Pan_w_okularach wrote:On a second thought, there's a few adjustments. First of, the permadeath chars should just be stripped of the ability to teleport home on KO not die on KO cause that's dumb. There have been too many times I was accidently KO'ed by my dumb friends or due to bugs. And what if I want to just KO someone without killing them?
[...] I propose:
1. A visual clue indicating whether a character has Rage or not, like an evil smile on their face or something. Optional: can only be seen by other people with Rage
2. Make Rage only take effect after some time since it was purchased, preferably longer than it usually takes for a fight to play out, ~1 hour real life time.
I agree that they shouldn't die on KO, that's kind of dumb. If I don't have rage (or murder, heavily suggesting murder be re-included tbh) then I shouldn't be able to kill you if I win the fight. I win the fight, you go down, you get knocked out. Great times, I survived, you did too because i don't have the capacity for murder in me (ie haven't purchased it)
As for the proposed ideas;
1, sounds super awesome and really cool and i love it. Even better if it's only indicated when you're in combat with someone, via top right corner.
2, this sounds incredibly reasonable. No one should reasonably be able to commit murder the second they've decided they have it in them. 1hr timer unlock sounds great.
ZantetsukenX wrote:But the whole point is that the peasants would not die unless they also had rage. Yes, they'd still get knocked out, but the point is they don't lose their character. Who cares if a person makes a rage alt and knocks out a non-rage character? It sucks for the KO'd person, but not as much as perma death. You have 4 scenarios basically:
1. Rage Person (R1) attacks Rage person (R2) and wins > R2 is permanently killed as a result.
2. Rage Person (R1) attacks Rage person (R2) and loses > R1 is permanently killed as a result.
3. Rage Person (R1) attacks non-Rage person (N1) and wins > N1 is knocked out and teleports home.
4. Rage Person (R1) attacks non-rage person (N1) and loses > R1 is permanently killed.
1, 2, and 3. Sounds good, sounds reasonable, sounds great.
4. No, no, no. No. I never intend to take murder (please re-add it), or rage if this change ends up being the case, i should not be able to kill someone. Maybe accidently, sure. Somehow i accidently did too much HHP damage at once and offed the guy, whoop. I should not be able to KO someone and then finish them off. Just like I am not able to loot their unconscious body if i don't have theft. Without theft I am
incapable as a hearthling of stealing from another.
ZantetsukenX wrote: All three people in these scenarios face the same risk of being attacked when out in the wild, the only difference is if they permanently die or not depending on if they took rage. But there's a cost to not dying permanently in that you can't attack anyone unless previously attacked. Meaning if you want revenge (because someone stole something) then you have to buy rage which opens up you to perma-death. A side benefit of this setup would be that it could allow for a proper bounty system to be introduced in that if you want revenge on someone, but don't want to buy rage, you could pay to have a rage person kill/KO them for you. Or you spend hours building up a rage alt yourself to do the deed.
I also hate the idea of not being able to fight back when xyz person attacked you but left, you can't then attack them back when you're more organized. It's stupid.