[Ryu-Kazuki]

And to me that's not that big of a problem. If you don't want to RP, then don't. It's that simple in my opinion.

[Rendar]

Ryu-Kazuki » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:17 pm[/url]"]I've stated my place on this multiple times. Most of that stuff is there for bug testing, and until we have 0 bugs and will never have another bug again, I'm not going to change my decision.

Rendar » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:18 pm[/url]"]Why not have PVP where if both parties agree pre-fight, that... it provides this information. However if only 1 party agrees to it, it's invisible.

Your reasoning, before, was for bug testing. I suggested a hassle free way to test bugs, which I do a lot of, whilst allowing unhindered PVP and RP to happen without the metagaming aspect.

[Sarinpa1]

And to me that's not that big of a problem. If you don't want to RP, then don't. It's that simple in my opinion.

Pardon if I insert words into your mouth, but are you saying that if we don't like something, we should just not use it, instead of improve it?

[Ryu-Kazuki]

Rendar » Mon Dec 22, 2014 4:40 pm[/url]"]

Ryu-Kazuki » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:17 pm[/url]"]I've stated my place on this multiple times. Most of that stuff is there for bug testing, and until we have 0 bugs and will never have another bug again, I'm not going to change my decision.

Rendar » Mon Dec 22, 2014 2:18 pm[/url]"]Why not have PVP where if both parties agree pre-fight, that... it provides this information. However if only 1 party agrees to it, it's invisible.

Your reasoning, before, was for bug testing. I suggested a hassle free way to test bugs, which I do a lot of, whilst allowing unhindered PVP and RP to happen without the metagaming aspect.

You did, that's nice, it's a good idea. It still doesn't mean I have to agree with it, sir.

If anything I could see potential arguments and fights happening over someone denying it. Not saying people all will do it, but it's entirely possible for something like; "dude wtf, y u deny me c ur stuff" to happen. And like I also stated before in earlier threads, if you don't notice it, you can herp derp and mis a bug in the midst of it. If you didn't notice something fishy, then you might accidentally overlook it.

I'm not sorry that I disagree with the idea, regardless of how nice it may be.

[Soapy]

Ryu-Kazuki » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:39 pm[/url]"]If you don't want to RP, then don't. It's that simple in my opinion.

Moderator of a game, folks.

Let's dissuade roleplay, since it's not like anyone is here because of that.. right?

[JJKoshane]

Fund. It.

[Rockabye]

Sawrock » Mon Dec 22, 2014 3:06 pm[/url]"]I think damage should probably be not numerical, but instead have a phrase that says how much you can do of their health.
1% to 5% would be "Scratch Them", 6% to 20% would be "Hit Them", 21% to 50% would be "Hurt Them", 51% to 80% would be "Pummel Them", and 81% to 100% would be "Destroy Them".

To get us back on track now that Ryu's disapproval has been noted, I like Saw's suggestion, and think it would fit in well. If anyone else has ideas for making the system more RP-friendly, do speak up.

[Sarinpa1]

The ability to modify turn timer, for those that prefer lenghtier and more in-depth roleplays. Sure, common courtesy exists, but it's hard to willingly end turn for someone to do what they wanted to do in the RP, especialy because status-effects.

[Rendar]

I'd really like if enemies had their armor 'displayed' to a degree. Like, if you're wearing HEAVY BODYGUARD, I'm sorry. But it should show. I really do dislike the people that wear them as a skimpy dress. It.. made no sense.

Or if your opponent is over their battle weight!

[Blissus]

Fish. I want to fish trouts out of seawater, and I want them to weight 30(note exageration), and then flex my real fisherman's muscles to the horizon as I victoriously hold my prize!
Wait, someone tell me, am I on topic?