+- AwakenedLands Forums (http://forums.awakenedlands.com)
+-- Forum: Game & Forum Assistance (/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Game & Forum Suggestions (/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: Attacking @ less than 50% health (/thread-10945.html)
Pages: 1 2
Attacking @ less than 50% health - NastyFO - 2010.Feb.19 12:03 PM
You know when you have 49% health and cannot attack anyone because "you're too injured to fight right now"?
I think you should be able to attack anyone at any health percentage...
There are people that we attack that routinely don't hit us (with RES) for more than a few points (or any at all sometimes)... and having 50% of 1700 health is still quite a bit in comparison to the damage we're being dealt.
Obviously there is an increased chance of biting off... but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
I still like the idea of not being attacked while in critical/serious... but if I'm in (at least serious) I think I should be able to do what i want.
What say you, AL masses?
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - snorkelbill - 2010.Feb.19 12:56 PM
I dunno, I think it's pretty fair the way it is now. I've had the same thoughts before, but I think it needs to be balanced on both attack and defend.
Think of it this way. In a gang war, you could be at 45%, so are not eligible to be attacked by the heavy-hitter in the gang, but you could rampage through the little guys. (Yes, I know the limits are different in a gang war than normal already)
I'll leave that up there so it doesn't get brought up in a new post, but substitute "hosp war" for "gang war" in the previous paragraph, and you get what I'm saying.
If one is lowered, I think the other should be as well.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - CrazyFoley - 2010.Feb.19 03:58 PM
Bad idea. What good putting someone in serious be when they attack you then? The way it is now if someone takes you down to serious you pay for it with food.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - NastyFO - 2010.Feb.19 04:45 PM
(2010.Feb.19 03:58 PM)thatthingufear Wrote: Bad idea. What good putting someone in serious be when they attack you then? The way it is now if someone takes you down to serious you pay for it with food.
I'm really not trying to be combative... but I do not understand what you're trying to say in that first sentence... The english was bit broken.
Is the second part of your argument that if you're knocked down to serious you're forced to use food to get back to fair? Therefore the AL economy would drop because of a lack of purchasing nimbus?
I thought about that... I think the money spent on stims (for your increased chance of biting off) would balance out the decrease of AL money being used on nimbus.
Please do elaborate though... I've been thinking about this point for quite a while.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - Duchbag69 - 2010.Feb.19 04:58 PM
I just kinda think it takes some strategy out of wars...
and for some reason at the moment i can't explain in words what my head is trying to say to elaborate on that haha....
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - NastyFO - 2010.Feb.19 05:00 PM
(2010.Feb.19 04:58 PM)Duchbag69 Wrote: I just kinda think it takes some strategy out of wars...
and for some reason at the moment i can't explain in words what my head is trying to say to elaborate on that haha....
Please do work on it... I'd like to hear what you're thinking about.
Because as it stands now... In wars you can attack someone who's in serious - but if you're in serious you cannot attack.
It would change some dynamics of the game... but I'm thinking just about power-leveling and stuff.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - Accipender - 2010.Feb.19 05:17 PM
(2010.Feb.19 04:45 PM)NastyFO Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 03:58 PM)thatthingufear Wrote: Bad idea. What good putting someone in serious be when they attack you then? The way it is now if someone takes you down to serious you pay for it with food.
I'm really not trying to be combative... but I do not understand what you're trying to say in that first sentence... The english was bit broken.
Irony'd
As far as your idea, if you were able to attack from Serious/Critical, it would be only fair to be forced to defend from critical as well. Which would be not cool imo.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - NastyFO - 2010.Feb.19 05:21 PM
(2010.Feb.19 05:17 PM)Accipender Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 04:45 PM)NastyFO Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 03:58 PM)thatthingufear Wrote: Bad idea. What good putting someone in serious be when they attack you then? The way it is now if someone takes you down to serious you pay for it with food.
I'm really not trying to be combative... but I do not understand what you're trying to say in that first sentence... The english was bit broken.
Irony'd
As far as your idea, if you were able to attack from Serious/Critical, it would be only fair to be forced to defend from critical as well. Which would be not cool imo.
LMAO... Irony'd indeed.
As far as your point goes... Why? Why would you have to be able to defend in critical/serious? My proposal is not to balance attacks and defends... just apply this policy to attacks.
I like how you cannot be attacked when you're in crit/serious... It's passive. Attacking while in crit/serious is an overt action though - a choice by the attacker.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - Accipender - 2010.Feb.19 06:15 PM
(2010.Feb.19 05:21 PM)NastyFO Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 05:17 PM)Accipender Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 04:45 PM)NastyFO Wrote:(2010.Feb.19 03:58 PM)thatthingufear Wrote: Bad idea. What good putting someone in serious be when they attack you then? The way it is now if someone takes you down to serious you pay for it with food.
I'm really not trying to be combative... but I do not understand what you're trying to say in that first sentence... The english was bit broken.
Irony'd
As far as your idea, if you were able to attack from Serious/Critical, it would be only fair to be forced to defend from critical as well. Which would be not cool imo.
LMAO... Irony'd indeed.
As far as your point goes... Why? Why would you have to be able to defend in critical/serious? My proposal is not to balance attacks and defends... just apply this policy to attacks.
I like how you cannot be attacked when you're in crit/serious... It's passive. Attacking while in crit/serious is an overt action though - a choice by the attacker.
If you're immune to attacks, then it can work to your advantage. For instance, you stim out and hit someone that scratches you. You are now free for the next five minutes to use as much EP as you please attacking others, while enjoying impunity from other attackers who want you back in the hosp.
RE: Attacking @ less than 50% health - Duchbag69 - 2010.Feb.19 06:59 PM
(2010.Feb.19 06:15 PM)Accipender Wrote: If you're immune to attacks, then it can work to your advantage. For instance, you stim out and hit someone that scratches you. You are now free for the next five minutes to use as much EP as you please attacking others, while enjoying impunity from other attackers who want you back in the hosp.
this is what i don't really like about the idea... its too advantageous for the attacker...i could beat a shit load of low levels in critical condition and not even be able to be tapped by anyone else... and just before a refresh i would nimbus and pound someone closer to my level, bring me just back below serious and repeat...