nonsense BG scoring

just won a BG that only gave me 12 points. I’ve never been awarded less than 14 points. now I only have 99 points instead of the 100 for the radiance award. There is no world that’s an accident. I’m getting tired of this level of consistent nonsense.

Comments

Furrymoosen

Points rewarded for a win depend both on how high you've moved up and on your opponent. If you were facing an opponent at a lower point value in the standings, then it would make sense that you received less points than "normal" for the win.
It's not a static point system, it has variables. However, within those variables it is absolutely consistent. Players in the exact same scenario that you were in will have an identical experience.

Double_Helix

Points are based on the difference between your rating and your opponent's. If you're punching down, you get less. If you're punching way down, you get way less.

Abspain101

Points are based on the difference between your rating and your opponent's. If you're punching down, you get less. If you're punching way down, you get way less.

Yup same with points lost if you lose to someone way under you you lose more points if you lose to someone way above you you lose less

Justwill

Points are based on the difference between your rating and your opponent's. If you're punching down, you get less. If you're punching way down, you get way less.

then it’s still not an accident I was paired with that player. also they had 5 R4 including every meta deffender except yelena. Only reason i won is i had really good runs against enchantress with jugg and jean grey with Jack O. Roster wise I wasn’t coming close to punching down.

Furrymoosen

Points are based on the difference between your rating and your opponent's. If you're punching down, you get less. If you're punching way down, you get way less.
then it’s still not an accident I was paired with that player. also they had 5 R4 including every meta deffender except yelena. Only reason i won is i had really good runs against enchantress with jugg and jean grey with Jack O. Roster wise I wasn’t coming close to punching down.

Roster doesn't matter, it's ranking. If you're at 87 points and your opponent is at 40, you're getting less points for winning and losing more for losing, and it is the opposite for your opponent. BGs does not take roster into account for anything; it's all about where you're ranked.

Justwill

not rocket science. i get it. the scoring system is perfectly set up to be manipulated.

Furrymoosen

not rocket science. i get it. the scoring system is perfectly set up to be manipulated.

How?

SirGamesBond

not rocket science. i get it. the scoring system is perfectly set up to be manipulated.

If it was set up to be manipulated, we would see more cases like this one... not just a single one on 11th day.

Pikolu

Ah yes, the people at kabam have nothing better to do with their weekend than sit around waiting for you specifically to be at 87 points just to perfectly manipulate who you're facing so you'll match someone who will only give you 12 points just to spite your entire existence.

Justwill

I’m sure the point system is not being manipulated. With that said if you wanted to reward people that spend, penalize people that don’t spend, or encourage people to spend more you would set up scoring system that wasn’t consistent. Especially when half the time it doesn’t tell you the rank of your oponent. just says updating.
It wouldn’t take a lot of manual time. A pretty simple algorithm would automate those matchups, pretty mutch like they are already automated. there isn’t someone at kabam manually taking in matchup requests then choosing the opponent.
incredibly easy solution is to make scoring consistent. 14 points for punching down, 15 for an even ranking match, and 16 for punching up. over the course of 30 days the very minor fluctuations in matchup difficult (which only exists because of the matchup algorithm) would normalize to insgnicance anyway.

Yodabolt21

@Justwill If it makes you feel better, I’m in Q3 and beat a Celstial 6 opponent. I gained 23 points.

Maybe, quit complaining and just play the game.

Also, what does ftp have anything to do with points? Obviously Kabam gives more points to spenders… get real man… ugh

Justwill

@Justwill If it makes you feel better, I’m in Q3 and beat a Celstial 6 opponent. I gained 23 points.

Maybe, quit complaining and just play the game.

Also, what does ftp have anything to do with points? Obviously Kabam gives more points to spenders… get real man… ugh

fair enough. spend, stop playing, or shut TF up is the most realistic feedback i’ve ever seen about this game.

Yodabolt21

100%

Furrymoosen

I’m sure the point system is not being manipulated. With that said if you wanted to reward people that spend, penalize people that don’t spend, or encourage people to spend more you would set up scoring system that wasn’t consistent. Especially when half the time it doesn’t tell you the rank of your oponent. just says updating.
It wouldn’t take a lot of manual time. A pretty simple algorithm would automate those matchups, pretty mutch like they are already automated. there isn’t someone at kabam manually taking in matchup requests then choosing the opponent.
incredibly easy solution is to make scoring consistent. 14 points for punching down, 15 for an even ranking match, and 16 for punching up. over the course of 30 days the very minor fluctuations in matchup difficult (which only exists because of the matchup algorithm) would normalize to insgnicance anyway.

Kudos on the impressive imagination. But this is all nonsense. It wouldn't benefit Kabam in the slightest to manipulate points like this. They also already have a hard enough time with basic monthly launches, so there's no way they're making a system sophisticated enough to tell the spenders from the FTP players in every single BGs match. You can whine about it all you want, but the only advantage spenders have over FTP is further developed rosters.

The point system is working fine.