Summoners, we are aware of some issues affecting Solo/Alliance events, and Alliance Quests. We are investigating the cause, and working to resolve them as quickly as possible.

AQ Timeout

17810121315

Comments

  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,997 Guardian

    DNA3000 said:

    That said, Champions being able to survive a timeout at 1% Health is a bug. This breaks a rule of the structure of the game and needs to be addressed someday.

    It might be helpful if you were to specify what that rule is, because it doesn't seem obvious to me that any such rule would exist. Timeouts are supposed to reduce health by half. No reduction by half should kill anything. And outside of Corvus, there's another champ out there that demonstrates this principle: Gwenpool. Gwenpool cannot be killed by a special attack if she is awakened, because it is impossible for a special attack to reduce her to zero. Even if she is at 1% health, a special attack still doesn't kill her. Even if she is at 1 literal point of health, I don't think a special attack can kill her.

    If your statement is true that surviving a timeout "breaks a rule" of the game, then Gwenpool shouldn't work the way she works either. Gwenpool doesn't even have any special "cheat death" mechanic per se. She simply reduces all special attack damage to be less than her current health. But the fact that Gwenpool *does* work the way she does, and has always obviously done so, blatantly seems to me to tell every player out there that anything that only deals a percentage of remaining health in damage to a champ cannot kill it.

    This statement above is a pretty big surprise to me, and if I can't reconcile it with my understanding of how the game works, I feel confident in saying it is highly unlikely any player out there could possibly have had any basis for thinking that this is how the game should work. I think this demands explanation.
    Aside from mechanics like AAR Gwenpool does die to a special at 1 HP. There was a video posted long ago using a Thor iirc.

    To me the rule is simply you cannot timeout a fight without penalty and that is what people are doing, timing out without penalty.
    That would make sense if the rule was that no champ should survive a timeout at one point of health, because if the game rounds to nearest whole number then, as you say, the champ no longer takes damage and thus avoids the penalty. But that should still be formally articulated as a game rule. "Any champ with one point of health dies when they take any non-zero damage, even if that damage ordinarily rounds to zero" is a logical rule.

    The "Corvus exception" doesn't require any actual change to Corvus. The damage dealt to champions on a timeout simply has to be treated as special attack damage. This means if Corvus was at 2 points of health, he'd take a calculated 1 point of damage and be alive. If he was at 1 point of health he'd take a calculated 0.5 points of damage, which then triggers the special case rule for champs at one point of health, and he'd be dead (because that damage would break his Glaive).

    You couldn't then argue that Corvus is supposed to survive, because special attack damage triggers the exception to Corvus surviving otherwise lethal damage.
  • ChampioncriticChampioncritic Posts: 3,223 ★★★★
    Anyway relax, kabam said they are going to revert it back to "timeouts cut health down by half" and they will leave it till they decide the best way to achieve their objective without causing mass rioting(if they can avoid that somehow which i doubt).
  • LilMaddogHTLilMaddogHT Posts: 569 ★★★
    @Kabam Miike what if you removed the fight timer and replaced it with a different timer...? A bonus timer...

    Idea is this:
    1. Remove the 3min timers (or any variation of it - including the 15min final guarding champs next to Doom boss on map7).
    2. A fight has a set amount of bonus points to give (maybe mini boss and final boss have higher amount than a standard path fight).
    3. As the fight goes on, bonus points are slowly reduced, the longer you fight, the fewer bonus points you get - at some point, bonus points would be zero'd out or the points are reduced to flat amount for being able to solo the fight
    4. The first encounter can award bonus points but any subsequent attempts - no bonus points available.

    This idea awards skilled players and it awards you for bringing counters that can finish the fight quickly and cleanly. It also adds some dynamic to the AQ scoring that is less predictable. Right now, if there are 2 alliances that have similar prestige, let's say Ally A has 10,600 and Ally B has 10,601 and they both run Map 7 all 5 days and do all Master Modifiers, Ally B will always win right now in the rankings. But throwing this concept into the mix allows the skilled alliances and the ones that apply strategy to quickly and cleanly clear their paths can overcome such a shortage on the RNG prestige.

    Corvus under this paradigm would still be an AQ beast and desirable (just in a different way) but not the end all solution for any/every path/fight.
  • CoatHang3rCoatHang3r Posts: 4,031 ★★★★★
    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    That said, Champions being able to survive a timeout at 1% Health is a bug. This breaks a rule of the structure of the game and needs to be addressed someday.

    It might be helpful if you were to specify what that rule is, because it doesn't seem obvious to me that any such rule would exist. Timeouts are supposed to reduce health by half. No reduction by half should kill anything. And outside of Corvus, there's another champ out there that demonstrates this principle: Gwenpool. Gwenpool cannot be killed by a special attack if she is awakened, because it is impossible for a special attack to reduce her to zero. Even if she is at 1% health, a special attack still doesn't kill her. Even if she is at 1 literal point of health, I don't think a special attack can kill her.

    If your statement is true that surviving a timeout "breaks a rule" of the game, then Gwenpool shouldn't work the way she works either. Gwenpool doesn't even have any special "cheat death" mechanic per se. She simply reduces all special attack damage to be less than her current health. But the fact that Gwenpool *does* work the way she does, and has always obviously done so, blatantly seems to me to tell every player out there that anything that only deals a percentage of remaining health in damage to a champ cannot kill it.

    This statement above is a pretty big surprise to me, and if I can't reconcile it with my understanding of how the game works, I feel confident in saying it is highly unlikely any player out there could possibly have had any basis for thinking that this is how the game should work. I think this demands explanation.
    Aside from mechanics like AAR Gwenpool does die to a special at 1 HP. There was a video posted long ago using a Thor iirc.

    To me the rule is simply you cannot timeout a fight without penalty and that is what people are doing, timing out without penalty.
    That would make sense if the rule was that no champ should survive a timeout at one point of health, because if the game rounds to nearest whole number then, as you say, the champ no longer takes damage and thus avoids the penalty. But that should still be formally articulated as a game rule. "Any champ with one point of health dies when they take any non-zero damage, even if that damage ordinarily rounds to zero" is a logical rule.

    The "Corvus exception" doesn't require any actual change to Corvus. The damage dealt to champions on a timeout simply has to be treated as special attack damage. This means if Corvus was at 2 points of health, he'd take a calculated 1 point of damage and be alive. If he was at 1 point of health he'd take a calculated 0.5 points of damage, which then triggers the special case rule for champs at one point of health, and he'd be dead (because that damage would break his Glaive).

    You couldn't then argue that Corvus is supposed to survive, because special attack damage triggers the exception to Corvus surviving otherwise lethal damage.

    1) Salve (and additional other game mechanics) would make a mechanic such as 50% moot. There needs to be wiggle room or every fight needs to heal blocked.

    2) Did anyone have the time to investigate if such a rule already existed? Do we have any evidence of someone taking out an AQ fight with no HP by repeatedly timing out? I’ve seen Corvus return dead from a force quit (which btw kinda the same rule) and there was nowhere near this reaction; players accepted that. I’ve also seen Corvus return dead from a timeout (Prior to this bug) after glaives have been exhausted with him at no HP.

    3) The need to be formally announced is untrue. It’s nearly impossible for a live game to live up to that standard. It’s does however need to be understandable and/or intuited by most players.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,315 ★★★★★

    @Kabam Miike what if you removed the fight timer and replaced it with a different timer...? A bonus timer...

    Idea is this:
    1. Remove the 3min timers (or any variation of it - including the 15min final guarding champs next to Doom boss on map7).
    2. A fight has a set amount of bonus points to give (maybe mini boss and final boss have higher amount than a standard path fight).
    3. As the fight goes on, bonus points are slowly reduced, the longer you fight, the fewer bonus points you get - at some point, bonus points would be zero'd out or the points are reduced to flat amount for being able to solo the fight
    4. The first encounter can award bonus points but any subsequent attempts - no bonus points available.

    This idea awards skilled players and it awards you for bringing counters that can finish the fight quickly and cleanly. It also adds some dynamic to the AQ scoring that is less predictable. Right now, if there are 2 alliances that have similar prestige, let's say Ally A has 10,600 and Ally B has 10,601 and they both run Map 7 all 5 days and do all Master Modifiers, Ally B will always win right now in the rankings. But throwing this concept into the mix allows the skilled alliances and the ones that apply strategy to quickly and cleanly clear their paths can overcome such a shortage on the RNG prestige.

    Corvus under this paradigm would still be an AQ beast and desirable (just in a different way) but not the end all solution for any/every path/fight.

    The problem with that is the Timers are designed that way partly because it's an Alliance-based Event. We're not just being timed for our own skill. Without the Timers, Fights could extend beyond what allows other Players to complete the Map. To put it in other terms, we all have 24 hours to complete the Map and we share that time with other people.
  • DNA3000DNA3000 Posts: 10,997 Guardian
    Charnutz said:

    DNA3000 said:

    DNA3000 said:

    That said, Champions being able to survive a timeout at 1% Health is a bug. This breaks a rule of the structure of the game and needs to be addressed someday.

    It might be helpful if you were to specify what that rule is, because it doesn't seem obvious to me that any such rule would exist. Timeouts are supposed to reduce health by half. No reduction by half should kill anything. And outside of Corvus, there's another champ out there that demonstrates this principle: Gwenpool. Gwenpool cannot be killed by a special attack if she is awakened, because it is impossible for a special attack to reduce her to zero. Even if she is at 1% health, a special attack still doesn't kill her. Even if she is at 1 literal point of health, I don't think a special attack can kill her.

    If your statement is true that surviving a timeout "breaks a rule" of the game, then Gwenpool shouldn't work the way she works either. Gwenpool doesn't even have any special "cheat death" mechanic per se. She simply reduces all special attack damage to be less than her current health. But the fact that Gwenpool *does* work the way she does, and has always obviously done so, blatantly seems to me to tell every player out there that anything that only deals a percentage of remaining health in damage to a champ cannot kill it.

    This statement above is a pretty big surprise to me, and if I can't reconcile it with my understanding of how the game works, I feel confident in saying it is highly unlikely any player out there could possibly have had any basis for thinking that this is how the game should work. I think this demands explanation.
    Aside from mechanics like AAR Gwenpool does die to a special at 1 HP. There was a video posted long ago using a Thor iirc.

    To me the rule is simply you cannot timeout a fight without penalty and that is what people are doing, timing out without penalty.
    That would make sense if the rule was that no champ should survive a timeout at one point of health, because if the game rounds to nearest whole number then, as you say, the champ no longer takes damage and thus avoids the penalty. But that should still be formally articulated as a game rule. "Any champ with one point of health dies when they take any non-zero damage, even if that damage ordinarily rounds to zero" is a logical rule.

    The "Corvus exception" doesn't require any actual change to Corvus. The damage dealt to champions on a timeout simply has to be treated as special attack damage. This means if Corvus was at 2 points of health, he'd take a calculated 1 point of damage and be alive. If he was at 1 point of health he'd take a calculated 0.5 points of damage, which then triggers the special case rule for champs at one point of health, and he'd be dead (because that damage would break his Glaive).

    You couldn't then argue that Corvus is supposed to survive, because special attack damage triggers the exception to Corvus surviving otherwise lethal damage.
    It doesn't work that way. Sometimes people run willpower and run corvus on a bleed node. You'll still heal and take block damage or whatever. You might finish the fight with timeout at 200 health. Still, k.o. now
    I'm aware it doesn't work that way now. The point of discussion was whether it was reasonable to say that someone who times out at 1% health completely avoids any penalty. But they obviously don't, because they can still go lower in health. The only point of health where someone completely avoids the penalty is at one point of health. If the rule is "you shouldn't be able to avoid the penalty" then KOing a champ at 1% health is killing a champ that can still be penalized: he could still go lower in health.

    If Kabam believes that below a certain point the penalty "doesn't matter" then I'd like to know where that line is and why. 1% health seems extremely arbitrary.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,315 ★★★★★

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
  • Manup456Manup456 Posts: 360 ★★
    The only thing I wonder about is how do you fix this and stop people from using this tactic of pausing the game to save them self and actual timeouts while playing? If your actually playing and timeout and he doesn’t die with his charges up then that’s his ability and he shouldn’t die.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,315 ★★★★★
    Manup456 said:

    The only thing I wonder about is how do you fix this and stop people from using this tactic of pausing the game to save them self and actual timeouts while playing? If your actually playing and timeout and he doesn’t die with his charges up then that’s his ability and he shouldn’t die.

    You could limit the number of Time Outs that are allowed.
  • Wakandas_FinestWakandas_Finest Posts: 543 ★★★

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
    Soooo 1% of my r5 Doom’s HP is about 300 hp you telling me that there is no 50% of 300? Of 100? Of 10? Mathematically speaking your understanding makes no sense. The rule is your champ is knocked out at zero health points not 150 health points not even 1 hp. That’s just plain old logic
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,315 ★★★★★
    Charnutz said:

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
    Health isn't based on %. If I go from one fight to the next with 250 health. That might be 1% but half that is 125 which is what I should start the next fight with
    Health may not be, but the way the Time Out resetter works might be. I just explained my understanding of what's been said here.
  • Wakandas_FinestWakandas_Finest Posts: 543 ★★★

    Charnutz said:

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
    Health isn't based on %. If I go from one fight to the next with 250 health. That might be 1% but half that is 125 which is what I should start the next fight with
    Health may not be, but the way the Time Out resetter works might be. I just explained my understanding of what's been said here.
    The timeout reset works on the principle that a champ will lose half of its health points at the time of the timeout. So it should not matter if I have 10k health or 10 health my penalty is half that number. I agree that if a champ is a 1 hp at the time of the timeout that champ should be k.o.’d as health has only ever been measured in whole numbers but this 1% ish is a load of carp.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Posts: 25,315 ★★★★★
    A real solution would be to remove the ability to pause during timed Fights altogether. The Timer continues anyway. Never got the point of it myself. If you can't finish it in the allotted time, take the L.
    Charnutz said:

    Charnutz said:

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
    Health isn't based on %. If I go from one fight to the next with 250 health. That might be 1% but half that is 125 which is what I should start the next fight with
    Health may not be, but the way the Time Out resetter works might be. I just explained my understanding of what's been said here.
    I honestly could care less how the time out resetter works. That's not my problem and literally has nothing to do with this and you sticking up for them like usual
    Did you even read the words I typed? Someone asked to understand the logic so I tried to look at the logic from what I can see. If you're that bothered by my comments, why did you quote me and debate what I said?
  • cookiedealercookiedealer Posts: 175

    We don’t think that this timeout play pattern is fun or healthy

    These are fine objectives. I therefore look forward to AQ and AW energy caps being raised to 8, demonstrating official support of proper sleep habits.
    This makes sense. Instead of having players log in 5+ times a day (out of 18 hours because sleep), it can be 3+ times if the player chooses without letting down his bg. The players that play 2+ hours a day 5 days a week can still do so, so only a net positive on the player's health.
  • ApoliknApolikn Posts: 2
    someone tell me if it only applies when you pause and let the time expire or if corvus will not be immortal
  • DemonzfyreDemonzfyre Posts: 9,823 ★★★★★
    Charnutz said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Charnutz said:

    Wait, @DNA3000 . I guess you support this constant garbage shoved at you? Stop being a puppet dude

    It seems the people who think this change is absurd aren't willing to consider the idea that at a higher level such a change might be necessary for the game, while the people who think this change is entirely reasonable think this is just how game development is supposed to happen. I'm not sure who you think I'm being a puppet of exactly, but this is clearly one of those issues where I am unlikely to be anything more than target practice in no-man's land.
    I've been around a while and I understand that this mechanic probably shouldn't of been here from the start but it has been for 2 years and now out of nowhere it's getting fixed because it's a "bug". The only reason this is getting "fixed" is because of 💲. There is honestly no other explanation. Each time corvus denies a death in AQ it's money out of kabam's pockets. That's just the way it is
    I don't know why this has to keep being said but I'll say it again. The goal is to fix the "bug" with a proper solution so players don't have to rely on it to do map 7. So idea they are doing this for money seems to be completely false. It will be put back to what it was before the accidental update, allowing people to continue to use the "bug" until a proper solution is found. That doesn't sound like it's just for money now does it?
  • slackerslacker Posts: 266 ★★
    Mike already said they won't fix it so it's fine for now, beside we gonna have another compensation.Why people not relax a bit, and stop using "cash grab" term everytime to reason against bug or anything, because i don't see any sense in it
  • tafretafre Posts: 448 ★★★

    Charnutz said:

    DNA3000 said:

    Charnutz said:

    Wait, @DNA3000 . I guess you support this constant garbage shoved at you? Stop being a puppet dude

    It seems the people who think this change is absurd aren't willing to consider the idea that at a higher level such a change might be necessary for the game, while the people who think this change is entirely reasonable think this is just how game development is supposed to happen. I'm not sure who you think I'm being a puppet of exactly, but this is clearly one of those issues where I am unlikely to be anything more than target practice in no-man's land.
    I've been around a while and I understand that this mechanic probably shouldn't of been here from the start but it has been for 2 years and now out of nowhere it's getting fixed because it's a "bug". The only reason this is getting "fixed" is because of 💲. There is honestly no other explanation. Each time corvus denies a death in AQ it's money out of kabam's pockets. That's just the way it is
    I don't know why this has to keep being said but I'll say it again. The goal is to fix the "bug" with a proper solution so players don't have to rely on it to do map 7. So idea they are doing this for money seems to be completely false. It will be put back to what it was before the accidental update, allowing people to continue to use the "bug" until a proper solution is found. That doesn't sound like it's just for money now does it?
    I know that they are supposedly working on a solution before actually implementing the fix, assuming that this just slipped into the server and it can happen I get it, but I really cannot find any reason why they would work on fixing the bug first rather than observing why people do it constantly? Why not tell that they think that this is planned to be fixed sometime in the future and ask what could be done to stop people from resorting to it? It feels like it is always the opposite direction. Find proper solutions first, then fix after discussing it, that is how things should work to be honest not the other way around.
  • Wakandas_FinestWakandas_Finest Posts: 543 ★★★

    A real solution would be to remove the ability to pause during timed Fights altogether. The Timer continues anyway. Never got the point of it myself. If you can't finish it in the allotted time, take the L.

    Charnutz said:

    Charnutz said:

    I still can’t wrap my head around the Kabam logic that no champ should survive a time out at 1% health. Is the rule not that champs are knocked out when their hp reaches zero? Are they proposing changing the rule to champs are now knocked out if they have less than 1% but more than zero if it’s a timeout? Somebody make it make sense please. I’m so confused right

    Time Out is meant to remove 50% of their Health. 50% of 1% isn't a thing that's supposed to happen. At least that's the understanding I have.
    Health isn't based on %. If I go from one fight to the next with 250 health. That might be 1% but half that is 125 which is what I should start the next fight with
    Health may not be, but the way the Time Out resetter works might be. I just explained my understanding of what's been said here.
    I honestly could care less how the time out resetter works. That's not my problem and literally has nothing to do with this and you sticking up for them like usual
    Did you even read the words I typed? Someone asked to understand the logic so I tried to look at the logic from what I can see. If you're that bothered by my comments, why did you quote me and debate what I said?
    You say you looked at the logic and came to an understanding even though kabam’s explanation contradicts the rules they put in place. The half health penalty has been in the game longer than our ability to see health as a percentage. The penalty was even introduced as half of the champs health not 50% of the champs health. Logically speaking health has always, since the inception of AQ and AW, been measured as a whole number not a percentage in AQ and AW. Notice how health pots and revives in alliance mode are based on whole numbers not percentages. Again I say this 1% ish is a load of carp. If the results of the existing half health penalty is still a whole number above zero a champion should not be knocked out. I don’t know how that doesn’t make sense to you

Sign In or Register to comment.