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

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.
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

But you do get extra points for killing the defender in the form of bonus points for how many seconds you still had on the timer. And also you get the full 30k points for defeating the defender. Your opponent doesn't.
What you want is even more points. More more more.
The scoring is the only thing that doesn't need adjusting. Everything else does. From rewards structure and availability, to timers, drafting, useless transition screens. 5-6 min of actual fighting translates to 15min total time and most of the time, even if you win, you have nothing to show for it. You can spend hours alternating wins and losses, or even winning at a better than 50% rate and all you'd have to show for it would be a few tokens that get you close to nothing.

NastyPhish

This is a fighting game. How is it not weighted to reward kills?

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.
That's arena you're thinking of.

That's every fighting game I m thinking of.

unknown

This content has been removed.

Qwerty12345

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?

Let's move this argument to AW: which is "better:
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

I'd argue A: you get the attack boost, and move on. The latter you don't

AQ... A, similar argument

Let's look at other content... where there is no time limit.

6.2.6 boss: A
Abyss/Labrynth: A

In fact while I appreciate that your argument that you "fought better" or at least "drafted better" may very well be right... the idea of which one should "win"... I very much disagree with you.

AverageDesi

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.

Funnily enough this is not a boxing match

Wolviedrone97

Fair u foolish boy u think this game is about giving you a fair chance hahaha hahaha

Wolviedrone97

It's about money u foolish boy

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.
That's arena you're thinking of.
That's every fighting game I m thinking of.
Not every mode in the game needs the exact same method of determining winner or how well the fight goes. AQ/Arena has points per win, AW has attack bonuses that reduce each time you die (plus diversity, defenders remaining etc), Questing has a simple “beat this fight to progress”.

BGs has a new one, points per different attribute of the fight. This is something new, more exciting, and more skill intensive. It takes more skill to stay at 100% health than to nuke down a fight with Nick fury/Herc in second life/immortality, or by throwing suicides on.

That s what the nodes and the RNG of choosing champions are for. VS games work like that: You lose the fight, the opponent doesn't, He, wins. For decades now.

xLunatiXx

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.
That's arena you're thinking of.
That's every fighting game I m thinking of.
Not every mode in the game needs the exact same method of determining winner or how well the fight goes. AQ/Arena has points per win, AW has attack bonuses that reduce each time you die (plus diversity, defenders remaining etc), Questing has a simple “beat this fight to progress”.

BGs has a new one, points per different attribute of the fight. This is something new, more exciting, and more skill intensive. It takes more skill to stay at 100% health than to nuke down a fight with Nick fury/Herc in second life/immortality, or by throwing suicides on.
That s what the nodes and the RNG of choosing champions are for. VS games work like that: You lose the fight, the opponent doesn't, He, wins. For decades now.
Of all the arguments to choose, “because that’s the way it’s always been”, is a pretty weak one. Change is not always bad. And this is assuming that you’re correct, and every VS game ever has never once tried to come up with a similar system to this that ranks you based on different attributes of a fight/match up/contest.

Not every game needs the exact way of scoring, nor does every mode in that game.

Each mode sets you a goal and judges you on that goal, here the goal is different and actually brings in something that has never been measured in MCOC before, health remaining. Because that’s a skill intensive stat- the more skilled you are, the less health you lose. Because of this, the goal that’s being measured is no longer just “KO the opponent”, and that’s new.

If your argument is just “I don’t like this because it’s not the way it’s always been done”, then it’s not very strong.

I think their arguments is "my ability to get hit has finally been exposed, please change the scoring system so I can feel better about myself".

I've had plenty of feedbacks from players realizing they don't compete too well in a competitive mode. And there is nothing wrong with that. Just need to accept there is always better than you

Searmenis

Ok, you know what? I changed my mind. Keep points the way they are. It doesn't matter anyway. Want to do this a fair game mode? Fix matchmaking. And no, do not match similar PI, number of champions or progressing level, just match people by their input drops. I have 60% parry failing, and half of the time my champions are moving by themselves. I m stuck in Gold 1 and I ll probably stay there. Fix your screwed up game first, and introduce new modes after.

Searmenis

Ok, you know what? I changed my mind. Keep points the way they are. It doesn't matter anyway. Want to do this a fair game mode? Fix matchmaking. And no, do not match similar PI, number of champions or progressing level, just match people by their input drops. I have 60% parry failing, and half of the time my champions are moving by themselves. I m stuck in Gold 1 and I ll probably stay there. Fix your screwed up game first, and introduce new modes after.

Whoever disagrees is an ****.

TyEdge

I’ll say this for the hundredth time - the fight duration points ARE the KO bonus.

World Eater

I found out that 7 seconds is worth more than 3% health, points-wise. Not sure I agree with this one but it is what it is. Oh well….

Mord

If your argument is just “I don’t like this because it’s not the way it’s always been done”, then it’s not very strong.

I personally don't disagree with the scoring, since it is the same metric known by everybody. It's not fair or unfair per se, just a scoring system. But I will say this:

if they plan to call the mode battlegrounds and the main bracket or event 'gladiator's circuit', then I certainly would expect death/KO to be the primary metric. Then some style points rules set ahead of time sprinkled on top for the crowd excitement.

Anything that may end up in a victor that has timed out but won over a KO because of careful play doesn't exactly fit the narrative and the context. If the scoring is kept 'sporty-ish' focused on the points, then It feels a bit underwhelming. Maybe they should change the name to 'playgrounds' and 'sportsman circuit' or something.

Worknprogress

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?
Let's move this argument to AW: which is "better:
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

I'd argue A: you get the attack boost, and move on. The latter you don't

AQ... A, similar argument

Let's look at other content... where there is no time limit.

6.2.6 boss: A
Abyss/Labrynth: A

In fact while I appreciate that your argument that you "fought better" or at least "drafted better" may very well be right... the idea of which one should "win"... I very much disagree with you.

This arguement doesn't hold up. If you want to use AW you have to look at how you win wars overall. You win them by scoring more points.

If your alliance dies 20x but has higher diversity and still get more attack bonuses bc some of those deaths were after boneses were gone, and the opponent dies 19x all counting for ABs and has lower diversity you still win the war after dying more.

Doctorwho13

Just cutting to brass tacks:

If enough of the player base is unhappy with the scoring system kabam will change it. I don’t have any concrete numbers. But, hypothetically if they need 30% of player base engagement to justify it, and they’re falling short they’ll do something.

If they have enough engagement they won’t change it, and for those who don’t like it, it will just be another game mode we skip like for some it’s incursions, for some it’s arena etc.

Not everyone will like everything and most people skip something. It’s par for the course.

K00shMaan

The scoring system will never please everyone. Some champs are just inherently slower than others and this scoring system creates an opportunity for both big burst damage champs and slow sustainable champs to each find a way to win. Every once in a while you will see both ends of the spectrum matched up against each other and people will inevitably disagree on a winner. Although I tend to agree that a KO should be a win if the other person did not get one, I can see why it isn't scored this way. There is a timer that is relatively short (i.e. the shortest fight timer in the game to be fair) and some champs really just aren't designed to get a fight done that quick. I don't think people want a longer timer because that will just extend the duration of matches. Not getting a KO means you give up both the fight duration points and the remaining defender health. If you made the match longer, the outcome likely wouldn't be any different because the faster person would just get more points via fight duration and the slower person would make up for that by getting the KO. The only thing accomplished is making it take longer to end the match.

GroundedWisdom

It's a new game mode, and with it comes new criteria for Points.

World Eater

Something isn’t right with scoring when I can quit a fight 10 seconds in and win while my opponent busts his butt for 2 minutes , does more damage and doesn’t KO my champ.

GinjabredMonsta

I’ll say this for the hundredth time - the fight duration points ARE the KO bonus.

No, that’s the tie breaker. Silly goose.

unknown

This content has been removed.

World Eater

Something isn’t right with scoring when I can quit a fight 10 seconds in and win while my opponent busts his butt for 2 minutes , does more damage and times out,

That’s less an issue with the scoring and more an issue with quitting or pausing.

If someone quits a fight, 0 points. If someone pauses a fight, I’m tempted to say 0 points as well. But if not 0, then a big penalty to their score

There are too many situations where pausing the fight can be used to manipulate the fight, and Kabam have said they’re looking into this before. Nick fury second life, you pushed the opponent to sp3, you’re about to take a ton of damage (maybe stuck in the corner) and you pause to preserve your health.

I honestly don’t think there even should be a pause button in BGs, because of the ability to manipulate the fight.

Whatever the issue is, I'm just trying to bring some attention to it. Quitting def should not result in 15k points so Im going to say that yes, this is a scoring issue. I figured I'd just take the loss after quitting 10 seconds in but was surprised to see that I won. My buddy fought hard for almost 2 minutes and had nothing to show for his best effort.

BeastDad

I'm shocked people are playing this mode.