Why we need a fourth scoring category in Battlegrounds

I get the the KO, opponent times out no KO. I lose the round solely based on attacker health remaining. We need a fourth score category for getting the KO. There's no reason why someone should win a round without KOing the opponent.

Comments

Mackey

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

Mackey

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 👍

Mackey

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.

Edit - Typos

GinjabredMonsta

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 ?

I agree with this too

Mackey

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.

Denslo500

I prefer the Boxing/MMA method of scoring.

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.

Denslo500

I think Kabam wants this to be a "competitive league" thing that people would watch.

Mackey

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

Worknprogress

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.

Worknprogress

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.

Mackey

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?

Worknprogress

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.

Aceymcoc

Sure you beat the opponents champ but your health is a lot lower than his it’s not like it wasn’t a close match if you played better you would have won, but I do agree that there should be a small bonus for beating the defender like 2000 points or something, nothing major but could be a decider if needed, but I think someone said you already get a bonus if you beat the champ

World Eater

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.

The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.

Mackey

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.

"Finish fights as fast possible and lose as little health as possible" ... so in my scenario neither of us have finished at all never mind as fast as possible but he's dead and I'm not, I lost as little health as possible he lost all of his .... that's contradicting your point 🤔

I 100% agree that it can't be compared to AW... just for the fact AW is a team effort not individual.

Mackey

Sure you beat the opponents champ but your health is a lot lower than his it’s not like it wasn’t a close match if you played better you would have won, but I do agree that there should be a small bonus for beating the defender like 2000 points or something, nothing major but could be a decider if needed, but I think someone said you already get a bonus if you beat the champ

Not sure if this to OP or myself but if it's myself then I'm afraid you've mis read my initial query to bittersteel. Neither one of us finished the other but he died and I did not, he got more health off my champ compared to how much I got off his.

If it was meant for the OP then disregard my comment haha

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.

This is spot on. The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.

Someone above said a 2k (for example) bonus for defeating the defender is a good way to go.

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
A KO bonus is simply a bonus that you only get when you KO the opponent.

You only get time bonus when you KO the opponent, it is an addition to your score that you get only when KOing the opponent.

How is it not a KO bonus?

You said “ I thought the goal was to defeat the enemy since that gives you the ability to score more pts.” One of the goals *is* to defeat the enemy, so when you defeat the enemy you score more points that had you not defeated the enemy.

The thing is, you get less of a bonus if you didn’t do it very fast.

If it was a KO bonus then it would/should be labelled as such but it is not labelled that way.

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
The thing is, you get less of a bonus if you didn’t do it very fast.

You've kinda summed it up here in this part of your message .... if the amount of points awarded varies dependant on the time taken then how can you say it is a KO bonus? A KO bonus would be a set bonus for KO the opponent

GinjabredMonsta

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
This is spot on. The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.

Someone above said a 2k (for example) bonus for defeating the defender is a good way to go.

It's called a tiebreaker by kabam, but it's not that at all. Maybe a time preventer but in how it's used, it could be considered a "KO bonus" or another part of scoring. A KO bonus given to the victor could be something implemented in the future, but eventually a tiebreaker this is not

Worknprogress

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.
"Finish fights as fast possible and lose as little health as possible" ... so in my scenario neither of us have finished at all never mind as fast as possible but he's dead and I'm not, I lost as little health as possible he lost all of his .... that's contradicting your point 🤔

I 100% agree that it can't be compared to AW... just for the fact AW is a team effort not individual.

Not really. I said win both of those categories and you win. Neither of you won both of those categories as neither of you even completed one of the two. That's where the weighted scoring came in and defender health remaining came into play. He removed more health from the opponent than you did. You can argue against how each category is weighted and that's a valid discussion and boils down to opinion. I dislike how heavily time is weighted currently some people love it.

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.
This is inaccurate and not what a tie break means. Tie breaks do not factor into the scoring unless they are equal and then, and only then, the tie break is used to *break the tie*.

Time is used in the scoring, therefore not a tie break.

After looking further into it, i will concede that it is not its full intention but it can -in kabams own words (see pic below)- be used as a tie break. Similarly they have said absolutely nothing about it being a KO bonus. Here is the link incase you want to check for yourself 👌

https://playcontestofchampions.com/news/battlegrounds-beta/

Mackey

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.
"Finish fights as fast possible and lose as little health as possible" ... so in my scenario neither of us have finished at all never mind as fast as possible but he's dead and I'm not, I lost as little health as possible he lost all of his .... that's contradicting your point 🤔

I 100% agree that it can't be compared to AW... just for the fact AW is a team effort not individual.

Not really. I said win both of those categories and you win. Neither of you won both of those categories as neither of you even completed one of the two. That's where the weighted scoring came in and defender health remaining came into play. He removed more health from the opponent than you did. You can argue against how each category is weighted and that's a valid discussion and boils down to opinion. I dislike how heavily time is weighted currently some people love it.

I do agree with your dislike of the time

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.
This is inaccurate and not what a tie break means. Tie breaks do not factor into the scoring unless they are equal and then, and only then, the tie break is used to *break the tie*.

Time is used in the scoring, therefore not a tie break.

After looking further into it, i will concede that it is not its full intention but it can -in kabams own words (see pic below)- be used as a tie break. Similarly they have said absolutely nothing about it being a KO bonus. Here is the link incase you want to check for yourself 👌

https://playcontestofchampions.com/news/battlegrounds-beta/
It’s not a tie breaker, Kabam used this phrase wrong for something in AW, I think it was defender diversity. It’s not a tie breaker and I wish kabam would work out what that phrase means lol.

Something that is used in the actual scoring is not a tie breaker, so time bonus is not a tie breaker.

Again though, it doesn’t matter if Kabam don’t say time is a KO bonus. That’s what it literally functions as.

Your definition of KO bonus is “Kabam must say it is a KO bonus”, but you’re completely ignoring what it actually functions as to serve your own point.

The article clearly says "it can be used as a tiebreak" just because your interpretation of that doesn't match mine (or kabams for that matter) doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. It is what it is. A time taken bonus that can in fact be used to break a tie. It is not awarded for KO'ing although I can see why you would think that. But how would a time bonus come into play in a fight that times out or ends prematurely from you dying, it can't... can it 😂

Mackey

I believe the AW tie break is the fight duration isn't it? Not too sure though, I play war but don't really pay much attention to the details of it... for the most part it seem like its just magic on the scoring lol

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.
This is inaccurate and not what a tie break means. Tie breaks do not factor into the scoring unless they are equal and then, and only then, the tie break is used to *break the tie*.

Time is used in the scoring, therefore not a tie break.

After looking further into it, i will concede that it is not its full intention but it can -in kabams own words (see pic below)- be used as a tie break. Similarly they have said absolutely nothing about it being a KO bonus. Here is the link incase you want to check for yourself 👌

https://playcontestofchampions.com/news/battlegrounds-beta/
It’s not a tie breaker, Kabam used this phrase wrong for something in AW, I think it was defender diversity. It’s not a tie breaker and I wish kabam would work out what that phrase means lol.

Something that is used in the actual scoring is not a tie breaker, so time bonus is not a tie breaker.

Again though, it doesn’t matter if Kabam don’t say time is a KO bonus. That’s what it literally functions as.

Your definition of KO bonus is “Kabam must say it is a KO bonus”, but you’re completely ignoring what it actually functions as to serve your own point.
The article clearly says "it can be used as a tiebreak" just because your interpretation of that doesn't match mine (or kabams for that matter) doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. It is what it is. A time taken bonus that can in fact be used to break a tie. It is not awarded for KO'ing although I can see why you would think that. But how would a time bonus come into play in a fight that times out or ends prematurely from you dying, it can't... can it 😂

A tie break is something that cannot be a part of the original points system, because then the tie break can cause a tie.

Say one person is on 14k, and the other is on 15k. The first person gets a time bonus of 1k, the second gets 0. And now they’re both on 15k, now there’s a tie.

The time bonus would “act” like a tie breaker if both were on 14k, then one got a bigger time bonus. But the same logic can be applied to attacker health. What if, after the defender health and time bonus, both were on 14k, then the attacker health acts as the tie breaker.

A tie breaker is not just “it could make the difference if both are on the same”.

A tie breaker simply by definition cannot be part of the original scoring. I feel worried that you aren’t grasping several pretty simple concepts in this discussion whether by accident or on purpose just so it backs your point.

When you say this “It is not awarded for KO'ing although I can see why you would think that. But how would a time bonus come into play in a fight that times out or ends prematurely from you dying, it can't... can it”

It quite literally is awarded for KOing the opponent, it is a fact that you only get it when you Ko the opponent. This is an odd hill to die on.

So basically in your opinion it is not a tie break and it is a part of the scoring system and cannot be used as a tie break because the definition of tie break dictates otherwise? Yet on their forum it clearly says it can be used as a tie break

Yeah it's being awarded IF you KO (but not FOR killing them) the opponent but it can vary on the amount of points it awards a player depending on how long it took you to do it ..... Therefore its a varying figure that is dependant on the time taken.

Mackey

To be honest, they could bring a 4th thing in and use it purely as a tie breaker (maybe we both draft an extra 2 champs at the start that are locked away and only to be used in event of a tie.... i say 2 beacuse we always have 1 left over currently anyway) and leave the rest as is.

K00shMaan

To be honest, they could bring a 4th thing in and use it purely as a tie breaker (maybe we both draft an extra 2 champs at the start that are locked away and only to be used in event of a tie.... i say 2 beacuse we always have 1 left over currently anyway) and leave the rest as is.

They do actually have a Tiebreaker built in. I believe it's aggregate points/point differential between the rounds. Not this Beta but the one before I did have one round be a perfect tie. We split the other two rounds and I was awarded the Victory I'm assuming because the round I won was done so with a larger margin than the round my opponent won.

Also, Points awarded for Fight Duration is literally a KO Bonus. What some of are asking for doesn't even require a 4th scoring metric. All they would have to do is change the scaling of fight duration so that instead of scaling from 0-15,000, it scales from 5,000-15,000 and only gets activated if a KO occurs, which is how it works now. You'll notice that you receive "-" points for not KOing the opponent not 0 points.

Mackey

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.
The time is part of the actual scoring , not a set bonus.
The time aspect is to tiebreak in the event that both finish the champ and finish with the same health, it is not meant as a bonus.
This is inaccurate and not what a tie break means. Tie breaks do not factor into the scoring unless they are equal and then, and only then, the tie break is used to *break the tie*.

Time is used in the scoring, therefore not a tie break.

After looking further into it, i will concede that it is not its full intention but it can -in kabams own words (see pic below)- be used as a tie break. Similarly they have said absolutely nothing about it being a KO bonus. Here is the link incase you want to check for yourself 👌

https://playcontestofchampions.com/news/battlegrounds-beta/
It’s not a tie breaker, Kabam used this phrase wrong for something in AW, I think it was defender diversity. It’s not a tie breaker and I wish kabam would work out what that phrase means lol.

Something that is used in the actual scoring is not a tie breaker, so time bonus is not a tie breaker.

Again though, it doesn’t matter if Kabam don’t say time is a KO bonus. That’s what it literally functions as.

Your definition of KO bonus is “Kabam must say it is a KO bonus”, but you’re completely ignoring what it actually functions as to serve your own point.
The article clearly says "it can be used as a tiebreak" just because your interpretation of that doesn't match mine (or kabams for that matter) doesn't mean you're right and they're wrong. It is what it is. A time taken bonus that can in fact be used to break a tie. It is not awarded for KO'ing although I can see why you would think that. But how would a time bonus come into play in a fight that times out or ends prematurely from you dying, it can't... can it 😂

A tie break is something that cannot be a part of the original points system, because then the tie break can cause a tie.

Say one person is on 14k, and the other is on 15k. The first person gets a time bonus of 1k, the second gets 0. And now they’re both on 15k, now there’s a tie.

The time bonus would “act” like a tie breaker if both were on 14k, then one got a bigger time bonus. But the same logic can be applied to attacker health. What if, after the defender health and time bonus, both were on 14k, then the attacker health acts as the tie breaker.

A tie breaker is not just “it could make the difference if both are on the same”.

A tie breaker simply by definition cannot be part of the original scoring. I feel worried that you aren’t grasping several pretty simple concepts in this discussion whether by accident or on purpose just so it backs your point.

When you say this “It is not awarded for KO'ing although I can see why you would think that. But how would a time bonus come into play in a fight that times out or ends prematurely from you dying, it can't... can it”

It quite literally is awarded for KOing the opponent, it is a fact that you only get it when you Ko the opponent. This is an odd hill to die on.
So basically in your opinion it is not a tie break and it is a part of the scoring system and cannot be used as a tie break because the definition of tie break dictates otherwise? Yet on their forum it clearly says it can be used as a tie break

Yeah it's being awarded IF you KO (but not FOR killing them) the opponent but it can vary on the amount of points it awards a player depending on how long it took you to do it ..... Therefore its a varying figure that is dependant on the time taken.
Please read what you just wrote. This is not my opinion, this is the definition of a tie breaker. It either is acting as that or it isn’t. I’m not going to debate a fact with you, it simply isn’t a tie breaker no matter what Kabam claim it is. You either don’t know what the definition of a tie breaker is, or you’re being performatively ignorant.

It *does not matter* what Kabam say on their website, the time bonus by definition is not a tie breaker because if it is being used in the scoring then it no longer is a tie breaker. This is very, very simply logic it’s worrying you don’t understand.

I won’t be addressing that point again, you can either accept it or not. But I fear for your ability to recognise fact if you don’t.

In this contest, the time bonus being awarded for the KO or if they KO doesn’t matter. The fact is, it’s only awarded when the KO occurs. It’s by definition a KO bonus, again, I worry for your ability to recognise fact. Once more, I won’t be addressing that issue again, you’re bringing up the same thing over and over - it is a fact, if you can’t see that after I’ve explained it a fair few times, you won’t see it if I explain it again.

I’m happy to debate what you think should be scored, but I won’t waste my time debating with you whether the sky is blue. Feel free to think it’s red because Kabam wrote it on a website.

Ah I see what's happened here, there's been some wires crossed.

I agree, by definition how kabam have worded it isn't correct.

In their mind at the point of designing the mode and/or writing the blog for their game they have deemed it to be a possible tie breaker. That is the point I'm arguing that it plays that role in the game that they created whether it is by definition correct or incorrect.

Sorry if I what I have wrote could be read as though I'm saying "because kabam say it is then it is", that was not my intention. I'd like to think it didn't read that way but I will go back and re read them.

Same point for the KO side of it, definitions put aside kabam have labelled it as time and not KO.

Hope this clears it up for you 🙏

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Best Of