Battlegrounds Scoring

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?

Comments

TimeGenesis

Or even a penalty for timing out instead?

GinjabredMonsta

Thats actually a good question. There def should be a time out penalty

TimeGenesis

Right?
I know we are still in beta and this is something that would definitely take the fun out of playing.

BitterSteel

Thats actually a good question. There def should be a time out penalty

Is the time remaining not in some way a time out penalty?

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

TimeGenesis

Thats actually a good question. There def should be a time out penalty
Is the time remaining not in some way a time out penalty?

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

I kinda understand what you're saying here but the scenario we are talking here is how did the opponent end up having more points?

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

TimeGenesis

Actually is the scoring bugged? From the blog post

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

TimeGenesis

Also using the pts mentioned in their blogplost why not award 15k pts each for health remaining but award a bonus 15k for defeating the opponent?

I think this is the right / better way of doing this.

GinjabredMonsta

Thats actually a good question. There def should be a time out penalty
Is the time remaining not in some way a time out penalty?

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

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I just think there shouldn't be a way to win, if you timed out. I guess it's not fair to give it an automatic loss, and sure, they don't get points for it, but it's weird someone could defeat an opponent and have only a sliver of health, but the the other person won because they ended with more health but didn't actually beat the opponent. There should be a point penalty for the health remaining if they didn't actually beat the opponent

DNA3000

Actually is the scoring bugged? From the blog post

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

To put this as politely as I can, the Kabam hive mind has no idea what a tie breaker is, and insists on calling scoring opportunities tie breakers when they aren't. They did this with defender diversity and stuck to their guns that DD was a tie breaking mechanism for years, before finally adding attack time to alliance war as a true tie breaker. They are doing it again with attack time in Battlegrounds, calling it a tie breaker when it is actually just a source of points.

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.

BitterSteel

I think at the end of the day, any systems and any way you cut the scoring will have flaws. If you decide one method, there will be ways for the match to turn out that seems odd. And vice versa.

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

TimeGenesis

To put this as politely as I can, the Kabam hive mind has no idea what a tie breaker is, and insists on calling scoring opportunities tie breakers when they aren't.

This sure made me giggle

I think at the end of the day, any systems and any way you cut the scoring will have flaws. If you decide one method, there will be ways for the match to turn out that seems odd. And vice versa.

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....
....
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..

DNA3000

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.

I think we all agree that's the case. The problem comes when you beat the opponent fast, but the other guy beats the opponent with more health remaining. Then what?

*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.

World Eater

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….

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.

BitterSteel

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….

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.

And that’s absolutely a fair opinion to have. I don’t think you’re wrong, I just don’t share it.

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.

TimeGenesis

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.
I think we all agree that's the case. The problem comes when you beat the opponent fast, but the other guy beats the opponent with more health remaining. Then what?

*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.

Insightful take as always. Always appreciate your posts @DNA3000

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

Beewee

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….

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.

Someone mentioned it above, but a penalty for getting ko’ed should be put in place

unknown

This content has been removed.

SirGamesBond

If we treat this as a War fight.
What's the point of remaining health if one players got AB and other lost AB.

Slapdash

It makes sense logically, if you clear your mentality of timing out being a disaster as it is in war. It's a point penalty, because you get less from defender hp and time, but not game ending, which I'm personally okay with. I could see maybe slashing your hp like in war and aq and awarding attacker hp points based on that, but I kinda like how it's distinguished from war.

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.

GinjabredMonsta

It makes sense logically, if you clear your mentality of timing out being a disaster as it is in war. It's a point penalty, because you get less from defender hp and time, but not game ending, which I'm personally okay with. I could see maybe slashing your hp like in war and aq and awarding attacker hp points based on that, but I kinda like how it's distinguished from war.

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.

The issue is we don't know if it was a cleaner fight. For all we know they did a minimal amount of damage and just parried or dexed the whole fight. But it definitely does bring a conundrum into this and is a good debate topic

unknown

This content has been removed.

Aburaees

Imagine if it were a real fight, would you rather:

1. KO your opponent AND end up in hospital; or
2. Put your opponent in hospital and walk away mildly bruised?

AverageDesi

I think the beauty is that there is no "SHOULD BE" in this topic

winterthur

If both parties beat the opponent then it is 1 - 1 (or 0 - 0 if no one beat the opponent) thus a tie so we look for your remaining health. If your remaining health > to other party you get 1 point they get 0 so you Win 2 - 1

Both did not register KO.
Your match.
Attacker 2% Defender 2% health remaining.

Your opponent.
Attacker 3% Defender 50% health remaining.

How would you score this?

Worknprogress

If they want to make mandating getting opponents down completely to even have the possibility of winning, those fight timers need some serious adjustment. That makes fights and then also rounds that much longer.

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.

AverageDesi

I don't understand why invent so much complication creating scoring system when all it should be is 1 (win) 0 (lost)

If you beat the opponent you get 1 point if other party didn't beat it they get 0. Game over you Won.

If both parties beat the opponent then it is 1 - 1 (or 0 - 0 if no one beat the opponent) thus a tie so we look for your remaining health. If your remaining health > to other party you get 1 point they get 0 so you Win 2 - 1

If both parties have same health then we check the time it took to beat the opponent. Whoever did it the fastest get 1 point other party get 0. You win by 3 - 2.

Easy and simple and no one can abuse it.

This is terrible

LordSmasher

Interesting argument but I think you guys are missing what's going on here.
Corvus -> Does a heap of damage, press pause.

Pause should be disabled in the bg. Any disconnect, exit etc should forfeit.

BitterSteel

If both parties beat the opponent then it is 1 - 1 (or 0 - 0 if no one beat the opponent) thus a tie so we look for your remaining health. If your remaining health > to other party you get 1 point they get 0 so you Win 2 - 1
Both did not register KO.
Your match.
Attacker 2% Defender 2% health remaining.

Your opponent.
Attacker 3% Defender 50% health remaining.

How would you score this?

And that’s the exact issue with hierarchical scoring systems. There will be fringe cases that just make no sense.

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.

BitterSteel

Interesting argument but I think you guys are missing what's going on here.
Corvus -> Does a heap of damage, press pause.

Pause should be disabled in the bg. Any disconnect, exit etc should forfeit.

I’m not sure that would score a lot of points tbh. You’d lose I think up to 15,000 points immediately because of time remaining. You’d have 15k, or close to it, from attacker health remaining. So that closes out as a net 0.

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.

LordSmasher

Interesting argument but I think you guys are missing what's going on here.
Corvus -> Does a heap of damage, press pause.

Pause should be disabled in the bg. Any disconnect, exit etc should forfeit.
I’m not sure that would score a lot of points tbh. You’d lose I think up to 15,000 points immediately because of time remaining. You’d have 15k, or close to it, from attacker health remaining. So that closes out as a net 0.

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.

Might not get many wins but that's whats happened in the OG's case.

Do you think pause should be allowed?