27 replies · 337 views · thread synced · 10 days ago
· View on torn.com
About this thread
Posts archived:28 / 28 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
Archived posts
28
Discussion span
→
Authority score
61 / 100
Historical score
44 / 100
Story score
48 / 100
Engagement score
63 / 100
People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.
Most-liked replies
Proxima[1879587]Wiki Editor
· 3 likes · That's not true, you can attack you just can't be sent to hospital. I don't recall it ever being like as you said, however I tested it as soon as I read Nihar's post and I was not booted from …
I climbed on the wall and did 2 non wall hits and then after winning both I find myself off wall. Then i climbed again and did few more attacks and saw again off wall.
Is it a bug or I am missing something?
If I lose or go hosp them i get it that i am off wall. But no hosp nothing and I am off wall.
I seem to remember reading that sitting on the wall would stop when you attacking someone. At least at one point.
I would argue that being able to attack someone and expecting to not lose your spot "sitting on the wall" is what makes no sense, if you're sitting you can't really be attacking. That requires more tactical awareness, you can either have your best hitters on the wall, or trying to take other people off it.
Sitting on the wall isn't supposed to be literal, it's analogous to being a line of defense, someone like that can still cause damage to the enemy. Once they're removed from the picture (hospitalised) they can no longer perform their duty, and are 'removed from the wall'.
Consider this scenario:
Faction A has 25 members. Faction B has 25 members, and own a territory with 50 spots on the wall.
Faction A assaults. Under your regime, faction A can not win. All Faction B has to do is med/revive and sit back on their wall and maintain a 1:1 (maximum) ratio of members on their wall. Faction A cannot remove them without also removing themselves and maintaining the ratio.
It would be utterly insane.
*Numbers obviously exaggerated, could be 10, 10, 20
1. I sat on the wall and then I attacked thinking that if I dont go to hosp I will be able to remove some targets of enemy wall. But after some mins I saw i was not on wall anymore.
2. So I again climbed the wall and attacked and I was off wall again. I did this a few times and then I got confused that how am I getting off the wall if I am not being hosped.
3. To check it you can see from back end log that how many times I have climbed.
4. I even saw my points to be negative at around -486 when i climbed the last time
I think there must have been some confusion with which wall you were on. We're unable to replicate the issue - there's no reason for you to be removed from the wall you were on. Perhaps you can test some more to let us know if it happens again : you should certainly remain on whichever wall you joined, only being removed if you go to hospital, jail or travel.
Ah, it could have been that you were defeated - removed from wall - and then the attacker waited before selecting leave / mug / hosp to finalise the attack? To you it would have appeared as if you were randomly removed from the wall (although your life would have been 1 at the time still).
I was on a wall and then decided to risk grabbing a bounty on someone unconnected with the territory war that ws fine as long as I did not lose.
I was on a wall and an OC was initiated and was succesful I was not taken of the wall.
Now lets add some recent overlays to this:-
I have noticed that one territory owner can be assaulting one territory and the same owner can also be defending a different territory from the same faction as the first. Originally, I di dnot think that was possible. However, I have been convinced a recent hidden change reversed that impossibility. In which case could this bug being reported be one of the consequences?
Alternatively, adding Chain 2.0 to the piece, is it possible we have introduced by accident that by chaining against a non-wall target we lose our place on a wall? Surely not!? And in our few chains we have not noticed that phenomena.
You are making as info required But i already told you what I saw. I can not pull up the logs and see that you and your team can do but please take a look.