[Howl]

Dingus Wrote:Perhaps inactive players should not be "attakable" at all. Would cause us active players to attack each other instead. Its my opinion attacking inactive players is cowardly since they cant attack back. 8)

Then what the heck r they doing when they kick my butt? :roll: :?

[Guest]

Ushanewnewba Wrote:Since ADMIN is aware of issue, and everyone is giving input in a tactful manner I do not feel aything needs to be done by players as of yet.

Bumpies.

So, now is ok?

[Ushanewnewba]

Well, in all honesty, I think med supplies need to be made cheaper, not lower hosp times. People are getting out in serious/fair condition. This was not an issue before when this thread came out. Situation has changed IMO. Was nice when people came out of hosp in excellent condition. It's so expensive to travel now, it's smart to find a district and keep hitting there until attackable players are driven out, then you have to find a new area. For a good while Industrial was the place to be. I think the community has caught up enough that chris and sarge are no longer the bread and butter of exp.

[Jolabent]

I don't think that code is helping much for attacking people either. It is limiting the players that you can attack for exp, cause you don't want to keep ending up in jail for 1000 minutes.

[Guest]

afaik, people who attack online are not protected by this code.

from newspaper:

Quote:As the person being attacked, you will enjoy the protection benefits only if you don't attack others. Each time you attack someone you will lose some of your protection.

am I understanding this correctly, Zen?

[Ushanewnewba]

very true jolabent. I do like the old anti-bully code. It really made EVRYONE spread their attacks out. It was kinda cool to strategize and oh man, the defender became so much stronger after prolonged hits. That's why I want old gang combat and old anti-bully code again. If you want to delete a gang, it will cost the attacker sooo much. I feel it would bring politics back in a major way, people actually have something to lose.

[zenith]

mtngti Wrote:afaik, people who attack online are not protected by this code.

from newspaper:

Quote:As the person being attacked, you will enjoy the protection benefits only if you don't attack others. Each time you attack someone you will lose some of your protection.

am I understanding this correctly, Zen?

Say you attack someone 10 times in a day. The hospital times decrease as we all know.

If that player attacks 5 players and you attack for an 11th time, it acts like you are only attacking him for a 6th time.

LOL, that sounds really dumb now that I typed it out. Does it make sense?

[w00k]

it is dumb, let's do away with it

[Guest]

zenith Wrote:Say you attack someone 10 times in a day. The hospital times decrease as we all know.

If that player attacks 5 players and you attack for an 11th time, it acts like you are only attacking him for a 6th time.

I never liked the protection code to begin with, so it does sound dumb.

Does the same 4-hour window apply both ways? For protection and for losing protection?