Can We Have The Option To Hide Battlegrounds?

DeaconDeacon Member Posts: 4,411 ★★★★★
edited September 2022 in General Discussion
I had high hopes. I just lost a match to a guy who died faster than I did. HE DIED. My match timed out and I did NOT die yet he won. I'd rather not even have it on my menu screen at this point. An option to hide it or something would be nice ... along with all the other issues, losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.
Post edited by Kabam Miike on

Comments

  • Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Member Posts: 7,470 ★★★★★
    LOL. Just ignore it, dude. Not that hard.
  • DeaconDeacon Member Posts: 4,411 ★★★★★
    Colinwhitworth69 said:

    LOL. Just ignore it, dude. Not that hard.

    lol indeed
  • DeaconDeacon Member Posts: 4,411 ★★★★★
    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    I didn't pause the game nor did the opponent. i suppose though any number of scenarios could be made in order to validate the scoring but just in general, if I survive a war and you didn't , i'd say living trumps. and yes it's insane to say that a person who died somehow did better than someone who didn't ... silly scenarios and cheating excluded of course.

    or maybe they should call it Damage Grounds? ...it's a battle. in battle death is ALWAYS a clear indicator of who lost lol especially if the other party survives.




  • DeaconDeacon Member Posts: 4,411 ★★★★★
    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    exactly mate.
  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Member Posts: 9,264 ★★★★★
    DeaconVelvet said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    I didn't pause the game nor did the opponent. i suppose though any number of scenarios could be made in order to validate the scoring but just in general, if I survive a war and you didn't , i'd say living trumps. and yes it's insane to say that a person who died somehow did better than someone who didn't ... silly scenarios and cheating excluded of course.

    or maybe they should call it Damage Grounds? ...it's a battle. in battle death is ALWAYS a clear indicator of who lost lol especially if the other party survives.




    That's why I said "if". I was giving you a scenario.

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?

    You say, "Silly scenarios excluded", then how do you make a system that excludes those silly scenarios? What's your idea of a good system? Because if you make a hierarchal one like you're suggesting, you by default include silly scenarios.
  • GroundedWisdomGroundedWisdom Member Posts: 37,500 ★★★★★
    If people have no desire to play, why hide it?
  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Member Posts: 9,264 ★★★★★
    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    Fine, ignore pausing, I'll give you the same scenario as above

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?
  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Member Posts: 2,072 ★★★★
    edited September 2022
    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    Fine, ignore pausing, I'll give you the same scenario as above

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?
    No, I agree that's a good scenario, but the point is moot, if there is no differentiation in the scoring system and someone can grossly abuse the point system, simply by pausing the game to win matchups for having full health. I believe checking the pause timer is a step towards alleviating that and other point considerations need to be considered to alleviate other scenarios as they come up.

    For those that do like it and plan to play it - hats off to you, but I have no incentive to do it and won't be playing it. How many other people feel this way on day 1? Is this going to be something people will want to keep playing after all the work that went into it? I don't know, but they lost my interest day 1.

    I haven't done incursions in 2 years either and haven't missed it one bit. Battlegrounds will be gathering dust right next to it on my account.
  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Member Posts: 9,264 ★★★★★
    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    Fine, ignore pausing, I'll give you the same scenario as above

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?
    No, I agree that's a good scenario, but the point is moot, if there is no differentiation in the scoring system and someone can grossly abuse the point system, simply by pausing the game to win matchups for having full health. I believe checking the pause timer is a step towards alleviating that and other point considerations need to be considered to alleviate other scenarios as they come up.

    For those that do like it and plan to play it - hats off to you, but I have no incentive to do it and won't be playing it. How many other people feel this way on day 1? Is this going to be something people will want to keep playing after all the work that went into it? I don't know, but they lost my interest day 1.

    I haven't done incursions in 2 years either and haven't missed it one bit. Battlegrounds will be gathering dust right next to it on my account.
    You're answering a different point than what we're talking about.


    The question is whether "you should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting". Do you still stand by that?

    Not whether pausing should be able to exploit the timer (it shouldn't), not whether people will play it (up to them).

  • TitoBandito187TitoBandito187 Member Posts: 2,072 ★★★★
    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    Fine, ignore pausing, I'll give you the same scenario as above

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?
    No, I agree that's a good scenario, but the point is moot, if there is no differentiation in the scoring system and someone can grossly abuse the point system, simply by pausing the game to win matchups for having full health. I believe checking the pause timer is a step towards alleviating that and other point considerations need to be considered to alleviate other scenarios as they come up.

    For those that do like it and plan to play it - hats off to you, but I have no incentive to do it and won't be playing it. How many other people feel this way on day 1? Is this going to be something people will want to keep playing after all the work that went into it? I don't know, but they lost my interest day 1.

    I haven't done incursions in 2 years either and haven't missed it one bit. Battlegrounds will be gathering dust right next to it on my account.
    You're answering a different point than what we're talking about.




    Not whether pausing should be able to exploit the timer (it shouldn't), not whether people will play it (up to them).

    I take back my original statement. You should never lose to someone who paused the game and ended up having more health than you because you died trying to win the fight. Your regen scenario is a good example (as noted above already). But I still stand by my other thought that if there is no differentiation in the game, it's a busted point system and I don't care either way if it can be exploited.

  • BitterSteelBitterSteel Member Posts: 9,264 ★★★★★
    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    TitoBandito187 said:

    BitterSteel said:

    DeaconVelvet said:

    losing a match to an opponent who died and I didn't is insane.

    If you paused the game and stayed alive on 100% and your opponent took the opponent down to 1% health but died - do you not think your opponent did better than you?

    It’s not that insane that your opponent died and won, even though you didn’t die.
    That's a Kabam lack of consideration. You should never lose to someone who died if you timed out actually fighting. Something like losing a match if paused for X amount of time or checking if the fight was paused for X amount of time which = immediate loss is needed to avoid people from scamming the current system by just pausing the game to try and win.

    If the person you're playing is a scrub (or throwing the match because more matches = more points) and they die quickly, yet someone is trying to make the best of a bad matchup and fighting like a beast, they should get the win, not the quitter or bad player. I'm over Battle Grounds - they lost me before they ever had me.
    Fine, ignore pausing, I'll give you the same scenario as above

    What about if you didn't even pause, you just kept regenning your opponent back to full health? And you timed out when you were on 1% health, and they were on 100% health? But your opponent gets KOd when their defender is on 1% health? Do you honestly think you played better than him?
    No, I agree that's a good scenario, but the point is moot, if there is no differentiation in the scoring system and someone can grossly abuse the point system, simply by pausing the game to win matchups for having full health. I believe checking the pause timer is a step towards alleviating that and other point considerations need to be considered to alleviate other scenarios as they come up.

    For those that do like it and plan to play it - hats off to you, but I have no incentive to do it and won't be playing it. How many other people feel this way on day 1? Is this going to be something people will want to keep playing after all the work that went into it? I don't know, but they lost my interest day 1.

    I haven't done incursions in 2 years either and haven't missed it one bit. Battlegrounds will be gathering dust right next to it on my account.
    You're answering a different point than what we're talking about.




    Not whether pausing should be able to exploit the timer (it shouldn't), not whether people will play it (up to them).

    I take back my original statement. You should never lose to someone who paused the game and ended up having more health than you because you died trying to win the fight. Your regen scenario is a good example (as noted above already). But I still stand by my other thought that if there is no differentiation in the game, it's a busted point system and I don't care either way if it can be exploited.

    Agreed there, I shouldn’t have mentioned pausing in the original post as it just confused the issue. Pausing shouldn’t be an option to do better in fights
  • DeaconDeacon Member Posts: 4,411 ★★★★★
    one thing to note though is that i had high hopes for because i do believe it adds a lot to the game and it can be a really good thing BUT the scoring yeah ... needs a bit of figuring out for sure.
  • SirGamesBondSirGamesBond Member Posts: 7,575 ★★★★★
    Of all the issues in BGs.
    This thread is not the one to worry about.
This discussion has been closed.