Multiple Piece Types

[Adam Jeppson]

I have a suggestion for a future release. What do you think about multiple piece types? You could handle the type validation on the locations in a couple ways. First, you could require that all piece_types are represented in the valid types, or you could simply require any of the piece_types in the validation. I would personally love to see all piece_types required in valid_types because it is consistent with the current methodology and it allows for some cool exclusion logic.

Here's my example that I'd love to implement that would require multiple piece types on a piece to be most efficient. Consider a stack of 50 cards. You would like to make it easy to configure it into different combinations for different types of decks. Each deck could have different numbers of cards. A single card might belong to several of the different deck types, so you would want to label them as such using multiple piece_types.

[Eggy]

This seems like a very reasonable request. I'm going to try and get it added for the next release.

Does anybody else have an opinion on whether the locations should require pieces have *all* of their types listed in the location's valid types, or whether to only require that *some* of the pieces types be listed?

I can imagine both being useful, and perhaps we could eventually add some way to switch between behaviors. At least at first though, it seems like it'd be simpler to just choose a single approach.

"All" has one vote. Anybody one to stand up for "some"?

-Nathaniel

Sent from my iPad

[Rob3d]

I think all sounds like it would work well. How this would effect
games made with the current build?

On May 15, 5:58 pm, Eggy <eggy.everyg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems like a very reasonable request.  I'm going to try and get it added for the next release.
>
> Does anybody else have an opinion on whether the locations should require pieces have *all* of their types listed in the location's valid types, or whether to only require that *some* of the pieces types be listed?
>
> I can imagine both being useful, and perhaps we could eventually add some way to switch between behaviors.  At least at first though, it seems like it'd be simpler to just choose a single approach.
>
> "All" has one vote.  Anybody one to stand up for "some"?
>
> -Nathaniel
>
> Sent from my iPad
>

[Adam Jeppson]

It wouldn't affect them, if I am thinking correctly, because right now all pieces all ready implement the rule. All their piece types (just the one) have to be in the valid_type field.

[Eggy]

Yes, since right now, pieces only have one type "some match" and "all match" will always be the same -- either the single type matches or it doesn't.

Sent from my iPad