PsychoDon's dashboard

that explains it. I'm in the level range where with the right equipment, I can't be beat, so i've never deal with raising my health. Thanks. I should have know.

When it changed back to an OK after the attack, and I reattacked ,I haven't been able to get the kill. I guess it's cause it's between 20-25 like you said. thanks.

so where did you picture go?

Hey, Nancy, but if it is unde 20 (you see the ??'s), and you attack right away, how does it go up after an attack to "Ok". It's happened several times to me tonight.

pink – Connie (204408788), on April 17, 2009 02:10

Nope, nada, no way, no, forget it, never ever gonna happen.

good one. – Connie (204408788), on April 16, 2009 18:20

My name's Connie and i'm a recoverying addict.

@SickofCheaters: I'm really curious about campers. It looks like you pay a big price for camping. One is boredom, the other is low ROE's. Seems like a lot of money is saved at a low rate, where one could move up and increase income with higher rates. Another is you can make more money at higher levels. Seems you get penalized severely for camping. How do you determine the cost of camping versus leveling up? – Connie (204408788), on April 16, 2009 00:05

I was a big fan of the threads. Yea, the higher level players don't all get how it is now, but now that they;ve heard it, if they think about it, and not just jump on board one way or the other, they could help. They might say deleting the equipment until 45 might make the game boring. or that different level strategies is good for the players and the game.They might like there to be more of a luck factor and get rid of the "fixed invincibility". Or maybe say strategy is more important than adding a luck factor. When they had their say, they had it set up so there was a small margin between total defense weapons and total offense weapons. Versus full defense always winning, (I think) So now they've experienced it, maybe they can tell us how it worked.

I dont' know. Maybe it''s better to make it harder to win for fully equipped players, but then I won't want it to go to far where we have level 28's beating fully equiped level 40 just due to luck. I don't like luck. I like strategy and beating the hell out of someone because i thought through the game better than they did.

Also, my fully equiped defense is there because i came up (along with others) new ways to do things. The game is driven by strategy, and i'm concerned some times we request things that make strategy less important, only to find it out after the fact.

Plus we need to consider AS no matter what we suggest. I'm leary of asking them to change anything relating to the fighting strategy cuase they don't have a very good reputation on changing things.

Without going into more detail, i can defend how the game works for 25 -40's except for one thing. Have the ones who have earned the most money and fully equiped themselves; have they earned the right to keep their money in cash and avoid the 10% banking penalty. At the top levels they do, but to me that's the biggest question. I'm curious what you think. – Connie (204408788), on April 15, 2009 23:49

I realize he didn't experience it, but I think many veterans have enough knowledge and concern that ML is a successful game going forward to give opinions on facts expressed by others and their own experience. I respect their opinion. I've been to level 55, now reset and within the level we are discussing. It gives me a different perspective. Not that it is right or wrong, just another view point.

Your last statement, did you mean that as a suggested rule change or as a statement of fact based on how the game is right now? – Connie (204408788), on April 15, 2009 20:00

I have my opinions about what is right and wrong to do in this game, but i keep coming back to:

It's a game. The only way you can cheat is if there are rules.

#3 is a significant change to the game. Not that i am against it. Before a change of this magnitude is taken to AS I think we should think real hard about the implications and determine what we are trying to get out of level 25-40.

I have found when there is a solution put out for a perceived problem, many times there is a way around it we just haven't found yet. (Ex: we thought bounties couldn't be won and many wanted it fixed; now we know how to win them)

Plus there are ways to earn big money on those levels without changing the rules. Real big money. People just have to research to find them.

I believe the current rule allows those who really work at strategy, to be able to pull themselves up to a new level of play and gain potential to be future top 100 players. There are players not maxing out the 10X rule, or buying defense for family members that don't even get used.

I imagine if you could take a poll of all players it's likely to be voted to change the rule. But that would only be because the top players are outnumbered.

Then there is how it would be implemented. I'm pretty much thinking i would hope a solution would be found that would not involve taking equipment away. That wouldn't go over very well in my opinion.

I'm sure i would never think of all the positives and negatives, but i'm glad you posted it for discussion. Now it's up to others to think and not jump on one or the other band wagons. It would also be good to hear some veteran's opinions.

Maybe KB, or some long timer will give some insight.

it's possible especially if he used his brain and targeted the best opponents at the best times.