The points system needs to be reworked in battlegrounds...

Dangerx17

I felt I should've won this, there should be a thing similar to aw where when u get a kill u get a bonus amount of points like in aw when a bg finishes and gets rewarded 30k extra points. The fact that u could not finish your fight but still win doesn't seem right to me

xNig

Dangerx17 said:

I felt I should've won this, there should be a thing similar to aw where when u get a kill u get a bonus amount of points like in aw when a bg finishes and gets rewarded 30k extra points. The fact that u could not finish your fight but still win doesn't seem right to me

Give it another 30s and it’ll be a different story.

You got your fight bonus for KOing an opponent under Fight Duration.

BitterSteel

The issue with making defeating your opponent an automatic win is that it leaves room for a hell of a lot of fringe cases where one player has clearly performed better but still loses.

Any point system you suggest will have a lot of flaws, because there is a lot of nuance and variability that goes into fights. And to create a system that accurately captures all of those intricacies would take so many different parameters and be so complex that nobody would be abler to follow how it’s created by glancing - if it’s even possible.

Khellendros138

All I know is under no circumstances should you win a round that you quit. I did that to see what would happen and I won because of my Champs remaining health. I think remaining health should only be a factor I'd you make it the whole round.

Hoitado

I’m just upset about the bug where it shows a different champion.

They chose Warlock as their defender so I picked Odin to Attack Warlock. I was thinking oh this will be easy.

Well it turns out that their Warlock was Actually Magneto smh.

Went in there with no Class Advantage and was Magnetized.

Jeal79

BitterSteel said:

The issue with making defeating your opponent an automatic win is that it leaves room for a hell of a lot of fringe cases where one player has clearly performed better but still loses.

Any point system you suggest will have a lot of flaws, because there is a lot of nuance and variability that goes into fights. And to create a system that accurately captures all of those intricacies would take so many different parameters and be so complex that nobody would be abler to follow how it’s created by glancing - if it’s even possible.

Yet nobody complains about AW.
War has a clear objective. KO the defender in the time given or receive a fixed penalty. War doesn't care how much health you lost doing it.

All the intricacies you talk of is exactly why a detailed scoring mechanism will never work in a game over 200 different variations and combinations of champion ability. There's always going to be some one upset cause they feel kill speed or health remaining or defender health is more/less important and the perspective on that could shift between fights depending on which champs were in the match up. Some cases it might be more impressive to have finished without taking a lot of damage. Other cases (vs tanky def) it might be more impressive to have faster clearance time. The skill required will vary between fights and the champions involved so it's dubious there will ever be a "fair" way to score it.

My vote would be for default wins/loses if you beat the defender and your opponent did not or died to the defender and the opponent did not. That's a much clearer objective in my book, then healthpools & time only become a tie breaker during matches where the outcome was the same for both players

BitterSteel

Jeal79 said:

BitterSteel said:

The issue with making defeating your opponent an automatic win is that it leaves room for a hell of a lot of fringe cases where one player has clearly performed better but still loses.

Any point system you suggest will have a lot of flaws, because there is a lot of nuance and variability that goes into fights. And to create a system that accurately captures all of those intricacies would take so many different parameters and be so complex that nobody would be abler to follow how it’s created by glancing - if it’s even possible.

it's dubious there will ever be a "fair" way to score it.

I think this is what it comes down to. You’ve made all very valid points, and it’s interesting seeing your perspective.

I think because of the line that I quoted, (and I’ve said this idea a few times on the subject of scoring) is that the best way to score BGs is to have seasons where the scoring works differently each season, to encourage different and new kinds of play.

One season we can go for your preferred way, and make it a simple “whoever KOs the opponent wins” with the clearer objective you describe. Next season, go for points scored like we do now and let people strategise and use different champions, then do one where time taken is really important and that’s what matters so you want fast champs, then make attacker health remaining important so you want to bring tanky champs, or regen champs or perfect counters even if they’re slow.

I just think there’s so many potential fun and challenging ways to score this, why stick to one? Why not make seasons themed to encourage new and exciting ways to play?

TheBair123

I think it needs to be changed just a bit. Like AW, time should only be a factor if both people win their fight with the same amount of health. Or, just make attacker health remaining way more important than health. Like this shouldn’t be possible

BitterSteel

TheBair123 said:

I think it needs to be changed just a bit. Like AW, time should only be a factor if both people win their fight with the same amount of health. Or, just make attacker health remaining way more important than health. Like this shouldn’t be possible

Do you think that’s a more unfair result than this:

Player 1
90% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 20 seconds

Player 2
90.1% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 119 seconds


Player 1 loses that in your proposed system. Do you think that’s fairer than you finishing a fight 16 seconds slower, but with 10.7% more health?

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

Khellendros138

Ya fight duration gives way too many points. I think it should be a factor, but more as like a tie breaker. Not sure where the balance can be struck, but I don't think 16 seconds should equate to such a big difference in points.

Siliyo

Shouldn’t there be a code or scoring based on circumstances? For example:

Player 1: Health remaining, opponent KO’d, extra time = bonus points

Player 2: Health remaining, opponent standing, no time (time out) = negative points?

TheBair123

BitterSteel said:

TheBair123 said:

I think it needs to be changed just a bit. Like AW, time should only be a factor if both people win their fight with the same amount of health. Or, just make attacker health remaining way more important than health. Like this shouldn’t be possible

Do you think that’s a more unfair result than this:

Player 1
90% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 20 seconds

Player 2
90.1% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 119 seconds


Player 1 loses that in your proposed system. Do you think that’s fairer than you finishing a fight 16 seconds slower, but with 10.7% more health?

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

That’s really good point. After reading this, I think time definitely does need to be a factor, but time shouldn’t be more important than health left. And I think there should never be a scenario where you kill the defender and the other person doesn’t but you lose

World Eater

TheBair123 said:

BitterSteel said:

TheBair123 said:

I think it needs to be changed just a bit. Like AW, time should only be a factor if both people win their fight with the same amount of health. Or, just make attacker health remaining way more important than health. Like this shouldn’t be possible

Do you think that’s a more unfair result than this:

Player 1
90% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 20 seconds

Player 2
90.1% attacker health remaining
Fight done in 119 seconds


Player 1 loses that in your proposed system. Do you think that’s fairer than you finishing a fight 16 seconds slower, but with 10.7% more health?

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

That’s really good point. After reading this, I think time definitely does need to be a factor, but time shouldn’t be more important than health left. And I think there should never be a scenario where you kill the defender and the other person doesn’t but you lose

Like here:
https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/299211/battlegrounds-scoring/p1

Makes no sense to me how the person who won their fight lost .

GinjabredMonsta

Maybe there needs to be one more category for points then? I mean you get points for defender health remaining, but maybe there could be defender knock out points so thay way people who have more health but didn't defeat the defender have a harder time of getting that victory over the person who did defeat the defender but had less health remaining than their opponent in their fight

No_Dollar_Bill

Glad we get to see this new content. But it's defective massively. Half my matches are as follows, so I lose for no good reason because I cannot fight:

No_Dollar_Bill

DNA3000

BitterSteel said:

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

Very unlikely, but there's a corner case I believe you're overlooking: the odds that both players end with 100% attacker health. That's possible with champions that can heal. Consider the case of two players that both bring Claire. It isn't wildly improbable that both kill the defender and both end at 100% health. In that case, time as a tie breaker would make logical sense: whichever one killed faster is the obvious winner.

BitterSteel

DNA3000 said:

BitterSteel said:

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

Very unlikely, but there's a corner case I believe you're overlooking: the odds that both players end with 100% attacker health. That's possible with champions that can heal. Consider the case of two players that both bring Claire. It isn't wildly improbable that both kill the defender and both end at 100% health. In that case, time as a tie breaker would make logical sense: whichever one killed faster is the obvious winner.

Good point, but I don't think the tie breaker should only be used if both champions end on 100%.

DNA3000

BitterSteel said:

DNA3000 said:

BitterSteel said:

The issue with time being a tie breaker is that health remaining is so unlikely to be the same, that time remaining almost wouldn’t ever matter. I mean, it depends on what decimal places the system would go to, but realistically it’ll be 1 or 2 decimal places. So what are the odds both players finish on 80.1%, or even 80.14% ?

Very unlikely, but there's a corner case I believe you're overlooking: the odds that both players end with 100% attacker health. That's possible with champions that can heal. Consider the case of two players that both bring Claire. It isn't wildly improbable that both kill the defender and both end at 100% health. In that case, time as a tie breaker would make logical sense: whichever one killed faster is the obvious winner.

Good point, but I don't think the tie breaker should only be used if both champions end on 100%.

I'm not saying it should. I'm just saying there is at least one way for attacker health to result in a tie that isn't astronomically unlikely, which means time as a tie breaker would actually be a meaningful way to otherwise break what would be a significant number of ties (without time scoring).

Mqc19

The whole game mode is disappointing. Not to mention barely working with all kinds of glitches and signal drops.

TheBair123

https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/299309/an-advanced-look-at-statistics-in-battlegrounds#latest

just gave a little write-up about this very thing

GroundedWisdom

This is one of those things where I don't have an issue with the scoring. It looks at more than one factor. Speed is something people have been using as a gauge for a long time.

GroundedWisdom

As with anything, it's going to take some time to adjust to the goal.

World Eater

DuffMcGruff said:

I was just going to post this same topic. I think Brian Grant said it perfectly in one of his videos that there should be a multiplier if you take down the champ.

I barely won this match but I should have definitely won it because they didn’t take down my defender

Definitely a problem, but at least you didnt lose that battle. Ive seen others who beat their enemy and ended up losing to someone who didnt win their fight.