Battle High

[Mawlzy]

People are saying that it "rewards good play" but that's redundant: good play is naturally rewarded because it lets you achieve victory. It doesn't need an extra reward on top of that.

Maybe a better way of saying it is that it rewards people (successfully) engaging in combat. Which is one reason I like the idea that the LB cooldown timer should only tick if you're either targeting or being targeted.

[AnnRam]

People are saying that it "rewards good play" but that's redundant: good play is naturally rewarded because it lets you achieve victory. It doesn't need an extra reward on top of that.

Let reward people who queue for frontlines as a DPS and end up with 5k damage 0-2 with the excuse of " Im here for the exp bro"

BH is a double edge sword, if you do good then rest of the alliances start focusing you and if you die then your alliance loses more points than usual.

Having Max BH doesn't even mean you're a good player, most of times people get lucky kills or KS.

[Themarvin]

Remove the gains in DPS about it and the likes and instead make it a reward for you actually is doing well and dying very little instead.

Battlehigh currently now more seem like an unfair advantage over the opponent who has none and also show if you win over one with max, that you may possible actually struggle if it was equal ground.

[Zjar]

It should be gotten rid of. It's way too one-sided. Obnoxious as h3ll that if you don't have any battle high like, a minute into a FL that's it GG you're going to KEEP DYING OVER AND OVER to people with battle high and never get any. Absolutely infuriating.

[TofuLove]

I like Battle High.
I like that it gives a game a different dimension. Not only you need to see the score, but also you need to remember which team is the strongest, and act accordingly. The interplay between those is what sets the winning team apart and makes frontlines fun. If you can get good battlehigh and good score - the 2nd and 3rd should make your life a living hell. Of course as some mention 1st would opportunity to retreat and strike back, but 3rd and 2nd also have that opportunity to counter.

Additionally if the strongest team is actually in 3rd and spent the whole game farming BH, you also need to be mindful that they can turn the game around by strength. This is the fun bit!

I like that it serves as a kind of a memory of your performance within a game - if you and your team are doing well - you get rewarded within the game. It encourages PVP and without battlehigh you could just all sit still and wait for nodes - and it would basically be the same. Without BH - there is no frontlines, IMO.

What would I change in BH?

Hm, I think BH system is fine overall, but it's just a multiplier on the effects that were broken to begin with.
What isn't fine is the amount of burst damage and crowd control we have in the game now, which seems to be what a lot of commenters complain about. In burst focussed AOE gameplay your health can go from 100% to 0% within a split second, and I guess that's not fun for a lot of people, as with good BH that can happen with less effort. The skill effects aren't balanced for frontline - they are balanced for a mode with way less players - CC. This is the problem I hope they will address in 7.2 (cope?)

You can also say it's a skill issue, and be somewhat right, because you can definitely watch for the burst and try to counter burst it.

[Mawlzy]

I like Battle High...

Agree with your points. I'd add that BH is an antidote to unfavorable spawns, which also appear to upset many people.

I do like the suggestion made in other threads that the defensive advantage/buff of BH is not needed. And perhaps that KO'ing someone with BH should reward more points.

[TofuLove]

I do like the suggestion made in other threads that the defensive advantage/buff of BH is not needed. And perhaps that KO'ing someone with BH should reward more points.

Problem with nerfing the defensive buff and reducing health recovery bonus, is that the other teams might have BH also. I think in this thread people go to extremes and compare BH5 and BH0 engagement. What if it's BH5 and BH5 engagement. If this is the situation it's basically who is the first person to have pressed the button because the other team just won't be able to handle that much damage or recover from it.

[edit]
And i have no opinion on BH5 kills rewarding additional points. Additional points usually mean the games get sped up. It seems unnecessary to me. BH5 enemies should already be on priority list in order to win the encounter. I just don't know...

[edit 2]
If you do give additional point for killing enemies with BH, it should be proportional. Let's say [BH0] = 10 points; [BH1] = 11 points; [BH2] = 12 points;...and so on with [BH5] = 15 points. Because frankly BH4 isn't hugely different from BH5 from perspective of BH0 enemy.

You can see how this can snowball into super fast games.

[Mawlzy]

Problem with nerfing the defensive buff and reducing health recovery bonus, is that the other teams might have BH also. I think in this thread people go to extremes and compare BH5 and BH0 engagement. What if it's BH5 and BH5 engagement. If this is the situation it's basically who is the first person to have pressed the button because the other team just won't be able to handle that much damage or recover from it.

[edit]
And i have no opinion on BH5 kills rewarding additional points. Additional points usually mean the games get sped up. It seems unnecessary to me. BH5 enemies should already be on priority list in order to win the encounter. I just don't know...

[edit 2]
If you do give additional point for killing enemies with BH, it should be proportional. Let's say [BH0] = 10 points; [BH1] = 11 points; [BH2] = 12 points;...and so on with [BH5] = 15 points. Because frankly BH4 isn't hugely different from BH5 from perspective of BH0 enemy.

You can see how this can snowball into super fast games.

Yes, that sort of scaling of bonus points would make sense. If it proves to produce games that are deemed too short, you just rescale the points required to win.

I'd also suggest the people who react most negatively to BH are doing so for the wrong reason. Yes, if you run into a coordinated premade all sitting at BH5, and your positioning is poor, you're going to die very quickly, but you were going to die anyway under those conditions even if the premade had BH0.

BH5 players should indeed be prime targets. In the visual mess of FL, it would help if they were more easily identified. Make their names/job title flash or something.

But all of these ideas require that people actually want to be there and are trying to win.

[TofuLove]

Yes, that sort of scaling of bonus points would make sense. If it proves to produce games that are deemed too short, you just rescale the points required to win.

BH5 players should indeed be prime targets. In the visual mess of FL, it would help if they were more easily identified. Make their names/job title flash or something.

But all of these ideas require that people actually want to be there and are trying to win.

I am still not sure about scaling points scored via kills with BH. I am not a mathematician, or whatever, but just thinking about battlehigh distribution. I imagine in many cases it takes more people to kill a bhv enemy, it means more people get assists from it which in turn helps the enemy teams.

The other thing that it emphasises is importance of kills - which encourages playing high/easy kill jobs like ninja. Additionally it can make gameplay too defensive once you progress with BH.
I just don't know if it would skew the game too much.

[UkcsAlias]

BH rewards you for doing good and playing without dying.

And punishes you when you have bad teammates.

If you want to reward skill, you dont want a system that can feed on the weak, which is exactly what it does now.