[dnbrocks]

(2009.Sep.24 02:40 AM)Conrad1103 Wrote:  

(2009.Sep.24 02:31 AM)dnbrocks Wrote:  it should be based on attackers and defenders level. if attacker is way stronger than defender it is unfair for a low level to be hosped for 4 hours with no chance of loss for the attacker.

someone way stronger would not use a zerck on someone way weaker. thats what hospitolizations are for, genius. those can last just as long. and you're saying a low level shouldnt be able to be hosped for as long as a high level? horseshit.

take a chill pill mate, you getting all hot under the collar everytime somone does not agree with you in one of the many shitty threads you post up.

[Conrad1103]

take a chill pill mate, you getting all hot under the collar everytime somone does not agree with you in one of the many drekky threads you post up.

[dnbrocks]

im glad we're on the same page.

[JaySin]

(2009.Sep.24 04:07 AM)dnbrocks Wrote:  im glad we're on the same page.

Thats a little funny. It being a forum argument and all.

[Rafallol]

even that i dont use Berzerck myself I have to agree with Conrad
there should be minimum maybe 30% - 50% biger thats now

[bconrad56]

I think the 2.5 times the amount of energy used is a good standard. And then randomize the minutes from there so it's not always the same. Great thought, Conrad.

[spacebird]

i think the minimum/max time for a zerk should raise as the players level rises. eg. a level 4 player zerking someone shouldn't yield a 300 min time...on the other hand, a level 30 person zerking someone shouldn't bottom out below 120 min. more energy spent should equate to longer hosp time.

[Howl]

(2009.Sep.24 06:58 AM)Troopermccue Wrote:  i think the minimum/max time for a zerk should raise as the players level rises. eg. a level 4 player zerking someone shouldn't yield a 300 min time...on the other hand, a level 30 person zerking someone shouldn't bottom out below 120 min. more energy spent should equate to longer hosp time.

I agree. I dont zerk much anymore b/c its a big waste of energy 2/3 of the time i bite off for more than i've zerked someone for... whoopee ding!

---

(2009.Sep.24 06:55 AM)bconrad56 Wrote:  I think the 2.5 times the amount of energy used is a good standard. And then randomize the minutes from there so it's not always the same. Great thought, Conrad.

Umm give credit where credit is due... was not connie who thought this up:

(2009.Sep.23 10:11 PM)Duchbag69 Wrote:  2.5 x the amount of energy used...

for someone my level the minimum zerk hosp time would be 155 minutes...i'd settle for that as a minimum...the higher your level the more energy you use and should be rewarded with the additional minutes....

[PhisheVA]

Dont quit your day job to pursue your dream of spelling bee champ.

[Conrad1103]

(2009.Sep.24 08:56 AM)Howlsong Wrote:  

(2009.Sep.24 06:58 AM)Troopermccue Wrote:  i think the minimum/max time for a zerk should raise as the players level rises. eg. a level 4 player zerking someone shouldn't yield a 300 min time...on the other hand, a level 30 person zerking someone shouldn't bottom out below 120 min. more energy spent should equate to longer hosp time.

I agree. I dont zerk much anymore b/c its a big waste of energy 2/3 of the time i bite off for more than i've zerked someone for... whoopee ding!

---

(2009.Sep.24 06:55 AM)bconrad56 Wrote:  I think the 2.5 times the amount of energy used is a good standard. And then randomize the minutes from there so it's not always the same. Great thought, Conrad.

Umm give credit where credit is due... was not connie who thought this up:

(2009.Sep.23 10:11 PM)Duchbag69 Wrote:  2.5 x the amount of energy used...

for someone my level the minimum zerk hosp time would be 155 minutes...i'd settle for that as a minimum...the higher your level the more energy you use and should be rewarded with the additional minutes....

what are you talking about Howls? i DID think this up. i've been talking with Zen about it ingame for a while now. she wont do a minimum of 200 mins i was asking for, so i came to the forum with it. she said 3 hours is too long.