How you like new scoring?

I'm probably going to hate it in a few weeks since my Askr trio is crap -- only Alphonse is even 5*. I'm loving it right now though since I've got L!Lucina and it's Wind season.

Also, does anybody know if there's a cap for how many bonus points you can get? I thought I read something like that somewhere. Or is it just 12 points per match?

Good news is that it should be easier to make it to T20. I'm hoping to make it this season since I've been floating around in T19 for a while. I guess T20 is no longer the epitome of Arena, however.

To me the new system is trash. It kills the idea of "using a variety of heroes" forcing you to use a bonus unit and 3 cheerleaders if you want to maximize your scoring.

Honestly with the bst/skill system which encourages using stupid combinations like alondite +dc and limits your options if you want to use mages, cavalry or dancers and now with the bonus for each kill of your bonus hero I'm starting to think that the ones who develop the arena mode have never played FEH and I'm hoping they rework the whole arena mode soon.

I like it. My Alphonse kicks butt with double brazen atk/def. My high weighted Gwendolyn and Sheena can barely fight anyway. They don't have armor march or distant counter, and they run dual rallies so Alfonse with reposition and WoM carried my run.

I didn't like it from the moment I heard it, and I think my reasons stand. However, if we accept that arena scoring is sludgy and bogus and reflects very poorly the ability of a team to handle a wide variety of opponents effectively and elegantly, there is room to appreciate the changed system.

My original objections to the change you might say are aesthetic or philosophical in nature. It discourages healthy team-building in which members play to their strengths and do what other members of the team cannot. It forces support units into unnatural roles which they may be able to do in mediocre fashion if you invest everything into making them do that and discard their best and most important abilities into the mire. For example, I win lots of battles in which Marth never does a point of damage or perhaps even enters combat; when I substitute Zelgius to try to just barely get into T20, my team is noticeably worse. Marth isn't even a bad combat unit - imagine if your bonus unit is a ranged dancer. The scoring system before the bonus unit thing was criticized for discriminating against ranged units due to low BST and any skill with lower SP weight while encouraging the inanity of decisions like putting distant counter on prf Zelgius and Fjorm. The new system takes it a step further by discriminating against support units in general as well as units which are designed to receive the support rather than give it, because these units are forced to become support units. It turns everything upside-down and violates the very concept of respect based on admiration, rewarding instead the distortion of a character's nature for some arbitrary other's desires. It encourages the equivalent of tiger parenting which tries to make a child into a pile of achievements instead of letting the child be a person and blossom and grow into a greatness that truly characterizes and suits him or her. Some units really do have that kind of potential and are great that way; many units are not, and the new change stands in brazen, vile rebellion to this principle which I hold as fundamental to personhood and humanity, moreover, which has its roots in eternity and is unmovable. Mortals can attempt to design and even enforce a system which defies and defiles such a profound principle, but it is the system which will break itself against what is greater and ultimately inviolable.

All of that being said, if we accept that arena scoring is nonsense, then it becomes a much more challenging version of something like "defeat Corrin level 40+ with Sharena." It is a "stupider" version in a certain sense - nobody under normal circumstances would try to fight Zelgius using Anna, but it's not necessarily a bad thing to push the bounds of what is possible sometimes. I do find "sometimes" to be the key word, in which case having such a focal, endgame-central aspect of the game dominated by this exercise, which probably should not be central, is decidedly erroneous and problematic.