**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
Also, if you watched the matches and thought suicides where a good idea to have, you are an (//guess what you are).
This game mode is like high level AW, but instead of alliance vs alliance, battlegroup vs battlegroup, it's 1v1. People place defenders without suicides in high level AW and this mode doesnt give you the chance to switch masteries between defense and offense.
So, this game mode is for non-suicides users actually, and as a suicide user in the AW offseason I want all you non-suicide users banned
Imagine a Nick Fury as the defender. You play well against him, take out his first life, but right as he shoots back up to full health with that huge fury, he gets an sp3 and wipes you out. You still played well and did a bunch of damage to your opponent, you should have a chance at winning, yeah?
Now it’s your opponent’s turn. They throw their phone against a wall. Don’t touch the fight at all. They win the round because they died faster even though you played objectively better. Do you see how this might be a problem?
I use Nick Fury because he can be the most egregious example, but any champ with the potential for a single burst regen in a fight can have this interaction. iHulk, Guillotine2099 (not new Guillotine lol), half of the tech class with the arc overload ability, and a bunch of others. Even though you’ve played better and lasted longer and done more meaningful damage, you lose because the other player decided to go make a sandwich instead of actually take the fight.
That is a ridiculous scoring mechanic and one that I’m sure will be changed before the mode goes live.
Yeah and so he should.What's player B doing standing around for 2 more minutes and only taking 1% health?
What's Player A supposed to do? He's got wives and kids to feed, he doesn't have time to be waiting and waiting.
Moreover it's 2min + + in real time due to loading time, plus if Play B is using an Android Phone it's gonna take longer. It could ended up being more like a 4-5 minutes wait.
Umm.... I don't know what do you think Android phones are but ....2 mins is 2mins anywhere on Earth
~ITNT
1. The primary objective to the fights in the mode should be to defeat the defender. If one side beats the defender and the other side doesn't, the side that beats the defender should win. Period. Not because I said so, and not because that's the only way to score, but because that is the way the game generally works. You beat the defenders. We don't get rewards for DPS spikes or sustaining the longest dance off or anything else. Combat in this game is about beating the defender. If a fight has *any* intent beyond that, like stay alive the longest, that should be stated explicitly to the players, and it should also be justified. If the competitive mode was ultimately about DPS spiking, the contestants would almost certainly have picked and banned completely differently.
2. *Scoring* based on time remaining has nothing to do with keeping the competitive mode reasonably paced. *Nothing* about the scoring system *prevents* a fight from taking however long it will take. Separate from the fact that we now know that Kabam didn't originally intend scoring to function outside of tie breaking fights, point scoring in this way would be a dumb way to encourage shorter fights. The only way to reasonably employ this strategy is to take instant burst damage attackers which completely warps almost all of the strategic elements of the game mode. This is nonsensical.
The scoring error appears to be an almost identical error to the one Kabam made when they implemented defender diversity. They explicitly stated, then doubled down on it several times, that defender diversity was explicitly added to Alliance War to be a, and I'm quoting here, "a tie breaker." They felt that too many high tier wars were ending in ties, so they wanted a way to break those ties (ties are undesirable because neither side gets a victory bonus, and it is problematic for competition). The problem is that defender diversity is not a tie breaker. It is just another source of points. Another source of points is not a tie breaker, because it can just as easily create ties as break them. We don't say that field goals in American football are tie breakers, because that is nonsensical. However, Kabam continued to espouse the "diversity points are tie breakers" idea years after implementation.
This sounds like the same mental error. Time remaining was supposed to be a tie breaker if both sides did not defeat the defender, but instead it was implemented as a source of points. Either whomever did that forgot it was supposed to be a tie breaker, or equally likely in my opinion the person who implemented time remaining scoring felt that counting it as a source of points *was* equivalent to being a tie breaker, even though that violates almost every person's idea of what a tie breaker is.
To be clear: a tie breaker is a method to break ties in competition, that is *only* consulted when there is a tie. It has *zero* effect when there is no tie. Time remaining is not functioning as a tie breaker in the Showdown. It apparently should have been, and either the error was not implementing it as a tie breaker, or actually *thinking* it is a tie breaker as implement. The former is an implementation error. The latter is a conceptual error that I would ordinarily not assume a designer would make, if that identical error wasn't made in the same game earlier without any acknowledgement it actually was an error.
First: whichever side defeats the defender the quickest wins. If only one side defeats the defender, they win by default.
Second: if neither side defeats the defender, whichever side lowers defender health the most by the end of the fight wins.
Third: if both sides bring defender down equally, which ever side is still alive wins.
Fourth: if both sides bring defender down equally and both die, which ever side stayed alive the longest wins.
Fifth: if both sides are still tied when all other factors are considered, which ever side has the most health remaining wins.
To me, this seems to encapsulate how we judge fights in the game in general. The primary goal of any MCOC fight is to defeat the defender. If one side does and the other side doesn't, the side that does wins. If neither side completes the primary objective, then whichever side gets closer to the primary objective wins. If both sides complete the primary objective, then whichever side does so the fastest wins.
Only if both sides are still tied after the primary objective is considered is the secondary objective considered. And the secondary objective of any MCOC fight is to survive the fight - to not die. If one side is alive and the other isn't, they win. If both sides die then which ever side survived the longest wins. And if both sides defeat the defender and both sides do so in the same amount of time, then which ever side has the most health remaining wins.
Synthetic scoring makes sense if you want players to achieve high synthetic scores and every thing the players do has some relative importance. But that runs counter to how most people view MCOC fights. If one person defeats the defender and the other person doesn't, there's no amount of style points the second player can somehow generate that makes up for dying without defeating the defender. The scoring system should reflect that. And it should reflect the fact that some objectives are important and some are only important in a secondary way. I think something like the above better reflects what most of us expect from a shoot out between two players.
They are either too stupid to use such scoring method, or there was a big problem in how they organized the event, such as a total lacking of communication in the team which lead to the conflict of how the system works.
If they sent a guideline saying that who deals better damage in shorter time only used as tiebreaker, then instead used it as the main factor, then it showed how clueless they are when organizing the event. It's too bad and too sad for players whom are all great ones.
I’ll pick wasp every time as an attacker and die within 20 seconds or less,, and the defender will always be groot so my opponent cant die faster than me, and let the global node in passive AI and power from afar keep my opponent from killing groot resulting in a time out or KO in 4 minutes. This is definitely the way the most competitive and skill based gameplay should be displayed and highlighted every year in MCOC.
~ITNT
Don't know what happened there but I wrote only the last paragraph....
~ITNT
Edit: I have a headache now
This an example of how Kabam has been doing lately... Have a good idea but execute halfway.
How is dieing before your opponent gonna give u more points on a fight with regen nodes?!
How is a SP3 special skip button not tested that when it goes live it glitches AFTER an SP3?
If only they had testers...
Hey, maybe you’re right but that’s just what YT does to people
This is true