[quote=“MidnightButterSweats;159244”]Think of it more in terms of this:
Nothing (0) <–> Plant (.5) --> Destroy (1)
You start with nothing and get 1 point for a destroy. Planting is a half step closer to destroy. You progress based on your current status. If there’s nothing, that counts for no points. If you’re planted, well that’s a half point. And if you’ve destroyed it, that’s 1 point. If you go from planted and they defuse, you’re back to nothing and have no points since Nothing counts for no points. You aren’t accumulating points based on the number of times you’ve done one of these stages of completion, you’re getting a point for each status you have active at the end of the timer. Each destroyed objective will be 1 point, and since this can’t be reversed, will stay that way. Each plant will be a half point, and each non-plant is nothing.
If you plant 2 billion times and end the round with no active plants and no destroys, you have no points. If they plant once and end the round with 1 active plant and no destroys, they get a half point for ending the round with a plant.
If you view DB in terms of a sport this does make sense to a degree, though I do wonder that if one team is constantly applying pressure through a whole round, planting every other minute, whereas one team just gets lucky and happens to have an active C4 at the end of the round, which team truely is better? Would it still be the defenders since they prevented all those plants from taking place, or could it have been through the actions of one really ace player and a team of potatoes? It would be interesting if the game provided some stats at the end of the round, like the number of attempts on an objective, number of team wipes etc… While the game can have a black and white win/loss goal, as @sgtCrookyGrin suggests the metrics of which team did better is actually pretty subjective.