Killing yourself at 0.5
 

Could their be something to fix that?It's the most annoying thing ever.

Last person who registered a direct hit should get the kill. Guildmates, bombs, spikes, baddies, etc should not be allowed to deny kills.

I like that.

this isn't something to fix, I can tell you that most people do that to annoy you so why not annoy them back?
"a person who indirectly gets someone killed should get a kill", all I got from your post

He said that last person to hit a person to 0.5 and than if the person dies from spykes or some sort should get the kill.

haha. i used to do that all the time.

exactly what I summed up, does it make sense for you to get a kill when you didn't?

why does it matter?

lol yep ill hunt it down for next 2 hours straight.

only thing i am annoyed about is, horse fire-suicide method. the rest, it's waste of their time.

how do other servers handle this?
zodiac - won't let you enter the building during the combat. so if ur attacked ur pretty much ****ed.
era - if they run, era allows you to kill ur enemy inside the building for next 10-15 second. and if u log out, ur character stays still for 5 second right?

I think iEra removed that.

Should decrease kills if you kill a guild member. Bunch of noobs boost off each other

Works just fine for me. They take themselves out of position and have fewer team members at the flag. They also have to rush back to the flag after re-spawning. Makes it easier to steal the tower. If they are at 0.5 and not at tower, just move on. Not like that one kill is so important.

Don't see why it should be changed, viable and smart strategy when you're defending a tower
If I can't do this at a tower like Swamp, I'm just going to go down from the flag and intentionally suicide to a PKer at 0.5 - how's that any better?

I personally like the chase, besides you guys shouldn't be so upset when players do it because we did the same exact thing some of you even still do it.

AP was originally designed as a scale for implementing measures against people that would just run off and heal. That's a lame way to boost stats, it's classed as laming. In it's essence, it's a scale implemented to eliminate laming among more active PKers.

Players would kill newbies and people who never PK. That's a lame way to boost stats, it's classed as laming. Sainthood was implemented, which provided unskilled newbies and players who would prefer not to participate in PKing an opt out of PKing.

Players would just wait to gain sainthood, attack another player to near death, and then let someone else take the kill. That's lame. It's classed as laming. I was the person who made the decision and implemented on PC Classic that anyone with sainthood loses sainthood on a single attack. It was carried over into iClassic.

What you see now is player's denying another player a kill via suicide, hurts their opponents stats, which is lame. Hence why it should be classed as laming.

I would class suicides as counting against AP. If a player's AP is below the healing limit, a suicide should count as a kill to the last player to attack that person since their most recent death. An important condition is applying this rule only since their most recent death, otherwise, someone could boost kills off of a suicidal account holder or alt account. Boosting is lame, Graal's glameplay doesn't need that.

Guess I'll just stay away from the AP increment schedule, but for an overview otherwise that would incorporate this idea:

1. AP = 100: invincible, AP decreases on attack, kill, suicide (makes sense for suicides to disqualify you from sainthood)
2. AP < 100: AP decreases on kill, suicide
3. AP < 40: no healing, suicides contribute to kill stat of most recent attacker since most recent death
4. 20 <= AP < 40: max hearts 5
5. 0 <= AP < 20: max hearts 3

Of course, since iClassic has only ever seen 3 hearts, not many have seen the 20 AP and 40 AP threshold effects aside from not being able to heal. Also, suicides don't have to be applied at the same AP limits, but it makes sense to roll them into the AP system since it was intended to limit that kind of behavior.