Haha i’ve never seen it that high before! Pretty sure it’s a glitch though right?
Wow, he healed you for 12x the amount of damage you took, AND YOU STILL DIED?? That’s some special kind of skill.
On the original topic… I don’t like getting a tie or a draw. It’s win or lose… or nobody wins and it feels like a big ol’ waste of time. I’d rather lose than get a tie.
imo, a tie-breaker is fine. It means that you can win by playing defense, instead of only winning from offence.
On the other hand, I’d be okay without tie-breakers if the game went into overtime. (and during overtime, no-one can respawn)
how exactly does ernest heal? o.0
speaking of ernest, wasn’t there an “ernest changes coming” thread last night? did it get deleted? I’ve run out of threads to read to keep me busy during downtime for work, lol.
I mean if u pushed a minute earlier and a little further you’d have won why should you get a chance to win the tie breaker or why would it be called a draw if the other team controlled the game the entirety of the match until you guys were able to push back at the very end probably because of respawn times, sure in that situation your team would be satisfied with a draw but the other team would be thinking “wtf we dominated them the whole game then they get a lucky kill and we tie cuz they kill our sentry during the minute respawn times.” It’s definitely possible to comeback from a situation like that just by getting 1 damage on thw second sentry you guys were halfway there probably ran out of time. If you pull that strategy off the other team will still be bitter but they let you flip the tables on them and push into their second sentry which in theory they couldn’t do to your team so they lost fair and square. Saying it’s impossible or pointless to try is just wrong it is difficult yes but it should be you only do this if you’ve been getting beat. And maybe I’m just to competitive but a tie in anything for me is like kissing your sister you just don’t want to do it and it just shouldn’t be happening.
My personal favorite is when an ally damages you for 1400
This is the core concept which I don’t understand as a non-competitive player. The way the objectives are designed allows for ties to occur, so why shouldn’t that be recognised then for what it is?
Most Incursion matches (which is arguably the most likely game mode to get a tie in) are games where both teams play defensively. It’s typically a question of which chokehold gets occupied for defensive play, I seldom see offensive teams in Incursion. Aggressive? Yes. But not offensive.
At least that way it’d be more of a “legitimised” win. But even then, if it was time based it could still end in a tie. And if it wouldn’t be time-based, then it could take a really long time and be proper fatigue-draining. I know it’d be an unlikely scenario, but I’m just talking hypothetically here.
We didn’t get an opportunity to push earlier. Their sentry died just a second before the match ended, so we never got a chance to proceed with the push.
I was also never asking for a chance to win the tie-breaker, I simply would like it to recognise it aa the tie that it was.
Because we pushed each others’ objective equally hard, be that in one large push or a gradual wear-down. The respawn times are increased as they are to allow for such pushes to happen.
But going back to why it’d be considered to be a draw if they had the advantage for the vast majority of the game, just a couple of questions;
If a team has the obvious advantage through most of the game and gets the first sentry down to 7 health for instance, would it be a genuine victory for the “suppressed” team if they have an ISIC for instance who backdoors and kills their sentry? It’s a win, but the opposing team had the upper hand for majority of the game. So how would one value such a win?
If they have the upper hand for 20 minutes and have killed our first sentry meaning that they have longer respawn times and we manage to push back hard to kill their last sentry, would that be a proper victory then? That sentence still applies for this scenario as well. They had the upper hand for most of the game and had longer respawn times which may have been a leading cause for our ability to push. Did we realy deserve that win then?
If anything else, that’d be more of an emotional response rather than an analytical one. It typically (though not always, luck is certainly a component) occurs because an opponent overreaches, your team bursts down target by target in a systematic manner etcetera. Because of this, most of the time the pushback is, at least in my eyes, justified and shall be recognised for what it is.
While I agree for most the most part, in this case it was literally impossible since, as I stated above, the first sentry died a second or so before the time ran out. We had about 30-40 seconds on the sentry with the other team trying to prevent us from hitting it since we didn’t wipe them all and they had respawned by the time we got there. So in that sense, pushing the sentry for the purpose of winning was impossible and pointless. Maybe, just maybe it could’ve worked with an ISIC backdooring with his ultimate after he used it on the first sentry as well. But we didn’t have him on our team.
A tie-breaker to me is like having a tug of war over a river where one drops into the water if the opponent wins. The opponent gets an upperhand and has pulled oneself close to the river, but one still persists and the opponent ultimately fails to drag you down. When the time is up, the arranger says “This isn’t acceptable, you lost.” to oneself and pushes one into the river despite never actually losing. A loss which one never had.
I should say though, that as far as the game I’m referencing to, they would’ve won with the new tie-breaker as well. They got more kills, assists and healing done while we dealt more damage and took less damage. We alao got more minion kills which, according to me should at least be a part of the new tie-breaker considering minions are basically the subobjective in Incursion.But if that would’ve been thing, even the tie-breaker would’ve been a tie in this case.
I’ve had one match that brought the tie breaker of all time breakers. even sentry health between both teams. Same amount of score between both teams. Team that got first blood wins the match.
Exactly. You don’t understand. Competitive people don’t like getting into a draw. It’s scenario worse than a loss. In a loss, you tried and failed. In a draw, you tried and nothing happened. It’s boring. Ever play TF2? Most matches end in a draw in that game.
Don’t tell me a draw means “everybody wins” because it doesn’t. It’s irritating to be clearly better than the enemy team, but get a draw anyway.
In Battleborn, this would mean both first sentries are down and neither second sentry has taken damage. Let’s say that my team has 30+ kills and the enemy team has less than 10. It’s insulting be clearly better than someone and have the end result say you’re equals… I’m frustrated just thinking about seeing a “draw” screen in Battleborn.
Well, that seems… fair…?
Suppose you’re running out of tie-breakers at that point though…
Though if you go into a game with the goal to win, then you fail that goal if you get a draw. It’s still a result which is just as valid as a loss. After all, it’s not, in my view, an all-or-nothing deal. Draw is just the middle ground.
I didn’t direct these questions to you in the previous post, but how would you answer these in relation to that sentence?
This is why I like incursion and the tie breaking situation at the moment.
Incursion is like a fight. The sentries are knockdowns. You can recover from the first and get a sneaky knockdown on your opponent but if you get your butt kicked the whole time (way more deaths) you still lost the fight. The second sentry is a Knock Out, game over.
The objective is kill both sentries, True, but the real objective is to kick your opponent’s butt.
Win the FIGHT.
Obviously the team that ISIC was on. If you don’t pay enough attention to stop a single Battleborn (no minons, no back-up, no nothing) from killing your sentry, you deserve to lose.
Yes, to both. The reward for killing an opponent is the opportunity for pushing up during their absence. If the game had short respawns, it would be just like TF2 and Overwatch: many endless stalemates with no hope for either team to win.
Wasn’t complaining. Was actually laughing at how the first kill decided the entire match, and I think our team got the first blood. It seems silly to me that first blood is a tiebreaker in a game like this. Would have rather seen it be from the team with most minion kills maybe. Idk.
The thing is, if you manage to get way more kills and still don’t manage to push the sentry, then in my eyes your team is actually pretty bad at incursion and isn’t focusing the objective. The other team is managing to hold you off with way less resources at any given time. Rewarding this/kill farming just feels off.
The team with more kills is controlling the entire map and other players.
The team with less kills generally has a good wave clear/defensive player, most likely Galilea. That team shouldn’t be rewarded for stalling or riding out a beating. The team as a whole is being controlled.
It’s a logical strategy considering this is essentially a combat simulation and not a no contact sport such as basketball. There is more at play than points.
I recently lost a match to tiebreaker when my team was up 45-19 in kills. We lost, I think, because we were in draft and all supports got banned or picked, which automatically conceded two categories to the enemy team.
I find this tremendously frustrating, for obvious reasons. I don’t understand the logic inherent in the statement “your team more than doubled their kills, but you didn’t heal enough so you lose”.
Does anyone know what the categories even are? Do I need to start worrying that blowing up accelerators lets them rebuild and autosnag a category for tiebreaker?
Interesting. What was all declared in the win/lose screen? Just loss by average player score or is it more specific? What mode was it?