Why we need a fourth scoring category in Battlegrounds
Ridikulus47
Member Posts: 11 ★
I get the the KO, opponent times out no KO. I lose the round solely based on attacker health remaining. We need a fourth score category for getting the KO. There's no reason why someone should win a round without KOing the opponent.
13
Comments
I don't know where I stand nowadays. I definitely landed squarely in the "KO is the main point" camp in the first BG beta, but after playing it for a while I can see how the other parameters are also important when scoring.
In the end, I think I like the current system. If you KO the opponent, you get a time bonus. If you don't, you get zero points in that category. However, if you've played well enough despite scoring nothing in that one category, you can still eke out a win. I think that's ultimately pretty fair.
One person won their fight and KOd the opponent; the other didn’t win their fight. IMHO, OP should get the win here.
In my view, if there’s 2 players, one (player A) who finishes with 100% health, but reduced the opponent to 1hp *just not able* to beat them, they fought way better than the other (Player
The difference in defender health is 1 HP so player B is 1HP better, but the difference in attacker health is 99%, so player A is 99% total health better.
Overall, I think it’s pretty clear that player A has done better. Because at the moment the goal isn’t to just defeat the opponent.
And we have the same system in AW at the moment. The goal isn’t just to take down the opponent’s boss, you need to maximise diversity, attack bonuses, exploration etc
At the moment it’s possible to lose a war if you Ko the opponent’s boss, but don’t explore or have enough diversity.
Arguing that you should win BG match just by beating the defender no matter your health or time is like arguing you should win your war by just beating the boss, no matter your diversity or exploration.
We are judged on the different factors, we play to the rules set, and different things can judge how well you have played your fight or your war.
I mean this is just a penalty for having suicides active nothing more
I get being graded on several factors but one 9f them should at the very least be getting a KO
So adding another category for the score is a good idea i think, getting a ko has to count for something
Maybe everyone is secretly a whale spending their way through the game but as a free to play I completely understand how significant it is to be able to preserve your health even if it takes more time, it is an actual skill.
The time bonus is literally a KO bonus, that reduces linearly the longer you take. If you Ko the opponent very quickly, you get a big KO bonus. If you take 89 of the 90 seconds available, you get a very small KO bonus because you almost timed out.
I have to remember to use 1) and 2) instead of A) and
Surely that is not more skillful as they died and I did not 🤔
That said, if you KO your opponent while you are at 1%, and your opponent gets enemy to 1%, but doesn't lose any health... you probably don't deserve the win.
I'm all for a few extra bonus points for the KO (say 5000).
"Arguing that you should win BG match just by beating the defender no matter your health or time is like arguing you should win your war by just beating the boss, no matter your diversity or exploration."
It's axiomatically not, nor is that what I am stating. I am not arguing that getting the KO should be an automatic win. I believe there should be a points category for doing so just as in AW. Another post below mentioned that the time points is essentially a KO bonus. This is also incorrect. It is simply another metric to differentiate the nuance of the fight. Ex: each attacker gets the KO, each has 100% health remaining. This is where the time metric applies.
Another post mentioned that the opponent "clearly played better". Maybe, maybe not. Is "playing better" taking less block damage due to higher champion block proficiency or having better RNG with perfect block? In the end, this is a fighting game where in every game mode the intent is to KO the defender, boss, opponent etc. There is no other area of content where you can obtain the highest rewards without completing the objective of KOing the defender, boss, opponent etc.
I’m not sure how you can square that circle if I’m honest.
A bonus for defeating the opponent is simply points that you only get if you defeat the opponent.
A time bonus is points you only get if you defeat the opponent, the only thing is, it’s worth more or less depending on how fast you defeat the opponent.
Also, I’m not quite sure on this line you’ve said about the time bonus “ It is simply another metric to differentiate the nuance of the fight. Ex: each attacker gets the KO, each has 100% health remaining. This is where the time metric applies.” It sounds like you’re saying time bonus is a tie breaker? Am I misunderstanding that, or could you clarify. If each attacker gets the KO and each are on 100%, yes the time makes the difference. But it’s not only scored in that scenario, it’s included as a score every time the attacker KOs the opponent, hence, it’s an attack bonus.
If you maintain that you’re not saying KO is an automatic win, but you also say that there is no reason someone should win a round without KOing the opponent then you see that there’s a bit of a disagreement there.
Either there is a reason you can win a round without KOing the opponent, or you’re saying that KO=win.
Call me a stickler, but I’d prefer to see skill rewarded. Stay on high health, get rewarded.
This has happened to me on more than one occasion now but I've finished my round and haven't KO their defender but similarly my attacker isn't KO either, if I remember correctly on one occasio i'd lost roughly 70% of my health and removed roughly 30% of their health BUT they died to my defender but got my defender down to roughly 5% health before doing so .... how is that remotely skillful? He died .. I never 🤔.
I can appreciate this may not happen all that often but it does in fact happen. Something definitely needs tweaking on the scoring side of things ... this can't be happening 🤷♂️
Know this isn't related to scoring but this also can't be happening... I never lost connection etc yet I lose after winning the first round 🤨
Your post implies that having died means that it’s automatically less skilful than what you did. Therefore implying that if one person dies, they shouldn’t win if the other person times out.
But if we had a situation where we have player 1 and 2
Player 1 gets the enemy down to 1% health and gets KOd the last second.
Player 2 gets the opponent down to 99%, so only takes away 1% health, then they get hit, their attacker down to 1%, and they time out on 1% health.
With your implication that Player 1 died, so how can they possibly be more skilful than player 2, do you really think player 2 did better than player 1?
I don’t. I think that the scoring system would favour player 1, they took away almost all the health of the defender. Player 2 would barely get any points, no attack health, no defender health.
That’s the good thing about the scoring system, it removes or reduces these fringe cases that you get when you hard define winning rules. It puts it on a sliding scale, not a binary that pushes bad situations like this.
Everyone keeps on saying “this can’t happen” when one person struggles through a fight and only just manages to KO with low health, but still loses because their opponent plays better. Or saying “this can’t happen” when someone dies but still wins, even though you only took off 30% health, and have 30% remaining. But if you had a hierarchical scoring system like you suggest, it takes these cases of unfairness and greatly increases the chance of those happening.
I haven’t seen one case where I’ve actually thought that this system is widely unfair. There’s been one or two “well that could go either way”, but all of them so far have been a necessary evil. You can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But having the sort of system you suggest would mean a huge increase in the unfair cases.