Did we get carried away?
 

I was thinking with jobs in and everything that maybe we went a little bit overboard removing ALL exp and stat loss.... I really feel exp debt was the real solution... I wanna say peace out because whoever it is who always says it stuck it in my mind-_-.

No. EXP is good. Loss is bad. Especially losses of that ammount o_o

EXP debt sucks, look at it this way, a person can have two accts, reset one, keep killing it to gain exp for the other acct, and keep resetting the first or something to gain crazy amounts of exp.

uhm deny pking ability and ability to be pked to those with debt *rolls eyes*

Need exp debt, makes it too easy to level. Basically now death means nothing so people can be killed and it doesn't matter so people can respawn heal up and attack again.. and again.. and again. .without fear of losing anything since htey have it stored in their house

I don't like the idea of exp debt though, strong people never die, and the weaker people die often, so they'll always be in exp debt, while the strong people get stronger.

EXP loss was fusterating and made alot of people quit and get mad. Unixmad said enough, and Stefan removed it. You don't get alot of EXP for jobs, but people like Tyhm that spends much of his time working making bread can earn exp in a less violent way. (Except for killing them ebil shell bomies that pop-up every minute or so. x.x)

EXP Loss should be implanted again... because with every positive, there MUST be a negative... otherwise there will be a huge unbalance.

Lets say player66 gets to level 99 because EXP Loss was taken away. but player55 is a newbie. He'll never catch up with him.

So by taking away EXP Loss, you're limiting the 2k2 population to oldbies only. And you need newbies to grow and to live.

Zur wtf u talking about... not having exp loss helps oldbies... and people don't mix LOSS with DEBT.... in the debt situation you OWE exp before normal progression... you DON'T LOOSE LEVELS

Sometimes people don't get the simplest things Juron.. you just.. you just have to understand

Or you poke them in the eye with a stick and yell: YOUUNDERSTANDMEYOUUNDERSTANDME until they do :]

lemme get this straight...
I'll represent this post as a logical formula using words for symbols in the cases of imply, and, or each
We'll assume that with your premises we will have exp loss
e = exp loss
p = positive
n = negative
o = limiting to oldbies

1. e implies (p and n)
2. not e implies not b
3. e implies o
4. b implies not o
5. b /e
6. not o modus ponens(mp) 4.5
7. not e modus tollens(mt) 2.6
8. not b modus ponens(mp) 2.7
9. b or e addition(add) 5
10. e disjuctive syllogism(ds) 9.7

this problem is clearly nonsense by either 5 and 8 or 7 and 10

Oh yeah... I'm ignoring the nonexistant word unbalance

I know logic...but Juorn, that was a bit confusing @.@