BG points System- Health left on your defender should be more important

The match here, 1/5th of your defeders health is still left .. but u still lose.

I think,
Defender going Down> Health > Time should be the way to go…

Rather than HEALTH HEALTH HEALTH.

In any games or tournaments, KO is more important than health left

Comments

BringPopcorn

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.

Pikolu

Most amazing fights score only like 52k points, so defender health makes up well more than half of the points you get already. Scoring system is fine the way it is right now

Klipp

I had the same type finish and I'm not happy with the opponent winning when they couldn't knockout my defender. I don't feel like blocking out names so I won't post a pic. It was not a 7* and was only an r4 defender. I don't think there needs to be an adjustment to make defenders health worth more points due to the large health pools of 7*s. I do think there should be a bonus for knocking out the defender. Therefore you both still get it if you knock out the defenders so it just boosts points. It also stops people from the nick fury "strat-ploit" brought up in another post.

Jellyman_75

"Scoring system is fine the way it is right now"..... in your opinion. How rudely you dismiss a genuine point.
The fact is, it isn't, and the OP is right, there should be some sort of KO bonus to stop this however rare occurrence to occur.
Did you ever think, that maybe if kingpin tried harder to finish the fight, he may have taken one hit.....and one hit would have give OP the deserved victory.....because he didn't just play safe, he went for the KO.
This system encourages safe play first, with a KO less important than a full yellow bar......in a fighting game.
So if the previous system was toooo focused on time, then this system is toooo focused on health........so, in my opinion, the happy medium is a KO bonus, to not just encourage some risky moves to finish a fight, but to almost force it.......because, after all, this is a fighting game.
For the record, I'm quite successful in bgs, an every season GC player, in the GC on day 4 of this season, so I'm confident I'm in a good place to lend an opinion on this.

WinterFields

To those saying there should be a KO bonus, there technically is because of time. No KO means 0 points from time.

I have mixed feelings about the change they made, but under the old system, reckless brute force often won over slower methodical play, which doesn't sound right either

Pikolu

"Scoring system is fine the way it is right now"..... in your opinion. How rudely you dismiss a genuine point.

You act like this is the first time someone like OP has tried to make this argument. If you heard this argument as much as I have with the understanding that it likely won't change, then you probably wouldn't be defending OPs point either.

You already get a bonus for defeating the opponent, it is called the time bonus. If killing the defender was an instant win if you couldn't kill theirs, then you'd see many people not even try against 7* Sasquatch with his over 300k health pool and damage reduction. The other guy played much better resulting him having a lot more health than OP, which gave him more points and won the round. That's just the way the game is, if OP survived with more health, they would have easily won.

BringPopcorn

"Scoring system is fine the way it is right now"..... in your opinion. How rudely you dismiss a genuine point.
The fact is, it isn't, and the OP is right, there should be some sort of KO bonus to stop this however rare occurrence to occur.
Did you ever think, that maybe if kingpin tried harder to finish the fight, he may have taken one hit.....and one hit would have give OP the deserved victory.....because he didn't just play safe, he went for the KO.
This system encourages safe play first, with a KO less important than a full yellow bar......in a fighting game.
So if the previous system was toooo focused on time, then this system is toooo focused on health........so, in my opinion, the happy medium is a KO bonus, to not just encourage some risky moves to finish a fight, but to almost force it.......because, after all, this is a fighting game.
For the record, I'm quite successful in bgs, an every season GC player, in the GC on day 4 of this season, so I'm confident I'm in a good place to lend an opinion on this.

He wasn't being disrespectful at all.
Did OP check his whole match history? Pretty sure he benefited at least once from time scoring and I doubt he took a screenshot and make a post asking "How did I win? My opponent clearly won, please take away my victory"

Matty_Ice

The thing about health is it’s an indicator of control of the fight. Your opponent was in better control of their fight than you were of yours. So you got the kill, but weren’t as in control of your fight.

unknown

This content has been removed.

MrSakuragi

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.

The only scoring change was in removing 5k points from the fight duration.

BringPopcorn

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.
The only scoring change was in removing 5k points from the fight duration.

And it was modified when 7* were introduced, what's your point?

MrSakuragi

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.
The only scoring change was in removing 5k points from the fight duration.
And it was modified when 7* were introduced, what's your point?

Health scoring was never modified, as you indicated.

BringPopcorn

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.
The only scoring change was in removing 5k points from the fight duration.
And it was modified when 7* were introduced, what's your point?
Health scoring was never modified, as you indicated.

And who said health scoring was modified?
Where did I indicate that?

Jellyman_75

Everything is a matter of opinion.....but people so quickly talk in absolutes.
It doesn't matter if one person once complained at the old system, then complained at the new system, for the very reasons they wanted the old system changed......nor am I here just to defend those people.
We all play under the same rule set, and kabam fine tunes that rule set for the best experience they can offer us, while still ticking all the boxes they need to exist as a successful company.
And a change that encourages some risky moves to have to finish a fight, surely cam only be a positive change in an evolving experience where we're all searching for the best experience.
Never once did I say, let's pay the nuke champ, because that also isn't the best experience.

A quick response to whoever said "I'm sure you've complained once about........". No actually, or maybe yes......does it matter?

So yes, don't pay the nuke champ, or the reckless player that just happens to have a more powerful roster, so can over power the mistakes they make.......but yes, a KO bonus, outside of the time bonus that's been mentioned, because both are playing with that time rule set, would be a healthy change that encourages you to finish a fight.

Look at it this way........you finish a hard fight, bad things happened, you somehow escape, pulled out some moves, got out of there, feeling pretty cool.....then you see your opponent got Nick down to 1% health, then danced around protecting his life, and picked up the win.......do any of us think that's a deserved victory?

So instantly, with a small KO bonus, we've addressed situations that maybe shouldn't result in a fighting game.

Personally, I believe more strongly, I believe you shouldn't be able to pick up a victory at all if you don't KO your opponent.....I genuinely do....but that certainly isn't the point I'm arguing here, as I am just one opinion.
But yeah, a small KO bonus to encourage finishing a fight.......who wouldn't want that.
And, if that's that way it already was, nobody would be arguing for or against it.

UnOriginal

Here is Your ko bonus

BringPopcorn

1) “oh 7* have more health, so its not fair”
My Guy, its ur strategy to invest in a 7* Sasquatch over many 6*.. u work hard for all the 7* shards and rank up items. So OFCOURSE ur 7* SHOULD be stronger than 6*.. why would i invest in 7* if they are going to be treated as 6* anyways ?

2)Playing Much Better ?
Thats a R5 Domino vs R4 Arch Angel (FULL AND FULL RNG fiesta) first 4 bleeds were purified.. dnt bring that argument of “Playing better” in an RNG filled fight.. (i am master top5 ally player and Celestial 6 every GC season) i am not saying that to show off. But ur argument of PLAYING BETTER is insensitive.
I am not here coz of my one death. This is for the game.. u can clearly see from the pic that i won.

With that theory, if an alliance uses less pots or boosts in war should win?

Jellyman_75

Bring popcorn
Reading your reply to me again.....where did that come from?
All those personal judgements and knowledge of me and my game experience.
A very strange reply indeed......almost as if from someone who likes wars.
And I didn't say the reply was disrespectful, I said how rudely they dismissed another's opinion, by stating clearly the OP was wrong and they were right......"the point system is fine the way it is right now"......to me, and I may be wrong, but that is rudely dismissive language.
I don't think it's wrong to remind someone of that, and I'm sure that person will take that on board, as we all like to better ourselves.
Maybe I'm also at fault, maybe I rudely pointed out that they rudely dismissed something......I certainly meant no offence.

BringPopcorn

Bring popcorn
Reading your reply to me again.....where did that come from?
All those personal judgements and knowledge of me and my game experience.
A very strange reply indeed......almost as if from someone who likes wars.
And I didn't say the reply was disrespectful, I said how rudely they dismissed another's opinion, by stating clearly the OP was wrong and they were right......"the point system is fine the way it is right now"......to me, and I may be wrong, but that is rudely dismissive language.
I don't think it's wrong to remind someone of that, and I'm sure that person will take that on board, as we all like to better ourselves.
Maybe I'm also at fault, maybe I rudely pointed out that they rudely dismissed something......I certainly meant no offence.

I was just saying that being straightforward is not being rude, nothing personal against you (I got no reasons to have any really).

unknown

This content has been removed.

BringPopcorn

1) “oh 7* have more health, so its not fair”
My Guy, its ur strategy to invest in a 7* Sasquatch over many 6*.. u work hard for all the 7* shards and rank up items. So OFCOURSE ur 7* SHOULD be stronger than 6*.. why would i invest in 7* if they are going to be treated as 6* anyways ?

2)Playing Much Better ?
Thats a R5 Domino vs R4 Arch Angel (FULL AND FULL RNG fiesta) first 4 bleeds were purified.. dnt bring that argument of “Playing better” in an RNG filled fight.. (i am master top5 ally player and Celestial 6 every GC season) i am not saying that to show off. But ur argument of PLAYING BETTER is insensitive.
I am not here coz of my one death. This is for the game.. u can clearly see from the pic that i won.
With that theory, if an alliance uses less pots or boosts in war should win?

What do u mean dude ?
If alliance uses more boosts and pots (investment , and in this example u invest more on 7*) and IF YOU HAVE THE SKILL, Yes U SHOULD WIN.

Say for example. 2 ppl with same skill level, one uses Boosts (7*) and another doesnt use boost (example 6*)
The dude who boosts should win

Well the dude with more health against a 7* won that round, glad we could clear this up.

unknown

This content has been removed.

TyEdge

1) “oh 7* have more health, so its not fair”
My Guy, its ur strategy to invest in a 7* Sasquatch over many 6*.. u work hard for all the 7* shards and rank up items. So OFCOURSE ur 7* SHOULD be stronger than 6*.. why would i invest in 7* if they are going to be treated as 6* anyways ?

2)Playing Much Better ?
Thats a R5 Domino vs R4 Arch Angel (FULL AND FULL RNG fiesta) first 4 bleeds were purified.. dnt bring that argument of “Playing better” in an RNG filled fight.. (i am master top5 ally player and Celestial 6 every GC season) i am not saying that to show off. But ur argument of PLAYING BETTER is insensitive.
I am not here coz of my one death. This is for the game.. u can clearly see from the pic that i won.
With that theory, if an alliance uses less pots or boosts in war should win?

What do u mean dude ?
If alliance uses more boosts and pots (investment , and in this example u invest more on 7*) and IF YOU HAVE THE SKILL, Yes U SHOULD WIN.

Say for example. 2 ppl with same skill level, one uses Boosts (7*) and another doesnt use boost (example 6*)
The dude who boosts should win
Well the dude with more health against a 7* won that round, glad we could clear this up.

Legend, clearly u dnt knw how Higher tier war works.
Remaining Defenders > Attack Bonus > Time (for break tie)

Using the same logic..
Remaining defenders carry 3 times more value than a solo..

Check mate

Remaining defenders were removed from scoring a long time ago. They only affect the percent of the map explored, and by not fighting a node you’re essentially losing those three attack bonuses plus the exploration points. You’re talking nonsense.

DNA3000

I believe it was modified from original scoring with the introduction of 7* and their huge health pools.

I don't believe that happened at literally the same time, and to the extent that it happened around the same time I believe this is purely coincidental. The change was not made to anticipate future health pools, it was made because the devs wanted to reduce the importance of time remaining relative to attacker health remaining to incentivize more precise play and slightly deemphasize burst damage scoring. I'm pretty sure they mentioned this when the change in scoring was made.

DNA3000

In any games or tournaments, KO is more important than health left

I don't know why people say things like this: it destroys your credibility when you say things like this and they aren't true, and this one is not true. Nor would you likely be in a position to actually know if it is true or false, unless you are an extremely experienced authority on games and tournaments.

In general, I would agree that getting the KO is more important than how much health you have left when you do, but to be fair this discounts the time constraints. BG has artificially low time limits specifically intended to make the matches much more fast-paced (and the mode more convenient to play), but they have also been tweaked over time to try to make it harder to consistently get KOs. This tuning was done *with* the basic elements of the scoring system. Had the mode been designed prioritizing KOs from the start, the time per fight would likely have been tweaked differently. As it is, the time is probably too low if the intent was to prioritize KOs, but since the current scoring system is a synthetic scoring system that doesn't require focusing solely on KOs this is not seen as a problem.

If I'm in AW, I would prefer to see your result on the left. But if I'm in AQ, I would prefer to see your opponent's result on the right, because I would lose half my health due to the time out but still be in a better position than in your fight. Different game modes have different rules and different objectives, and there's no one single objective that is universally considered the best everywhere, either in this game or across all games. In a game mode without a 90 second clock, your opponent would have almost certainly ended up far better off. Like say in AW.

With short times and KO-emphasized scoring, the meta for BG would quickly lock into burst damage champs on attack. One of the explicitly stated objectives the devs have for Battlegrounds is changing meta so it doesn't become boring. They are using the nodes and the scoring system to try to keep the mode fresh by shifting the priorities for attackers and defenders from season to season. That's one of the specific reasons why the mode doesn't just simply award the win to the player who KOs the defender if their opponent fails to do so, or uses strong bonuses to tilt the scales in that direction strongly.

BringPopcorn

1) “oh 7* have more health, so its not fair”
My Guy, its ur strategy to invest in a 7* Sasquatch over many 6*.. u work hard for all the 7* shards and rank up items. So OFCOURSE ur 7* SHOULD be stronger than 6*.. why would i invest in 7* if they are going to be treated as 6* anyways ?

2)Playing Much Better ?
Thats a R5 Domino vs R4 Arch Angel (FULL AND FULL RNG fiesta) first 4 bleeds were purified.. dnt bring that argument of “Playing better” in an RNG filled fight.. (i am master top5 ally player and Celestial 6 every GC season) i am not saying that to show off. But ur argument of PLAYING BETTER is insensitive.
I am not here coz of my one death. This is for the game.. u can clearly see from the pic that i won.
With that theory, if an alliance uses less pots or boosts in war should win?

What do u mean dude ?
If alliance uses more boosts and pots (investment , and in this example u invest more on 7*) and IF YOU HAVE THE SKILL, Yes U SHOULD WIN.

Say for example. 2 ppl with same skill level, one uses Boosts (7*) and another doesnt use boost (example 6*)
The dude who boosts should win
Well the dude with more health against a 7* won that round, glad we could clear this up.

Legend, clearly u dnt knw how Higher tier war works.
Remaining Defenders > Attack Bonus > Time (for break tie)

Using the same logic..
Remaining defenders carry 3 times more value than a solo..

Check mate

Dude I'm trolling you over a match that you won, not sure how that is a check mate, and you came to complain about a match that YOU WON.

AverageDesi

"Scoring system is fine the way it is right now"..... in your opinion. How rudely you dismiss a genuine point.
The fact is, it isn't, and the OP is right, there should be some sort of KO bonus to stop this however rare occurrence to occur.
Did you ever think, that maybe if kingpin tried harder to finish the fight, he may have taken one hit.....and one hit would have give OP the deserved victory.....because he didn't just play safe, he went for the KO.
This system encourages safe play first, with a KO less important than a full yellow bar......in a fighting game.
So if the previous system was toooo focused on time, then this system is toooo focused on health........so, in my opinion, the happy medium is a KO bonus, to not just encourage some risky moves to finish a fight, but to almost force it.......because, after all, this is a fighting game.
For the record, I'm quite successful in bgs, an every season GC player, in the GC on day 4 of this season, so I'm confident I'm in a good place to lend an opinion on this.

There is a ko bonus. The faster you kill the opponent, the higher that bonus is. If you check the post you will see the other person did not get the ko bonus

AverageDesi

1) “oh 7* have more health, so its not fair”
My Guy, its ur strategy to invest in a 7* Sasquatch over many 6*.. u work hard for all the 7* shards and rank up items. So OFCOURSE ur 7* SHOULD be stronger than 6*.. why would i invest in 7* if they are going to be treated as 6* anyways ?

2)Playing Much Better ?
Thats a R5 Domino vs R4 Arch Angel (FULL AND FULL RNG fiesta) first 4 bleeds were purified.. dnt bring that argument of “Playing better” in an RNG filled fight.. (i am master top5 ally player and Celestial 6 every GC season) i am not saying that to show off. But ur argument of PLAYING BETTER is insensitive.
I am not here coz of my one death. This is for the game.. u can clearly see from the pic that i won.
With that theory, if an alliance uses less pots or boosts in war should win?

What do u mean dude ?
If alliance uses more boosts and pots (investment , and in this example u invest more on 7*) and IF YOU HAVE THE SKILL, Yes U SHOULD WIN.

Say for example. 2 ppl with same skill level, one uses Boosts (7*) and another doesnt use boost (example 6*)
The dude who boosts should win
Well the dude with more health against a 7* won that round, glad we could clear this up.

Legend, clearly u dnt knw how Higher tier war works.
Remaining Defenders > Attack Bonus > Time (for break tie)

Using the same logic..
Remaining defenders carry 3 times more value than a solo..

Check mate

Who told you the same logic of war applies to BG

unknown

This content has been removed.

XFREEDOMX

The scoring system is just fine until you lose a match, and then all hell breaks loose.

unknown

This content has been removed.