Applying the principle of "Double-Negative" to PvP

Alexeno - Sanctuary
Alexeno - Sanctuary Posts: 1,006 Arc User
edited November 2009 in Suggestion Box
first off, before i explain my idea, let me take a moment to just say: this is a "rough sketch" of my sudden inspiration. take it as such, and also realize i'm slowly gathering my thoughts about it. suggestions are gladly accepted, and will be considered for merging with the original idea (credit will be given through color-coding)
10characters
okay, so here's the super-simplistic epically over-simplified and rather vague summary of the idea:

if a player is utilizing multiple forms of pvp protection (to prevent item loss), then pairs of protections will cancel each other out

here's a more descriptive way to put it:

let's say a player is using the safety lock, and also has GAs in their inventory. the item loss protection provided by the safety lock and the GAs cancel each other out, opening all their items up for potential loss

another example. player has GAs, and has a couple items bound. the GAs will protect the non-bound items from loss, however the binding protection and GAs cancel each other out, allowing for loss of said items (in this case, they would be destroyed instantly)

final example, more complex! safety lock on, GAs in inventory, AND bound items... because of this potential situation, the separate item loss protection items would need to have priority levels. my proposition would be as follows:
GA=#1
lock=#2
bound=#3

so in this instance, the GAs and safety lock cancels eachother out, thereby only keeping the bound items protected from loss
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

"Hell hath no fury like Alexeno trying to prove his point" -Mizuoni
Post edited by Alexeno - Sanctuary on

Comments

  • MagicHamsta - Lost City
    MagicHamsta - Lost City Posts: 10,466 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    uh.....
    no

    GS = cash shop item designed to prevent item drops & exp loss

    Safety lock = feature in order to add security to accounts.
    say if you got ****, you would have set such set time to take action.
    say switch password or something.

    (X_x)
    darthpanda16: Firefox crashed on me. Aryannamage: I don't think I am a GM that would be new.
    Hawk:Do this. closing thread
    frankieraye: I'll see if we can replace the woman with a stick figure and the tiger fangs with marshmallows.//Issues like these need to get escalated quickly to minimize the damage.
    Kantorek: Yeah.. you should try it. It's awesome.
    Sihndra: Nope- not currently possible under any circumstances. Sorry.
    LokisDottir: I mean...not haunting the forums, nope nope..
    Konariraiden: You don't know what you are up against. You will lose.
    Waiting for...Hamster Packs!
    58% chance to get tokens
    41% chance to get an all class pet hamster....but they has already been freed by the magic hamster.
    1% chance to get ban hamstered with the message "Hamsters United!"
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Raviste - Heavens Tear
    Raviste - Heavens Tear Posts: 288 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    Why would we do that?

    GS = cash shop item.
    Binding charm = cash shop item.
    Safety lock = protect items from being stolen.

    What would we accomplish by having the protections cancel each other out? PWI would lose revenues from the GS and the binding charms, and players would risk losing their valuable items AND the security of their accounts.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Retired - Radiance
  • MiStAiSa - Sanctuary
    MiStAiSa - Sanctuary Posts: 278 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    What the hell is this thread?
  • Raviste - Heavens Tear
    Raviste - Heavens Tear Posts: 288 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    I think she wants to PK people for their equips. o-o
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Retired - Radiance
  • Taranta - Dreamweaver
    Taranta - Dreamweaver Posts: 387 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    Raviste - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    I think she wants to PK people for their equips. o-o

    More accurately, I think she wants to PK people for their bound equips.

    I don't see the point of a canceling effect. If someone wants to use a whole bunch of protection, let them. It's their money, not yours. Safety lock abuse seems prevalent, but the potential gains are still there. Plus, you can always keep at it until the GA's run out...
    I shall dominate the Dreamweaver server through the use of Baked goods...and only baked goods.^^[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    Venomancers are Female. Barbarians are male. It will forever be this way. So suck it up and deal with it already.
  • Alexeno - Sanctuary
    Alexeno - Sanctuary Posts: 1,006 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    first off:

    safety lock IS NOT for protecting your items in PK. GTFO with your inane BS


    secondly:

    as things stand, PK is pointless in this game, unless your are rich (i'm technically rich, this isn't a QQ thread, this is an honest attempt to provide a realistic improvement to PK). there's no benefits to it, and insane amounts of downsides. this suggestion would help alleviate such problems. no one FORCES you to stack protection effects, this would make it a bad idea to do so. it would also allow for more benefit to PK, causing more people to potentially engage in it
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Hell hath no fury like Alexeno trying to prove his point" -Mizuoni
  • LloydAsplund - Sanctuary
    LloydAsplund - Sanctuary Posts: 3,899 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    I dont see how this can work out. Just doesnt seem right for an MMORPG.
    I was early taught to work as well as play,
    My life has been one long, happy holiday;
    Full of work and full of play-
    I dropped the worry on the way-
    And God was good to me everyday.
  • Aadi - Lost City
    Aadi - Lost City Posts: 4,449 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    MagicHamsta - Lost City wrote: »
    Safety lock = feature in order to add security to accounts.
    say if you got ****, you would have set such set time to take action.
    say switch password or something.
    Raviste - Heavens Tear wrote: »
    Safety lock = protect items from being stolen.
    Alexeno - Sanctuary wrote: »
    first off:

    safety lock IS NOT for protecting your items in PK. GTFO with your inane BS

    lolwat?

    /10char
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "aadi is a forum ninja, always there, skirting thru the shadows... striking with quick posts while you are distracted by your own" -Alexeno(kin)
    "We talk about you because you're fab. b:cute" -Chillum
    "You live for forums. Like seriously."
  • Trista_Zel - Dreamweaver
    Trista_Zel - Dreamweaver Posts: 273 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    Uh...let me get this straight...you want safety lock and guardian scrolls to cancel each other out even though you know they have completely different intentions?

    In other words, fail troll is fail.
    Courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality.
  • Accelerated - Sanctuary
    Accelerated - Sanctuary Posts: 1,048 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    Am I the only one that noticed that two people referred to GA's, Guardian Angels, as GS's?

    As for the suggestion, I don't see a lot of reasons to having protection penalties.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    ♥ - 藤林 杏-様 - ♥
    ♥ Kyou Fujibayashi-sama ♥
  • Trista_Zel - Dreamweaver
    Trista_Zel - Dreamweaver Posts: 273 Arc User
    edited November 2009
    Accelerated - Sanctuary wrote: »
    Am I the only one that noticed that two people referred to GA's, Guardian Angels, as GS's?

    As for the suggestion, I don't see a lot of reasons to having protection penalties.

    Because the item was changed from guardian angel to guardian scroll. It's the same as people still saying CON instead of VIT.
    Courage is the magic that turns dreams into reality.

Categories