Unknown2005-12-31 17:08:45
So at the moment the outcome of any debating hit is: hurt you a lot, hurt them a little, or hurt them a lot.
What if instead of a bad choice of debating hurting you, it restored the same amount of ego as a draw takes away from your victim?
I mean, the current debate results are
big hit to victim/tiny hit to victim/big hit to attacker
What if this was changed to
big hit to victim/tiny hit to victim/tiny boost to victim?
Then make every debate attack consume a constant amount of ego from the attacker, just like regular influence attacks do. The only way in which this could be abused is already forbidden, so that isn't much of a problem. But it would mean that debating isn't as absurd as it is now, and if you want to win a debate, you're going to have to say something.
What if instead of a bad choice of debating hurting you, it restored the same amount of ego as a draw takes away from your victim?
I mean, the current debate results are
big hit to victim/tiny hit to victim/big hit to attacker
What if this was changed to
big hit to victim/tiny hit to victim/tiny boost to victim?
Then make every debate attack consume a constant amount of ego from the attacker, just like regular influence attacks do. The only way in which this could be abused is already forbidden, so that isn't much of a problem. But it would mean that debating isn't as absurd as it is now, and if you want to win a debate, you're going to have to say something.
Cwin2005-12-31 18:48:56
Hmm, you know, I think that'll work out.
I still prefer the idea of just making the damage to the attacker in a Loss result in half damage (so when the time period makes it so that a win does 4k damage, you'll take 2k damage instead if you lose.. altered by charisma, time of day, and whatever other stats alter things).
Then, if you are the only one attacking, CONSTANTLY losing still results in shattering, but if no one's had the upperhand, there will be a point where one hit can kill the defender but not yet the attacker (who, like the defender, can always run, wait a moment, and try again). If you're willing to do 20 Draws without a single win, then get a loss at #21 it's your fault realy.
Still, I'm ok for Avaer's idea as well. The overall goal is to:
1. Make PURERANDOM defense 'ok' but not a 'great' way to defend, similar to Parry in PK.
2. Give the defender more reasons to either run or fight back (either will do the trick, considering a debates should happen when fighting over villagers).
I still prefer the idea of just making the damage to the attacker in a Loss result in half damage (so when the time period makes it so that a win does 4k damage, you'll take 2k damage instead if you lose.. altered by charisma, time of day, and whatever other stats alter things).
Then, if you are the only one attacking, CONSTANTLY losing still results in shattering, but if no one's had the upperhand, there will be a point where one hit can kill the defender but not yet the attacker (who, like the defender, can always run, wait a moment, and try again). If you're willing to do 20 Draws without a single win, then get a loss at #21 it's your fault realy.
Still, I'm ok for Avaer's idea as well. The overall goal is to:
1. Make PURERANDOM defense 'ok' but not a 'great' way to defend, similar to Parry in PK.
2. Give the defender more reasons to either run or fight back (either will do the trick, considering a debates should happen when fighting over villagers).
