Battlegrounds' Problems

Searmenis

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

InsaneSkull

I have already addressed this issue in a scoring system i proposed but unfortunately thread is lost in depths of forum.

Searmenis

InsaneSkull said:

I have already addressed this issue in a scoring system i proposed but unfortunately thread is lost in depths of forum.

This is supposed to be the most competitive side of the game, so it has to be as fair as it gets! Exactly!

Colinwhitworth69

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Colinwhitworth69

Searmenis said:

And whoever "disagrees" for fun, really, **** off already.

Mods will kill this thread because of this comment btw.

GinjabredMonsta

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

I've seen the opposite argument too where they said it isn't fair because they lost with less health but quicker and the opponent didn't finish at all and had more health. While I do think the point system needs to be adjusted, in this case they hadn't lost that much health which could have given you the win if they lost more. It's all about who you choose for the fight.

Your second complaint should just be to fix parry if that's the actual issue. There's nothing wrong with matchmaking.

Searmenis said:

And whoever "disagrees" for fun, really, **** off already.

Maybe people don't agree with you...?

Searmenis

GinjabredMonsta said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

I've seen the opposite argument too where they said it isn't fair because they lost with less health but quicker and the opponent didn't finish at all and had more health. While I do think the point system needs to be adjusted, in this case they hadn't lost that much health which could have given you the win if they lost more. It's all about who you choose for the fight.

Your second complaint should just be to fix parry if that's the actual issue. There's nothing wrong with matchmaking.

Searmenis said:

And whoever "disagrees" for fun, really, **** off already.

Maybe people don't agree with you...?

Those who don't agree and express an opinion, are always welcome, my mindset and way of thinking are not cast in stone.

As for the matchmaking, I don't mind a tough fight, I want fairness, and it's not a fair fight when you can't parry.

Searmenis

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

My point is, if you match with someone, whoever, in whatever level, that doesn't have the input problems you encounter in the game, it's not fair. I don't want easy fights, I even get frustrated when someone forfeits before the duel ends.

Colinwhitworth69

Searmenis said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

My point is, if you match with someone, whoever, in whatever level, that doesn't have the input problems you encounter in the game, it's not fair. I don't want easy fights, I even get frustrated when someone forfeits before the duel ends.

Oh, well, not sure how Kabam can manage that. Kinda a separate issue as they work through device-specific control issues, which they warned us about.

InsaneSkull

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win? Definitely not you at least but you will in this case. How fair it will be from your opponent perspective? Opponent definitely played better than you.

You took more time but you played better then opponent in terms of combat but not in terms of time, you couldn't even finish the fight unlike your opponent then how can you win?

If you performed better and won while timed out then why not when you took more time then opponent and won with better stats. Timed out situation is not handled correctly if we go by current scenario as OP described.

If above fight is valid then my given scenario will contradict it.

I still don't understand why time is an even factor in winning or losing. Either you played better or not in given time simple thing why complicate with time calculation.

InsaneSkull

There is no point in adding the things which edge cases are not covered.

Colinwhitworth69

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win? Definitely not you at least but you will in this case. How fair it will be from your opponent perspective? Opponent definitely played better than you.

You took more time but you played better then opponent in terms of combat but not in terms of time, you couldn't even finish the fight unlike your opponent then how can you win?

If you performed better and won while timed out then why not when you took more time then opponent and won with better stats. Timed out situation is not handled correctly if we go by current scenario as OP described.

If above fight is valid then my given scenario will contradict it.

I still don't understand why time is an even factor in winning or losing. Either you played better or not in given time simple thing why complicate with time calculation.

Same rules for everyone, bub, so deal with it. You can take advantage of the strategies or whine about it. Your call.

And I will not reply to your scenario because you did not provide the scoring, so not sure if you are correct about who would win. I don't do assumptions.

InsaneSkull

Colinwhitworth69 said:

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win? Definitely not you at least but you will in this case. How fair it will be from your opponent perspective? Opponent definitely played better than you.

You took more time but you played better then opponent in terms of combat but not in terms of time, you couldn't even finish the fight unlike your opponent then how can you win?

If you performed better and won while timed out then why not when you took more time then opponent and won with better stats. Timed out situation is not handled correctly if we go by current scenario as OP described.

If above fight is valid then my given scenario will contradict it.

I still don't understand why time is an even factor in winning or losing. Either you played better or not in given time simple thing why complicate with time calculation.

Same rules for everyone, bub, so deal with it. You can take advantage of the strategies or whine about it. Your call.

And I will not reply to your scenario because you did not provide the scoring, so not sure if you are correct about who would win. I don't do assumptions.

Expected response when we can't defend own statement, You can watch live stream of tournament to see that scenario if you want real time data and unable to make assumption or understand the case.

Ultimatheory

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win? Definitely not you at least but you will in this case. How fair it will be from your opponent perspective? Opponent definitely played better than you.

You took more time but you played better then opponent in terms of combat but not in terms of time, you couldn't even finish the fight unlike your opponent then how can you win?

If you performed better and won while timed out then why not when you took more time then opponent and won with better stats. Timed out situation is not handled correctly if we go by current scenario as OP described.

If above fight is valid then my given scenario will contradict it.

I still don't understand why time is an even factor in winning or losing. Either you played better or not in given time simple thing why complicate with time calculation.

Sounds like you should definitely win in that case. You put out nearly the same damage and took far less damage doing it. That sounds like it takes more skill.

I personally like the time aspect to the scoring. It adds a depth of strategy to defensive placements and the overall strategy to attacker picks in general. It’s something unique to this format which breathes a bit of fresh air into the game. Everyone also has the same rules so it’s a level playing field.

Once you get past the idea of “I just need to KO this defender” and focus more on beating the opponents strategies the game mode becomes way more deep and enjoyable. As long as you don’t get matched against modders that is.

BitterSteel

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win?

The first person. They kept 99% of their health. The opponent lost 90%. The opponent played awfully.

We play to the rules set, we maximise our health and time taken to beat the opponent’s point score.

I do think time should be a part of it, but at the moment it is weighted too highly. Make it worth half the amount of points it currently is, I think that would put more of an onus on playing skilfully than just bringing your highest damage champs, while still allowing time taken to be a factor.

GinjabredMonsta

BitterSteel said:

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win?

The first person. They kept 99% of their health. The opponent lost 90%. The opponent played awfully.

We play to the rules set, we maximise our health and time taken to beat the opponent’s point score.

I do think time should be a part of it, but at the moment it is weighted too highly. Make it worth half the amount of points it currently is, I think that would put more of an onus on playing skilfully than just bringing your highest damage champs, while still allowing time taken to be a factor.

I think part of the issue is that "time" is supposed to be a tie breaker, but usually tie breakers aren't included in the actual score unless there is a tie. And like you said, this "tie breaker" is scored highly. I still don't fully agree with scoring, but now this game mode isn't as shiny as it first was to me

BitterSteel

GinjabredMonsta said:

BitterSteel said:

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win?

The first person. They kept 99% of their health. The opponent lost 90%. The opponent played awfully.

We play to the rules set, we maximise our health and time taken to beat the opponent’s point score.

I do think time should be a part of it, but at the moment it is weighted too highly. Make it worth half the amount of points it currently is, I think that would put more of an onus on playing skilfully than just bringing your highest damage champs, while still allowing time taken to be a factor.

I think part of the issue is that "time" is supposed to be a tie breaker, but usually tie breakers aren't included in the actual score unless there is a tie. And like you said, this "tie breaker" is scored highly. I still don't fully agree with scoring, but now this game mode isn't as shiny as it first was to me

That just comes from kabam calling things tie breakers that aren’t tie breakers though haha

Like (I think it was) defender diversity in war, or time taken in summoner show down and then BGs. They originally called them tie breakers, until conceding that things cannot be tie breakers if they themselves are included in the scoring.

Now we have an actual tie breaker in war. I don’t think that tie breakers really work when scoring something like this. I mean, if you had a system where a time tie breaker is only used when both attackers are on the same health, that would barely ever happen, and when it does 99% of cases are when the attackers are both on 100% health. The odds of both champions being 66.5% health is so low, that time is almost irrelevant.

I think that’s why you need to score it on points, but by all means reduce it from what it is now. It’s too important at the moment.

Demonzfyre

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

InsaneSkull

@BitterSteel @GinjabredMonsta @Ultimatheory I respect all opinions of you guys, It's just the case i discussed is not well handled in current scoring, Either time can be used as a tie breaker or use it as reward and punishment both.

Here is my thread about scoring https://forums.playcontestofchampions.com/en/discussion/302125/battlegrounds-scoring-system-suggestions#latest

Hesitant to share previously because no interest is shown back then.

Hoitado

The Only Problem I have is the parry problem with the A.I

They will be blocking and no change at all and I dash in to attack while they are blocking and I get parried.

Could just be me but it’s kinda annoying constantly getting parried

InsaneSkull

Demonzfyre said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

But why my opponent wins with no dent but couldn't crossed the finish line when i crossed finish line first?

Demonzfyre

InsaneSkull said:

Demonzfyre said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

But why my opponent wins with no dent but couldn't crossed the finish line when i crossed finish line first?

Example?

BitterSteel

Demonzfyre said:

InsaneSkull said:

Demonzfyre said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

But why my opponent wins with no dent but couldn't crossed the finish line when i crossed finish line first?

Example?

I don’t think the race analogy works here. We aren’t fighting for one finish line, or goal. Like in a race. We aren’t trying to KO the opponent and only that, we are maximising our points.

If someone times out with 100% health on attacker and 1% left on defender. And someone else KOs opponent with 1% health remaining on attacker, the first person will win (rightly so, they played better with the system). In the race analogy, this is like someone finishing a race 1 metre short from the line with no dent, but someone else finishing the race with a banged up car and losing.

In the race analogy, that would be silly. The car crossed the line so should have won the race.

But we aren’t doing a race. There is no finish line, winning the fight doesn’t guarantee the win. Just like beating the boss in AW doesn’t guarantee the win.

What BGs is like, is if car races had a certain amount of time to make a certain distance, while they were judged on time taken to get that distance, how far they get, and how banged up their car is at the end. All those factors join together to create a score.

That’s why the car analogy doesn’t work here. But BGs points scoring is perfectly legitimate, even if it does way time too highly.

Demonzfyre

BitterSteel said:

Demonzfyre said:

InsaneSkull said:

Demonzfyre said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

But why my opponent wins with no dent but couldn't crossed the finish line when i crossed finish line first?

Example?

I don’t think the race analogy works here. We aren’t fighting for one finish line, or goal. Like in a race. We aren’t trying to KO the opponent and only that, we are maximising our points.

If someone times out with 100% health on attacker and 1% left on defender. And someone else KOs opponent with 1% health remaining on attacker, the first person will win (rightly so, they played better with the system). In the race analogy, this is like someone finishing a race 1 metre short from the line with no dent, but someone else finishing the race with a banged up car and losing.

In the race analogy, that would be silly. The car crossed the line so should have won the race.

But we aren’t doing a race. There is no finish line, winning the fight doesn’t guarantee the win. Just like beating the boss in AW doesn’t guarantee the win.

What BGs is like, is if car races had a certain amount of time to make a certain distance, while they were judged on time taken to get that distance, how far they get, and how banged up their car is at the end. All those factors join together to create a score.

That’s why the car analogy doesn’t work here. But BGs points scoring is perfectly legitimate, even if it does way time too highly.

The race car example was just for the example OP put out.

BitterSteel

Demonzfyre said:

BitterSteel said:

Demonzfyre said:

InsaneSkull said:

Demonzfyre said:

Searmenis said:

Two problems actually, if you don't count the cheaters:

1- It's not logical to lose a round, when you had won the fight with more health than your opponent, but you lose because of "fight duration". Some champions need more time than others to complete a fight, that's their toolkit. Not fair, the end.


2- Fix matchmaking. It's enough that parry doesn't work 50% of the time with your precious beta trash, at least match make us with players that have similar problems. Well, this isn't really something that can be done, I know, then why don't you FIX parry instead?

Thank you and good day.

If you are in a race with a car and you dent your opponent dents their car and yours stays pristine but they finish the race ahead of you, who wins the race?

But why my opponent wins with no dent but couldn't crossed the finish line when i crossed finish line first?

Example?

I don’t think the race analogy works here. We aren’t fighting for one finish line, or goal. Like in a race. We aren’t trying to KO the opponent and only that, we are maximising our points.

If someone times out with 100% health on attacker and 1% left on defender. And someone else KOs opponent with 1% health remaining on attacker, the first person will win (rightly so, they played better with the system). In the race analogy, this is like someone finishing a race 1 metre short from the line with no dent, but someone else finishing the race with a banged up car and losing.

In the race analogy, that would be silly. The car crossed the line so should have won the race.

But we aren’t doing a race. There is no finish line, winning the fight doesn’t guarantee the win. Just like beating the boss in AW doesn’t guarantee the win.

What BGs is like, is if car races had a certain amount of time to make a certain distance, while they were judged on time taken to get that distance, how far they get, and how banged up their car is at the end. All those factors join together to create a score.

That’s why the car analogy doesn’t work here. But BGs points scoring is perfectly legitimate, even if it does way time too highly.

The race car example was just for the example OP put out.

No I get that, but if an analogy only works in one specific scenario you have to expect people to point out holes in it. If you try and explain the scoring system by using an analogy, but it doesn’t hold up for other parts of the scoring system then it doesn’t explain it very well

InsaneSkull

I only disagree with scoring in one point that the way time out scoring works. If time is important factor in finishing the fight then why not applied when time runs out. If i get rewarded for finish before then why not punished when after while my opponent is sitting in same scenario.

If this does not make sense then unfortunately the scoring is not perfect for all case. I will accept as poor implementation and move on.

Peace out.

CoMinow

How can you lose the fight and still win? Why isn’t actually losing the fight a thing?

It is pretty ridiculous that someone gets knocked out and wins… stupidest scoring system ever when you can win from dying

Searmenis

BitterSteel said:

InsaneSkull said:

Colinwhitworth69 said:

Fight duration is part of the scoring, for everyone, so it is fair. No need to change it IMO. I strategize my defenders based partly on how long they’ll take to defeat.

Your point about matchmaking is confusing as to what you want. If you are matching with tough opponents then you will lose and move down the rankings until you match players at your level. Rankings do not matter anyway, at least not in this beta.

Try one more scenario, keep your attacker HP 99%, defender at 1% HP and you timed out, your opponent attacker 10% HP, defender 0% HP, time 120s. Who should win?

The first person. They kept 99% of their health. The opponent lost 90%. The opponent played awfully.

We play to the rules set, we maximise our health and time taken to beat the opponent’s point score.

I do think time should be a part of it, but at the moment it is weighted too highly. Make it worth half the amount of points it currently is, I think that would put more of an onus on playing skilfully than just bringing your highest damage champs, while still allowing time taken to be a factor.

That's a legit suggestion, I'll take it

SirGamesBond

One thing in BGs that matter is do not lose hope and perform your best every fight, even after getting hit multiple times.

In one match, I let go of the phone and let the defender hit me, I lost hope before the fight ended, lol. Turned out I would have won If I would have just kept playing the fight with my low health.

Also lost a round to a guy who used the 1% timeout strategy against my nick fury.

I like BGs.