How is this fair?

Personally, I think that treating it as a loss would be a disservice. As stated earlier, it is a fair system currently in that everyone has the option. It would suck to have a loss simply because of an internet crash or something.although I grant that is usually not the case and it's probably really obvious when a person is using the timeout just because they're losing.

He didn't say "make it a runaway". An ATTEMPTED runaway, which is basically the same as if they clicked to try to runaway.

Could be a success, or could be a failure. Either way, the defender will be happy about the well earned result and the attacker would get what they deserve.

Another possible solution would be to make the fight automatic after some minutes of inactivity. However, I doubt that this is a big enough problem to get a lot of attention.

How would that work.

The game would be hitting for the attacker, in the same manner it does when defending, I guess. But it wasn't really a suggestion, just a thought.

Yeah but it just seems farfetched. How would it chose which weapon. It would require another attacking preference settings option.

It also takes away a bit of the human aspect.

Easily solved - have the runaway mechanic in place but don't count it as an official runaway for stat tracking purposes.

The current way it's done is the only fair way. It's only an extremely small issue anyway.

Sorry kyle but I disagree - exploiting the timeout mechanism to avoid taking damage (or perhaps a loss) after starting an attack and realising you can't finish it is piss weak and it's a loophole that needs to be closed (it's not the only one either) and that's not even taking into account the fact that the "defender" can't start an attack against the "attacker" while the timer is counting down.

Changing it to a loss/runaway/win/stalemate won't change anything to what you're saying.

The attacker will still have the 5 minutes to not hit regardless of what happens after that 5 minutes.

As far as not being able to attack the person that's attacking you is due to the way the group attacking system works. It's not overly exploitable. Maybe just a tad annoying in a faction war. But you can always get someone else to attack them (plus they would have the 2v1 advantage).

After 5 min you should get arrested and go to jail for "loitering" and the person you attacked should have an option to retaliate for 0 energy.

retaliate for 0 energy would just open a massive loophole for abuse/slutting/buying energy



I pay a level 10 in a faction to attack me 10 times. I retaliate for 10 free hits in a chain. Pay him a few mill.

Is that the same night in which the werewolves come out? If a guy times out 10x in a row against you and gives you 10 free hits in the chain and the faction in question still hasn't booted him they kinda deserve it. That's literally an hour long project.

People would buy factions just to top up peoples chains.

The point is it would lead to buying of energy and respect which is not what Ched is trying to achieve.

just fix it with bounties. if the nerds are doing this to conserve their health bountying them 10 times will force them to rethink. health reduced to 0 10 times or fight like a man a simple choice :P

If it is changed to a "runaway" attempt then in the end they will still more than likely get hit if they let an attack against an opponent that is hitting them back hard and take the loss as they more than likely would have, so it *would* change the situation markedly and cut out players trying to avoid taking damage or a loss by deliberately letting attacks time out.

To stop this being exploited for free runaways you just add a few lines of code to only trigger the updating of the runaway counter if the attack was not timed out.

I can't see why anyone wouldn't think this is a good idea tbh - if a player starts an attack and can't finish it then they shouldn't have a easy get-out-of-jail card by letting the attack time out with no risk to them whatsoever.

The only people who would object to this are probably the same people using the timeouts.

No risk?

They lose the 25e and 5 minutes it takes to time out. It's always been this way.

So your idea is at the end of 5 minutes the system forces a runaway attempt but the runaway doesn't count towards the runaway stat? Isn't that pointless. It would literally only change the text from the current event message.


There is no get out of jail attempt. No risk - I don't understand - They still have sacrificed life, energy and time.


Also what happens if you get a 504 error or the 60 click error and torn doesn't let you finish an attack. Maybe like the scrooge attack when people couldn't finish it. Should they be punished for this for the small minority.

Just had it happen to me. Shit really sucks.
It should just be where if the attacker times out, they should lose and it should count as a loss.

All you people saying "Well what if I lag, or what if I disconnect". If you can't hold a decent internet connection for 30 seconds while you finish your attack either don't make the attack or that's really just a risk your going to have to deal with.

The defender shouldn't be "Penalized" and should be rewarded the victory appropriately.

This, exactly that. Makes absolutely zero sense for people to argue in favor of the current system