-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 67
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[Bug] Rebirth Transfer Protection #315
Comments
Forgot to mention this above ^ The user did not earn any gold that could've put them above 7,852 + rebirth tax is at 75% |
I wanted to offer my thoughts on this. Personally I think it is a lot of work trying to catch all the ways in which a user can avoid paying the rebirth cost. And the target is always going to be moving when new features are added, as it could introduce new ways to avoid the cost. Rather than making it impossible for users to avoid the cost under some situations, why don't we make it so arduous that people simply don't do it. If they really have an issue with the rebirth cost, they can take it up with the admins of the server and change the What do I mean by arduous? How about preventing somebody from transferring money or receiving money for 24 hours after they rebirth (and no trading items)? Somebody is not going to want to hold money for a day, and it gets confusing about how much to send back if any is lost through battle. Technically it's possible to avoid paying the cost this way, but it would put people off doing it because it isn't worth it. |
Complete these first
Expected Behavior
Rebirth protection message that makes you get up to x gold remains consistent
Current Behavior
3.4.3
A user can bypass this feature by depositing some gold back in after withdrawing the gold.
Possible Solution
N/A
Steps to Reproduce
Context (Environment)
I am trying to make sure all users have to pay the rebirth costs and are unable to bypass it using any methods
Detailed Description
Users still have to pay rebirth costs even after withdrawing and depositing
Possible Implementation
N/A
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: