Now, I was reading about, and decided to get peoples opinions on an idea I had.
This may have been suggested before, but with the removal of pacifist, and the 15% damage decrease, I thought it'd be a good idea if, when in your own land, you had pacifist as long as you did not fight back.
This doesn't bother me too much, as if I get attacked, I'd just stay underground, but I really think it'd be quite a good addition, as it used to be everywhere.
I'm sure a few people will see the word "Pacifist" and instantly be against this, but seriously, I don't think this is too bad of a compromise.
Benefit wise -
God damn, I'm gonna get a crap load of disagree ratings :I
This may have been suggested before, but with the removal of pacifist, and the 15% damage decrease, I thought it'd be a good idea if, when in your own land, you had pacifist as long as you did not fight back.
This doesn't bother me too much, as if I get attacked, I'd just stay underground, but I really think it'd be quite a good addition, as it used to be everywhere.
I'm sure a few people will see the word "Pacifist" and instantly be against this, but seriously, I don't think this is too bad of a compromise.
Benefit wise -
- PVP'ers get their items if they fight back, and they can still attack in the wilderness.
- It used to be like this everywhere.
- Gives the home side the advantage they should have. Not a combat one, but a risk one.
- Could look away from the screen for five seconds without backpackin' all your stuff or hiding in a hole.
- RP'ers could RP without having nothing in their inventory. [I understand people still RP during raids, I'm just saying that when they're not being raided, it shouldn't be a massive fear.]
- Killing defenceless players won't give you their items
- Killing non-pvp'ers who don't fight back won't give you their items
God damn, I'm gonna get a crap load of disagree ratings :I