Battlegrounds Scoring

Asking this based from an experience of a friend

How does the scoring actually work in battlegrounds?
Why did defeating the opponent not scored more than left over health?
Surely you should get bonus points for actually killing the opponent right?

Comments

Mauled

There's one champion that makes scoring much harder on his own. You can reduce nick fury to 1% and pause the game . You'll lose points for time but you don't have to deal with his second phase which will result in you losing health most of the time

I’ve done this if I’ve got a non ideal matchup. It also works the other way if you’re using NF. Get that light ending bleed as they’re on 1-2% let them kill your decoy and you finish on 100%

Jeal79

Surely there's a simple solution to all this which makes for a much fairer system...

Keep all the current point scoring mechanisms exactly the same, but make ALL of them tie-breakers.

If only one player KOs the defender that's a default win. If only one player gets killed by the defender, that's a default loss.
The points from health pools and times only come into play if the fight outcome was the same for both players (died, timed out, got the KO)

Cassy

I think time should Not be a Factor for Scoreing.

I would create a place where Defenders are all the same. Even as 6* r3. A say sasquatch can't bei ko'ed in the Same Timen like a stark spidy.
So Tanks will rule the Defends. Luke Cage, thing, terrax and alike.isnt that boring?

And it would give super sophisticated Players a real edge against "beginners" that dont know every best counter or Just dont have them.

For me (Long Time Player) it kills the fun of a emidiate Fight. This Mode ist for endgamer then,but Not for fun.

Imho

KoopaKrusher

In Kabam's post, they defined the optimal battleground performance as "defeating the defender, losing as little health as possible, as quickly as possible". If that's what they intended, then it seems like the primary goal is "KO the defender" with secondary goals of "Max Attacker Health Remaining" and "Min Fight Time". So if player 1 KO's the defender, but player 2 doesn't, player 1 had the "better performance" and should win, with Attacker health and fight time used as tiebreakers.

Personally, I think Kabam should reword that to "*lower defender's health as much as possible*, losing as little health as possible, as quickly as possible". That wouldn't elevate Defender health above the other 2 goals, which gives us the current system with 3 primary goals of "Min Defender Health", "Max Attacker Health", and "Min Time Remaining". Then it's easy to add secondary goals of "KO Defender (Could've lowered Defender Health even more in the timeframe)", "Not get Attacker KO (could've lost more Attacker Health in the timeframe)". Those secondary goals would be worth extra points, potentially scaling with Time Remaining.

I also don't believe in penalizing timeouts because dragging out fights is a valid strategy in other areas of the game. As a low-mid tier player, sometimes the best way for me to beat content is to bring in Blade and spend 6+ minutes slowly bleeding the defender to death, and using the free regen when I get clipped. I very much understand that strategy doesn't hold up in competitive tiers of the game, but I don't think battlegrounds should be designed with one specific playstyle in mind.

SirGamesBond

The more I played it. The more fair it felt.
I don't know, but it looks good to me now.
As its same for both participants

Jeal79

The more I played it. The more fair it felt.
I don't know, but it looks good to me now.
As its same for both participants

I'll agree as far as the more you play it, the smarter you get at influencing your points. Feels a lot less like fighting to win and a lot more on hedging your bets scoring wise - especially if you know how hard your opponent is going to find your defender.

I've learned to play battlegrounds differently to how I'd play any other piece of content in the game and that's more tactfully around the point scoring. I know if time to kill or remaining health is going to be the hurdle for my opponent to overcome so I play my attack round to focus on whichever element I think will cost them points in their fight.

Would still prefer to see default wins and losses for KOs as I think Killing and Surviving are the two primary objectives throughout the game.

Haven't yet made my mind up as to whether I enjoy it or not yet though.

Dangerx17

Literally just made a post about this, if the opponent didn't finish the fight then they should not be scored for their remaining health