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.
Most people don't complain about scoring here. Probably the single biggest point of debate in general, though, seems to be whether defeating the defender should mean anything. At the moment, the current system values defeating the defender as worthless. Some will argue that's false, because you score points for defeating the defender, but that's not true. You score points for removing health from the defender, but there's no material difference between removing 99.9% of the defender's health and removing 100%. Everywhere else in the game, this matters. In fact, in almost every part of the game the difference between 99.9% and 100% is larger than the difference between zero and 99.9%.
The range of opinions for the majority of players goes from "it should matter a lot" to "its okay if it matters a little" to "I don't care if it matters." No one has articulated a reasonable argument for "it should definitely not matter" implying the moderate middle is much closer to "it should matter by some amount." It is also, when presented directly as a question, the most common answer I get.
Lagacy proposed an idea that attempts to compromise the difference in positions here with an idea that also maintains consistency with the rest of the game: if you do not defeat the defender, you lose half your health. This is the penalty in alliance war, and in alliance war that penalty is essentially a cost-penalty whereas in battlegrounds would be a points penalty, but while it isn't precisely congruent, it is the sort of compromise I'd be willing to buy, because while the original war penalty was a bit arbitrary, its long-term existence makes it something conceptually easier to understand and explain.
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.
there's no material difference between removing 99.9% of the defender's health and removing 100%.
There actually is, you get the time bonus. Which functions as a KO bonus that decreases in value the longer you take.
I’d also be fine if the time bonus was increased by 1k or something, where it ranged from 16k to 1k over 90s, instead of 15k to 0k over 90s.
Or another one could be make it range from 15k to 1k over 90s. Both systems mean that you get more of a tangible bonus from timing out or taking 89 seconds.
I’d also be good with the idea of halving your attacker health bonus if you don’t KO the opponent, which tweaks the importance of killing your opponent. Again, I’m fine with the points systems being altered to figure out the best way, I’m just against a black and white hierarchy because it leads to so many objectively bad situations.
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.
Most people don't complain about scoring here. Probably the single biggest point of debate in general, though, seems to be whether defeating the defender should mean anything. At the moment, the current system values defeating the defender as worthless. Some will argue that's false, because you score points for defeating the defender, but that's not true. You score points for removing health from the defender, but there's no material difference between removing 99.9% of the defender's health and removing 100%. Everywhere else in the game, this matters. In fact, in almost every part of the game the difference between 99.9% and 100% is larger than the difference between zero and 99.9%.
The range of opinions for the majority of players goes from "it should matter a lot" to "its okay if it matters a little" to "I don't care if it matters." No one has articulated a reasonable argument for "it should definitely not matter" implying the moderate middle is much closer to "it should matter by some amount." It is also, when presented directly as a question, the most common answer I get.
Lagacy proposed an idea that attempts to compromise the difference in positions here with an idea that also maintains consistency with the rest of the game: if you do not defeat the defender, you lose half your health. This is the penalty in alliance war, and in alliance war that penalty is essentially a cost-penalty whereas in battlegrounds would be a points penalty, but while it isn't precisely congruent, it is the sort of compromise I'd be willing to buy, because while the original war penalty was a bit arbitrary, its long-term existence makes it something conceptually easier to understand and explain.
There is a difference between removing 100% or 99.9% though. With 99.9% you get 0 points for time remaining. With 100% you get additional points based on how much time is remaining
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.
Most people don't complain about scoring here. Probably the single biggest point of debate in general, though, seems to be whether defeating the defender should mean anything. At the moment, the current system values defeating the defender as worthless. Some will argue that's false, because you score points for defeating the defender, but that's not true. You score points for removing health from the defender, but there's no material difference between removing 99.9% of the defender's health and removing 100%. Everywhere else in the game, this matters. In fact, in almost every part of the game the difference between 99.9% and 100% is larger than the difference between zero and 99.9%.
The range of opinions for the majority of players goes from "it should matter a lot" to "its okay if it matters a little" to "I don't care if it matters." No one has articulated a reasonable argument for "it should definitely not matter" implying the moderate middle is much closer to "it should matter by some amount." It is also, when presented directly as a question, the most common answer I get.
Lagacy proposed an idea that attempts to compromise the difference in positions here with an idea that also maintains consistency with the rest of the game: if you do not defeat the defender, you lose half your health. This is the penalty in alliance war, and in alliance war that penalty is essentially a cost-penalty whereas in battlegrounds would be a points penalty, but while it isn't precisely congruent, it is the sort of compromise I'd be willing to buy, because while the original war penalty was a bit arbitrary, its long-term existence makes it something conceptually easier to understand and explain.
There is a difference between removing 100% or 99.9% though. With 99.9% you get 0 points for time remaining. With 100% you get additional points based on how much time is remaining
I should have been more precise. There is no direct incremental benefit to removing the last bit of health from the defender, separate from the enabling of the time bonus which varies based on time remaining. The damage itself doesn't materially score anything of consequence.
Which incidentally is itself a concession to hierarchical scoring. Originally, time remaining was always scored. Now it is only scored upon defeat, a form of hierarchical scoring algorithm intended to respond to the notion that "winning on points" was nonsensical when someone chose to maximize their point total by immediately dying to preserve time.
The only thing wrong with that is purely arbitrary and subjective: people thought it was ridiculous. But objectively speaking, not killing the defender and still winning is no more poor design than allowing suicide to win. If it is all just points and strategy, suicide to win is brilliant.
But can't we agree that being able to KO a defender in 15 seconds is a more impressive than an 80 second KO. The scoring system that we have in place accurately reflects that one KO is more impressive.
I also don't like the idea that the attacker health remaining is just arbitrarily more important than fight duration. Totally open to having the weighting shifted from what it is currently but with mechanics like Perfect Block Chance, Salve, even Willpower to a lower degree, you can have fights that were done faster but result in you losing slightly more health than your opponent. I don't want a champ like Sunspot to be a Meta Attacker simply because he has access to Perfect Block and can end fights with 100% health and will just automatically win over other champs who don't and end "perfect" fights with 99+% health. Same way that I don't want to lose a fight cuz I used a Robot and they don't get to have access to Salve. I'm ok with stuff like this requiring my champs to fight slightly better but there needs to be room to overcome things like this that were implemented before BattleGrounds was even a thought.
I don't want the mode to just be a NukeFest but I believe that is the job of creating interesting node combinations that slow the top champs down rather than just devaluing speed when you are able to find that solution. Larger health pools also address this as no champ should be able to go full throttle into a fight and not have to worry about the enemy getting to an SP3 unless there are mechanics in there kit that manage power.
Comments
The range of opinions for the majority of players goes from "it should matter a lot" to "its okay if it matters a little" to "I don't care if it matters." No one has articulated a reasonable argument for "it should definitely not matter" implying the moderate middle is much closer to "it should matter by some amount." It is also, when presented directly as a question, the most common answer I get.
Lagacy proposed an idea that attempts to compromise the difference in positions here with an idea that also maintains consistency with the rest of the game: if you do not defeat the defender, you lose half your health. This is the penalty in alliance war, and in alliance war that penalty is essentially a cost-penalty whereas in battlegrounds would be a points penalty, but while it isn't precisely congruent, it is the sort of compromise I'd be willing to buy, because while the original war penalty was a bit arbitrary, its long-term existence makes it something conceptually easier to understand and explain.
Scoring, to matchmaking, to cheating, to entry cost etc etc
I’d also be fine if the time bonus was increased by 1k or something, where it ranged from 16k to 1k over 90s, instead of 15k to 0k over 90s.
Or another one could be make it range from 15k to 1k over 90s. Both systems mean that you get more of a tangible bonus from timing out or taking 89 seconds.
I’d also be good with the idea of halving your attacker health bonus if you don’t KO the opponent, which tweaks the importance of killing your opponent. Again, I’m fine with the points systems being altered to figure out the best way, I’m just against a black and white hierarchy because it leads to so many objectively bad situations.
Which incidentally is itself a concession to hierarchical scoring. Originally, time remaining was always scored. Now it is only scored upon defeat, a form of hierarchical scoring algorithm intended to respond to the notion that "winning on points" was nonsensical when someone chose to maximize their point total by immediately dying to preserve time.
The only thing wrong with that is purely arbitrary and subjective: people thought it was ridiculous. But objectively speaking, not killing the defender and still winning is no more poor design than allowing suicide to win. If it is all just points and strategy, suicide to win is brilliant.
I also don't like the idea that the attacker health remaining is just arbitrarily more important than fight duration. Totally open to having the weighting shifted from what it is currently but with mechanics like Perfect Block Chance, Salve, even Willpower to a lower degree, you can have fights that were done faster but result in you losing slightly more health than your opponent. I don't want a champ like Sunspot to be a Meta Attacker simply because he has access to Perfect Block and can end fights with 100% health and will just automatically win over other champs who don't and end "perfect" fights with 99+% health. Same way that I don't want to lose a fight cuz I used a Robot and they don't get to have access to Salve. I'm ok with stuff like this requiring my champs to fight slightly better but there needs to be room to overcome things like this that were implemented before BattleGrounds was even a thought.
I don't want the mode to just be a NukeFest but I believe that is the job of creating interesting node combinations that slow the top champs down rather than just devaluing speed when you are able to find that solution. Larger health pools also address this as no champ should be able to go full throttle into a fight and not have to worry about the enemy getting to an SP3 unless there are mechanics in there kit that manage power.