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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cares if it’s called a KO bonus or Well Done Points? It functions exactly as a KO bonus does, and calling it anything other is inaccurate.
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.
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
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
You’ve just decided that a KO bonus has to be 1 value and that’s it.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how logic works.
A KO bonus is something that is only added on if you KO. Can you get the time bonus without KOing? No, so it’s something that’s only added on if you KO. Therefore, it is a KO bonus.
If you’d like an additional KO bonus, feel free to argue for that, I wouldn’t particularly mind and would leave it to kabam to test it. But it is inaccurate to claim we don’t have a KO bonus, because we already do.
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
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.
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 👌
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.
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 👌
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.
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 👌
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 😂
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
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 👌
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.
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
Exactly, and the AW tie break is actually the only time Kabam have got tie break right.
When they originally introduced diversity they said it was a tie break, but then made it count towards scoring. So it wasn’t a tie break.
Now, they have actually introduced a proper tie break which is fight duration.
Fight duration doesn’t get counted in your score *unless* (and only when) the two alliances are exactly tied.
You cannot have a tie break that is counted in the normal scoring. Please tell me you understand that.
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 👌
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.
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.
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.
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 👌
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.
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 👌
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.
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 👌
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 😂
Right, this is where I've gone wrong, I see it now. I wasn't saying I agree with kabam that they believe that's the definition of it, what I was saying about my opinion was of the game and the article I posted, I didnt mean real life meaning definitions contexts ... I meant in kabams game it can operate that way and if they say it does operate that way in the game then I believe them.
At the end of the day, I just feel the hierarchical system gives way to far too many unfair outcomes.
Whether the system is hierarchical or not is more a question of organizational structure (which would aid in explaining it) rather than actual systemic necessity.
Here's a point based system that has no hierarchy:
Defeat the defender: 1,000,000,000 points For every point of defender health remaining: 1,000,000 points For every point of attacker health remaining: 1,000 points
This expresses an idea, but it does so by exposing the players to more math than necessary to convey the same idea.
Also, I don't believe the current system has fewer corner cases or nonsensical results. Rather, the irony is the corner cases of the current system are so much more obvious, that it is much easier to summarize them. That makes them seem like there are fewer than there actually is. I believe if we were to list all possible ending health bars of all four attackers and defenders combined, there would be more situations where the current system awarded a win to the player that fewer competitors would agree on the result.
I mention the above edge case scoring system not to be pedantic, but to point out that the difference between modifying the weights of the current system and questioning the fundamental basis of the current system aren't mutually exclusive: if you change the weights enough, it isn't really the same system anymore. Whether we do that by changing the *algorithm* of the scoring system or the *weights* is mathematically irrelevant (but may affect the transparency of the system to people who have to learn it).
There is at least one area where I think changing weights will *never* "feel right" among most players, and that is in the area of time scoring. I have come to believe that there is no weight you can give to time scoring that will make sense, because we're scoring the wrong thing altogether. At the moment, time is scored proportional to time remaining. In net effect, which ever side kills faster gets a differential scoring bonus. And that creates an intractable problem that I believe the most recent beta exposed, by reducing the fight time. This had the effect of magnifying the value of every second of the fight, and this magnified an existing problem to be more visible.
Let's say I end the fight in 30 seconds and you end your fight in 35 seconds. In a 90s match, under the current scoring rules I would gain about 833 points more than you. That's significant - it equates to 5% net health remaining. Suppose instead I end my fight in 70 seconds and you end your fight in 75 seconds. In that case, I would gain the same amount of points over you: 833 more. However, the difference between me ending five seconds sooner than you is so much less of a performance improvement when it is 70 seconds vs 75 seconds than when it is 30 seconds over 35 seconds. But I'm still being awarded a very large bonus for that small improvement in performance.
The problem is time remaining is not a direct measure of attacker speed: it is actually the inverse of that quantity. So we aren't rewarding attacker speed, which is a direct measure of attacker performance, we're measuring something else besides actual attacker performance. The more intuitive thing to do, I believe, is to reward attacker performance directly, by scoring the inverse of time expended. Say, 30000/(time expended)**. In the above example, a 30s fight gets 1000 points and a 35s fight gets 857 points, for a net difference of 143 points. Meanwhile a 70s fight gets 429 points and a 75s fight gets 400 points, for a net difference of 29 points.
The current system makes very tiny time differences have a huge impact on the fight, and there's no way to remedy that with weights in a way that doesn't make time completely irrelevant. Making it irrelevant with miniscule weights is no different than removing it algorithmically. But if speed is going to matter at all, it should matter most when the time difference actually equates to a dramatic difference in offensive performance. And that can't be done with linear weights on time remaining (or time spent) because time remaining doesn't measure attacker speed: attacker speed is inverted in that metric. Addressing that requires an algorithmic change, it can't be addressed with a weighting change.
** This is an example, the actual numbers would need to be carefully analyzed and set based on fight duration and the other weights, which are at the moment a moving target
@DNA3000 I’ll reply here to avoid quoting your post.
I think we’re mostly in agreement there. My issue isn’t with changing away to anything remotely different from the current system, I’m not married to it. I’m fine with tweaking time so it’s not linear, in fact I love that idea and think it could be great. It could be fairer, but I’d have to see how it worked in practice. I think it’s a fantastic idea to test.
I’m also not, nor have I ever said that any variation of the current points weighting will be great. Your example shows that you can tweak the points to be ridiculous and unfair, and it does a similar thing to the issue that I have with the hierarchical system in that it makes one or more aspects of the fight irrelevant.
My point on the points system isn’t that it’s always fair, but it smoothes out the most egregious examples that systems you’ve suggested in the past have.
One question though, “believe if we were to list all possible ending health bars of all four attackers and defenders combined, there would be more situations where the current system awarded a win to the player that fewer competitors would agree on the result.”
What do you base that on? Because from what I’ve seen, most of the time people agree with the results. We get the occasional person who took their opponent down more, but got battered in the process and lost and they complain, but the forum disagrees them to oblivion and there’s a consensus they should have lost.
In most of the cases where the current system presents debatable cases, that’s what they are, debatable. You can say “well I think because player A has more health he deserves it”, and the other can retort “but I think player B got the other down more so he deserves it”. But it’s still a debate. I haven’t seen any clear cut wrong decisions by the system, though I’m happy to be corrected if there is one.
The hierarchical system clearly has cases that nobody in their right mind would say one player performed more skilfully than the other.
I take your point on it being mathematically obscure, people need to know how to win the fight. If we have logs and exponents with a few square roots there, we will have people playing BGs like this..
Comments
I 100% agree that it can't be compared to AW... just for the fact AW is a team effort not individual.
If it was meant for the OP then disregard my comment haha
Someone above said a 2k (for example) bonus for defeating the defender is a good way to go.
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.
Time is used in the scoring, therefore not a tie break.
I’m sorry, but that’s not how logic works.
A KO bonus is something that is only added on if you KO. Can you get the time bonus without KOing? No, so it’s something that’s only added on if you KO. Therefore, it is a KO bonus.
If you’d like an additional KO bonus, feel free to argue for that, I wouldn’t particularly mind and would leave it to kabam to test it. But it is inaccurate to claim we don’t have a KO bonus, because we already do.
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/
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.
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.
When they originally introduced diversity they said it was a tie break, but then made it count towards scoring. So it wasn’t a tie break.
Now, they have actually introduced a proper tie break which is fight duration.
Fight duration doesn’t get counted in your score *unless* (and only when) the two alliances are exactly tied.
You cannot have a tie break that is counted in the normal scoring. Please tell me you understand that.
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.
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.
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.
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 🙏
Linear scaling of health with points, additional bonus based on time taken when the defender is KOed.
(@BitterSteel, was really fun matching up with you bro.)
Here's a point based system that has no hierarchy:
Defeat the defender: 1,000,000,000 points
For every point of defender health remaining: 1,000,000 points
For every point of attacker health remaining: 1,000 points
This expresses an idea, but it does so by exposing the players to more math than necessary to convey the same idea.
Also, I don't believe the current system has fewer corner cases or nonsensical results. Rather, the irony is the corner cases of the current system are so much more obvious, that it is much easier to summarize them. That makes them seem like there are fewer than there actually is. I believe if we were to list all possible ending health bars of all four attackers and defenders combined, there would be more situations where the current system awarded a win to the player that fewer competitors would agree on the result.
I mention the above edge case scoring system not to be pedantic, but to point out that the difference between modifying the weights of the current system and questioning the fundamental basis of the current system aren't mutually exclusive: if you change the weights enough, it isn't really the same system anymore. Whether we do that by changing the *algorithm* of the scoring system or the *weights* is mathematically irrelevant (but may affect the transparency of the system to people who have to learn it).
There is at least one area where I think changing weights will *never* "feel right" among most players, and that is in the area of time scoring. I have come to believe that there is no weight you can give to time scoring that will make sense, because we're scoring the wrong thing altogether. At the moment, time is scored proportional to time remaining. In net effect, which ever side kills faster gets a differential scoring bonus. And that creates an intractable problem that I believe the most recent beta exposed, by reducing the fight time. This had the effect of magnifying the value of every second of the fight, and this magnified an existing problem to be more visible.
Let's say I end the fight in 30 seconds and you end your fight in 35 seconds. In a 90s match, under the current scoring rules I would gain about 833 points more than you. That's significant - it equates to 5% net health remaining. Suppose instead I end my fight in 70 seconds and you end your fight in 75 seconds. In that case, I would gain the same amount of points over you: 833 more. However, the difference between me ending five seconds sooner than you is so much less of a performance improvement when it is 70 seconds vs 75 seconds than when it is 30 seconds over 35 seconds. But I'm still being awarded a very large bonus for that small improvement in performance.
The problem is time remaining is not a direct measure of attacker speed: it is actually the inverse of that quantity. So we aren't rewarding attacker speed, which is a direct measure of attacker performance, we're measuring something else besides actual attacker performance. The more intuitive thing to do, I believe, is to reward attacker performance directly, by scoring the inverse of time expended. Say, 30000/(time expended)**. In the above example, a 30s fight gets 1000 points and a 35s fight gets 857 points, for a net difference of 143 points. Meanwhile a 70s fight gets 429 points and a 75s fight gets 400 points, for a net difference of 29 points.
The current system makes very tiny time differences have a huge impact on the fight, and there's no way to remedy that with weights in a way that doesn't make time completely irrelevant. Making it irrelevant with miniscule weights is no different than removing it algorithmically. But if speed is going to matter at all, it should matter most when the time difference actually equates to a dramatic difference in offensive performance. And that can't be done with linear weights on time remaining (or time spent) because time remaining doesn't measure attacker speed: attacker speed is inverted in that metric. Addressing that requires an algorithmic change, it can't be addressed with a weighting change.
** This is an example, the actual numbers would need to be carefully analyzed and set based on fight duration and the other weights, which are at the moment a moving target
I think we’re mostly in agreement there. My issue isn’t with changing away to anything remotely different from the current system, I’m not married to it. I’m fine with tweaking time so it’s not linear, in fact I love that idea and think it could be great. It could be fairer, but I’d have to see how it worked in practice. I think it’s a fantastic idea to test.
I’m also not, nor have I ever said that any variation of the current points weighting will be great. Your example shows that you can tweak the points to be ridiculous and unfair, and it does a similar thing to the issue that I have with the hierarchical system in that it makes one or more aspects of the fight irrelevant.
My point on the points system isn’t that it’s always fair, but it smoothes out the most egregious examples that systems you’ve suggested in the past have.
One question though, “believe if we were to list all possible ending health bars of all four attackers and defenders combined, there would be more situations where the current system awarded a win to the player that fewer competitors would agree on the result.”
What do you base that on? Because from what I’ve seen, most of the time people agree with the results. We get the occasional person who took their opponent down more, but got battered in the process and lost and they complain, but the forum disagrees them to oblivion and there’s a consensus they should have lost.
In most of the cases where the current system presents debatable cases, that’s what they are, debatable. You can say “well I think because player A has more health he deserves it”, and the other can retort “but I think player B got the other down more so he deserves it”. But it’s still a debate. I haven’t seen any clear cut wrong decisions by the system, though I’m happy to be corrected if there is one.
The hierarchical system clearly has cases that nobody in their right mind would say one player performed more skilfully than the other.
I take your point on it being mathematically obscure, people need to know how to win the fight. If we have logs and exponents with a few square roots there, we will have people playing BGs like this..