[MUD-Dev] Virtual Chemistry

[Matt Chatterley]

On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Marian Griffith wrote:

> On Wed 30 Jul, clawrenc at cup.hp.com wrote:

[Snip my original post again]

> > First thoughts on a representational model:
> > Thus the leaves of the herb WaggaWagga might have a coordinate weight
> > of (-5, 8, 3) presuming the simplistic case of only 3 principles.  The
> > root of the UmbaUmba plant might have a value of (2, 9, -10).  Mix
> > then together with GooGoo mud (0, 0, 2), and you get a substance (-3,
> > 17, -5).  That location can be plotted in the coordinate system and a
> > result computed:
> 
> Admitting immediately that the finer points of all the above are proba-
> bly missed by me, this seems to me to be rather predictable. If you put
> two sleeping potions together you get a stronger sleeping potions?
> You would at least need a way to make sure that you cannot just mix two
> or three ingredients together and  get potion or poultice.  And equally
> important:  even if both the herb WaggaWagga and the UmbaUmba plant are
> known for their sleep inducing qualities  that should not mean that you
> can just replace the one with the other and get a similar result.  That
> is what makes alchemy an art and a lore.

You need notions of quantity, and concentration to ensure mixing two
identical potions together produces a double-mass of potion, rather than a
single mass of double-strength potion, and also that mixing potion A with
concentration 0.5 and potion B, identical except its concentration is 0.7,
gives you a double-mass of potion C, identical but with concentration 0.6.
 
> >   A minor weakening agent (-3) that also a *really* effective sleeping
> > draught (17), and reduces physical dexterity (-5).
> 
> First off. You could start with having the numbers represent general ef-
> fects rather than specifics. That way to create a sleeping potion you'll
> have to create a high value for several of those numbers.

Having specific effects would be nasty by virtue of the sheer volume of
coordinates required. Generalisation to perhaps a dozen, and using
combination of these is probably best.

> Secondly I think it would be better if  unless only specific numbers are
> high and all others are low but not too low the potion just does not  do
> much useful.  I.e. a potion in which all numbers are high is just a kind
> of muddy water.  Nourishing perhaps  but not magical/mystical in nature.
> And potions that have very high negative values act the same as high po-
> sitive values.

Not necessarily water - but something unremarkable perhaps. Something with
very high values for everything might be very acidic, and a good magical
electrolyte, but unremarkable otherwise. Negative values are merely the
reflection of positive ones - ie, a very negative acidity would be a very
positive alkalinity.
 
> > The reason for doing a coordinate system rather than a flat expression
> > for each axis is that it allows you to put in break values.  Simple
> > things like values on this axis smaller than X have this effect, and
> > larger than Y have this totally other effect.  Compound that across
> > multiple axis, and you can get a result which is far removed from the
> > initial components.
> 
> I don't think I know what this means but no doubt it makes sense :)

It does, if I understand correctly. If X is less than Y, it does this, but
if it's larger than Y, it does that. Where Y is a definitive and specific
value.

> > Next up would be to then special case certain combinations (reflective
> > alchemy), such that components A (which normally has a very simple
> > effect), and B (similarly simple), in combination do something else
> > entirely (ie mutate into a totally different coordinate.
> 
> Which is quite the point of alchemy. You combine ingredients and rituals
> that in and of themselves do nothing special  and get a result that does
> something useful.

This is bringing in another issue - that of external influences on
reactions (eg magical chants, special instruments, etc). I intend to have
a 'mixing' function that will take arguments of the compounds, and any
special conditions which apply.
 
> > This special casing can be handled without undue difficulty by
> > building it into the base system.  Again, going back to the simplistic
> > 3 principles above, just add various other "fake" principles after
> > that.  Thus WuggaWugga could be (-5, 8, 3, 0, 12, 2) and UmbaUmba (2,
> > 9, -10, -5, 9, -10).  Then when they're mixed the result is (-3, 17,
> > -2, -5, 21, -8).  Now you can do your special casing on the fake
> > values (-5, 21, -8).  Say things like if the first fake value is less
> > than -5 it was apply (X,Y,Z) to the base matrix, it its over +5 apply
> > (Q,R,S) etc.  This results in a really simple way to codify the
> > exceptions and and special cases while allowing new components to be
> > added which have their own unique behaviour.
> 
> This sounds rather complicated to me. Isn't there a way to do this
> without math?

There is, but it's really a non option if you intend on any amount of
chemicals, or chemicals that do not have to be centrally registered.
 
> marian
> -- 
> Yes - at last - You. I Choose you. Out of all the world,
> out of all the seeking, I have found you, young sister of
> my heart! You are mine and I am yours - and never again
> will there be loneliness ...
> 
> Rolan Choosing Talia,
> Arrows of the Queen, by Mercedes Lackey
> 
> 
> 
> 


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