|From:||R Andrew Hayden <rahayden@*****.WEEG.UIOWA.EDU>|
|Subject:||Engines and Chassis|
|Date:||Mon, 8 Feb 93 07:55:06 CET|
Man: Good morning, I'd like to have an argument, please.
Receptionist: What would you like to argue about?
Man: How about engines?
Receptionist: We have a 2 for 1 one automotive arguments today.
Man: How about engines and chassis then?
Receptionist: Certainly, sir. Have you been here before?
Man: No, this is my first time.
Receptionist: I see, well we'll see who's free at the moment.
Mr. Bakely's free, but he's a little bit concilliatory. No.
Try Mr. Barnhart, room 12.
Man: Thank you.
He enters room 12.
Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?
Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...
Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS
STUFFY-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!
M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!
A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!
M: Oh! Oh I see!
A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.
A: Not at all!
A: (under his breath) stupid git.
:-) A virtual cookie if you recognize the reference :-)
Engines, engines, engines. Oh boy.
The lines in the sand have been draw in this, the first of many
battles to come. The skies crash with ominous thunder as a light
drizzle begins to fall. The warriors look out upon the mesa,
tense with anticipation of what is to come. A horse of silicon
stamps his hoof and snorts in irritation.
From one of the lines rises a voice. It is Fearless Leader. All
is hushed as he speaks.
(high melodrama is worth an extra karma point :-)
ok, ok, I'll get to the point now.
One of the points that needs to be settled, and quickly, is the
idea of engines. I advocate using five classes of somewhat
arbitrary numbers while others (Arkangel is one I remember)
advocate basing engine statistics such as size and weight on the
power of the engine.
There are two basic reasons why I feel this is not appropriate.
1) It violates the basic premise of our system
Remember back to when we were still calling ourselves VCC
on the SHADOWRN list? The fundamental concepts we embraced at that
time were a logical rules system AND relatively moron-proof
simplicity. The problem is, the concept of simplicity is more and
more violated every time you have to make a calculation. To have
to calculate and recalculate engine statistics at every turn is
just plain wrong,
By using our five-engine system, we are designing a modular
vehicle, which is inherently simpler yet still somewhat
realistic. There is no need to spend five minutes of design time
calculating out exact engine statistics, they are provided and
2) It is difficult to design simple math
The next argument is that with a simple equation, all the
problems of determining the statistics would be eased. The
difficulty is that a semi-realistic equation relating power to
NPUs/Weight would be quite complicated. A simple linear equation
is simply not in any way realistic.
By arbitrarily assigning numbers in the five engine system,
not only do you avoid the problem of having to have an immense
equation that Steven Hawkins would have to ponder for a few
moments, but you also keep things really simple.
Onwards to Chassis
The arguement is again not to utilize a modular chassis (ie, five
distinct sized), but instead to apply mini, small, large, etc as a
nebular concept including a range of sizes.
The problems with this are identical to above. They violate our
premise of simplicity and making it relatively moron proof, and
the math cannot rationally be simple. Accessories cannot draw a
linear relationship between all vehicles, it is not realistic.
Furthermore, the concept is munchkin-bait. If you determine
performance statistics based on the nebular classification of size,
than the munchkins of the world will produce vehicles as close as
possible to the limits in order to gain optimum performance. This is
just plain wrong and utterly destroys the spirit of the game to even
allow the chance for that kind of min-maxing.
By using a five-size modular system, most of these problems are
silved in that the information is not only provided, but
munchkinism is severly limited (you can never really ELIMINATE it,
but you can try).
In any case, I'm going to sign off soon. This argument is a point
that needs to be eliminated quickly in order to move onwards. To
summarize I think we should utilize the modular system instead of
the relational system. It is clean. It is simple. It is fast.
It's not perfect, but I think the benefits outweigh the
Thanks for your time
[> Robert Hayden <] [> ____ Come out, Come out <]
[> <] [> \ /__ Wherever you are! <]
[> rahayden@*****.weeg.uiowa.edu <] [> \/ /
[> aq650@****.INS.CWRU.Edu <] [> \/