Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst
1
2
3
  1. #41
    I have no problem at all with it if someone is dead on the other team. But I don't like that it will give the buff to whoever got the opponent lower, that isn't fair at all.

    There have been plenty of games where I've gotten bursted to like 5%, popped CDs, and we ended up winning. If the other team gets a buff just because of their burst that is pretty stupid. What's stopping a Hunter/Rogue team from blowing CDs, getting someone low, and then turtling the rest of the game until they get the buff? Nothing, really. It's a good change so if someone dies the game doesn't get dragged out, but it's bad that it impacts games that are still even.

  2. #42
    Mechagnome
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    749
    It seems to be far too much; 15 minutes is often only 3-5 cooldown sets, a lot of epic games last longer than 15 minutes with great players on both sides. Just because a mage got to 0% to let their heal kick in then ice blocked doesn't mean the other team should 100% guaranteed win.

    It's a good start however, but I think it's sort of rash, the buff seems to be so overwhelming they might as well just end the game. I could see it if the buff grew slightly stronger every minute after 15 minutes (and could swap if the other team got someone lower or killed someone). There's just a lot of scenarios where this can easily screw a better team out of a victory because one team turtled. If you're facing a hard team with a mage, rogue or someone who naturally dips, just zerg them, get them to their proc, then turtle the rest of the game, you'll win in 15 minutes (sadly it could be an efficient strategy unless they fix some things).

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Xnon22 View Post
    I almost belived you until you said he summoned a pet that was called"imnotleaving" you cant rename dk pets.

    OT:i dont like the second trigger,but if you look at it its pure rng that you survived on 1%,so its ok that you lose if you didnt manage to kill something.
    I'm guessing he summoned a companion pet, not a ghoul.
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonwolfe View Post
    In other words, he's worried about how sharp your bayonet is when you are firing RPG's.

  4. #44
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramaloce View Post
    The timer still ends in a draw at the 45 minute mark right?
    25.

    Quote Originally Posted by Niberion View Post
    A team shouldn't win just because their mage managed to bring someone to 2% health with some lucky burst while the other team had the upper hand all game long.
    Completely agree with this. And this is also unfair for resto shamans, warriors, and most likely others, who heal stronger when health is lower (with mastery and second wind).

    The idea is great, but the design is bad. It should simply be a dmg increase for both sides, increasing with time, the same as Flag carriers, in addition to the stealth detection maybe.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Niberion View Post
    How exactly do you want to win against a team with the buff? From pictures it seems whoever has the buff becomes immune to damage.
    No way. If that were the case the game would just declare them the winner.

  6. #46
    Blademaster
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Moncton, Canada
    Posts
    25
    They should add something they have on tourney realms. After a certain time, each team get a debuff that reduces healing, mana regen and increases damage. After five minutes the debuff increases in potency, and so on until the game is over. That way you don't have to worry about one team getting screwed over because of a lucky crit, and it should help those games that just won't seem to end.

  7. #47
    Scarab Lord Nicola's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Magpai View Post
    No way. If that were the case the game would just declare them the winner.
    That's exactly the point of it...

  8. #48
    The Insane apepi's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Mostly harmless
    Posts
    19,388
    I wonder what would happen if they both got the someone down to the same %?Both get the buff?
    Time...line? Time isn't made out of lines. It is made out of circles. That is why clocks are round. ~ Caboose

  9. #49
    Deleted
    OMFG ... today i played vs priest/mage, killed the mage... f***ing priest kept lossing once he was dead... freaking impossible for a destro lock.... so pissed, so i'm freaking glad that change will come .... god

  10. #50
    Why not just reduce the amount of time for a draw down to 15 minutes?
    Quote Originally Posted by TCGamer View Post
    If I had the cash to pay a DDoSer, I would in a heartbeat. Especially with the way the anti-legacy crowd has been attacked by the pro-legacy crowd day in and day out.

  11. #51
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Sythari View Post
    Why not just reduce the amount of time for a draw down to 15 minutes?
    look at the post above you, that's why. 2's aren't balanced and healers are nearly impossible to take down if it's a 1vs1(+healer) situation ..
    also a draw is a loss and I don't feel like I should get minus points because of an impossible/unfair task

  12. #52
    Elemental Lord Korgoth's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Barbaria
    Posts
    8,033
    They should just make healers killable 1v1. Fixes the problem, makes pvp less frustrating for the majority of players, will get a lot more players into pvp.

    But no this myth about healers needing to be invincible 1v1 to be viable in 3s is kept alive.
    "Gamer" is not a bad word. I identify as a gamer. When calling out those who persecute and harass, the word you're looking for is "asshole." @_DonAdams
    When you see someone in a thread making the same canned responses over and over, click their name, click view forum posts, and see if they are a troll. Then don't feed them.

  13. #53
    Fluffy Kitten Yvaelle's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Darnassus
    Posts
    11,331
    It's a bad design, it should be:

    After 15 minutes, both sides deal 10% more damage, increasing by an additional 10% each minute thereafter.

    The damage reduction is dumb, since it hands the win to someone potentially unjustly like Niberion pointed out. The auto-crit, thousand percent damage buff is overkill - it gives the other side no change to reconcil what was a close match. The stealth detection is dumb, it means rogues can no longer use their vanish (major defensive cooldown) and can no longer restealth (which is usually an outplay thing). The worst bit is the lowest % health, therefore winner bit - with burst as high as it is and peels as critical as they are, it's just as likely to pick what would be the losing team as it is to pick the winning team.

    With a growing, equally applied damage buff - things will just get progressively out of hand until someone kills something - that seems fine to me. We can adjust the size of the buff (20% rather than 10%, for example), or the speed it stacks at (30 seconds rather than 60 seconds) until it feels right - but we shouldn't just randomly decide who wins based on which team has a frost mage on it.

    ---------- Post added 2013-06-23 at 07:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Korgoth View Post
    They should just make healers killable 1v1. Fixes the problem, makes pvp less frustrating for the majority of players, will get a lot more players into pvp.

    But no this myth about healers needing to be invincible 1v1 to be viable in 3s is kept alive.
    Would you bring a healer if they died everytime someone swapped to them? I wouldn't, I'd bring a ret.
    Youtube ~ Yvaelle ~ Twitter

  14. #54
    Scarab Lord Nicola's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,787
    @Yvaelle: It was said it was going to be a match ender. The point I made earlier on is that it simply needs a better algorithm to decide who gets the buff instead of going after who managed to get someone the lowest.


  15. #55
    I'm disappointed it's automatically given to the side with 2 players remaining versus 1.
    I tried arena with my gf once pre feral/guardian separation and we faced a mirror match of feral/rsham. She had no pvp gear and died inside 5 minutes, I spent a further 40 basically surviving and trying to down their team until they made a mistake (the healer stopped to drink as I lured their feral away, then smashed his face in).

    I think if 1 player has dealt more damage than both opponents combined, the crowd would undoubtedly choose him.

    My way of ordering it:
    1. If 1 player has dealt more damage than the other team combined, his/her team receives the buff
    2. The team with more players
    3. The last team to reduce a player below 10% health.
    4. The team which has the highest combined damage
    5. The team with the highest combined healing
    6. In the event of a tie between both combined damage and healing, a randomly generated team receive the buff.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Korgoth View Post
    They should just make healers killable 1v1. Fixes the problem, makes pvp less frustrating for the majority of players, will get a lot more players into pvp.

    But no this myth about healers needing to be invincible 1v1 to be viable in 3s is kept alive.
    yeah if a healer cant live against 1 dps, how do you expect him to live against 2? damage is ridiculous as it is. rets hunters eles and enhances are globaling people while afflic is melting everyone, while healers are sitting 30 seconds of instant cc. Less healing is exactly what we need.

    The buff is stupid . who ever has more players should always win, but if neither team can land a kill neither deserve point, especially for this lowest hp situation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Golden Yak View Post
    Life Lesson #1 - People are terrible.

    Don't let it get to you. It'll only spoil your own personal enjoyment if you do.

  17. #57
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Niberion View Post
    There was some discussion about this already a while ago but that was mainly guessing about what would trigger it, seems we know it now.
    I'm not too happy with the following though: "Team that brought an enemy player closest to death (lowest health)." A team shouldn't win just because their mage managed to bring someone to 2% health with some lucky burst while the other team had the upper hand all game long.
    Agreed. I also wonder how it will work with things like Cauterise and Purgatory. You could be winning most of the match, your Mage needs to Caut+Block but your team still has plenty of other defensives left and you're unlikely to lose. Surely then it would class the Mage team as the losers, as the Mage 'nearly died'.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •