Battlegrounds fair scoring

Haldir1983

Hi everyone.
Do You think that battlegrounds scoring is fair?
I just finished 2 rounds with 2 kills and 0 dead. My opponent didnt kill my def champs but he won this rounds.
I think there should be some +pts for a kill.

Comments

YoMoves

Yes. Maybe don't get hit as much.

Colinwhitworth69

As long as we all play by the same rules, I’m fine with whatever scoring.

unknown

This content has been removed.

GinjabredMonsta

The reason he won was because he had much more health remaining, and had played better in that regard. You lost a fair bit of health, so you lost points from that.

There is also a points bonus for winning your match, the time bonus. You only get that if you win your fight.

The time bonus is essentially a 15k points bonus that reduces over time. If you finish the fight 1 second before you time out then you only get a small kill bonus because you were 1 second away from not having killed the opponent. In your first fight, you were 9 seconds away from timing out, so you only got a small kill bonus.

Battlegrounds weighs up different variables about how your fight goes and judges who won based on those.

We can’t really call the time scoring a point bonus when Kabam keeps callin it a tie breaker.

Deacon

I think there is two opposing things here

1. First and foremost, everyone is under the same rules and in that regard, its fair. No scoring system will be perfect so it's on the players to understand the rules and play accordingly. Under these scoring rules, your opposition deserved the win

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.

#2. i just don't see how the goal is not to kill the opponent. that alone should determine who wins and all else factored afterwards .. if you both kill the opponent then things like time spent, health remaining should determine the winner .. but if one person kills the opponent and the other doesn't ... well you should get the win.

but i digress.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Deacon

To those who think killing the defender should be an automatic win if the other person doesn’t get the kill do you think it would be fair if the person that got the kill had 1% life remaining and the opponent had 99% health remaining but was 1 sec from getting the kill?

i do. but i get that people often side with whatever outcome would benefit them the most. i 'd be ticked sure but i'd be perfectly fine with a guy getting the win over me and i didn't finish no matter how much health i had left.

we're just tossing around opinions is all though. i feel one way about it and i understand anyone else who feels differently. i just think a kill should weigh WAY more than anything else.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Rap

Everyone so frothed up over yet another game mode with questionable scoring, that can be cheated and exploited by those who have no sense of sportsmanship or fairplay, and which has changed considerably since the beta. How it was presented and how it has been delivered are like 2 different events. One was free to play, this one is "exploit and or pay to win."

YoMoves

To those who think killing the defender should be an automatic win if the other person doesn’t get the kill do you think it would be fair if the person that got the kill had 1% life remaining and the opponent had 99% health remaining but was 1 sec from getting the kill?
i do. but i get that people often side with whatever outcome would benefit them the most. i 'd be ticked sure but i'd be perfectly fine with a guy getting the win over me and i didn't finish no matter how much health i had left.

we're just tossing around opinions is all though. i feel one way about it and i understand anyone else who feels differently. i just think a kill should weigh WAY more than anything else.

So people should purposely get the tar beat out of them so Real Nick can clear faster when someone with the LMD up takes longer, might not finish, and loses? Nah, fam. Or people who slide by on Herc's death cheat to win fights should be credited over someone who puts up a valiant effort on an enemy they didn't get a counter in their draws for? That's not ideal.

GinjabredMonsta

Everyone so frothed up over yet another game mode with questionable scoring, that can be cheated and exploited by those who have no sense of sportsmanship or fairplay, and which has changed considerably since the beta. How it was presented and how it has been delivered are like 2 different events. One was free to play, this one is "exploit and or pay to win."

Finally a post of yours people can agree with

unknown

This content has been removed.

Aleor

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?

Say there is some person who got ill with a very serious lethal something. And there are two medications available, one will cure him, but may cause some side damage, the other one doesn't have any side effects, but also won't help. Wich one would you suggest?

Mackey

The reason he won was because he had much more health remaining, and had played better in that regard. You lost a fair bit of health, so you lost points from that.

There is also a points bonus for winning your match, the time bonus. You only get that if you win your fight.

The time bonus is essentially a 15k points bonus that reduces over time. If you finish the fight 1 second before you time out then you only get a small kill bonus because you were 1 second away from not having killed the opponent. In your first fight, you were 9 seconds away from timing out, so you only got a small kill bonus.

Battlegrounds weighs up different variables about how your fight goes and judges who won based on those.
We can’t really call the time scoring a point bonus when Kabam keeps callin it a tie breaker.

Don't go there, you'll be bored to death with definitions of tie break etc etc ... already pointed that out before 😂

Mackey

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?

In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Aleor

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?

Here is another. Let's have two teams playing soccer. One team got 1 goal with only one hit, the other got 1000 hits, but never succeed. Also by the end of the match the first team is exhausted, the got done injuries and 2 players removed from the game. The second team is perfectly fine, full of power and ready to play for years. Wich of them wins the game?

unknown

This content has been removed.

Crys23

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?
In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Here's what you and people like you don't get. BGs isn't about killing your opponent.
Story/Event Quests, AW, AQ, these are about killing your opponent. Only way to move forward.
BGs is about SCORING points, and you do that based on your performance in the fight. Sucking your way to a kill has less value than perfectly doing 99% damage. Keep in mind, if timer was longer, he would've finished it off the fight too. The 2min timer is arbitrary. Could be less, could be more in the future.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mackey

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?
In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Kabam have decided that this mode is not solely about killing your opponents, it’s about testing skill.

You may disagree with that, or prefer it a different way, but that shows that the sole idea of the game is not to kill your opponent. This is the first game mode that stresses skill above anything else, why is that a bad thing? Why is Kabam wrong to stress skill?

I do strongly disagree, how is it remotely skillful to die to your opponent.

Like I've said before, if 2 heavyweight boxers was in a ring. Boxer 1 played flawlessly for 11 round and boxer played awfully but then boxer 2 lands a dirty uppercut and KO's their opponent in round 12 ... should boxer 1 still win? Or should boxer 2 win?

That's how a 1v1 should work.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Mackey

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?
In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Kabam have decided that this mode is not solely about killing your opponents, it’s about testing skill.

You may disagree with that, or prefer it a different way, but that shows that the sole idea of the game is not to kill your opponent. This is the first game mode that stresses skill above anything else, why is that a bad thing? Why is Kabam wrong to stress skill?

I do strongly disagree, how is it remotely skillful to die to your opponent.

Like I've said before, if 2 heavyweight boxers was in a ring. Boxer 1 played flawlessly for 11 round and boxer played awfully but then boxer 2 lands a dirty uppercut and KO's their opponent in round 12 ... should boxer 1 still win? Or should boxer 2 win?

That's how a 1v1 should work.
“how is it remotely skillful to die to your opponent.” This is a fallacy and you’re being disingenuous to try and argue your point. Nobody has ever argued that.

We have argued that on the balance of it, when one player loses all their health except 1% and KOs the opponent, and the other player gets the enemy down to 1% but keeps all of their health, the second player has been more skilful.

Let’s take a look at the two measures of attacker and defender health’s.

A - 100% attacker, 1% left on defender
B - 1% defender, 0% left on defender

A has done 99% better than B on attacker. B has 1% better than A on defender. So if you want to even begin to discuss this, you need to be honest about the other person’s argument, not try and strawman it so you make your own look stronger.

I can accept your point of view, you think it’s a better scoring system to have KO be the most important thing, but equally, you have to accept that in my comparison, player A is more skilled overall. It won’t mean I win the argument, but it means we can even have a discussion, otherwise I will be able to see that you’re just stubbornly sticking to your own point despite the facts and there will be no point replying to you again.

As for your sporting analogy, it’s lovely, but not really relevant. I could pick a different sport with a different scoring system and use it to justify the BG scoring system. This is not either of those sports, so simply saying “but what about boxing?” is not helpful for anyone.

Football, rugby... take your pick, any 1v1 sport will line up with what I have said. Boxing is just the quickest to type out, I'm not about long winded texts.

Mackey

I'm not saying that a win must be the be all and end all either. I'm saying it should mean more than it is, if you loom at other 1v1 things it is worth something (granted a lot of the time it is the be all and end all) but in this game its effectively worth nothing

Mackey

But anyway to answer OP ... yes I do think the scoring is fair as others have said, we are all abiding by the same rulebook so yes it's fair. I have things I think should be different but hey, that's merely an opinion. I'm enjoying the mode and will continue to play it.

My only gripe with it is the whole gladiator circuit being the only place to award season rewards and only top 200 at that, if you grind hard to get in vibranium but can't get further than your effort is essentially wasted. They should scrap the gladiator circuit altogether, keep the victory track and awards seasonal rewards according to which bracket you're in upon it finishing.

Mackey

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?
In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Here's what you and people like you don't get. BGs isn't about killing your opponent.
Story/Event Quests, AW, AQ, these are about killing your opponent. Only way to move forward.
BGs is about SCORING points, and you do that based on your performance in the fight. Sucking your way to a kill has less value than perfectly doing 99% damage. Keep in mind, if timer was longer, he would've finished it off the fight too. The 2min timer is arbitrary. Could be less, could be more in the future.

No you're wrong, I do get that is what they want from the mode. I merely saying I think it should be slightly different and winning award you some extra points

Mackey

I think there is two opposing things here

2. I personally think if you win the fight and they dont, you should win the round. At the core of this game is winning a fight. Health remaining and time taken are perfectly fine tie breakers. But if you KO the defender and they dont. The scoring system should reflect that as the main goal and award you the win. but reasonable minds can disagree with that i think. That's just my personal view on it.
I get that point of view, but say there's this situation:

A - Wins fight but he's on 1% health

B - Times out, but he got his opponent to 1% health and he ended up on 100% health

Overall, who do you think played better?
In a fighting game where the sole idea of the game is to kill your opponents ... B should not win. A should, everytime.

Kabam have decided that this mode is not solely about killing your opponents, it’s about testing skill.

You may disagree with that, or prefer it a different way, but that shows that the sole idea of the game is not to kill your opponent. This is the first game mode that stresses skill above anything else, why is that a bad thing? Why is Kabam wrong to stress skill?

I do strongly disagree, how is it remotely skillful to die to your opponent.

Like I've said before, if 2 heavyweight boxers was in a ring. Boxer 1 played flawlessly for 11 round and boxer played awfully but then boxer 2 lands a dirty uppercut and KO's their opponent in round 12 ... should boxer 1 still win? Or should boxer 2 win?

That's how a 1v1 should work.
“how is it remotely skillful to die to your opponent.” This is a fallacy and you’re being disingenuous to try and argue your point. Nobody has ever argued that.

We have argued that on the balance of it, when one player loses all their health except 1% and KOs the opponent, and the other player gets the enemy down to 1% but keeps all of their health, the second player has been more skilful.

Let’s take a look at the two measures of attacker and defender health’s.

A - 100% attacker, 1% left on defender
B - 1% defender, 0% left on defender

A has done 99% better than B on attacker. B has 1% better than A on defender. So if you want to even begin to discuss this, you need to be honest about the other person’s argument, not try and strawman it so you make your own look stronger.

I can accept your point of view, you think it’s a better scoring system to have KO be the most important thing, but equally, you have to accept that in my comparison, player A is more skilled overall. It won’t mean I win the argument, but it means we can even have a discussion, otherwise I will be able to see that you’re just stubbornly sticking to your own point despite the facts and there will be no point replying to you again.

As for your sporting analogy, it’s lovely, but not really relevant. I could pick a different sport with a different scoring system and use it to justify the BG scoring system. This is not either of those sports, so simply saying “but what about boxing?” is not helpful for anyone.

Football, rugby... take your pick, any 1v1 sport will line up with what I have said. Boxing is just the quickest to type out, I'm not about long winded texts.
In Rugby you can score 3 different ways, Tries (5), conversions (2) and penalties (3). (Just for simplicity, I’ll ignore conversions, because you can only get them after scoring a try).

In your analogy, you’re saying that boxing is about the KO so whoever gets that should win, if not there are other points to determine winner.

But in rugby, a team with 2 tries can be beaten by a team with 5 penalties. It’s not all about one aspect of the game, it’s about who ends up with the most points.

If you applied your boxing analogy to rugby, you’re basically saying well I think scoring tries is more important, so whichever team scores most tries should win, and we should ignore any points scored by penalties.

You think the KO is the most important, so you would prefer a system like that. But rugby, and I, would beg to differ. Attacker health, time and defender health all are important, same as how tries, conversions and penalties are all important to rugby.

So I guess not every 1 v 1 sport lined up..

But if one team scores more points than the other than they win right? That's my point. If Hull KR beat Hull FC by 20 points then they win, even if Hull FC played flawlessly throughout the match

Coppin

It was the same rules for all pre release betas... Why are people still argueing it after several tests...

GinjabredMonsta

It was the same rules for all pre release betas... Why are people still argueing it after several tests...

Exactly, this has been something debated about since beta. It’s also one of the only things that didn’t get changed on release, opposed to things that weren’t much an issue or even considered to be changed

Coppin

It was the same rules for all pre release betas... Why are people still argueing it after several tests...
Exactly, this has been something debated about since beta. It’s also one of the only things that didn’t get changed on release, opposed to things that weren’t much an issue or even considered to be changed

Exactly it was even the same rules for the showdown tournament...
Its like people treated the betas as a shard farm and now that its official they notice the rules 🤣

Searmenis

If you win the fight and the opponent doesn't, you should get the win no matter what. That's what's fair, true and simple.