complaints

Why don't you raise your base con to at least 48...
Is it necessary ._. ?

It is an attempt at preventing whoring too badly.

I was told you could still fight/be attacked, you just can't spend points until you raise your base dex. So actually if you wanted to really "whore" your bot you could just level with out raising your base con or spending your points and build a really good whore.

I don't think you can make yourself 'unattackable' in bots4

Correct, there is no concept of unattackable in bots4.

except for lvl'ing out of range >:(

Ok, as you may see I don't actually play the game at the moment but.. Since there is this new Energy system that everybody talks about and I do not know, is the con limit still necessary? Why wouldn't you be allowed to get to lvl 100 with 10 con?

When this rule was designed (both parts, the one before Emily and the one after) there were different times.

It is an attempt at preventing whoring too badly.

I think that also, there should be a modification to where one cannot equip the best armor their strength allows and then be able to remove it and go down to anything beneath it if it's the best they can have, with the only exception being special armors. Same for weapons but limit it more to where one cannot go back down in weapons that are below 25 STR/DEX units because it allows for people to make whores that others cannot attack and win and then use that to make their whores better and then change their armors to something they can defeat with an upcoming bot. It's stupid, but with the armor changes being so vast, one can essentially go from 40% absorption to 15%, etc just so that they are the only ones that can beat it. If the CON is going to be done like that, might as well make the armors and weapons more drastic to keep it from making whores just as easy to make.

I think that also, there should be a modification to where one cannot equip the best armor their strength allows and then be able to remove it and go down to anything beneath it if it's the best they can have, with the only exception being special armors.

So if your armor breaks, you can't replace it unless it's the exact same thing?

Sounds reasonable :)

@Neps basically yes, but I think that if your armor breaks like that for example, there should be a demand that you spend at least 85% of the cost of what the armor that broke was valued at new. Again with the exception of special armors.

Why make things horribly complicated?