It probably should be this way, but I just find it incredibly amusing that I can stall somebody's attack by 5 minutes if they keep attacking me by simply attacking them first.
Attack your Attacker
Started by Andyman [471591] on in Suggestions.
Posts archived: 118 / 118 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
There’s gonna be advantages and disadvantages to all of the suggestions unfortunately. It will just take a lot of testing and see what will work and Is practical in all. My suggestion would just make it more hands on, you could also do a 5-10 second time limit before now you lose your turn. Etc.
Oh man, easy R+.
Pretty annoying, sometimes in wars I'm on a killing spree and someone will start an attack on me and just HOLD, and it makes me run out of ammo and my one temp, etc, so if I start a new fight and can only melee, etc, man I hate that.
Pretty annoying, sometimes in wars I'm on a killing spree and someone will start an attack on me and just HOLD, and it makes me run out of ammo and my one temp, etc, so if I start a new fight and can only melee, etc, man I hate that.
In a round based system how do you suggest you "take over" a fight you're already in (that someone else started)?
i saw this in the popular threads, but skipped over it several times because the name of it sounded like a "fun & games" thread lol
anyway, R+
anyway, R+
I can imagine plenty of problems this causes but no problems it solves. The original post doesn’t explain why this needs changing?
A level 7, 25 day old player can currently keep a level 100 5,200 day old player from healing / switching weapons / reloading / etc. for a mere 25e for 5 minutes.
... and after 5 mins, immediately heal and do it for another 25e and 5 mins.
... and after 5 mins, immediately heal and do it for another 25e and 5 mins.
I hate to disapoint you. But the better connection already wins.
If your worried about the fact that it can take over 7 seconds to get a second attack out it could be as simple to say.
Inactivity in the loader 7 seconds initiating an attack without making an attack
Increasing the time out once an attack has been made.
Its not perfect but it would make a hide difference in competitive play. Which if you're playing from mobile or poor Wi-Fi you aren't part or regardless.
If your worried about the fact that it can take over 7 seconds to get a second attack out it could be as simple to say.
Inactivity in the loader 7 seconds initiating an attack without making an attack
Increasing the time out once an attack has been made.
Its not perfect but it would make a hide difference in competitive play. Which if you're playing from mobile or poor Wi-Fi you aren't part or regardless.
I can get behind this variation of the idea. Would make it at least 10 seconds though
That's a great suggestion.
Editing OP with this suggestion.
Editing OP with this suggestion.
Might also help to have a "attack back" button somewhere which is only possible to use after the condition (10 sec inactivity of your opponent) is met.
Version 1 button is on the profile of the attacker instead of the attack button
Version 2 button is on your own profile (would OP thought as you don't have to search for your attacker)
Question: I assume this only applies to the one who attacked you first since in a group attack as you can't back attack all of the attackers? What happens if the original attacker a) looses by your counter attack (all other attacks stop?) b) gets hosped for some other reason?
I imagine this might be very hard to implement for group attacks...
Version 1 button is on the profile of the attacker instead of the attack button
Version 2 button is on your own profile (would OP thought as you don't have to search for your attacker)
Question: I assume this only applies to the one who attacked you first since in a group attack as you can't back attack all of the attackers? What happens if the original attacker a) looses by your counter attack (all other attacks stop?) b) gets hosped for some other reason?
I imagine this might be very hard to implement for group attacks...
The idea is pretty but this is a turn based attack system, 1 person is controlling the pace, which is easy to determine by a computer the outcome.
Idk torn limitations but having 2 people simultaneously attacking eachother seems like it could prove to make complications. Who gets priority if they finish the same millisecond as some people have suggested? Do they both get hosped?
In most wars atm people running into this issue just ask a faction mate to clear the tag along. Cost the same 25e but no layering of complexity to the system.
Idk torn limitations but having 2 people simultaneously attacking eachother seems like it could prove to make complications. Who gets priority if they finish the same millisecond as some people have suggested? Do they both get hosped?
In most wars atm people running into this issue just ask a faction mate to clear the tag along. Cost the same 25e but no layering of complexity to the system.
You can attack any of your attackers, the moment they go 7-10s inactive in the fight they initiated against you.
A loss by a counterattack is just a regular lost defend.
A loss by a counterattack is just a regular lost defend.
I concede that can be frustrating.
But just to play devils advocate:
A: in my experience it’s limited to large wars. Even in ranked wars it’s rare for anyone to be able to do this because someone else will attack them.
B: the reverse is also true - the older player can do the same to the younger player. You are looking at this from one perspective only and seem to be saying that older players should be 100% immune to the actions of younger players? In this case why would younger players want to play?
C: the attacking player can’t do anything else while attacking. The player being attacked is still free to attack others, just with an inconvenience. Are younger players so irrelevant that even being an inconvenience is too much too much “power” to grant them?
D: this isn’t new as far as I can tell. It hasn’t been a problem for this long so what changed to make it an issue?
Older players in this game have so many advantages. Unprecedented advantages compared to any other game I’ve ever played. The only way newer players can contribute to a war is through harassing and selfless teamwork yet older players want to shut down that avenue too?
This feels like a bit of a non issue.
But just to play devils advocate:
A: in my experience it’s limited to large wars. Even in ranked wars it’s rare for anyone to be able to do this because someone else will attack them.
B: the reverse is also true - the older player can do the same to the younger player. You are looking at this from one perspective only and seem to be saying that older players should be 100% immune to the actions of younger players? In this case why would younger players want to play?
C: the attacking player can’t do anything else while attacking. The player being attacked is still free to attack others, just with an inconvenience. Are younger players so irrelevant that even being an inconvenience is too much too much “power” to grant them?
D: this isn’t new as far as I can tell. It hasn’t been a problem for this long so what changed to make it an issue?
Older players in this game have so many advantages. Unprecedented advantages compared to any other game I’ve ever played. The only way newer players can contribute to a war is through harassing and selfless teamwork yet older players want to shut down that avenue too?
This feels like a bit of a non issue.
If we are sold on the idea of Torn being truly turn-based battle, then temps would need to last for turns as opposed to time. Time is fine in my opinion. But time to take an action should definitely not be 5 minutes when temps are less than half of that time imo.
A: False, I'll occasionally use it for sell mugging to lock out the would-be mugger. It's also happened to me three times in one evening in this JUX vs. PT penguins war, when there are only 3 of them online, and they are all 3 on me, they are safe from getting retal'd by me.
B: Yes, this should apply universally. The second part of your question is loaded.
C: Your question is loaded. In general, I feel that battlestats and weaponry shouldn't be penalized to level the playing field between a player with 200 days of playtime and 200 minutes of playtime.
D: This has been a problem for over a decade.
B: Yes, this should apply universally. The second part of your question is loaded.
C: Your question is loaded. In general, I feel that battlestats and weaponry shouldn't be penalized to level the playing field between a player with 200 days of playtime and 200 minutes of playtime.
D: This has been a problem for over a decade.
Yes my responses are loaded. This whole thread is loaded isn’t it?
A: if the 3 people at your opponents fac are online and willing to spend 25e and prevent themselves attacking anyone else just to avoid being attacked by you, is that not fair? They are playing the game and took the only positive action they could. Should you be able to just hosp them all no matter what they do? Why is that fun? How is that even remotely fair? Literally what is the point of them being online if there’s nothing they can do?
You could just post their profiles on fac chat or discord and have them taken off you. Employ teamwork to resolve an issue.
B: I was just pointing out that the way you posed the problem was only from one perspective.
C: it isn’t levelling the playing field though is it. As per your example above, 3 people spent 25e to avoid being hosped by you. You did nothing but come online. It cost you nothing.
D: if it’s been a problem for over a decade then it can’t be that big of a problem can it?
A: if the 3 people at your opponents fac are online and willing to spend 25e and prevent themselves attacking anyone else just to avoid being attacked by you, is that not fair? They are playing the game and took the only positive action they could. Should you be able to just hosp them all no matter what they do? Why is that fun? How is that even remotely fair? Literally what is the point of them being online if there’s nothing they can do?
You could just post their profiles on fac chat or discord and have them taken off you. Employ teamwork to resolve an issue.
B: I was just pointing out that the way you posed the problem was only from one perspective.
C: it isn’t levelling the playing field though is it. As per your example above, 3 people spent 25e to avoid being hosped by you. You did nothing but come online. It cost you nothing.
D: if it’s been a problem for over a decade then it can’t be that big of a problem can it?
I can't see how this can be implemented without causing more problems than solving.
For instance, let's take player A and player B with player A being the one attacking first.
Player A initiates attack on Player B
Player A does the first attack on player B
Player B automatically attacks back.
Player B initiates attack on Player A while player A is attacking player B
Player B attacks player A.
Player A automatically attacks back.
In the provided example above, the defending player/player that attacks second, gets to deal 2 hits before the player who takes initiative gets to do 2 hits. So if that's the case, what's the point of attacking first ?
This is just me with what came at the top of my head. I am sure veteran players who have far more experience than me can weigh in and provide different pros and cons.
For instance, let's take player A and player B with player A being the one attacking first.
Player A initiates attack on Player B
Player A does the first attack on player B
Player B automatically attacks back.
Player B initiates attack on Player A while player A is attacking player B
Player B attacks player A.
Player A automatically attacks back.
In the provided example above, the defending player/player that attacks second, gets to deal 2 hits before the player who takes initiative gets to do 2 hits. So if that's the case, what's the point of attacking first ?
This is just me with what came at the top of my head. I am sure veteran players who have far more experience than me can weigh in and provide different pros and cons.
Whilst I understand the problem you're trying to solve I think temps are way too powerful to take the ability to wait them out.
I've seen mentioned before (possibly even by yourself?) the idea of some weapons damaging multiple players in a similar way to how demoralise debuffs.
I think this would be a much more reasonable so that if someone is just sitting in your attack there's a good chance that you'll kill them while hitting other people.
I've seen mentioned before (possibly even by yourself?) the idea of some weapons damaging multiple players in a similar way to how demoralise debuffs.
I think this would be a much more reasonable so that if someone is just sitting in your attack there's a good chance that you'll kill them while hitting other people.
it's a R- from me. it is annoying being locked in a fight, but this doesn't sound like a good solution.