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
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.
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.
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
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
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?
And if player A scored more points that player B then they win, even if player B KOd the opponent.
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
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 🤣
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Player B fought better, much better. A gets the points in AW, he gets the KO in quest (but that’s not a fair mode to bring up, since you can’t time out. What does timing out mean in an unlimited time fight?). AQ you’re actually wrong.
A has lost 99% of his health and he KOs the fight, then needs to be healed up. B times out, losing 50% of his health as a penalty but he can go back in, tap the opponent and move on to the next fight. Exactly the same amount of points, 50% less healing to do purely because B was more skilled and he managed to keep more of his health. So that kinda goes against your point. I’d rather time out than KO the fight at 1% in AQ.
BGs is the first mode that has decided to test your skill more than simply whether you beat the opponent.
I’ll copy my above response as it’s relevant here:
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.
We don’t need every game mode to be exactly the same.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
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..
Its like people treated the betas as a shard farm and now that its official they notice the rules 🤣
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.
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.
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.
A has lost 99% of his health and he KOs the fight, then needs to be healed up. B times out, losing 50% of his health as a penalty but he can go back in, tap the opponent and move on to the next fight. Exactly the same amount of points, 50% less healing to do purely because B was more skilled and he managed to keep more of his health. So that kinda goes against your point. I’d rather time out than KO the fight at 1% in AQ.
BGs is the first mode that has decided to test your skill more than simply whether you beat the opponent.
I’ll copy my above response as it’s relevant here:
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.
We don’t need every game mode to be exactly the same.
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'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
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.
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.