Battlegrounds Scoring
TimeGenesis
Member Posts: 732 ★★★★
Asking this based from an experience of a friend
How does the scoring actually work in battlegrounds?
Why did defeating the opponent not scored more than left over health?
Surely you should get bonus points for actually killing the opponent right?
How does the scoring actually work in battlegrounds?
Why did defeating the opponent not scored more than left over health?
Surely you should get bonus points for actually killing the opponent right?
11
Comments
I know we are still in beta and this is something that would definitely take the fun out of playing.
You don’t get any points if you die, and you don’t get any points if you time out. You only get those points if you KO the opponent.
Scenario 1 - you KO them, you get the points no penalty.
Scenario 2 - they KO you, no time remaining points awarded
Scenario 3 - neither KO the other, they time out and there’s a penalty of no points from time remaining
The aim is to defeat the opponent in as fast as possible with as much health left as possible
For me personally killing the opponent should award more points i.e +10k points for actually killing them
Fight duration should only come into play if and only if both the attacker hp and defender hp pts are the same
From the scoring the fight duration is till being added / scored when it should be the tie breaker only.
WHICH MEANS the opponent here scored more for not defeating the opponent which just doesnt make sense to me
I think this is the right / better way of doing this.
For those keeping score at home, a "tie breaker" is a mechanism in a game or sport for breaking ties. It feels weird even having to type this. If there is no tie, the tie breaker mechanism does nothing. Only if there is a tie is it consulted, to break the tie. Attack time is not a tie breaker, it is a source of points. It can "break" ties in the sense that if the fight was a tie without it, it would likely not be a tie with it. But it can also *create* ties that wouldn't have existed without it. It can even change who wins outright. That's not a tie breaker. That's just scoring.
Is it better to finish slower with a lot of health? Or get the fight down ASAP and health be damned? What’s tactically better? I don’t think there’s an objective answer, I’ve heard compelling reasoning for both. OP thinks simply getting the opponent down is all that matters, but as a test of skill, which hypothetical player has done better
Player 1 who gets the fight down, but only has 1% health left?
Player 2 who gets the fight to 1% health, and has 75% health.
In the OP’s system, where it’s all about beating the fight the first player may win. But I feel player 2 has done better. That’s just my personal opinion and I respect why others judge it differently.
I think one good way to combat this is to have seasons (which I think we are getting) where the scoring is tweaked to promote different skills. One season you focus on keeping your health up, the next, finish the fight fast. Scoring rewards different skills and tactics in the fight depending on the season.
I mean, a champ like Psylocke could be very useful in BG for controlling power, but since she’s slower than others, you might just want to bring CGR and nuke it? I feel like Psylocke takes more skill, but CGR gets the fight done faster.
Scoring is tough to work out in game modes like this, whatever variation of health/time you suggest someone else will come up with an equally good reason for it to be done a different way. I think if it gets tweaked over time, it’ll encourage bringing different types of counters. One season you may need to nuke it, the next season you feel health is more valuable - so bring a more ideal counter
Just my thoughts on scoring
I actually see what you're saying there @BitterSteel
but what is the actual objectives here?
Isn't it to beat the opponents as fast as you can with as much health as possible.
shouldn't we consider the raririties here too? Would using a 5* vs 6r3 (or R4 even) show better skills than a 6R3 / R4 failing to beat a 5R5?
I'm not sure if names of players are allowed to be shown here in forums but i went and checked out the opponent stats and the 6* there are definitely R3s
Idr what the nodes are for champs in terms of atk and health are but still..
*I* believe that whoever beats the defender wins, if the other guy doesn't, period. Because that's the point. And if both sides beat the defender, whomever ends with the most health wins, because that's also the point. When you're doing content, do you want to finish fast, or do you want to finish spending the fewest potions? For most people, its the latter.
But not everyone agrees. There are all sorts of corner cases difficult to express in a scoring system. Suppose you defeat the defender with 90% health remaining in 20 seconds. Your opponent defeats the defender with 91% health remaining in 89 seconds. Who was better? Most people would probably say you, because the health difference is immaterial but that speed was impressive. The problem is there's no way to quantify impressiveness.
What most people want, whether they will say it this way or not, is to give the "better performance" the win. But "the better performance" is ill-defined. But the scoring system must be absolutely defined, with no judgment involved.
When I've discussed scoring with others, it is easy to come to reasonable agreement at a high level, and then it goes sideways when it comes to the details. And even when you can come up an agreement, that agreement often has so many special cases, the devs would never implement it. It would be too difficult to explain to a million players, most of whom think a tweet is a lot to read all at once.
Disagree with that. Player 1 defeated the enemy and Won their fight. Isn’t the goal to defeat the enemy? I don’t agree with any scoring system where the player who wins their fights loses vs someone who does not win their fights. Other stats like HP and time should be tie-breakers if both people won their respective fight.
The trouble there, is that if HP and time taken are tie breakers, then you get all sorts of cases that don’t fit into the box of “better fighting”.
I’m assuming you mean a hierarchical tie breaker, where it goes which player beat the opponent, if both did then which has higher health, if it’s the same then which did it faster? If so:
As DNA points out, there’s a situation where both players defeat the enemy, player 1 has 91% attacker health health remaining and did it in 119 seconds. Player 2 has 90% attacker health remaining and did it in 15 seconds. Because of our hierarchy, player 1 wins. But they did it in an immensely longer time, to the point where most rational thinkers would say on the balance of the stats, player 2 did better. They took 15 seconds! And there’s only 1% health difference. That’s impressive. But our hierarchy ignores that.
The only way to get around it, is to not use them as tie breakers. Or in other words, as they are currently being used. And in that case, we will run into some situations where the fight stats fall in such a way that one player could not defeat the opponent, but still win because of health remaining.
Ultimately, the only alternative is to have a hierarchical tie breaker system, which leads to the problems above.
I hope that the kabam mods can also acknowledge this because it could lead to problems down the line once the rewards are out.
Also dont want another / similar issue to summoner showdown scoring
What's the point of remaining health if one players got AB and other lost AB.
In this example, the void player might've gotten the KO, but the corvus player had a much, much cleaner fight, so that's an acceptable outcome to me.
1. KO your opponent AND end up in hospital; or
2. Put your opponent in hospital and walk away mildly bruised?
Your match.
Attacker 2% Defender 2% health remaining.
Your opponent.
Attacker 3% Defender 50% health remaining.
How would you score this?
Like has been said before, there's no actual right or wrong here. Players want it one way bc it's that way in other modes seems to be the only real reasoning. There's no penalty for taking a quest fight "too" slowly but there is in AW and AQ. I don't expect many players want that changed for questing. Sometimes similar things can be judged differently in different areas.
Corvus -> Does a heap of damage, press pause.
Pause should be disabled in the bg. Any disconnect, exit etc should forfeit.
At least with stats leading to points these cases become easier to tweak. If attacker health remaining seems to be too big a factor, one season to another can tweak that so it seems better.
Ultimately, I think I’ll stick with my suggestion that having seasons where we have different scoring systems that are themed around different aspects of the fight. One season you could put the focus on finishing with a lot of health, the next you could encourage really fast fights. Another season could be a hierarchical one, where KOing the opponent is the biggest single factor.
The only points you get will be 20 charges worth of damage on defender health remaining, meaning the max score you get will be 45k and that’s if you got them down to 1%, in that case, why not just finish the fight and get the time bonus? Let’s say you get them to around 20% health, that’s 24k points. Plus your 15k for attacker health that’s 39k overall.
In higher match ups, that’s usually just not enough to win. You’re looking at 45k as the lowest general scores and ranging to 55k.
Maybe it’ll be good for lower down the leaderboard, but it won’t get you many wins.
Do you think pause should be allowed?