguirement” parts, so I thought of a “negative Cost, positive Power requirement”. I think 5 Cogs and 2 Gems should be compareable with 20 Coal, so this should be ok.

This could be usefull, if you dont have a Gem, and don’t want to trade or a trade is not possible yet. Additonally, there is no free market yet…

Comments

ais523:

03-06-2010 23:44:16 UTC

for Seems reasonable; -2 Gems is a lot, but the power requirement is incredibly high to balance it.

Bucky:

03-06-2010 23:52:22 UTC

for

Roujo:

03-07-2010 01:01:30 UTC

for

dbdougla:

03-07-2010 02:13:12 UTC

for

Darknight:

03-07-2010 03:22:40 UTC

for

Ienpw III:

03-07-2010 06:31:19 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-07-2010 09:23:00 UTC

imperial Not sure I can get my head around it thematically, though.

Keba:

03-07-2010 10:06:08 UTC

The theme is, that you don’t need Cogs or Gems, if you try to do it with e.g. Iron. But as this is hard work, your Income decreases by 20.

I know the theme/the flavour is not that good.

Kevan:

03-07-2010 10:13:47 UTC

If the rest of the Invention is built solely from a few Cogs and Gems, then fitting a Basic Improver gives it a total of zero Resources and means that it’s just a pile of steadily burning coal.

Keba:

03-07-2010 10:19:32 UTC

That’s right and I see your point it’s not sensefull. But for playing, it might be sensfull :)

Also: Which Inventions only consists of a few Cogs and Gems?

Kevan:

03-07-2010 10:48:06 UTC

Oh, there aren’t currently any Parts that cheap, and it’s unlikely that you’d ever actually want to build a machine that simple. It just niggles me that if there’s a condition where a rule would make no thematic sense, it risks creating unintuitive game behaviour further along the line. (And unintuitive game behaviour can often mean “scam”. Being able to crank out inventions which have no parts at all feels like a good basis for a scam.)

Keba:

03-07-2010 14:28:23 UTC

Well, also, if this Proposal will be enacted, an Admin should replace “Basic improver” with “Basic Improver” :)

Oze:

03-07-2010 17:00:20 UTC

for

Klisz:

03-07-2010 18:46:49 UTC

for

lordcooper:

03-07-2010 21:54:50 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

03-08-2010 08:24:09 UTC

for

Purplebeard:

03-08-2010 08:55:37 UTC

imperial