H How can you lose when the opponent doesn’t even kill your champion, major flaws to battlegrounds that have been going for to long with no changed or repairs. And this is only one of them another is finishing with 100% health and the opponent finishes 10 seconds earlier but has like 65% or so health and still wins
It is what it is. I myself advocated for a different scoring system, but the current one is not bugged or broken, it implements a different philosophy.
In situations like this, there's two kinds of scoring systems. I call them tiered scoring and synthetic scoring. In tiered scoring there are a number of objectives in some priority order. One of them is the primary objective. Whomever does the best at this wins. If there's a tie, then the second objective criteria is consulted, and so on. Hypothetically speaking, we could make such a criteria for Battlegrounds: whoever defeats the opponent the fastest wins, if that's a tie then whoever finishes with the most health wins. That sort of thing (it would have to be more complex than that to catch all the corner cases, this is just an example).
However, many people don't like that kind of scoring for certain legitimate reasons. Prioritizing one thing locks the meta into one kind of strategy, even with shifting nodes. And not everyone agrees what the priority order should be or how to account for all the corner cases. The alternative is synthetic scoring where there's no single primary objective. Instead, the goal is to optimize all of them at once. In other words, defeat the opponent as fast as possible while taking as little damage as possible. How do you balance the two? With weights: attacker health is worth this much, time is worth that much. Many people prefer this kind of scoring, and that's what the game ultimately implements.
It was not my first choice, but it is not "flawed." it is a choice. The game chose that way, and honestly I don't think it is likely they will ever change it. At least not in such a dramatic way, they could tweak the weights over time. Like it or not, thems the rules and at this point I think trying to change it is wasted effort. I've accepted it and moved on myself. I would suggest others to do likewise. When something like this comes down to preference and opinion, the designers are going to have theirs, and yours isn't going to override theirs any more than theirs are going to change yours. Except they make the game, and we play the game. Their opinions are the ones that ultimately matter, and I wouldn't respect a designer that gave up their opinions without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
@FiiNCH go talk to some bigger guys they all say same Brian grant, lagacy, Seatin kt1 karate mike they have all said scoring is not as it should be needs to be looked at, so fly away little annoying chirping finch. It’s my rant thanks for the care now shu
@AverageDesi id like to hear his point system to, as I’ve seen a few peoples thoughts and proper thoughts not just smart comments on here that I’m keeping entertained with after my rant lol
@Pikolu you miss the point if they don’t ko you but you ko them then you shouldn’t be able to lose, if I fight a boss in war do I get more points in war for timing out or for 1 shot? In arena do I get more points for not completing it or for ko’ing the enemy? This is why a lot of plat 1-2 and masters don’t do bg as it is crazy (and yes I do know as I have r5 champs and am in those tiers before you ask)
How many times have you won a match in that manner but didn't complain because you unfairly won?
@FiiNCH go talk to some bigger guys they all say same Brian grant, lagacy, Seatin kt1 karate mike they have all said scoring is not as it should be needs to be looked at, so fly away little annoying chirping finch. It’s my rant thanks for the care now shu
They may be talking about the points but your original comment isn't about the points, its about you thinking you should have an automatic win because you got the KO and they didn't. That's not the same as changing the point system.
Seems like every BG season someone brings up this issue of scoring. What would be your solution @slayer6. Instead of ranting like a mad person and not caring about other peoples opinion since yours is the only one that counts during this rant. How would you like the scoring to be fair? Would you consider time at all as a factor? Would you extended the time so KO could be accomplish since 2 minutes isn't enough sometimes to kill a rank 4-5 champ without the proper counter. Would you make it more fair and have every summoner have the same deck To make BG really fair, everyone should started with the same deck of champions. Also order of placing defenders first needs to change since it's an advantage if I place a defender last and pick an attacker last twice out of three fights. How would you make these totally fair for everyone not just you.
Battlegrounds failed me also tonight and not the first time in this manner….. let’s go to a loading screen together and It laggs out and when we come back it doesn’t allow me to fight so I lose the round… fight of 0 seconds=a loss
Battlegrounds failed me also tonight and not the first time in this manner….. let’s go to a loading screen together and It laggs out and when we come back it doesn’t allow me to fight so I lose the round… fight of 0 seconds=a loss
Hey I thought that bug was "fixed" because Kabam gave compensation Guess it wasn't
When BG was first launched, we had this problem on a much wider scale. At least I seem to remember there not being a Time Left bonus. You got points for how much health you shaved off the opponent and for how much health you had left. I also think those two pools had the same number of points in them.
It led to some weird situations where it could be beneficial to not really engage with the fight in order to keep as much health as possible. If you knew that your opponent would probably die to your attacker for one reason or another, you could just hang back and cash in the "Health left" points in order to win.
This was a legitimate problem. The solution (among other changes) was to introduce the "Time left" category of points that rewards you for beating your opponent. The faster you KO them, the more points you get. This category of points actively rewards you for "winning" the fight and penalizes you for not KO'ing your opponent, and I personally think it largely solved the problem. It's not the end all be all in terms of scoring, but it does make it so that actually defeating the defender will always be preferable to not doing so. You still have to be better than your opponent across various categories of points, but if you are otherwise tied, the time it took to finish off your respective defender will decide the win.
There will always be some edge cases here and there that make things either easier or harder in various scenarios, but I think the scoring is overall fair. Just as important, I think it's probably as good a system as it can be, taking in account several different ways of deciding who "fought best". I used to be squarely on your side when BG first launched, but after half a year I prefer the current system to one where just KO'ing the opponent would be the main objective. Otherwise we'd have scenarios where it would be vastly advantageous to let your opponent KO Nick Fury's first life in order to access his OP damage during the second life without really having to fear the loss of points that would result from losing 70% (or 170%, depending on how you see it) of your health. That would be a whole other type of unfair. No system is perfect, but the current one has been the best in the most scenarios I've been in.
H How can you lose when the opponent doesn’t even kill your champion, major flaws to battlegrounds that have been going for to long with no changed or repairs. And this is only one of them another is finishing with 100% health and the opponent finishes 10 seconds earlier but has like 65% or so health and still wins
It is what it is. I myself advocated for a different scoring system, but the current one is not bugged or broken, it implements a different philosophy.
In situations like this, there's two kinds of scoring systems. I call them tiered scoring and synthetic scoring. In tiered scoring there are a number of objectives in some priority order. One of them is the primary objective. Whomever does the best at this wins. If there's a tie, then the second objective criteria is consulted, and so on. Hypothetically speaking, we could make such a criteria for Battlegrounds: whoever defeats the opponent the fastest wins, if that's a tie then whoever finishes with the most health wins. That sort of thing (it would have to be more complex than that to catch all the corner cases, this is just an example).
However, many people don't like that kind of scoring for certain legitimate reasons. Prioritizing one thing locks the meta into one kind of strategy, even with shifting nodes. And not everyone agrees what the priority order should be or how to account for all the corner cases. The alternative is synthetic scoring where there's no single primary objective. Instead, the goal is to optimize all of them at once. In other words, defeat the opponent as fast as possible while taking as little damage as possible. How do you balance the two? With weights: attacker health is worth this much, time is worth that much. Many people prefer this kind of scoring, and that's what the game ultimately implements.
It was not my first choice, but it is not "flawed." it is a choice. The game chose that way, and honestly I don't think it is likely they will ever change it. At least not in such a dramatic way, they could tweak the weights over time. Like it or not, thems the rules and at this point I think trying to change it is wasted effort. I've accepted it and moved on myself. I would suggest others to do likewise. When something like this comes down to preference and opinion, the designers are going to have theirs, and yours isn't going to override theirs any more than theirs are going to change yours. Except they make the game, and we play the game. Their opinions are the ones that ultimately matter, and I wouldn't respect a designer that gave up their opinions without overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What was your scoring method
I posted about it many times, and there were tons of details to deal with exceptions, but the basic idea was something like this:
If one side defeats the champion and the other side doesn't, the side that defeated the defender automatically wins. If both sides defeat the champion then whichever one ends with the most health wins. If that's somehow a tie, then whichever side ended the fight the fastest wins. If neither side defeat the champion then whichever side reduced the defender by the most health wins If that's somehow a tie, then whoever held out the longest before dying wins.
The idea was basically that this is the normal priority for combat in the game in general. You are only rewarded for beating defenders. If you don't beat the defender, nothing else really matters because that's the only way to ultimately complete content. But if you do beat the defender, of course you'd like to have as much health remaining as possible (unless it is the last fight on a map). More health means more health to deal with the next fight, and restoring health costs resources. And usually, all other things being equal, most players would rather finish fights quicker than slower.
The developer idea, though, was that Battlegrounds is an opportunity to change that up, and experiment with different metas and different victory conditions. I can't argue that's wrong.
Comments
It’s my rant thanks for the care now shu
Battlegrounds failed me also tonight and not the first time in this manner….. let’s go to a loading screen together and It laggs out and when we come back it doesn’t allow me to fight so I lose the round… fight of 0 seconds=a loss
Guess it wasn't
It led to some weird situations where it could be beneficial to not really engage with the fight in order to keep as much health as possible. If you knew that your opponent would probably die to your attacker for one reason or another, you could just hang back and cash in the "Health left" points in order to win.
This was a legitimate problem. The solution (among other changes) was to introduce the "Time left" category of points that rewards you for beating your opponent. The faster you KO them, the more points you get. This category of points actively rewards you for "winning" the fight and penalizes you for not KO'ing your opponent, and I personally think it largely solved the problem. It's not the end all be all in terms of scoring, but it does make it so that actually defeating the defender will always be preferable to not doing so. You still have to be better than your opponent across various categories of points, but if you are otherwise tied, the time it took to finish off your respective defender will decide the win.
There will always be some edge cases here and there that make things either easier or harder in various scenarios, but I think the scoring is overall fair. Just as important, I think it's probably as good a system as it can be, taking in account several different ways of deciding who "fought best". I used to be squarely on your side when BG first launched, but after half a year I prefer the current system to one where just KO'ing the opponent would be the main objective. Otherwise we'd have scenarios where it would be vastly advantageous to let your opponent KO Nick Fury's first life in order to access his OP damage during the second life without really having to fear the loss of points that would result from losing 70% (or 170%, depending on how you see it) of your health. That would be a whole other type of unfair. No system is perfect, but the current one has been the best in the most scenarios I've been in.
If one side defeats the champion and the other side doesn't, the side that defeated the defender automatically wins.
If both sides defeat the champion then whichever one ends with the most health wins.
If that's somehow a tie, then whichever side ended the fight the fastest wins.
If neither side defeat the champion then whichever side reduced the defender by the most health wins
If that's somehow a tie, then whoever held out the longest before dying wins.
The idea was basically that this is the normal priority for combat in the game in general. You are only rewarded for beating defenders. If you don't beat the defender, nothing else really matters because that's the only way to ultimately complete content. But if you do beat the defender, of course you'd like to have as much health remaining as possible (unless it is the last fight on a map). More health means more health to deal with the next fight, and restoring health costs resources. And usually, all other things being equal, most players would rather finish fights quicker than slower.
The developer idea, though, was that Battlegrounds is an opportunity to change that up, and experiment with different metas and different victory conditions. I can't argue that's wrong.