Potential Delay to v44.1 Launch
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
We are currently working through some issues that may affect the release window of v44.1. This means that the update may not release on Monday as it usually does. We are working to resolve the issue holding us up as quickly as possible, but will keep you all updated, especially if the delay results in any changes to the content release schedule.
Options
Comments
If you think avoiding a special is intended to be countered by pushing a button and waiting x minutes that’s ludicrous.
Is it a perfect solution covering all bases? No. But it also does not prevent players from sacrificing the majority of their health pool to take on a fight if they are likely to time out.
But you are ascribing things to me that are untrue; I don’t respec my masteries.
@Kabam Miike you should not alow this tatics no matter how loud they cry about.
I personally have never had to use this way to play but I think this is the main reason people do this.
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.
But you can in AQ and AW. Pausing the fight and letting the timer expire does two things. First, you take half your current health in damage. But second, the state of the fight resets to zero. Whatever was going to happen in the fight won't happen anymore. So you're presenting the player with a choice: continue the fight, and take whatever consequences are about to happen, or trade those consequences for what's behind door number two, which is to take half health and continue the fight from the start.
People are doing this because taking the trade is sometimes better, and when the trade is better, it is logical to do it. It is just that simple.
Of course, there are reasons why the timer exists, and reasons why the penalty exists. I'm not saying those features are completely wrong. I'm simply stating that they offer the player a choice, and the content creates many situations where the better choice is to take the timeout, and so players are doing the logical thing by taking it.
I can even tell you why the trade often makes sense. I'm not saying this represents every scenario when a player might do this, but it probably represents most of them. There are many fights where the game puts you into a squeeze. The fight threatens you with a big stick. That big stick might be an SP3 that will insta-kill you, or it can be other things that will basically cost you the fight. To avoid those situations requires the player take control of the fight. And that requires time. But if you put the player in a situation where the only way to avoid losing is to slow the fight down, and you also limit the time they have to end the fight, you put the player in an untenable situation. They know they are in an inevitable spiral that will cost them the fight, and the only way to buy themselves out of it is to let the fight expire. Pausing is no different than dancing in the corner until the fight expires, it is just a safer way of doing it.
To me the rule is simply you cannot timeout a fight without penalty and that is what people are doing, timing out without penalty.
So which of those points of health should you survive a timeout, and which should you not survive a timeout? And why?
When you terminate a fight early in normal quests, your champion is KOed. It doesn't matter how much health it has, or what its abilities are, it is just dead. That's the rule, so that's the rule. In AW and AQ, your health is supposed to be reduced by half. That's the rule. But @Kabam Miike seems to have just said that if your health is 2% you're supposed to be reduced by half, and if your health is 1% you're supposed to be dead. According to a "structural rule."
This would seem to be to be a rule players are supposed to be aware of.
What I was referencing was force closing when you're almost dead in the Arena. The Recovery will kick in and you get a redo. The difference is, you only get one of those every 2 hours. So there are limitations.
I don't agree that Players are just making decisions based on what they know. It's less about Corvus and more about the system, and that's being cheesed.
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.