[Accipender]

(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.