Score and How It's Determined

Battleborn Battleborn Competitive Multiplayer Discussion
#1

Incursion is the most popular competitive mode. When a tie occurs (close games) in Incursion, score decides. Thusly, score was a topic of considerable debate near release. The devs mentioned their plans to change it. Since then, there has been very little discussion on a mechanic that decides close games. Polls!

###I want the score system to:

  • Remain the same
  • Change it slightly, the general idea is good
  • The base is good, add things like Thralls
  • Rework it entirely

0 voters

Show results

###Should it determine games:

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Show results

###Should First Blood determine games when score is tied:

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Show results

These polls are not to replace discussion. Any ideas or thoughts you have, please submit.

#2

Over time Iā€™ve placed less value on the score the game doles out.

Realistically you know whether you made a valuable contribution or not.

As for dictating outcomes thatā€™s really only an incursion phenomenon but I donā€™t see too many other ways around it that wonā€™t promote some cheesy strategies possibly playing into the outcome.

For example if you were behind on score but healing counted (never mind that this wouldnā€™t be fair on a team sans healer), they could sit in the back with a self-damaging Montana or something and just rack up insane score.

I think itā€™s basically fine as is.

1 Like
#3

So itā€™s mostly irrelevant but the best main idea that can be done?

#4

In my view, yes.

Although I do feel it may discourage newer players in its current form who donā€™t perceive themselves to be doing ā€˜wellā€™ despite building a lot, capping thralls etc.

If they were to change the way score is calculated altogether, Iā€™d be fine with it, but Iā€™d still go off kills to determine the outcome in that case over a combined score, since thatā€™s one variable that canā€™t be cheesed.

1 Like
#5

Does anyone know how score works in Face Off? I canā€™t figure it out.

Also I thought you were referring to PvE score for like, 2 minutes reading this.

I donā€™t think a lot of a casual players even know how score works, judging by some of theā€¦letā€™s call them ā€œunfriendlyā€ messages Iā€™ve recieved. It doesnā€™t take deaths or wave clearing into account at all, which is a bit of a problem (though if it counted deaths my score would rarely be positive, so thereā€™s that).

Overall itā€™s not all that important, and to me itā€™s more of just an interesting stat then anything to really worry about.

1 Like
#6

Haha, I suppose putting it in the competitive category wasnā€™t enough, Iā€™ll edit it

sigh

It doesnā€™t directly, but that does increase others scores so comparatively it kinda does?

Seems to be the general consensus lol

#7

I was surprised about the results of the first blood poll.

Whatā€™s wrong with that being the final decision if the score is a tie? Is there a better way?

2 Likes
#8

shrugs
OH, I havenā€™t voted lol. One sec

1 Like
#9

Oh I just got here from the main page, I wasnā€™t paying attention to the category lol.

First Blood can happen because of a lucky shot. Score is a much better way of determining which team performed better, even if it is flawed.

2 Likes
#10

Iā€™m okay with First Blood too. I wouldnā€™t mind other tie breakers specific to each mode, however - First Sentry Kill for Incursion, First To Back Grinder for Meltdown. But that assumes the respective games actually saw those milestones reached (very likely in Meltdown, not guaranteed in Incursion).

1 Like
#11

I donā€™t think anyone would suggest the First Blood tiebreaker should replace score. But score is sometimes tied, so there needs to be a tiebreaker metric, and there are few measures in the game that canā€™t be drawn. First Blood is one of those.

1 Like
#12

Oh! I hadnā€™t even realized people would think I meant it would replace score. Thatsā€¦ a problem

#13

Yes it is. Personally I donā€™t like how score is focused on kills and assists. I think other factors should be applied as well, like deaths and minion and sentry kills. Iā€™d set it up like follows for Incursion:

  1. Kills count as 2 points per kill.
  2. Assists count as 1.
  3. Deaths detract 1 per instance.
  4. Minions count as either 1 or 1/4; elite bots and thralls count as 1.
  5. A sentry kill counts as 2.
  6. The first team to kill the enemy teamā€™s first sentry wins the tie-breaker.

I think the above would put more of a focus on the team aspect and less on team deathmatch.

3 Likes
#14

Well, personally I donā€™t mind that I get low score though I singlehandedly backdoor-killed enemy Sentry and major of their minions, because my k/d wasnā€™t big enough, but Iā€™ve notced that supports get too few points if they donā€™t break character, so I think some changes are needed.

1 Like
#15

So hereā€™s my opinion. Score should not matter at all in determining who wins or loses. I feel it should be entirely based on the objective score (minions fed, points collected, sentry health, masks deposited). If the scores are tied then the game ends in a draw. When I first played this game I actually assumed thatā€™s how it worked because my first game of incursion ever ended in a tie with both sentry health and average player score and we got a draw. (There were no tie breakers when the game first came out).

Now hereā€™s my reasoning. Iā€™ll use Incursion as an example because thatā€™s the game where a loss of average player score is most likely going to occur. As it stands right now, if both teams first sentry is destroyed but the the second ones remain untouched, whoever has the higher average player score wins. If team A had lower score than team B they lose, despite successfully preventing team B from destroying the second sentry. Team B failed to do more damage to the enemyā€™s sentry then team A did to theirs yet they still win. Both teams completed the objective of the game to the same extent but that is not taken into consideration as to who becomes the victor. If anything I would say that the team with lower score probably did a better job managing objectives and buildables because they had to deal with more teammates dying yet still prevented the second sentry from taking damage. How is it fair that they lose?

Lastly, what I said here makes score seem irrelevant but hereā€™s the way I have always viewed score, itā€™s how you determine who is taking up what roles in your team. If I see someone one my team has five or more kills and is yet to die, I can trust them to deal with enemy players while I get thralls, shards, or build stuff. On the flip side, if I see that someone on my team has zero kills and five deaths, but is leading in minion kills then I know that I need to focus less on minions and more on getting kills. If that teammate goes the entire game without a single kill but focused the waves and managed buildables then I will say that person contributed as much to the team as the person who got most kills.

I would like for the final score sheet to emphasize all the contributions that someone made to the team instead of glorifying who got most kills.

4 Likes
#16

Youā€™re good with playing a 30 minute game and having a tie at the end of all of it? No thanks.

1 Like
#17

If it goes on for 30 minutes and no one made progress towards at least damaging the sentry the I donā€™t think anyone deserves to win.

#18

Lol both are pretty and both did well to keep the other team in its place. It should be a huge reward, after all how many times have you win/lose by firstblood?

For some ppl a tie is worst than a lose

2 Likes
#19

i havent had any ties that i can recall (im sure theres probably a few) since the minion buff. id be fine with ditching score as a decider, though i can understand how it can support good team play (even if my score isnt good i can suport others to get better team score overall), and abuse can occur (killing players is still the deciding factor in the game, even though waveclear is more important, itā€™ll always be that way).

1 Like
#20

Excuse me for thinking objectives are more important than kills.