So why not make the con loss more , like 1/2 con , for all deaths, why should attacking in town be different?

So why not make the con loss more , like 1/2 con , for all deaths, why should attacking in town be different?:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Graham on August 31, 2000 at 11:14:01:

In Reply to: Would 1/3 con without exp loss be much of a deterrant against attacking someone in Town? I think not. (n/t) posted by Zepachu on August 31, 2000 at 10:20:01:

> > can't you change the process of special guards? why can't they just kill you and you lose con get rid of the exp hole thing.

Follow Ups:

Because Arbiters protect the towns, and an con loss alone is inappropriate and not powerful. (n/t) Zepachu 16:10:09 8/31/2000 (2)
- Explain -HOW- to all of your points, since i agree with none of them and see no obvious thinking (other than imbrogno style blind arbiter devotion) Graham 03:31:15 9/1/2000 (1)
  - I did explain. An Arbiter imposing an EXP LOSS on a Criminal means there will be less rampant killing.. Oh, just.. just hush you! (n/t) Zepachu 16:20:33 9/1/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > can't you change the process of special guards? why can't they just kill you and you lose con get rid of the exp hole thing.