Wednesday, April 25, 2007

Proposal: Fixing Energy

Passes 5-0

Axeling gets 25 DNA and one complexity
Clucky, Seebo, Amministar and Athelophile get 5 DNA and one complexity.
Everyone else gets 5 DNA.

Clucky

Adminned at 26 Apr 2007 06:10:37 UTC

Change the following text in the traits Carnivore, Grazing, Herbivore, Omnivore, and Stalking from
“This can result in a negative cost, which means the Lifeform gains as much Energy when Feeding as it is the negative cost, capped to eir maximum energy value.”
to
“This cannot result in a negative cost.”

Lifeforms may, within 48 hours of this Proposal passing, redeem any of the above five Traits for their full cost, rather than half.

Change the line that begins with Reproduce in the list of Gameplay Actions in Rule Energy from its current text to read “Reproduce: 3 Energy”.

Comments

Clucky: he/him

25-04-2007 01:27:00 UTC

Just because I poked the hole in it? Its not like its super abusable. I don’t see how it is any different than maxing out other traits to help other gameplay actions. I like my +1 energy per day.  against

Axeling:

25-04-2007 01:33:30 UTC

I was never a fan of that portion of Chronos’s proposal, but never got around to fixing it.  I don’t mind that you’re using it; I’d be more than happy to do the same.  But, I think it’s stupid, doesn’t have a good physical meaning (particularly with how Volcano is worded), and makes Feeding too high a priority (vs. other ways of gaining DNA).  I think that 0 energy might even be too low, but I figure we might as well take this one step at a time.  Besides, there are plenty of other ways to get energy.

Amnistar: he/him

25-04-2007 01:35:53 UTC

for Agreed

Seebo:

25-04-2007 03:39:22 UTC

for As long as you change that sentence, I don’t care what you change it to!
That sentence makes ZERO sense:
“This can result in a negative cost, which means the Lifeform gains as much Energy when Feeding as it is the negative cost, capped to eir maximum energy value.”
What the @(*#& does that even mean!? Who wrote that to begin with!? >_<

Clucky: he/him

25-04-2007 13:17:26 UTC

How does it make zero sense?

It has negative energy cost. That means instead of losing energy, you gain it. Makes sense to me.

Seebo:

25-04-2007 17:44:22 UTC

It’s the wording… I read that sentence about 20 times yesterday, both out loud and not, and again a few times today, and I can’t for the life of me decipher what it’s supposed to mean. It’s probably a combination of painful grammar and over-complication. :/

If you tell me that it does that, I’ll believe you, but it looks like jibberish to me.

Clucky: he/him

25-04-2007 19:21:55 UTC

“This can result in a negative cost, which means the Lifeform gains as much Energy when Feeding as it is the negative cost, capped to eir maximum energy value.”

—This can result in a negative cost—
“The total reduction can be three or higher”

—which means the Lifeform gains as much Energy when Feeding as it is the negative cost—
This means if it costs -N energy you gain N energy each time you hunt.

—capped to eir maximum energy value—
You still cannot get more than your maximun energy value.

alethiophile:

26-04-2007 03:40:05 UTC

for
Take action against loopholes!

Clucky: he/him

26-04-2007 13:06:00 UTC

for

Because its gonna pass soon enough anyways.