Your opponent just ran out of time which is easy to do on these shortened timers. Looking at the photo your opponent clearly fought much cleaner and better than you and deserved the win.
Gotta disagree with that.
One person won their fight and KOd the opponent; the other didn’t win their fight. IMHO, OP should get the win here.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but battlegrounds isn’t “kill your opponent”, it’s “maximise your points”. And that’s not me saying that, that’s Kabam’s intention with the game mode that they’ve confirmed. I can find it for you if you’d like.
This is true, but in my opinion it is more of a truism than a practical opinion on scoring. If the point to battlegrounds is to maximize your points, and only to maximize your points, then by definition the scoring system is always perfect. Because if the intent is always to maximize points, and the point system always gives the victory to whomever has the most points, it is always "correct." But that can't be the end of the story.
The point system expresses an idea: a set of rules that determines who wins. If the system awarded a million points to whomever defeated the opponent, it would be impossible to ever win if you don't defeat the opponent and the other competitor did. That's a points system with a clearly easy to understand point to it. Kill the defender and you win, unless both sides do, then insert tie breaker here.
The current system expresses a victory condition, but I don't think it is an intuitive one. It says beat the defender, unless you're going to take too much time, in which case risk more health to kill faster, but not too much. There's just no way any normal human can correctly assess what the "point" to the fight is at any particular moment. And I doubt anyone is: they are just trying to kill as fast as possible while getting hit as little as possible, and the trade off between those to is being set basically arbitrarily, based on the player's gut instinct probably completely detached from the actual fight.
Some people think that's fine, and that's okay as that is a preference, but then if you're fine with that sort of abstract scoring system then it will be difficult to justify a preference between that arbitrary scoring system and any other abstract arbitrary scoring system except "I like that one better." All other things being equal, there's no way for a third party, like say a game developer, to choose between such preferences. In that situation, the preferences that get chosen will tend to be the developers'.
I don't think that's the best way to arrive at a scoring system that has the least amount of friction among the playerbase.
Your opponent just ran out of time which is easy to do on these shortened timers. Looking at the photo your opponent clearly fought much cleaner and better than you and deserved the win.
Gotta disagree with that.
One person won their fight and KOd the opponent; the other didn’t win their fight. IMHO, OP should get the win here.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but battlegrounds isn’t “kill your opponent”, it’s “maximise your points”. And that’s not me saying that, that’s Kabam’s intention with the game mode that they’ve confirmed. I can find it for you if you’d like.
This is true, but in my opinion it is more of a truism than a practical opinion on scoring. If the point to battlegrounds is to maximize your points, and only to maximize your points, then by definition the scoring system is always perfect. Because if the intent is always to maximize points, and the point system always gives the victory to whomever has the most points, it is always "correct." But that can't be the end of the story.
The point system expresses an idea: a set of rules that determines who wins. If the system awarded a million points to whomever defeated the opponent, it would be impossible to ever win if you don't defeat the opponent and the other competitor did. That's a points system with a clearly easy to understand point to it. Kill the defender and you win, unless both sides do, then insert tie breaker here.
The current system expresses a victory condition, but I don't think it is an intuitive one. It says beat the defender, unless you're going to take too much time, in which case risk more health to kill faster, but not too much. There's just no way any normal human can correctly assess what the "point" to the fight is at any particular moment. And I doubt anyone is: they are just trying to kill as fast as possible while getting hit as little as possible, and the trade off between those to is being set basically arbitrarily, based on the player's gut instinct probably completely detached from the actual fight.
Some people think that's fine, and that's okay as that is a preference, but then if you're fine with that sort of abstract scoring system then it will be difficult to justify a preference between that arbitrary scoring system and any other abstract arbitrary scoring system except "I like that one better." All other things being equal, there's no way for a third party, like say a game developer, to choose between such preferences. In that situation, the preferences that get chosen will tend to be the developers'.
I don't think that's the best way to arrive at a scoring system that has the least amount of friction among the playerbase.
We come across this each time we have this discussion, but having a hierarchical points system where whoever KOs opponent wins, if both KO then whoever has higher health etc
I just don’t think they work. They offer plenty of genuinely unfair outcomes, like the example I give every time.
A points system gives fewer unfair outcomes. I mean, take any time someone has complained. They’ve always barely won the fight and have scraped through against an opponent who took the opponent down quite a lot, but didn’t manage to KO while having a high attacker health. It can always go either way.
I’m fine with having a system that’s mostly great, with a couple of wavy moments. Rather than a hierarchical one that is sometimes great, and sometimes extremely unfair.
I’m fine if the points system is messed around with to increase or decrease values and what stuff is worth. I’m also fine in theory if Kabam wanted to try extra metrics in there for scoring. What I don’t think is good for the game is hierarchical systems, because it promotes risky play and reduces the skill element.
It also essentially removes the 3rd element as a metric (whether that’s time taken or attacker health) because unless you’re both on 100% health, the odds of you both being on exactly the same health if neither KOd the opponent are minute.
You can have so many fringe cases that are unfair.
Player 1 loses almost all their health but KOs. Player 2 almost KOs but keeps all their health. Player 1 wins with a hierarchical system, but hasn’t played better.
Other cases, like both player KOs opponent. Player 1 does it in 12 seconds and has 99.9% health remaining. Player 2 does it in 89 seconds and has 100% health remaining. Player 2 wins because he has 0.1% higher health, but did it much, much slower. He played objectively worse.
What the points system does is smooth it out, so these fringe cases are removed. Instead of these wildly inaccurate ones, you end up with something closer to Player 1 taking the opponent down to 5% health and then dying, player 2 times out at 50% with 40% health remaining. Who played better? That’s harder to say, because one took the fight down more, the other has more health left and didn’t die. That’s where the points decide.
I think you’re wrong when you say it’s difficult to justify one points system over another, assuming you’re talking about weighting. I do think for example weighting time too highly encourages nuking rather than skill, so it’s not as difficult to justify a different arbitrary points system as you say it is. It’s not “I like that one better”, though I do like it I suppose, it’s “this one promotes a lack of skill, and just taking the biggest hitter you can”. I think if other metrics were introduced it would be easy to say some aren’t as fair, hits taken for example would differ for champions with different combo or special attack lengths.
“If the point to battlegrounds is to maximize your points, and only to maximize your points, then by definition the scoring system is always perfect” So when you say this, no I disagree with you actually. There are different things we can critique about the points system. And I’m not against it being changed. I can say the weighting is wrong here, this metric isn’t fair here etc.
At the end of the day, I just feel the hierarchical system gives way to far too many unfair outcomes. So while it’s theoretically nicer to believe that whoever wins the fight should always win, in practice, it becomes unfair pretty quickly. There are additional parameters to judging who fought better, and they should be a part of BGs
I don’t get this idea of where killing the opponent with 5% is this crazy amazing achievement in comparison to having a good fight but timing out for a little bit of health.
Maybe everyone is secretly a whale spending their way through the game but as a free to play I completely understand how significant it is to be able to preserve your health even if it takes more time, it is an actual skill.
Agreed, if you want to take Hercules, or Nick fury or Hela into a fight and go crazy, lose all your health and beat the opponent fast, go for it. I don’t think that’s very skilful compared to encouraging you to keep as much of your health as possible. But that’s just my opinion.
ACKSHUALLY the way to use Nick fury is…
If you get off to a bad start, die on purpose and kill the opponent right as your health tops up for your second life.
Your opponent just ran out of time which is easy to do on these shortened timers. Looking at the photo your opponent clearly fought much cleaner and better than you and deserved the win.
Gotta disagree with that.
One person won their fight and KOd the opponent; the other didn’t win their fight. IMHO, OP should get the win here.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but battlegrounds isn’t “kill your opponent”, it’s “maximise your points”. And that’s not me saying that, that’s Kabam’s intention with the game mode that they’ve confirmed. I can find it for you if you’d like.
In my view, if there’s 2 players, one (player A) who finishes with 100% health, but reduced the opponent to 1hp *just not able* to beat them, they fought way better than the other (Player who gets taken down to 1% health themselves as the attacker, with a scrappy fight and only just manages to KO the opponent.
The difference in defender health is 1 HP so player B is 1HP better, but the difference in attacker health is 99%, so player A is 99% total health better.
Overall, I think it’s pretty clear that player A has done better. Because at the moment the goal isn’t to just defeat the opponent.
And we have the same system in AW at the moment. The goal isn’t just to take down the opponent’s boss, you need to maximise diversity, attack bonuses, exploration etc
At the moment it’s possible to lose a war if you Ko the opponent’s boss, but don’t explore or have enough diversity.
Arguing that you should win BG match just by beating the defender no matter your health or time is like arguing you should win your war by just beating the boss, no matter your diversity or exploration.
We are judged on the different factors, we play to the rules set, and different things can judge how well you have played your fight or your war.
Well it’s kill your opponent and maximize your points right ? Killing the opponent is the primary objective since that will reward more points in most cases. I def don’t like seeing someone who won their fight lose to someone who didn’t win their fight.
Killing your opponent is the best *way* to complete your primary objective, which is maximise points.
Killing your opponent gives you 30,000 points. Which is half the maximum (attacker health and time remaining provide the other half). And in reality, unless you’re modding or the opponent is a 3* you aren’t defeating the opponent in the first 5 seconds, so by definition killing the opponent is worth more than half.
Primary objective: maximise points How do I do that? Kill the defender. Does killing the defender mean I will win? Not necessarily, if you don’t have enough health left or didn’t do it fast enough, the other player may have won.
Whoever doesn’t kill the opponent should lose by default if the other person does.
If neither kills the opponent, then health remaining should come into play. I don’t know if that’s doable, but that’s how it should be.
This sounds great in theory, but it actually gives rise to a lot of unfair situations when you make a points system that says if X, then that player wins, if Y, then that player wins
there’s 2 players:
Player 1 who finishes with 100% health, but reduced the opponent to 1hp *just not able* to beat them
Player 2 who gets taken down to 1% health themselves as the attacker, with a scrappy fight and only just manages to KO the opponent as the timer goes to 1 second left
The difference in defender health is 1 HP so player 2 is 1HP better, the difference in time is 1 second, but the difference in attacker health is 99%, so player 1 is 99% total health better. Would you back a system that says player 2 played better ? They almost timed out and lost 99% of their health. Player 1 is almost the exact same in terms of time and defender health, but they have full health when they finished.
Your system lets player 2 win even though in my view he’s played much worse.
Another example, seeing as you’d have to put in a way for a player to win if both players KO, let’s say you chose attacker health as the decider.
So whoever KOs the opponent wins if the other doesn’t KO, but if they both KO then we look at attacker health next.
Unfortunately, because we have a scale of 0-100%, in likely a couple decimal places, unless both attackers end on 100%, it’s extremely unlikely for both attackers to remain on the same health at the end of the fight. This means that in most cases, time taken to KO is almost irrelevant.
It also gives rise to situations like this one:
Both player KOs opponent.
Player 1 does it in 12 seconds and has 99.9% health remaining.
Player 2 does it in 89 seconds and has 100% health remaining.
Player 2 wins because he has 0.1% higher health, but did it much, much slower. He played objectively worse, but again, your system means he wins.
@Grub how would you justify those two situations in the system you would prefer?
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
Well, in aw you would always prefer having lower health and getting all points in one fight over timing out with cool hp. At least for consistency they should score a kill higher then everything else imo. Or maybe at very least reduce opponents score by half when he doesn't get a kill, just like they reduce your hp in aq on timing out
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
You didn’t answer my question I’m afraid.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
You didn’t answer my question I’m afraid.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
You didn’t answer my question I’m afraid.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
Sorry I missed your question .... but yeah in my opinion player 1 should absolutely get 0 points. They died and therefore could not see the match through irrespective of the opponent health remaining... and to reiterate I would be fine with that if it happened to me.
As I said, dying to your opponent speaks directly to your survivability skillset which should be a very important factor in this mode. That's how I look at it anyway.
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
You didn’t answer my question I’m afraid.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
@BitterSteel can you give me some thoughts on this
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
That is what the scoring system has decided is worth more.
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.
I do see what you're saying however the aim of the mode is to finish the opponent as quickly as possible while trying to retain as much of your health as possible ... if you die it should be as good as you forfeiting/quitting out. You did poorly, you couldn't play well enough to stay alive so no points. I really don't get how it can go any other way. I agree if you both don't die or both ko opponent etc etc but if I die to their defender then I shouldn't get anything for that (I'd be perfectly fine in this scenario with not gaining any points) irrespective of the remaining health of the opponent.
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
You didn’t answer my question I’m afraid.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
Sorry I missed your question .... but yeah in my opinion player 1 should absolutely get 0 points. They died and therefore could not see the match through irrespective of the opponent health remaining... and to reiterate I would be fine with that if it happened to me.
As I said, dying to your opponent speaks directly to your survivability skillset which should be a very important factor in this mode. That's how I look at it anyway.
This seems like a fundamental difference between our point that we’re not gonna get past then.
You’re making a distinction between 1% of health, where one player only just survives, but one dies, as if that’s a huge indicator of skill.
If you think losing 99% of your health and taking 1% health from the opponent is more skilled than losing all your health, but taking 99% of the opponent’s health, then I’m afraid all I can say is I strongly disagree, I think that’s a very odd definition of skill.
I never once said anything about the definition of skill, I said it speaks towards it.
I will agree to disagree though as this could go on all year haha
You said player 2 deserves to win, this whole mode is about how skilled you are, so points system award points based on how well you do which is intrinsically linked to how skilled you are.
By saying player 2 deserves to win, you’re saying he did a more skilled job.
Do you think player 2 did a more skilled job? Do you think his performance required more skills?
To reiterate .... I didn't say anything about the definition of skill as you could apply the actual definition of skill to both my point and your point making it somewhat subjective.
To reiterate .... I didn't say anything about the definition of skill as you could apply the actual definition of skill to both my point and your point making it somewhat subjective.
As I said, let's just agree to disagree 👍
But I feel like we’ve got a pretty fundamental issue with your preferred scoring system, and the fact you’re not answering the question of which player you think was more skilled, kind of points to the fact that you may think it’s the player 1.
We can agree to disagree if you like, but it doesn’t exactly bode well for your argument.
Do you think someone who got reduced to 1% health, and only took off 1% health from the opponent is more skilled than someone who took 99% from the opponent, but happened to lose 1% more health than the other player?
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? No, he got KO'd so all them points he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? no he ko so all them point he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
But there’s only 1% difference in the attacker health? I’m looking at it from a whole, because when we judge skill, it’s not only about one factor. Health remaining, health taken away, time taken, these are all factors in skill.
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
Replied to a post yesterday and it’s still waiting for a moderator to approve
I thought the goal was to defeat the enemy since that gives you the ability to score more pts. Why not add a KO bonus , points wise ?
There already is a KO bonus, it’s just one that feels that if you KO someone at 89 seconds, that’s only worth a tiny bit more as a KO bonus than if you timed out.
The time bonus is literally a KO bonus, that reduces linearly the longer you take. If you Ko the opponent very quickly, you get a big KO bonus. If you take 10 of the 90 seconds available, you get a very big KO bonus because you KOd the opponent quicker.
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? no he ko so all them point he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
But there’s only 1% difference in the attacker health? I’m looking at it from a whole, because when we judge skill, it’s not only about one factor. Health remaining, health taken away, time taken, these are all factors in skill.
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
But I'm not focusing solely on that, I am merely saying that it should be the first thing to tick off. Defender health remaining should also be playing a part but only if you survive your fight. A bit like time taken isn't taken into account unless you KO them. If you can't stay alive then the rest of it shouldn't matter.
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? no he ko so all them point he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
But there’s only 1% difference in the attacker health? I’m looking at it from a whole, because when we judge skill, it’s not only about one factor. Health remaining, health taken away, time taken, these are all factors in skill.
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
But I'm not focusing solely on that, I am merely saying that it should be the first thing to tick off. Defender health remaining should also be playing a part but only if you survive your fight. A bit like time taken isn't taken into account unless you KO them. If you can't stay alive then the rest of it shouldn't matter.
It’s hard to take a system seriously that would give a victory to someone who lost all but 1% of their health and only took away 1% of the opponent’s health. As if they were more skilled than someone who almost beat the fight. That seems genuinely baffling to me.
If I’m honest, I’ve made my point, we both know that player 1 is definitely more skilled than player 2, but your system would award it to player 2 for doing pretty much nothing. That’s where your system falls down, and unfortunately would never be used for that reason. Happy to agree to disagree.
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? no he ko so all them point he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
But there’s only 1% difference in the attacker health? I’m looking at it from a whole, because when we judge skill, it’s not only about one factor. Health remaining, health taken away, time taken, these are all factors in skill.
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
But I'm not focusing solely on that, I am merely saying that it should be the first thing to tick off. Defender health remaining should also be playing a part but only if you survive your fight. A bit like time taken isn't taken into account unless you KO them. If you can't stay alive then the rest of it shouldn't matter.
It’s hard to take a system seriously that would give a victory to someone who lost all but 1% of their health and only took away 1% of the opponent’s health. As if they were more skilled than someone who almost beat the fight. That seems genuinely baffling to me.
If I’m honest, I’ve made my point, we both know that player 1 is definitely more skilled than player 2, but your system would award it to player 2 for doing pretty much nothing. That’s where your system falls down, and unfortunately would never be used for that reason. Happy to agree to disagree.
All we both know is that we don't agree. I find it hard to take seriously where someone dies to me but still wins.
If you have tunnel vision and only look at the defender health remaining then yes, you're right but as a whole -in my opinion- attacker health should be the first "tick box" that's looked at, if you can't survive then unfortunately you lack the skills to be in that match up.
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? no he ko so all them point he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
But there’s only 1% difference in the attacker health? I’m looking at it from a whole, because when we judge skill, it’s not only about one factor. Health remaining, health taken away, time taken, these are all factors in skill.
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
But I'm not focusing solely on that, I am merely saying that it should be the first thing to tick off. Defender health remaining should also be playing a part but only if you survive your fight. A bit like time taken isn't taken into account unless you KO them. If you can't stay alive then the rest of it shouldn't matter.
It’s hard to take a system seriously that would give a victory to someone who lost all but 1% of their health and only took away 1% of the opponent’s health. As if they were more skilled than someone who almost beat the fight. That seems genuinely baffling to me.
If I’m honest, I’ve made my point, we both know that player 1 is definitely more skilled than player 2, but your system would award it to player 2 for doing pretty much nothing. That’s where your system falls down, and unfortunately would never be used for that reason. Happy to agree to disagree.
All we both know is that we don't agree. I find it hard to take seriously where someone dies to me but still wins.
To each their own and all that I guess
If dying is an auto loss if the other person doesn't, then all you have to do if both players have very bad match ups is pause at the start of the fight and hope your opponent at least tries.
I'm definitely with BitterSteel on this one. There shouldn't be any absolutes when it comes to these. You can argue how scoring is weighted but making things black and white just leaves potential for far too many nonsensical results.
I'm definitely with BitterSteel on this one. There shouldn't be any absolutes when it comes to these. You can argue how scoring is weighted but making things black and white just leaves potential for far too many nonsensical results.
I'm definitely with BitterSteel on this one. There shouldn't be any absolutes when it comes to these. You can argue how scoring is weighted but making things black and white just leaves potential for far too many nonsensical results.
Whereas operating in the grey is OK?
It's not operating in the grey as a whole. What I Mean by not having things black and white I mean no absolutes as in you die, you lose or you KO and the opponent doesnt, you win. The scoring itself is black and white. Finish fights as fast as possible and lose as little health as possible. If you beat your opponent in those two categories, you win.
The comparisons to AW are off as well bc the end goal of AW is the same way, score more points than your opponent. If you die twenty more times than they do but still score more points in that war by having those deaths be after AB are all lost or scoring higher in diversity, you still win the war. People are comparing it on a fight by fight basis when really you should be looking at it on a per war basis bc at the end of the day, more points win regardless of how you got there.
Comments
The point system expresses an idea: a set of rules that determines who wins. If the system awarded a million points to whomever defeated the opponent, it would be impossible to ever win if you don't defeat the opponent and the other competitor did. That's a points system with a clearly easy to understand point to it. Kill the defender and you win, unless both sides do, then insert tie breaker here.
The current system expresses a victory condition, but I don't think it is an intuitive one. It says beat the defender, unless you're going to take too much time, in which case risk more health to kill faster, but not too much. There's just no way any normal human can correctly assess what the "point" to the fight is at any particular moment. And I doubt anyone is: they are just trying to kill as fast as possible while getting hit as little as possible, and the trade off between those to is being set basically arbitrarily, based on the player's gut instinct probably completely detached from the actual fight.
Some people think that's fine, and that's okay as that is a preference, but then if you're fine with that sort of abstract scoring system then it will be difficult to justify a preference between that arbitrary scoring system and any other abstract arbitrary scoring system except "I like that one better." All other things being equal, there's no way for a third party, like say a game developer, to choose between such preferences. In that situation, the preferences that get chosen will tend to be the developers'.
I don't think that's the best way to arrive at a scoring system that has the least amount of friction among the playerbase.
I just don’t think they work. They offer plenty of genuinely unfair outcomes, like the example I give every time.
A points system gives fewer unfair outcomes. I mean, take any time someone has complained. They’ve always barely won the fight and have scraped through against an opponent who took the opponent down quite a lot, but didn’t manage to KO while having a high attacker health. It can always go either way.
I’m fine with having a system that’s mostly great, with a couple of wavy moments. Rather than a hierarchical one that is sometimes great, and sometimes extremely unfair.
I’m fine if the points system is messed around with to increase or decrease values and what stuff is worth. I’m also fine in theory if Kabam wanted to try extra metrics in there for scoring. What I don’t think is good for the game is hierarchical systems, because it promotes risky play and reduces the skill element.
It also essentially removes the 3rd element as a metric (whether that’s time taken or attacker health) because unless you’re both on 100% health, the odds of you both being on exactly the same health if neither KOd the opponent are minute.
You can have so many fringe cases that are unfair.
Player 1 loses almost all their health but KOs. Player 2 almost KOs but keeps all their health. Player 1 wins with a hierarchical system, but hasn’t played better.
Other cases, like both player KOs opponent. Player 1 does it in 12 seconds and has 99.9% health remaining. Player 2 does it in 89 seconds and has 100% health remaining. Player 2 wins because he has 0.1% higher health, but did it much, much slower. He played objectively worse.
What the points system does is smooth it out, so these fringe cases are removed. Instead of these wildly inaccurate ones, you end up with something closer to Player 1 taking the opponent down to 5% health and then dying, player 2 times out at 50% with 40% health remaining. Who played better? That’s harder to say, because one took the fight down more, the other has more health left and didn’t die. That’s where the points decide.
I think you’re wrong when you say it’s difficult to justify one points system over another, assuming you’re talking about weighting. I do think for example weighting time too highly encourages nuking rather than skill, so it’s not as difficult to justify a different arbitrary points system as you say it is. It’s not “I like that one better”, though I do like it I suppose, it’s “this one promotes a lack of skill, and just taking the biggest hitter you can”. I think if other metrics were introduced it would be easy to say some aren’t as fair, hits taken for example would differ for champions with different combo or special attack lengths.
“If the point to battlegrounds is to maximize your points, and only to maximize your points, then by definition the scoring system is always perfect”
So when you say this, no I disagree with you actually. There are different things we can critique about the points system. And I’m not against it being changed. I can say the weighting is wrong here, this metric isn’t fair here etc.
At the end of the day, I just feel the hierarchical system gives way to far too many unfair outcomes. So while it’s theoretically nicer to believe that whoever wins the fight should always win, in practice, it becomes unfair pretty quickly. There are additional parameters to judging who fought better, and they should be a part of BGs
If you get off to a bad start, die on purpose and kill the opponent right as your health tops up for your second life.
If neither kills the opponent, then health remaining should come into play. I don’t know if that’s doable, but that’s how it should be.
Killing your opponent gives you 30,000 points. Which is half the maximum (attacker health and time remaining provide the other half). And in reality, unless you’re modding or the opponent is a 3* you aren’t defeating the opponent in the first 5 seconds, so by definition killing the opponent is worth more than half.
Primary objective: maximise points
How do I do that? Kill the defender.
Does killing the defender mean I will win? Not necessarily, if you don’t have enough health left or didn’t do it fast enough, the other player may have won.
there’s 2 players:
Player 1 who finishes with 100% health, but reduced the opponent to 1hp *just not able* to beat them
Player 2 who gets taken down to 1% health themselves as the attacker, with a scrappy fight and only just manages to KO the opponent as the timer goes to 1 second left
The difference in defender health is 1 HP so player 2 is 1HP better, the difference in time is 1 second, but the difference in attacker health is 99%, so player 1 is 99% total health better. Would you back a system that says player 2 played better ? They almost timed out and lost 99% of their health. Player 1 is almost the exact same in terms of time and defender health, but they have full health when they finished.
Your system lets player 2 win even though in my view he’s played much worse.
Another example, seeing as you’d have to put in a way for a player to win if both players KO, let’s say you chose attacker health as the decider.
So whoever KOs the opponent wins if the other doesn’t KO, but if they both KO then we look at attacker health next.
Unfortunately, because we have a scale of 0-100%, in likely a couple decimal places, unless both attackers end on 100%, it’s extremely unlikely for both attackers to remain on the same health at the end of the fight. This means that in most cases, time taken to KO is almost irrelevant.
It also gives rise to situations like this one:
Both player KOs opponent.
Player 1 does it in 12 seconds and has 99.9% health remaining.
Player 2 does it in 89 seconds and has 100% health remaining.
Player 2 wins because he has 0.1% higher health, but did it much, much slower. He played objectively worse, but again, your system means he wins.
@Grub how would you justify those two situations in the system you would prefer?
I also do agree that you KO'ing the opponent and they don't KO you ... that shouldn't be an automatic win as it really doesn't speak to your skills but dying speak directly to your skills set with regard to staying alive.
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
Do you really think player 2 did better than player 1? Do you really think that player 1 deserves 0 points for getting the opponent down to 1% health?
As I said, dying to your opponent speaks directly to your survivability skillset which should be a very important factor in this mode. That's how I look at it anyway.
You’re making a distinction between 1% of health, where one player only just survives, but one dies, as if that’s a huge indicator of skill.
If you think losing 99% of your health and taking 1% health from the opponent is more skilled than losing all your health, but taking 99% of the opponent’s health, then I’m afraid all I can say is I strongly disagree, I think that’s a very odd definition of skill.
I will agree to disagree though as this could go on all year haha
By saying player 2 deserves to win, you’re saying he did a more skilled job.
Do you think player 2 did a more skilled job? Do you think his performance required more skills?
As I said, let's just agree to disagree 👍
We can agree to disagree if you like, but it doesn’t exactly bode well for your argument.
Do you think someone who got reduced to 1% health, and only took off 1% health from the opponent is more skilled than someone who took 99% from the opponent, but happened to lose 1% more health than the other player?
If Tyson KOs Holyfield in round 11 but Holyfield was flawless in his fighting for every single round prior to that should he still win? No, he got KO'd so all them points he accrued over the fight mean nothing.
That is how I see a 1v1 fighting mode operating. Again ..... in my opinion.
Edit - Typos
I could accuse you of having tunnel vision for focussing only on whether the attacker got KOd. I don’t think many would really say player 2 deserves to win for taking off only 1% health and losing 99% of their health.
The time bonus is literally a KO bonus, that reduces linearly the longer you take. If you Ko the opponent very quickly, you get a big KO bonus. If you take 10 of the 90 seconds available, you get a very big KO bonus because you KOd the opponent quicker.
KO = win.
If no KO, then you go to the judge's scorecards.
Does it reward the highest skill? Sometimes.
Does it make the fights more exciting and the system more viable? Yes.
Mike Tyson wasn't the most skilled boxer, but EVERYONE wanted to see his matches.
They even made a boxing game with him as the final boss.
Watching 2 guys do a defensive boxing battle for 10 rounds is very skillful, but few people want to watch it.
If I’m honest, I’ve made my point, we both know that player 1 is definitely more skilled than player 2, but your system would award it to player 2 for doing pretty much nothing. That’s where your system falls down, and unfortunately would never be used for that reason. Happy to agree to disagree.
To each their own and all that I guess
The comparisons to AW are off as well bc the end goal of AW is the same way, score more points than your opponent. If you die twenty more times than they do but still score more points in that war by having those deaths be after AB are all lost or scoring higher in diversity, you still win the war. People are comparing it on a fight by fight basis when really you should be looking at it on a per war basis bc at the end of the day, more points win regardless of how you got there.