**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.

Some thoughts on BG

ErcarretErcarret Posts: 2,741 ★★★★★
A couple of things occurred to me during the last few matches in Battlegrounds.

I lost a match despite beating my opponent while the other guy timed out against my champion. I won my fight by the skin of my teeth with just a few percent of health left, while the other guy timed out with around 50% health left. This remaining health gave them more points than my actual victory gave me, which then granted them the overall victory. I found that profoundly weird. I won my fight; they did not. I feel like that should overrule any other parameter when determining a winner, surely?

The second thing is much more niche but I can imagine that it can have some other consequences as well.

I was facing a beefy Nick Fury and had just gotten him into his second life when he wombo-combo'd me into oblivion. However, when I entered the stat screen, it gave me basically no "damage on the opponent" points since Nick Fury was "at almost full health" due to having just entered his second life. Obviously I'd taken off 50% of his health by that point but that effort wasn't recognized.

Now, this might seem like a problem that's restricted to one champion. However, I think there are possible scenarios where it affects others as well. For example, an awakened Ultron heals a ton when taking energy damage, after a small delay. If you launch an energy attack against him that doesn't just outright kill him, he'll bounce back up quickly. Imagine if you launch it just as the time-out kicks in. You do your damage but don't kill him, but he doesn't have the time to revert the damage that you did. Thanks to the fight closing artificially, you end up doing 70% more damage than you would otherwise have done. It's kind of a reverse situation to the Nick Fury one, where the system didn't recognize the damage that had in fact been done since he "regenerated back up to full".

I recognize that the second point is a lot more niche that might be a problem worth looking into, or might not be. I'll let Kabam decide there. However, the first point is worth reiterating. Won matches should always count for much more than timed-out matches. I've timed out several times due to Safeguard and while it always sucks, it also always means that I failed. Sometimes we've both failed and other parameters have had to decide who failed less, but I have never begrudged someone a victory if they've actually beaten my champ even at low health. They did, in fact, complete the fight whereas I did not. I would feel equally weird if I had somehow been given the victory in such a scenario, with the roles reversed compared to where I lost despite winning my fight. It just doesn't feel very fair.

Comments

  • GamerGamer Posts: 10,158 ★★★★★
    I’m had a fight I’m wil had timeout to but quit to my surprise I’m won because. I’m had more hp so wired
  • Raichu626Raichu626 Posts: 934 ★★★★
    Ercarret said:

    A couple of things occurred to me during the last few matches in Battlegrounds.

    I lost a match despite beating my opponent while the other guy timed out against my champion. I won my fight by the skin of my teeth with just a few percent of health left, while the other guy timed out with around 50% health left. This remaining health gave them more points than my actual victory gave me, which then granted them the overall victory. I found that profoundly weird. I won my fight; they did not. I feel like that should overrule any other parameter when determining a winner, surely?

    Not really tho. Since they had more health left it's reasonable to assume they would've been able to beat the opponent had they had more time. But you had almost no health left, so if your opponent had had more health you would've likely been defeated. Makes sense that you don't just win by default.
  • AburaeesAburaees Posts: 514 ★★★
    Timing out with more health than the defender is a win. If you were a boxer, would you rather KO your opponent AND end up in hospital, or dominate your opponent and win a unanimous decision?
  • QacobQacob Posts: 2,253 ★★★★★
    Aburaees said:

    Timing out with more health than the defender is a win. If you were a boxer, would you rather KO your opponent AND end up in hospital, or dominate your opponent and win a unanimous decision?

    Lad, that's the second time you've used this analogy, and I get what you're saying but it doesn't really work. In your example, both boxers win, in a round of BGs, only one player can win. And if these two boxers were against each other, it doesn't matter how injured they are, the one that knocks out their opponent wins.
  • IvarTheBonelessIvarTheBoneless Posts: 1,240 ★★★★
    That nick fury point is an interesting one and I have used it to my advantage many times now.

    If I don't feel confident in taking down both lives of nicn throughout the fight I slow down my fight and stall. I try to preserve as much health as possible while getting nick as close to 1% health as possible. Because of this I get almost all the points for KO'ing my opponent at the cost of my time points.

    It's interesting how the calculation only accounts for 100% health while nick basically has 200%.
  • Colinwhitworth69Colinwhitworth69 Posts: 7,175 ★★★★★
    edited April 2022
    As long as we all play by the same rules, I’m good.

    I have used the Fury thing to my advantage — as an attacker and defender.
  • ErcarretErcarret Posts: 2,741 ★★★★★
    Raichu626 said:

    Ercarret said:

    A couple of things occurred to me during the last few matches in Battlegrounds.

    I lost a match despite beating my opponent while the other guy timed out against my champion. I won my fight by the skin of my teeth with just a few percent of health left, while the other guy timed out with around 50% health left. This remaining health gave them more points than my actual victory gave me, which then granted them the overall victory. I found that profoundly weird. I won my fight; they did not. I feel like that should overrule any other parameter when determining a winner, surely?

    Not really tho. Since they had more health left it's reasonable to assume they would've been able to beat the opponent had they had more time. But you had almost no health left, so if your opponent had had more health you would've likely been defeated. Makes sense that you don't just win by default.
    I absolutely get what you're saying. But at the same time, the thing with Safeguard is that every champ can beat the node eventually but few (relatively speaking) can beat it within the time restraints. I had to be a bit reckless and eat a special attack in order to win the fight in time; my opponent played more safe but was still far from winning. They would have won in maybe two or three fights' time. If I had had that kind of time as well, I wouldn't have needed to play as reckless either and the whole situation would have looked different in many ways.

    But it is an interesting conversation. I think @Bittersteel mentioned a lot of great points. I'm strapped for time so I can't comment on much, so I'll just thank you guys for giving me things to think about.
  • AburaeesAburaees Posts: 514 ★★★
    Qacob said:

    Aburaees said:

    Timing out with more health than the defender is a win. If you were a boxer, would you rather KO your opponent AND end up in hospital, or dominate your opponent and win a unanimous decision?

    Lad, that's the second time you've used this analogy, and I get what you're saying but it doesn't really work. In your example, both boxers win, in a round of BGs, only one player can win. And if these two boxers were against each other, it doesn't matter how injured they are, the one that knocks out their opponent wins.
    My friend, it might be the second time I’ve used the analogy, but I think you’ll find these threads outnumber my use of said analogy. It’s fair game as far as I’m concerned.

    In a round of BG’s both players can win (their respective fight) but then it’s a matter of who wins better (to decide the round) since a direct PvP isn’t possible.

    The boxing analogy is the only one that works. And the question still stands, would you rather win comfortably or win with a Pyrrhic victory?

    In combats sports people put the KO on a pedestal, but some of the most exciting fights go the distance, and some of the most technically great fighters win by points/decision at a greater frequency - compare Fury and Wilder.

    Imagine trying to change the UFC back to its original framework where only a finish was a real win, that’s the analogy for what we’re seeing here.
Sign In or Register to comment.