CL: chain question

In article <031220031017518027%email@domain.com>,
cyberbeing <email DeleteThis @domain.com> wrote:

 > I wonder how can I make sure I use the same chain until it breaks. Not
 > to give to other accidentially or use the new chain instead if I make
 > one.

You... uh... can't? The game doesn't differentiate between your various
chains. It only makes sure you have at least one.

--
HWC for Hidden <hidden DeleteThis @noDASHop.com> <http://www.oralse.cx/>
"Carpe diem via scrotum."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: chain question 

In article <031220031017518027%email@domain.com>,
cyberbeing <email.TakeThisOut@domain.com> wrote:

 > I wonder how can I make sure I use the same chain until it breaks. Not
 > to give to other accidentially or use the new chain instead if I make
 > one.
 >
 > Thanks

It doesn't matter. Chains have an exponential probability of failure.
That basically means that each use has exactly the same probability of
failure as the first use (so there's no differentiation between a "used"
chain and a "new" chain).

rhdennis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: chain question 

 > The game doesn't differentiate between your various
 > chains. It only makes sure you have at least one.

Would there be any benefit to converting chains to have per-item data?
Being able to establish a "minimum number of uses before breakage" is
about all I can think of, and it would come at the cost of having to
manage each chain individually (for macros and such).

-jrr<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: chain question 

I see.
Thanks

In article
<rhdennis-1FDBA1.21471402122003.RemoveThis@newssvr22-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
rhdennis <rhdennis.RemoveThis@guess.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 > In article <031220031017518027%email@domain.com>,
 > cyberbeing <email.RemoveThis@domain.com> wrote:
 >
  > > I wonder how can I make sure I use the same chain until it breaks. Not
  > > to give to other accidentially or use the new chain instead if I make
  > > one.
  > >
  > > Thanks
 >
 > It doesn't matter. Chains have an exponential probability of failure.
 > That basically means that each use has exactly the same probability of
 > failure as the first use (so there's no differentiation between a "used"
 > chain and a "new" chain).
 >
 > rhdennis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: chain question 

In article <jeff.ray-ABAC1F.11065603122003.TakeThisOut@ftp2.dfrc.nasa.gov>,
Jeff Ray <jeff.ray.TakeThisOut@dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

  > > The game doesn't differentiate between your various
  > > chains. It only makes sure you have at least one.

 > Would there be any benefit to converting chains to have per-item data?
 > Being able to establish a "minimum number of uses before breakage" is
 > about all I can think of, and it would come at the cost of having to
 > manage each chain individually (for macros and such).

I believe this is on a list, somewhere...

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: CL: chain question