**UPDATE - iPAD STUCK FLICKERING SCREEN**
The 47.0.1 hotfix to address the issue of freezing & flashing lights on loading screens when trying to enter a fight, along with other smaller issues, is now ready to be downloaded through the App Store on IOS.
More information here.
The 47.0.1 hotfix to address the issue of freezing & flashing lights on loading screens when trying to enter a fight, along with other smaller issues, is now ready to be downloaded through the App Store on IOS.
More information here.
Comments
It’s my rant thanks for the care now shu
Battlegrounds failed me also tonight and not the first time in this manner….. let’s go to a loading screen together and It laggs out and when we come back it doesn’t allow me to fight so I lose the round… fight of 0 seconds=a loss
Guess it wasn't
It led to some weird situations where it could be beneficial to not really engage with the fight in order to keep as much health as possible. If you knew that your opponent would probably die to your attacker for one reason or another, you could just hang back and cash in the "Health left" points in order to win.
This was a legitimate problem. The solution (among other changes) was to introduce the "Time left" category of points that rewards you for beating your opponent. The faster you KO them, the more points you get. This category of points actively rewards you for "winning" the fight and penalizes you for not KO'ing your opponent, and I personally think it largely solved the problem. It's not the end all be all in terms of scoring, but it does make it so that actually defeating the defender will always be preferable to not doing so. You still have to be better than your opponent across various categories of points, but if you are otherwise tied, the time it took to finish off your respective defender will decide the win.
There will always be some edge cases here and there that make things either easier or harder in various scenarios, but I think the scoring is overall fair. Just as important, I think it's probably as good a system as it can be, taking in account several different ways of deciding who "fought best". I used to be squarely on your side when BG first launched, but after half a year I prefer the current system to one where just KO'ing the opponent would be the main objective. Otherwise we'd have scenarios where it would be vastly advantageous to let your opponent KO Nick Fury's first life in order to access his OP damage during the second life without really having to fear the loss of points that would result from losing 70% (or 170%, depending on how you see it) of your health. That would be a whole other type of unfair. No system is perfect, but the current one has been the best in the most scenarios I've been in.
If one side defeats the champion and the other side doesn't, the side that defeated the defender automatically wins.
If both sides defeat the champion then whichever one ends with the most health wins.
If that's somehow a tie, then whichever side ended the fight the fastest wins.
If neither side defeat the champion then whichever side reduced the defender by the most health wins
If that's somehow a tie, then whoever held out the longest before dying wins.
The idea was basically that this is the normal priority for combat in the game in general. You are only rewarded for beating defenders. If you don't beat the defender, nothing else really matters because that's the only way to ultimately complete content. But if you do beat the defender, of course you'd like to have as much health remaining as possible (unless it is the last fight on a map). More health means more health to deal with the next fight, and restoring health costs resources. And usually, all other things being equal, most players would rather finish fights quicker than slower.
The developer idea, though, was that Battlegrounds is an opportunity to change that up, and experiment with different metas and different victory conditions. I can't argue that's wrong.