User talk:Havvy/Sandbox

Less Arbitrary
Since most distances and times in any game are arbitrary, rather than announce it give it a name. You have the potential to have a lot of fun with it, since gummy travel took place in inner space, i.e. the idea scape, and worlds were placed depending (supposedly) on how related the ideas of each world were.

To simplify it, you have established one thrust unit can cover blank distance in one hour. Punning off of nautical terms and playing with inner space you could call that distance a thought, so a gummi ship that has 8 thrust travels at a speed 8 thoughts through inner space, which could be boiled down to a tactical speed of 80 thinks per round. And this is just my polluted brain, and you may develop even better names. Just don't announce it as arbitrary, otherwise it gives the impression that you don't care enough about your own idea.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's arbitrary in the fact that it doesn't matter. Yeah, a name could be given, but it'd have to be completely made up (farsecs?), which adds complexity to understanding the idea.  Making worlds separated by thoughts, while interesting, is not what I am going for.  I can have idea space as a variant for the subsystem though.  '80 thinks per round' seems excessively complex for a system where battles will later be replaced with scry and teleport onto the other ship.  --Havvy 02:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Announcing that it is arbitrary leaves the impression that this idea isn't even interesting to it's creator, which is never a good thing. Giving it a name gives the (in this case false) impression that the system is, in fact, important and worth the time of looking at if not adopting.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Giving it a name is only relevant in any particular instantiation of the system, as the name will inform and be informed by the surrounding fluff. It should probably be named in the many worlds thing that is talked about later on, but the actual mechanics don't need it at this time. Leaving a name out of the generic writeup that it presently is actually makes adoption and understanding easier, and doesn't imply anything of the sort you suggest to me. - Tarkisflux 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)