NO MOAR OVERTIME Edit | Implemented?The concept of overtime is ridiculous. If an attacker cannot degrade a wall in the region in the allotted 24 hours time then they should lose and have to try again.
|
3131 |
NO MOAR OVERTIME Edit | Implemented?The concept of overtime is ridiculous. If an attacker cannot degrade a wall in the region in the allotted 24 hours time then they should lose and have to try again.
|
3131 |
|
396 days agoby Big Brother
This is a technical limitation, not a "bug" or "feature". by Moot
I'd say it's a feature as it's been responsible for multiple losses of important regions and even a country. Overtime made Ontario the best battle eRep has ever seen. In my opinion one of the best features of eRepublik. by Reese Lemon
I think it's a good thing. Countries don't simply give up because the battle lasts longer than expected. Moot im guessing your anti-PEACE? I am pro PEACE so my opinion is biased, but had it of been the other way around you would not be saying this. by Moot
Of course and that is exactly what I was going to say, this is going to be, 1. PEACE members saying NO 2. anti-peace saying YES I still however disagree with it and always have, even before the peace attacks. I like it as it makes battles more exciting, like in some sports you get a sudden death round for ties and it always makes it more fun and exciting. by Zagarius
i think the game play should be fair if the system says 24 hours it should be 24 not 28... by nicholas2000
1)I think the current system works fine. 2)Learn to spell "moar". Are you serious? by Moot
That is exactly how I feel Zagarius. My opinion is that if they cannot do it then they cannot do it and should try again, THAT would make it more interesting and it would result in alot more gold spending. by Moot
and yes I am utterly serious when I use my interweb speak. I completly disagree - i thought that Ontario was an epic battle and was by far the best battle ive ever seen mostly because of the Overtime system. But i guess we all have our opinions and im not going to sway yours =P by Moot
Yeah, I completely respect that. by Crnogorac
I think the current system works fine. No changes needed. by CarbonCopy
Not voted. I'll reverse your logic: If a country fails to secure their region within 24 hours, they should lose the region. 24 hours is not the battle duration. It's the duration before a region can be secured or conquered. by Moot
But that's what I'm saying, enough of the secure/conquer BS if the wall is not underground then that is a failed attack. by Moot
I also have this scenario, had Russia never gotten into Hitler's bunker and captured them it would have been considered a failed attack even if Germany couldn't retake all of Berlin etc. by CarbonCopy
Again, I'll reverse your logic: If the wall is not above No Man's Land, it's a failed defence. Defenders should lose the region and can try to recapture later. by Moot
Well now you're getting complicated I'm just going to go ahead and refer you to the game of Risk, if the dice are rolled even the defender wins. That game has been around for awhile. That may sound "snotty" or whatever but I'm trying to be as respectful as possible. :) by CarbonCopy
Well this is not Risk, This is eRepublik. Your Risk analogy is fail. Even would be half way down the wall. If attacker can get the wall below half (somewhere in suburbia), they win. If defenders can keep the wall above half, they win. Also in eRep if Russia haven't reached Hitler's bunker, it doesn't mean that they fail. It simply means the Battle is not yet over. You're entitled to your opinion but your arguments doesn't help that opinion. by CarbonCopy
Actually I was wrong. Even would be the attackers doing the equal amount of damage as defenders. If the attacker can get the wall below border, they win. Currently defenders have the advantage of wall strength. All they need to do is match the attackers damage and they win. Attackers on the other hand need to match defenders damage + wall strength. This seems pretty fair to me. Your proposal will give more advantage to defenders. They will have wall strength AND time on their side. I don't support this. There should be no time limit for a battle. Conquer should mean conquer, if the attackers can't get there in 24hrs then they have failed. Easy peasey. by Rakoc
In that case the starting wall should be eliminated. Again, people fail to understand game mechanics. The battle doesn't last 24h. The time after 24h is NOT overtime. The first 24h are only there to make things easy on the defenders. without that, you could launch an attack at 4am, and have it over with by 4.05. Imagine 5 years from now, since citizens still count on the wall even when dead...regions might have up to 50K people in them, and an attacker would have to 7.5 million damage to even beat the wall (with the DS)... |
|
Podcasts: EGN Podcast [more ] |
Contests: Win 2G for free! [more ] |
Forums: eCroatia Forum [more ] |