Moderator: Cartographers
isaiah40 wrote:How about saying that you only receive the bonus once no matter how many you have?
ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.
Gilligan wrote:ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.
2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.
cairnswk wrote:Thanks natty for the xml check.Gilligan wrote:ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.
2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.
Yes, that means it accumulates, doesn't it.
So for the other bonuses which don't accumulate, they would be non-accumulative, or is that still the wrong word?
Gilligan wrote:cairnswk wrote:Thanks natty for the xml check.Gilligan wrote:ender516 wrote:I wonder if the term "non-stackable" will be clear to all users.
The only bonus I am unclear on now is the 1 Rev. + 6 Landowners, which is worth +3. If I have 2 Revs. and 6 Landowners, will I get +6, or do I need 2 Revs. and 12 Landowners? There is a way to code either one.
2 Revs and 12 Landowners, 3 Revs and 18 Landowners, etc. It's coded to be that way.
Yes, that means it accumulates, doesn't it.
So for the other bonuses which don't accumulate, they would be non-accumulative, or is that still the wrong word?
How about this:
"Can only be used once (will not multiply)"
Also, latest XML:
http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/11/14 ... lFinal.xml
Gilligan wrote:Then how about "Can only be used once"?
cairnswk wrote:Gilligan wrote:Then how about "Can only be used once"?
That would possibly be OK for the right hand main bonuses (although still a bit wordy), but does it convey the (5*) in the gossip bonus?
cairnswk wrote:isaiah40 wrote:How about saying that you only receive the bonus once no matter how many you have?
how about "non-cumulative"
oops, i should have used non-accumulative
Victor Sullivan wrote:Hola! As far as clarity is concerned, I don't think the asterisks are necessary. Simply say that a meeting house and five or more landowners yields the Gossip bonus, signified by a (5+), instead of the current (5*) you have. I think that should solve the problem.
-Sully
ender516 wrote:Good solution, Sully. This seems clear enough now, cairns.
cairnswk wrote:Large....
B1 > 1
B3 > 1
B4, B5, B6 > 1
B7 v 1
B9 > 1
B10 > ^ 1
B11 > 1
B12 > maybe 2
B15 > 1
B16 > 1 (i think)
B18 ^ 1
B21 > 1 maybe ^ 1
Do those and post the new xml as attachement below, and i'll look at the rest as i think many of the large could do with some adjustment.
Gilligan wrote:cairnswk wrote:Large....
B1 > 1
B3 > 1
B4, B5, B6 > 1
B7 v 1
B9 > 1
B10 > ^ 1
B11 > 1
B12 > maybe 2
B15 > 1
B16 > 1 (i think)
B18 ^ 1
B21 > 1 maybe ^ 1
Do those and post the new xml as attachement below, and i'll look at the rest as i think many of the large could do with some adjustment.
I know my eyes are bad, but I didn't think that bad...to me they look pretty good Harder to sense the center on larger circles...
Gilligan wrote:At any rate...here are those changes...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users