[CF List] problem with some diseases

[Scott Wedel]

>
     
      Hate to say this, but I as running out of parameters with which to modify
     
     >
     
      diseases.  Check out the documents I wrote on it:  I've used pretty
     
     >
     
      much every sensible parameter and a lot of senseless ones, for tuning
     
     >
     
      diseases, and
     
     >
     
      documented them very carefully so I sort of object to you describing them as
     
     >
     
      "needlessly obscure".
     
     
But you (and Mark in his response) both miss the bigger point.  It is
the archetypes definition that is needlessly difficult.  The archetype
definitions should make an effort to be clear and self documenting.  Diseases
should be defined so that DISEASE_DAMAGE_TYPE=ADJUSTED_BY_CASTER_LEVEL or
whatever is the proper way to define the effects of the disease as compared
to whether the value for damage is positive or negative.  Then if the
archetypes parser handles that by storing a negatives value in the damage
field of the object to save room in the object structure then so be it.
Then the issues of clarity are isolated to the code internals.

Overloading in the archetype definitions creates problems because then it
becomes much harder to unwind overloading because then one has to review
every archetype to determine what was the intended purpose of this value
in that field.

							sdw


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
     
     http://sbc.yahoo.com