Nicolas Weeger wrote:
But you then run into the merging issue - you'd have many
items with different weight/food left, and a real pain to merge.
Also you couldn't easily change the face to reflect how much
you eat.
I don't think it would be much worse then your proposal.
If you go by that s
Anton Oussik wrote:
Yes, in the short run this is a much better idea. However, a long term
goal of a self-supporting economy based on inter-player interaction
(where government-owned shops do not exist except to maybe provide
some very basic food and weapons at time of war/famine/natural
disaste
Hello, I talk only of alchemy. About other farming skills and
such.. remember the onions.. let's start with alchemy and then see if
we can go a step lower later (just want to keep the thing on topic...
since it is spreading too fast in other directions and focus on alchemy
is more important IMHO,
> Yes, in the short run this is a much better idea. However, a
long term goal of a self-supporting economy based on
inter-player interaction (where government-owned shops do not
exist except to maybe provide some very basic food and weapons
at time of war/famine/natural disaster) is IMO desirable.
On 05/12/05, Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As far as alchemy is concerned, an easy first pass would be to extend the
> general store (maybe rename it grocery store or something) to include raw food
> items, eg, wheat, milk, hunks of meat, etc. That still requires graphics, but
> but
> I wonder if instead of just having that be a flag, have
some fields like 'danger_potential' or 'blowup_chance' or
something?
Yes, could be more extensible later on.
> It would probably make sense to say something like you can
eat 100 value of food/tick. So things with food value less
than
6 matches
Mail list logo
