einand
commented
10 years ago i would vote for 100% loss on death
Ein Andersson
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:50 PM, James Sherlock notifications@github.comwrote:
@sabersamus https://github.com/sabersamus @EmilHernvallhttps://github.com/EmilHernvall
Between you, you have made banks - and in a few weeks, you decided you were going to introduce the 5% loss on death fee.
Now I had a bit of an idea to go with that, to encourage people to keep some amount of money on them at any time - We should introduce 'death chests'.
If the 5% money that is taken on death is equal to or more than a set price (maybe like 1,000) AND they have 'hasBlockPermission' for the location they died at, then their items would automatically go into chest - Now obviously there is only 27 spaces in a chest and 40 in an inventory, therefore I propose that there is a random factor:
while items.size > 27 : i = random.get(items.size) inventory.get(i).remove. ;
Which would mean people would not be 100% guaranteed all their items back all the time meaning its not really over powered.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/EmilHernvall/tregmine/issues/271 .
Koala37
lDiverse
@sabersamus @EmilHernvall
Between you, you have made banks - and in a few weeks, you decided you were going to introduce the 5% loss on death fee.
Now I had a bit of an idea to go with that, to encourage people to keep some amount of money on them at any time - We should introduce 'death chests'.
If the 5% money that is taken on death is equal to or more than a set price (maybe like 1,000) AND they have 'hasBlockPermission' for the location they died at, then their items would automatically go into chest - Now obviously there is only 27 spaces in a chest and 40 in an inventory, therefore I propose that there is a random factor:
while items.size > 27 : i = random.get(items.size) inventory.get(i).remove. ;
Which would mean people would not be 100% guaranteed all their items back all the time meaning its not really over powered.