Battlegrounds fair scoring

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.

Colinwhitworth69

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

This content has been removed.

GinjabredMonsta

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

Deacon

#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.

This content has been removed.

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?

Deacon

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.

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

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

Finally a post of yours people can agree with

This content has been removed.

I completely understand where you're coming from with that point of view. And that's why in some of the summoner showdown events every participant has every champion, and it has simply been a test of skill.

But unfortunately, in the live game, nothing is only a test of skill, because we have rosters that we've been working on for up to nearly 8 years. And that means that those rosters become part of the competition. In AW you need skill to do well, but you also need a good roster. In EoP you need skill to beat the fights, but you also need a good roster. And so on.

If you made it so everyone has every champ, then that mode no longer inspires any sort of roster growth which I don't think is good for the game. From my point of view, I put a lot of time and effort getting resources for new champions and ranking those champions up, if everyone got them for free then I'm gonna feel pretty demoralised.

But think about it from Kabam's point of view. If you were running a company that put hundreds and hundreds of employee hours into designing, testing, fixing a game mode, and then you basically made it so that there was no reason to push your roster progression (which is the entire monetisation of the game - you only spend if you think it's going to progress your roster), I don't think you'd feel that you were making a profit from that game mode. Think about it, if you see an offer to R4 a champion, or select a 2021 champion - are you more or less likely to buy it if you know you get that exact champion and rank for free in a game mode? Now, I know that won't be the case for those who don't push BGs, so you may be exactly the same likelihood as before, but it absolutely will put some people off pushing if BGs is their main game mode.

Things have to make a profit, or they get cancelled, ignored, or never done again. And of all the ways to monetise a game mode, having it so it rewards roster progression is a million times better than charging units at the entrance.

Aleor

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?

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

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

Aleor

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?

This content has been removed.

Your medical analogy is not a very good one.

The football one is closer, but I also don’t think it’s a helpful analogy.

It has a very well defined way to win, which is score more than your opponent. In this way, we can view it much the same as BGs, except there’s only one way to score points.

I’ll take your football analogy and raise you a rugby one.

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 our analogies, you’re saying that football scores don’t take anything else into account, just the goal score. But in rugby, a team with 2 tries can be beaten by a team with 5 penalties. In this analogy, 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.

Note that I don’t think this really proves anything others than we could both cherry pick different scoring methods and use it to argue our point. Why is one more relevant than the other? Why is your argument better by likening it to football, or mine with rugby?

So football backs one scoring method, rugby backs the other one. Doesn’t really help us in the debate does it? If you discount the rugby one, you’d have to discount yours too.

But onto the actual subject, it comes down to what you value, and what promotes skilled play. If you only care about the KO, then using Nick Fury in second life or using Hercules in immortality is the best method, who cares how much life you lose because you only need the KO. Suicides would be much more prevalent.

It comes down to what Kabam wants to measure, skill, or who gets the KO. Personally, I think the system we have at the moment is the better one. I’d be happy to see tweaks to points, more of a victory bonus, that’s all fine to me. But getting the KO shows skill, so you get rewarded for it by points from time bonus. But it’s not a binary, yes or no. Because that allows situations like the one I showed above. Where someone wins even though they lost all their health, and their opponent could be 1hp away from KOing and timed out without losing a single bit of health

Kabam are measuring skill in BGs, so do you think A is more skilled than B?

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?

You were plenty clear, and in my post I even mentioned that I was talking only about BGs a few times.

All my points are still relevant for if you get every champ free in BGs and BGs alone. It puts you off spending elsewhere and pushing elsewhere if you get them all for free in even just one mode.

Crys23

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.

This content has been removed.

You’re not addressing my point on making a game mode worth Kabam having invested in. If there’s no point spending on BGs, how are they going to justify spending money on the time spent to design and maintain the mode?

Also, if everyone gets every champ there it doesn’t reward roster growth. If I don’t really play AW or AQ, and BGs is my main game mode, then why work on my roster that much? Especially with act 7 and 8 being much easier than 6. I don’t need to progress in the game I can just keep playing BGs with all the champions given to me.

Equal terms is fine for a summoner showdown, because you’re not testing roster development. In the real game though, roster counts - and should always count. That’s why there are never any modes that give you all the champions.

Also, roster growth determines progression which determines rewards.

Imagine a player who only has 3* champions and a couple 4*s. If they’re given all the champions in the game as 6*s, they can compete at the top and end up getting 6* shards, Rank 4 mats before they even have a 5*. That sounds like a bad idea and bad design to me.

The answer to do better is get more rank 4s then isn’t it, progress more, rank more champions, work on your skill. Progress in the game has always given people an advantage. You complain that the person who spent money for 8 rank 4s is beating you, but what about the person who’s free to play and has 5 (this will be a possibility after 8.1 and cyber weekend). He put in hard work to get his advantage. What about the person who plays once a week, doesn’t do much, but then logs in and gets all the champions in the game for BGs? How is that fair?

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.

This content has been removed.

“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.