On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Carl D Cravens wrote: CDC>As a specific example, when I wasn't paying attention to the numbers, CDC>I had a lot of trouble keeping in mind how _light_ Stalker's armor CDC>was... it could be penetrated by an M-16, and I kept imagining it as CDC>being much more robust than that. I found it easier to say, "What's CDC>your armor value" than to say, "Can your armor be penetrated by... an CDC>M-16? A 9mm pistol? How about a frag grenade?" And then I'm dealing CDC>with the _player's_ idea of how powerful these things are vs my idea CDC>of it... and then the player wonders something that punches through a CDC>brick wall can't penetrate his armor, when he really thinks it should. Yeah, sufficiently advanced technology gets all weird. CDC>I found it much, much easier to just assign numbers to these things CDC>and use the numbers. I can just use the numbers and move on, knowing CDC>that we all agree how these things work because we wrote them down in CDC>a concrete way. Except then we get all caught up in analyzing whether the numbers are right, and edge and corner cases where they're plainly silly, and blah blah blah. And have we got concrete numbers on "being burninated by exploding drug users" yet? -- Karen J. Cravens silver@phoenyx.net ---------------------------------------------------------------- GAMERS Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gamers/
