216 réponses à ce sujet

[Pho Kadat]

dgumb wrote...

Just to make my previous point in a more pithy manner:

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

Just for argument's sake, what about QE vs. GI? Both are Gold, should they me more evenly aligned?

[Killahead]

dgumb wrote...

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

Modifié par Killahead, 28 mai 2012 - 09:20 .

[FlamboyantRoy]

DHKany wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

DHKany wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

Distilled Poison wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

debate properly

I wasn't aware this was a debate. And this is coming from the guy whose opinion of "team work" is "Stop stealing my kills, those are my points."

Again dude, Call of Duty is clearly the game for you.

The only reason you are even 'irked' by my comment is because you know that I'm correct. It's the elephant in the room. Everyone is guilty of it, whether they want to admit it or not. When other people are killing an enemy and they don't need help I DON'T JUMP IN. It's not a difficult concept. Surely if a "Call of Duty Dude" can get it, so can you. 

It's proper etiquette. In ANY game mode. That's the problem with these people, they have no manners or a basic sense of decency. 

Btw, what you do have against Call of Duty? Too competitive for you?

*facepalm. 

MW=M16A4/ frag fest
MW2= noobutbe fest
Black Ops= Famas fest 
MW3= Type95 fest
All Cod= 0 recoil guns and at least 1 overpowered weapon that everybody uses.

real competitive eh?

and so what if they steal your kill? I think you're a bit butthurt that you aren't saturating the killfeeds on Gold like you do on Bronze.

Their excessively large player base would disagree with you.  AT least CoD is overtly competitive, as soon as a player boots up the game they know the drill. In ME3 multiplayer you're told that teamwork rules all.. Yet we have threads where people post screenshots of them 'ownin' it up and being #1. We have eltists who will kick a low N7guy from silver because god forbid they might have to try. And last but not least there's the overly aggressive players who will rocket a guardian in order to climb the point chart. 

Bottomline, the point chart encourages selfish play. Some players are able to look past it and work together cohesively, others are willing to murder their mothers to "win" the point chart game. 

Don't fool yourself, this multiplayer isn't so different in terms of competition in regards to good ole CoD. 

True true. I think they should just keep the kill feed and just get rid of the scoreboard, cause like you said , there are a lot of people willing to do anythin to get the 200 extra points to climb up to the top. As for the N7 thing its a touchy subject. I play with the ppl for a round and then decide whether to boot them or not. But the threads where ppl post pictures of them becoming #1 is usually to make a point such as how they had to carry the team throughout gold because of the weekend operations. 
I've met less annoying 12 year olds, but have met adult a-holes who think they're awesome. Don't know which ones worse. 
As for COD, its still a broken game. Noobtubes in MW2 made the COD series into a complete joke, and the dominance of the FAMAS and type 95 users doesn't put me in a competitive mood. How can you be competitive when you're getting spawn trapped by overpowered kill streaks and guns?

I think that's a sound solution. How about if they gave players the option to vote on whether to keep the point system for a game or not? Similar to skirmishes in other mmos. 

And Yeah, I've heard a lot of bad things about CoD in general. I'm honestly not sure how they keep that game afloat. At this point I wish it would go away. Every single year there's 2 or 3 CoD games that are forced on you through relentless advertisements and don't even get me started on their dlc. 

Either way I view ME3's multiplayer as a superior product despite it's flaws(which every game has, except for Mario Kart of course). 

[Bleachrude]

I'm still wondering where this idea that average players on gold can score over 110k on gold with a GI.

Hell, I've played a turian sentinel, with a human adept and a QE and the infiltrator was only a couple k ahead of the 2nd place human adept...

[Kronner]

Killahead wrote...
Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

If Katana was better than the Graal (or just as good), why should I bother buying Spectre packs hoping for R/UR weapon? There has got to be some progression.

Modifié par Kronner, 28 mai 2012 - 09:29 .

[Pho Kadat]

Kronner wrote...

Killahead wrote...
Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

If Katana was better than the Graal (or just as good), why should I bother buying Spectre packs hoping for R/UR weapon? There has got to be some progression.

Exactly. Plus, the Katana's purpose is to get you through Bronze so you can earn credits for better stuff so you can "graduate" to higher difficulties. By the time you're ready for Gold, most of your common or even uncommon items should be little more than memories. I think that is a perfectly acceptable principle given the degree of difficulty randomness in earning rare and ultra-rare items.

Modifié par Pho Kadat, 28 mai 2012 - 09:35 .

[Killahead]

Kronner wrote...

Killahead wrote...
Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

If Katana was better than the Wraith, why should I bother buying PS packs hoping for UR weapon? There has got to be some progression.

I didn't say better. I said "serve a purpose". I don't think any gun should be left completely redundant. I like having options, and although some alternatives will inevitably be better than others, I would at least like for every gun to be viable for a certain setup/ class. I want no such thing as complete balance, that would contradict the idea of variety, but there are IMO guns and classes at each end of the spectrum now, which could use some adjustment. The bad stuff is redundant/ doesn't offer anything, whilst the super stuff tends to be the only thing you see in gold.


I can however understand why the common weapons would be regarded as "the stuff that will do until you get something better".

Modifié par Killahead, 28 mai 2012 - 09:37 .

[dgumb]

Pho Kadat wrote...

dgumb wrote...

Just to make my previous point in a more pithy manner:

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

Just for argument's sake, what about QE vs. GI? Both are Gold, should they me more evenly aligned?

Well, yes hypothetically. But my post wasn't so much a suggestion as a thought experiment. Or Devil's Advocacy.

Killahead wrote...
Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

 

I agree for the most part, but to continue my Devil's Advocacy, wouldn't that then be the katana's niche? Good for bronze, or to a lesser extent on silver, but losing out to more rare (i.e. powerful) on gold? Should the optimal balance for weapons be to make them all gold viable? What then is the point of the tiered system? My line of reasoning extends to characters as well, but even I'm not sure I would take it to its logical conclusion: should only certain classes be gold viable? Or should some classes be relagated to lower difficulties, or gold viable only in the hands of the most skilled players? I'm not sure I'd go that far.

As the classes are now, I think they're pretty well balanced in general. There are some that are better than others, but this is unavoidable. Min/maxers will always find a build that is optimal either in direct effect, or in utility. The only way around this is to make all classes essentially the same, with only cosmetic differences.

Modifié par dgumb, 28 mai 2012 - 09:45 .

[Killahead]

dgumb wrote...

Pho Kadat wrote...

dgumb wrote...

Just to make my previous point in a more pithy manner:

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

Just for argument's sake, what about QE vs. GI? Both are Gold, should they me more evenly aligned?

Well, yes hypothetically. But my post wasn't so much a suggestion as a thought experiment. Or Devil's Advocacy.

Killahead wrote...
Everything should have its place and niche in the game, IMO. If not, then we might as well reduce the number of options given to us. Even the Katana should serve a purpose, right now it unfortunately only does in bronze and silver, where it is a good shotgun for caster classes that can't afford to carry the weight of a claymore. I do not agree that rare/gold items should principally be better than uncommons/rares, just like I don't think ultra-rares should outperform rares at everything. What's the point of having 50 weapons and 30 classes if everyone eventually gets the good stuff and starts using this exclusively, like most people will do because they choose the path of least resistance? This is why I support buffing certain underwhelming weapons in the game, but also hope for a nerf of certain other "stuff". Overall the balance is pretty good, but there's a couple of things that stick out in each end of the spectrum.

 

I agree for the most part, but to continue my Devil's Advocacy, wouldn't that then be the katana's niche? Good for bronze, or to a lesser extent on silver, but losing out to more rare (i.e. powerful) on gold? Should the optimal balance for weapons be to make them all gold viable? What then is the point of the tiered system? My line of reasoning extends to characters as well, but even I'm not sure I would take it to it's logical conclusion: should only certain classes be gold viable? Or should some classes be relagated to lower difficulties, save for only the most skilled players?

As the classes are now, I think they're pretty well balanced in general. There are some that are better than others, but this is unavoidable. Min/maxers will always find a build that is optimal either in direct effect, or in utility. The only way around this is to make all classes essentially the same, with only cosmetic differences.

Always nice to see people doing the devil's advocacy as long as they're as civilized about it as you are, it makes for good discussions (although this particular one is of a relatively harmless nature, when I'm taking this position, the devil's advocate, in discussions on politics and ethics it sometimes doesn't matter how polite I am). And yes, I think I can agree that the niche of the common weapons can be to do their job in bronze and silver. I'll accept that. Maybe its personal for me, I loved the Katana in the demo, but ever since getting the full game and playing gold only, I really miss using it. I still do, sometimes, but it doesn't exactly make things easy for me. But no, I would never want to apply this way of thinking to classes. Luckily they are all perfectly fine on gold, IMO. I don't have a problem with some of them being better than others, but I do think some of them are so good that they for me become pretty boring to use. That reduces the number of choices for me, but I can't really force anyone to agree that they should be nerfed. I've tried to make arguments, made a couple of threads, but I consider myself done. Let them have their fun.

Modifié par Killahead, 28 mai 2012 - 10:02 .

[Pho Kadat]

dgumb wrote...

Pho Kadat wrote...

dgumb wrote...

Just to make my previous point in a more pithy manner:

Everyone agrees that it makes sense for the claymore (rare) to be better than the katana (common), but no one comes to the same conclusion with the human infiltrator (common) and the geth infiltrator (rare), for example.

Just for argument's sake, what about QE vs. GI? Both are Gold, should they me more evenly aligned?

Well, yes hypothetically. But my post wasn't so much a suggestion as a thought experiment. Or Devil's Advocacy.

Basically, so was my question. Personally, I have no qualms with a rare character being better than a common or uncommon character. They are, after all, more difficult to obtain and the player should feel rewarding for unlocking them. However, there still appears to be a large margin of effectiveness between characters within the same rarity type. This perception is of course based on scoring, the driving force behind player behavior (see my earlier post). A well structured argument for further balancing could be centered around this aspect.

[Fortack]

astheoceansblue wrote...

This is the problem. The Gi shouldn't have been given so much power in the first place. P.mine was a bad idea, he should have had a much lesser power like a grenade. P.Mine is too much on top of TC, HM, and the Geth's passives. The only way to really fix it would be to remove P.Mine and offer something else, imo, otherwise you get into too much of a juggling act between all the various damage bonuses offered by the aforementioned powers.

I'd like to read some ideas on how to buff the QE that would be reasonable, too.

I don't feel the need to nerf anything, but I will throw in 2 odd things regarding the Infiltrator class:

1. The weight system does not apply to them b/c Cloak's CD is based on how long you're cloaked. This means that an Infiltrator can carry the Claymore and the BW and still be invisible for most part of the game. Weight matters for everyone, it should matter for Infiltrators too. This would also improve customization options b/c using light weapons will become interesting as well.

2. I don't understand the point of the free casting evo in the Cloak tree b/c Infiltrators can always use a power for free. All the other classes have to chose, so should Infiltrators. The choice between a huge weapon damage boost and casting a free power on rank 6 seems a far deal imo.

Just my two cents

[dgumb]

Killahead wrote...
Always nice to see people doing the devil's advocacy as long as their as civilized about it as you are, it makes for good discussions (although this particular one is of a relatively harmless nature, when I'm taking this position, the devil's advocate, in discussions on politics and ethics it sometimes doesn't matter how polite I am). And yes, I think I can agree that the niche of the common weapons can be to do their job in bronze and silver. I'll accept that. Maybe its personal for me, I loved the Katana in the demo, but ever since getting the full game and playing gold only, I really miss using it. I still do, sometimes, but it doesn't exactly make things easy for me. But no, I would never want to apply this way of thinking to classes. Luckily they are all perfectly fine on gold, IMO. I don't have a problem with some of them being better than others, but I do think some of them are so good that they for me become pretty boring to use. That reduces the number of choices for me, but I can't really force anyone to agree that they should be nerfed. I've tried to make arguments, made a couple of threads, but I consider myself done. Let them have their fun.

I suppose we'll agree to disagree somewhat then. Just for context this is where I'm coming from:

• I play almost exclusively on gold.
• I play pretty much every class, but the two geth are my favorites (for mostly aesthetic reasons, if they were UP they'd still be my favorites).
• I've never done a gold lobby with three randoms, as I belong to the player's group in my sig. The most randoms I've ever had in a gold lobby was one, when two friends and I don't have a fourth man (or woman) we'll pug in the fourth.

Given my circumstance, the overpoweredness of the GI is something I've yet to encounter. I've never seen anyone score >200k on gold, GI or not. And some of the guys I play with are very, very good. I'm pretty good myself (if I do say so) but not "elite" on the level that some on these boards are, but I have no problems on gold, even with my 0 fitness builds, and the highest I've ever scored on gold was ~165k, but I was the only level 20 character in the group (the rest were between 13-18).

Some of the guys I play with have no trouble outscoring my claymore wielding-reload cancelling-overpowered GI on the human soldier. I accept the fact that I might suck at GI, but even my buddies who can outscore my GI on their HS don't get >200k on their GI.

So, if the argument is that the GI is unbalanced because an experienced player can outscore three randoms in a gold lobby, who may or may not be good enough for gold in the first place, that isn't a very good argument IMO.

Also, to be clear, I know that isn't specifically the point of your post, just a reaction to a general perception I've seen on the boards.

[dgumb]

Pho Kadat wrote...

Basically, so was my question. Personally, I have no qualms with a rare character being better than a common or uncommon character. They are, after all, more difficult to obtain and the player should feel rewarding for unlocking them. However, there still appears to be a large margin of effectiveness between characters within the same rarity type. This perception is of course based on scoring, the driving force behind player behavior (see my earlier post). A well structured argument for further balancing could be centered around this aspect.

I agree with all you've said, no arguments.

[Killahead]

dgumb wrote...

So, if the argument is that the GI is unbalanced because an experienced player can outscore three randoms in a gold lobby, who may or may not be good enough for gold in the first place, that isn't a very good argument IMO.

Also, to be clear, I know that isn't specifically the point of your post, just a reaction to a general perception I've seen on the boards.

This is true. My arguments on the infiltrator class (yes, always the usual suspect) have been not so much about its "overpoweredness", as they've been focusing on making the class more interesting. Again, for me. I've made it very clear that they are my personal opinions, and what I've been saying is that having a viable alternative to being a pure damage dealer would do the class good. 

For me the tactical cloak tree is a no-brainer: Damage over duration, recharge speed over melee damage (unless we're talking GI, I guess) and sniper rifle damage over bonus power, the latter being completely useless due to actually giving you longer a recharge time after breaking from cloak. If you couldn't use a power from cloak without choosing this, then you suddenly would have a choice that mattered. If you were severely gimping your duration if going for damage, then you would have a choice that mattered. Add to this the fact that weapon weight means nothing if you know how to play the infiltrator, and you have an uninteresting class. I like to limit myself, that's what makes building the other classes interesting, you sacrifice something to gain something else. With the infiltrator I feel like I can have it all.

Probably not the time and place, but I am way to passionate about this game, I had to let it out, haha.

[astheoceansblue]

  

dgumb wrote...

Oh look, another astheoceansblue thread that turns into a (very thinly) veiled nerf GI thread offering anecdote and opinion as evidence. How unusual.

 

I think you have me confused with someone else. I've made posts regarding my opinions on the GI being OP, sure, but I never veil it with anything when I do... and I've never made a thread regarding ths subject before.

Hey ho...

Bleachrude wrote...

I'm still wondering where this idea that average players on gold can score over 110k on gold with a GI.

Hell, I've played a turian sentinel, with a human adept and a QE and the infiltrator was only a couple k ahead of the 2nd place human adept...

Just to clear this up: It wasn't "the average Gi player" it was "an average Gold player can take the Gi and...". I'm not saying it happens in every other game, but there have been a few threads now where players have put up 200k scores with the Gi and stated their own amazment with comments along the lines of "I usually don't come first, but look what I can do with the Gi!". When this is the only class sthis can be done with, it clearly shows an imbalance in place. And this isn't the only evidence...

And FYI @ the thread in general, I don't consider the Gi to be game breaking imba, it just causes some awkward pacing issues at times which can disrupt the flow of a game. Enough that it's an issue that should be addressed, imo. There are many things that need balancing: Weapons, powers, classes in general. The Gi is simply the best example of too much utility and power in one class, which is why it's such an easy reference. 

dgumb wrote...

So, if the argument is that the GI is unbalanced because an experienced player can outscore three randoms in a gold lobby, who may or may not be good enough for gold in the first place, that isn't a very good argument IMO.

That's not the only argument. The argument is that it happens with rooms of experienced players, too. 

My friends I are much like you and yours it seems. We play gold exclusively, we rarely go full random, we clear gold in 20 minutes or so with relaxed runs, we do it consistantly and using whatever classes we fancy (everything from QE to Gi). We're good players, we're not the best but we're fully capable. 

Every now and then one of us will go ahead and outscore the others by a little bit, but the gaps between each player are generally pretty low. The only time we ever see a huge difference is when somone runs a Gi, and this does happen often enough to notice, and it's the only class it happens with.

Salarian infiltrators and Adepts have been mentioned as being similar to the Gi in terms of output by some, but we've never seen the same margins between the underdog classes and these guys as we have with the Gi.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 28 mai 2012 - 11:11 .

[dgumb]

astheoceansblue wrote...

I think you have me confused with someone else. I've made posts regarding my opinions on the GI being OP, sure, but I never veil it with anything when I do... and I've never made a thread regarding ths subject before.

This is quite possible, and if so, apologies. I know I've seen you posting in threads on nerfing GI, on the "pro" side, but I may very well have mistaken you for someone more... outspoken on the matter.

astheoceansblue wrote... 

That's not the only argument. The argument is that it happens with rooms of experienced players, too. 

My friends I are much like you and yours it seems. We play gold exclusively, we rarely go full random, we clear gold in 20 minutes or so with relaxed runs, we do it consistantly and using whatever classes we fancy (everything from QE to Gi). We're good players, we're not the best but we're fully capable. 

Every now and then one of us will go ahead and outscore the others by a little bit, but the gaps between each player are generally pretty low. The only time we ever see a huge difference is when somone runs a Gi, and this does happen often enough to notice, and it's the only class it happens with.

Salarian infiltrators and Adepts have been mentioned as being similar to the Gi in terms of output by some, but we've never seen the same margins between the underdog classes and these guys as we have with the Gi.

Well our mileage, it seems, varies. I've seen outlier high scores sure, but I've never seen someone get >200k+ in a gold match.

I've also seen outliers with SI, and HSo, as well. My best score ever was on the GE. I'm not going to doubt your word on what you've seen, but my experience has been different. I have a friend that can outscore the rest of the team by a good margin with his GI, but he can also do the same thing with his claymore HS. He's just a very good player. Which I think is the point of most of the people who defend the GI.

Does it have more utility than most other classes? Yes, but again, true balance (i.e. equivalence) is an unreachable goal in any situation where so many variables are present. One class is always going to be the "best dps" class, and once people figure out the best way to min/max that class the discrepancy will only seem larger. It's the GI now, it was the SI before the GI, next it will be the male quarian infil (example, no clue if they'll even be good).

I think the biggest problem I have, is that I percieve people to be using hyperbole and exagerration to make their point about exactly how good the GI is. I'm not denying it's a great class, top-tier without question. But it isn't game-breakingly so, in my opinion. Perhaps that's where we differ.

[DHKany]

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

DHKany wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

DHKany wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

Distilled Poison wrote...

FlamboyantRoy wrote...

debate properly

I wasn't aware this was a debate. And this is coming from the guy whose opinion of "team work" is "Stop stealing my kills, those are my points."

Again dude, Call of Duty is clearly the game for you.

The only reason you are even 'irked' by my comment is because you know that I'm correct. It's the elephant in the room. Everyone is guilty of it, whether they want to admit it or not. When other people are killing an enemy and they don't need help I DON'T JUMP IN. It's not a difficult concept. Surely if a "Call of Duty Dude" can get it, so can you. 

It's proper etiquette. In ANY game mode. That's the problem with these people, they have no manners or a basic sense of decency. 

Btw, what you do have against Call of Duty? Too competitive for you?

*facepalm. 

MW=M16A4/ frag fest
MW2= noobutbe fest
Black Ops= Famas fest 
MW3= Type95 fest
All Cod= 0 recoil guns and at least 1 overpowered weapon that everybody uses.

real competitive eh?

and so what if they steal your kill? I think you're a bit butthurt that you aren't saturating the killfeeds on Gold like you do on Bronze.

Their excessively large player base would disagree with you.  AT least CoD is overtly competitive, as soon as a player boots up the game they know the drill. In ME3 multiplayer you're told that teamwork rules all.. Yet we have threads where people post screenshots of them 'ownin' it up and being #1. We have eltists who will kick a low N7guy from silver because god forbid they might have to try. And last but not least there's the overly aggressive players who will rocket a guardian in order to climb the point chart. 

Bottomline, the point chart encourages selfish play. Some players are able to look past it and work together cohesively, others are willing to murder their mothers to "win" the point chart game. 

Don't fool yourself, this multiplayer isn't so different in terms of competition in regards to good ole CoD. 

True true. I think they should just keep the kill feed and just get rid of the scoreboard, cause like you said , there are a lot of people willing to do anythin to get the 200 extra points to climb up to the top. As for the N7 thing its a touchy subject. I play with the ppl for a round and then decide whether to boot them or not. But the threads where ppl post pictures of them becoming #1 is usually to make a point such as how they had to carry the team throughout gold because of the weekend operations. 
I've met less annoying 12 year olds, but have met adult a-holes who think they're awesome. Don't know which ones worse. 
As for COD, its still a broken game. Noobtubes in MW2 made the COD series into a complete joke, and the dominance of the FAMAS and type 95 users doesn't put me in a competitive mood. How can you be competitive when you're getting spawn trapped by overpowered kill streaks and guns?

I think that's a sound solution. How about if they gave players the option to vote on whether to keep the point system for a game or not? Similar to skirmishes in other mmos. 

And Yeah, I've heard a lot of bad things about CoD in general. I'm honestly not sure how they keep that game afloat. At this point I wish it would go away. Every single year there's 2 or 3 CoD games that are forced on you through relentless advertisements and don't even get me started on their dlc. 

Either way I view ME3's multiplayer as a superior product despite it's flaws(which every game has, except for Mario Kart of course). 

Yeah ME3's multiplayer is pretty fun (i don't mind the RNG cause, i still have gold weapons to max out) and its bugs are being fixed  so it shows that bioware does listen to the community. And Mario Kart..... I would play that all day every day.