[MUD-Dev] Virtual Chemistry

[Matt Chatterley]

On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Brandon Van Every wrote:

> > From: Jon A. Lambert <jlsysinc at ix.netcom.com>
> > 
> > Solve all the equations for all axis and one would be a master alchemist
> > and know all the laws of the alchemy.
> 
> But what is this going to "buy" a player?  It seems that this is a
> satisfying way to spend one's time only if one LOVES to do math AND doesn't
> get enough mathematical exercise in a day.  I've got news for you.  If you
> go get a job in 3d computer graphics, you can spend a fair amount of time
> doing math and get paid real $$$$ for it.  To the point of getting sick of
> it.  This is one of those areas where I think one's satisfactions in life
> really change after you get out of college.  At some point I discovered
> that solving equations and accumulating wealth/power in wargames was pretty
> much equivalent to the mental activity required for my job.  And after
> doing the latter for 40+ hours a week, I ceased to be interested in more
> such mental exercise in my free time.

Yup. Definitely true IMHO. I hope to put in enough exceptions (and
adjustments) to the model to make it pretty complex to predict (especially
when you have no true way of determining the properties involved).

For instance, a player might be in the position of knowing that a
substance is fairly pure, and very acidic (compared to other substances he
has encountered), but reacts slowly (again, comparatively). He can also
deduce its approximate mass.

He now knows that he has ABOUT a kilo (litre) of fairly pure, very acidic,
slow reacting, shimmering blue liquid.

He doesn't know he has 1.15 l of 0.9 concentration pH 8, reactivity 5,
enchanted X! He can predict what a similar substance may do - but not
deduce it exactly. Observations of reactions, and so forth will be quite
important (along with more magical means of determination).
 
> > > 
> > > This sounds rather complicated to me. Isn't there a way to do this
> > > without math?
> 
> It would be nice if the INTERFACE to the system didn't require a knowledge
> of math.  i.e. that one could easily and empirically deduce properties of
> the system - heuristics if you will - without having to have a background
> even in algebra.  This would be appealing to non-mathematicians, and even
> for the mathematically inclined I think it would come closer to providing
> "instant gratification."  "Instant gratification" is the pleasure of
> exerting a bit of effort, and then not getting stuck with something that
> doesn't work.  Exploration of the system then becomes a pleasant romp in
> the countryside, rather than a tedious exercise in head-banging.  Systems
> without instant gratification have about the pleasure value of a debugging
> session, which for me is none, owing to the head-banging component.  Once
> again, I'd prefer to get paid to debug stuff and bang my head against the
> wall.

Absolutely. I'm pondering the UI at the moment.
 
> > 
> > Yikes, it would be nice but it's all these dang computers understand. :)
> 
> Um, computers don't understand math.  They only understand 1's and 0's. 
> :-)
> Well ok they've got FPU's and all, but you find out pretty quick that they
> only understand discrete approximations to math.

<g>

Regards,
	-Matt Chatterley
	http://user.itl.net/~neddy/index.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's
	mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." -George Orwell