Round 3 changelog and winner of Round 2!

Zenrax wrote:

Mattcraft wrote:Think of glass walls like dwarven caves, build inside of the cave, don't build the cave itself.

Except it’s not a cave, it’s a glass wall. And you actually do have to build the “cave”.

I was making an analogy and you can expand with glass. If it bugs you this much, why not try before you argue.

Mattcraft wrote:

Zenrax wrote:

Mattcraft wrote:Think of glass walls like dwarven caves, build inside of the cave, don't build the cave itself.

Except it’s not a cave, it’s a glass wall. And you actually do have to build the “cave”.

I was making an analogy and you can expand with glass. If it bugs you this much, why not try before you argue.

All I’m asking for is a little bit of flexibility. I really don’t see the harm in allowing me to at the very least make the moulding of a building out of some non-glass material. You get the same visual effects at a distance, without messing up the close-up view.

Zenrax wrote:

Mattcraft wrote:

Zenrax wrote:

Mattcraft wrote:Think of glass walls like dwarven caves, build inside of the cave, don't build the cave itself.

Except it’s not a cave, it’s a glass wall. And you actually do have to build the “cave”.

I was making an analogy and you can expand with glass. If it bugs you this much, why not try before you argue.

All I’m asking for is a little bit of flexibility. I really don’t see the harm in allowing me to at the very least make the moulding of a building out of some non-glass material. You get the same visual effects at a distance, without messing up the close-up view.

I've told you numerous times in IRC, with a lot of solutions. The rules have been laid down, go try em' out.

[quote=“Mattcraft”]I've told you numerous times in IRC, with a lot of solutions. The rules have been laid down, go try em’ out.[/quote]

In case you haven’t noticed, the server IS NOT UP YET. We actually cannot ‘go try it out’, which doesn’t seem to stop you from spouting it like a broken record. Instead of just telling me to do the impossible, why not try and come up with some sort of reason, any reason, that loosening the rules to 75-80% glass instead of a flat-out 100 would be bad?

Because stating 75-80% glass means people have to actually count it.

If you do a 20x10 block which is glass inside a cobble (or other) frame, you'd get 56 blocks of 'cobble' and 144 of glass, giving you less than 75% but it's close and it would be hard to tell just by looking. (This is just a numerical example)

In such cases a mod/admin would have to count it. If it was found to be in breach would they then just remove the window and flood the city? Call you out to adjust the design? It is far simpler to implement a ruling that all of the outside be glass.

That is a fairly good reason I feel.

Kevashim wrote:Because stating 75-80% glass means people have to actually count it.

If you do a 20x10 block which is glass inside a cobble (or other) frame, you'd get 56 blocks of 'cobble' and 144 of glass, giving you less than 75% but it's close and it would be hard to tell just by looking. (This is just a numerical example)

In such cases a mod/admin would have to count it. If it was found to be in breach would they then just remove the window and flood the city? Call you out to adjust the design? It is far simpler to implement a ruling that all of the outside be glass.

That is a fairly good reason I feel.

The numbers I gave were an EXAMPLE. Purple could just change it to say “all buildings must be mainly glass” or “all buildings must include significant glass elements” or some such. That removes your sizing complaints, and won’t hobble the mods with having to count out blocks and find the percentages, as you are apparently so worried about. Even better, they could get rid of this hard-and-fast rule, and leave it up to Atlantean leadership to decide on a case-by-case basis what should or should not be allowed. But that’s obviously not going to happen, so I offer this as a compromise. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the alternative.

Zenrax wrote:

In case you haven’t noticed, the server IS NOT UP YET. We actually cannot ‘go try it out’, which doesn’t seem to stop you from spouting it like a broken record. Instead of just telling me to do the impossible, why not try and come up with some sort of reason, any reason, that loosening the rules to 75-80% glass instead of a flat-out 100 would be bad?

Oh lord, just wait for server to come up, I didn't think you wouldn't conclude that's what I meant, but you're being persistent about the stupidest thing. If it really bugs you, build a direct layer of whatever the hell you want under the glass, that way, no rules are broken.

You asked for "some sort of reason, any reason, that loosening the rules to 75-80% glass instead of a flat-out 100 would be bad?" Zenrax. I gave you one. I don't see how you can then refute it as inapplicable stating that you only provided an example; you asked for a reason against that specific scenario.

I am less worried about the block counting than I am about Atlantis being flooded due to poorly planned walls under the proposition that you gave.

Further, the alternative is not really a hell of a lot worse. The alternative is a fully glass outer wall; from both a practical and aesthetic standpoint that is not significantly worse than a mixed material outer wall.

Matt: Building a second layer inside is a ton more work, especially considering that this is all underwater. Let’s say I want a 10x10x10 room with some detailing in the glass around it. I’d need to build a 14x14x14 glass box to put that in, instead of a 12x12x12, as I would if the rule was loosened. That’s roughly one thousand more water blocks that have to be individually removed, not to mention the many more glass blocks which I would have to make (except if this infinite-glass thing is actually carried out). Why do that when I could just include the detailing in the walls in the first place?

Keva: How would flooding be more likely under my suggestion than with this rule? My plan would use less glass, which is an inherently destructible material, although the amounts would not differ significantly enough to matter. More relevantly, building separate, compartmentalized buildings would reduce the extent of any floods that occurred, while putting many buildings under one dome would allow them all to be flooded easily.

Seems like I pulled out of this discussion in time.

I see your point Zenrax. On the other hand, it is unlikely rules will be changed 2 hours before launch. It's not even that important, since Keva's option of lining the domes on the inside has the exact same effect. Rules need to be as simple as possible to benefit both mods and regular players. Hence it makes sense to let it stand as it is now. If we find it's gameplay ruining bad, which I can't imagine, it might be changed then, because it's just a simple addition to the rules. In the meantime, we'll have to see how the faction deals with it.

EDIT: in terms of griefing there is no difference between the two plans. Only adminium domes are griefer proof, and then only in terms of flooding them by breaking the walls. Stealing and breaking buildings / pouring buckets will happen regardless the construction rules.

Prior post deleted due to Decibert's succinct and diplomatic summary.

Decibert wrote:Seems like I pulled out of this discussion in time.

I see your point Zenrax. On the other hand, it is unlikely rules will be changed 2 hours before launch. It's not even that important, since Keva's option of lining the domes on the inside has the exact same effect. Rules need to be as simple as possible to benefit both mods and regular players. Hence it makes sense to let it stand as it is now. If we find it's gameplay ruining bad, which I can't imagine, it might be changed then, because it's just a simple addition to the rules. In the meantime, we'll have to see how the faction deals with it.

EDIT: in terms of griefing there is no difference between the two plans. Only adminium domes are griefer proof, and then only in terms of flooding them by breaking the walls. Stealing and breaking buildings / pouring buckets will happen regardless the construction rules.

If you’ll notice my last post, lining buildings on the inside creates far more work, which increases exponentially as the size of the project goes up. It may not be game-ruining bad, but that’s no reason not to alter it; it’s just bad in a less severe way. However, you are probably correct in that the rule probably won’t be changed. I guess we’ll just have to suffer through it.

Zenrax wrote:

Decibert wrote:Seems like I pulled out of this discussion in time.

I see your point Zenrax. On the other hand, it is unlikely rules will be changed 2 hours before launch. It's not even that important, since Keva's option of lining the domes on the inside has the exact same effect. Rules need to be as simple as possible to benefit both mods and regular players. Hence it makes sense to let it stand as it is now. If we find it's gameplay ruining bad, which I can't imagine, it might be changed then, because it's just a simple addition to the rules. In the meantime, we'll have to see how the faction deals with it.

EDIT: in terms of griefing there is no difference between the two plans. Only adminium domes are griefer proof, and then only in terms of flooding them by breaking the walls. Stealing and breaking buildings / pouring buckets will happen regardless the construction rules.

If you’ll notice my last post, lining buildings on the inside creates far more work, which increases exponentially as the size of the project goes up. It may not be game-ruining bad, but that’s no reason not to alter it; it’s just bad in a less severe way. However, you are probably correct in that the rule probably won’t be changed. I guess we’ll I'll just have to suffer through it.

Fixed your post.

Thank you for that edifying and oh-so-useful comment, Matt. Let’s all give him a big hand for his wonderful contribution to this conversation.

Zen, why don't you just not become an alantian.

*THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE*

Zenrax wrote:Thank you for that edifying and oh-so-useful comment, Matt. Let’s all give him a big hand for his wonderful contribution to this conversation.

Thank you, thank you, but let's not forget your exceedingly interesting argument that (no one cares about) made such a dramatic impact on our ruleset.

AngryPear wrote:Zen, why don't you just not become an alantian.

Because it seems like a fun, challenging way to play. Imagine someone offered you a serving of your favorite food. However, a fly landed on the plate. Would you say “Ew, no thanks, there’s a fly on it.”, or would you try and get the fly off the food?

If you were offered a fun, challenging way to play, would you accept the challenge or would you persist in arguing about an inconsequential matter to the point of nausea?

Kevashim wrote:If you were offered a fun, challenging way to play, would you accept the challenge or would you persist in arguing about an inconsequential matter to the point of nausea?

If it’s so inconsequential, why are you all arguing back?

How about this? If you don't like the rules, don't play in the faction, no one is forcing you to do it.

goldmarine9 wrote:How about this? If you don't like the rules, don't play in the faction, no one is forcing you to do it.

AngryPear just said the exact same thing, and I’ll give you the same reply: I want to play in the faction because it looks like a fun challenge. The arbitrary glass rule irks me, but it isn’t a game-breaker.

Zenrax wrote:
If you’ll notice my last post, lining buildings on the inside creates far more work, which increases exponentially as the size of the project goes up. It may not be game-ruining bad, but that’s no reason not to alter it; it’s just bad in a less severe way. However, you are probably correct in that the rule probably won’t be changed. I guess we’ll just have to suffer through it.

I propose we leave it at that last point. If it's found to have an adverse effect on gameplay we can re-open the debate.
No real need to "fix" anyones post, couldn't you just've made that point? And thanks Keva, diplomacy is my thing :p.

Decibert wrote:

Zenrax wrote:
If you’ll notice my last post, lining buildings on the inside creates far more work, which increases exponentially as the size of the project goes up. It may not be game-ruining bad, but that’s no reason not to alter it; it’s just bad in a less severe way. However, you are probably correct in that the rule probably won’t be changed. I guess we’ll just have to suffer through it.

I propose we leave it at that last point. If it's found to have an adverse effect on gameplay we can re-open the debate.
No real need to "fix" anyones post, couldn't you just've made that point? And thanks Keva, diplomacy is my thing :p.

Amen to that. Now, I’ve got to get some stuff out of the way before 6 rolls around. Be back in an hour or so.