135 réponses à ce sujet

[Jernau11]

bclagge wrote...

You have no idea what it's fueled by.  You're making a giant assumption of the motives of a vast variety of people.  Odds are they're just doing their best and aren't that great.

I disagree based on careful observation of the match leaderboard and high risk activity, specifically on FBWGG. The tactic here is pretty widely know, sit behind the desks and shoot/grab. Over the course of 30 (a statistically large enough group) games I observed in 13 of them the bottom two scorers died the most frequently. About 1/5th of the time they died in front of the desks (note: I discounted missions stages). This behavior scores significantly with a 95% confidence interval. Statistically, it seems to play a major role.

Don't take my word for it though, try it and see for yourself.

Also, you mentioned thinking other statistics would be useful. I'm wondering on your thoughts about what those would be?

Modifié par Jernau11, 03 juin 2012 - 09:14 .

[Kick In The Door]

I do think the scoreboard should be reworked.

Also, if they DO get rid of it. They should keep the medals around and whoever has best and the most should be the top guy.

[I.leary]

I think scores are a good way to add a little competition while still maintaining a spirit of collaboration. It doesn't directly affect the game (you can't see it unless you open the menu), it doesn't punish the players XP points or credits wise, since everything is evently distributed at the end, and it brings a sense of satisfaction with every accomplishment.

That said, even though the system accounts for all types of activities (from kills and assists to revives and grabs) it is at its heart uneven in the way it is related to the existing classes. While heavy damage dealers (like infiltrators and biotic exploders) might find great joy topping the scoreboard and competing with their peers, support classes are often left behind, as useful--if not vital--as they are for the team.

Is it a bad thing? Personally, I don't think so. My favourite classes are the Infiltrator (very offensive) and the Enginner (mostly defensive), and I keep very distinctive expectations for my performance with each of them. When playing an Inf, I try my best to kill fast and get points (never in detriment of revivals and objectives, of course). When playing an Eng, I relax and focus on deploying my decoy or healing my squadmates, for I know I can't directly compete score-wise with a heavy damage dealer (although it has happened on occasion). Provided the players are aware of their role in the battlefield and don't try to be the best at everything, the match should procede properly. In short, it's all about common sense.

It would be nice if support classes had more opportunity to shine. For example, giving points for each revive (in addition to the badges), or each time an enemy attack/destroy a drone, or as a bonus for each sabotaged synthetic. However, I'm afraid that would be awfully complex to implement. Plus, it stumbles on the very fact that each class plays differently and thus their progress cannot necessarily be compared in an homogeneous fashion--i.e. actions that make the soldier great are not the same that make a great adept and so on. Which is, you could argue, the very conceptual flaw in the scoreboard system: it judges very different things using the same criteria.

I think I said too much, though. I'll let the discussion proceed.

[neon skink]

It would be nice to have access to lots more stats. Something like L4D where you can see stats for different weapons etc, thou of course these wouldn't be something that is available between rounds

[ShutYerPieHolez]

Rather than removing entirely, perhaps change the scoring calculation to more heavily reward team play (revives, objectives, etc) and actually penalize negatives (e.g. deaths subtract points for the individual player, but don't negatively affect shared xp/credits).

Haven't thought it all the way through, but rather than see no score, I'd rather see a relevant score...especially a score that drove leveling/rank instead of the current system where the rank is tied to willingness/desire to promote.

On the point, perhaps both xp and promoting could contribute to N7.

Thoughts?

[Apl_Juice]

They should just make it like Battlefield 3's scoring system; points for everything.

In BF3, I can top the scoreboards without killing a single person. Doing an objective in that game netted you a huge amount of points. In ME3, support classes get shafted really hard; we aren't rewarded for revives, healing, support skills like Tac Scan and Defensive bubble, etc. I think the scoring system needs to be more than 'did you kill that guy?' or 'did you at least shoot at that guy?'

[I.leary]

Jernau11 wrote...

bclagge wrote...

Jernau11 wrote...

bclagge wrote...

NO. It's fine the way it is. I want the game to track MORE stats, not less.

Are there any stats you could recommend be tracked that might deter people from engadging in more riskful behavior for sake of their score? Something that might balance this trend, which seems to be fueled by score?

You have no idea what it's fueled by.  You're making a giant assumption of the motives of a vast variety of people.  Odds are they're just doing their best and aren't that great.

I disagree based on careful observation of the match leaderboard and high risk activity. I've watched and noted high risk activity on FBWGG. The tactic here is pretty widely know, sit behind the desks and shoot/grab. Over the course of 30 (a statistically large enough group) games I observed in 13 of them the bottom two scorers died the most frequently. About 1/5th of the time they died in front of the desks (note: I discounted missions stages). This behavior scores significantly with a 95% confidence interval. Statistically, it seems to play a major role.

Don't take my word for it though, try it and see for yourself.

Are you sure they died because they wanted to up the score, though? It could be lack of skill/experience, lack of familiarity with their classe/weapon/build, lack of understanding of the tactic (very common in FBWGG PUGs), lack of communication, lack of spacial awareness, etc.  Seems to me there is plenty of things that can explain both bad scored and constant deaths.
I'm just hypothesizing, of course. I haven't seen your matches.

[Jernau11]

ShutYerPieHolez wrote...

Rather than removing entirely, perhaps change the scoring calculation to more heavily reward team play (revives, objectives, etc) and actually penalize negatives (e.g. deaths subtract points for the individual player, but don't negatively affect shared xp/credits).

Haven't thought it all the way through, but rather than see no score, I'd rather see a relevant score...especially a score that drove leveling/rank instead of the current system where the rank is tied to willingness/desire to promote.

On the point, perhaps both xp and promoting could contribute to N7.

Thoughts?

Seems like it has some potential. The idea that player death might incure a pentalty and revives might pass the points onto the reviver. It might act as something of a balance to the risk reward problem.

[Atheosis]

What they really need is a better scoring system. Right now it gives way too many points for killing blows versus assists. Even when you do very little overall to a target, if you are the one to land the fatal damage you often get a lot of points. Certain classes and weapons seem to benefit more from this, and it totally warps perceptions of in game performance. It should actually have a true percentage based points system that gives you points purely based on the percentage of a target's health you personally took off. It clearly doesn't work that way right now, seeing as I can turn a corner, see an Atlas with three or four bars of armor, and when I finish it off it gives me over a 1000 points.

Modifié par Atheosis, 03 juin 2012 - 09:21 .

[Jernau11]

I.leary wrote...

Are you sure they died because they wanted to up the score, though? It could be lack of skill/experience, lack of familiarity with their classe/weapon/build, lack of understanding of the tactic (very common in FBWGG PUGs), lack of communication, lack of spacial awareness, etc.  Seems to me there is plenty of things that can explain both bad scored and constant deaths.
I'm just hypothesizing, of course. I haven't seen your matches.

Is possible, also playtimes are a factor not accounted for most of these games took place between 5 and 10pm EST. I didn't figure in N7 scores, but I made these observations over the last week with the new matching system. I might have to do it again and complile in N7 scores and do an ANOVA instead of a T-Test. Give me another week and I'll have a better idea of how much of a factor player experience is.

Modifié par Jernau11, 03 juin 2012 - 09:23 .

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the person who creates a lobby should have the option to toggle between three options:
Display Score
Hide Score
Display Score only at end of match.

[Mozts]

I want them to change the visual aspect of the mid-match score screen, to reflect the team and not the player. Individual scores can stay in the end of the match, as it is.

Changing the mid-game game screen for a team based score makes players think "This team is good" instead of "I am the best". Maybe some individual medals in there to indicate the overall player activity.

Modifié par Mozts, 03 juin 2012 - 09:29 .

[Eclipse2320]

Jernau11 wrote...

One possible solution might be tracking the number of deaths a player has over their games and displaying it. An average death per matches score.

This is not a good way to track at all.  Deaths depend a lot on the character/class you're playing.  Infiltrators rarely die because most times they're in trouble, they just cloak.  Korgan Vangaurd has an insane amount of health/shields. Others like AA, have very little shields/health and die more often.  It doesn't indicate what skill you have.

[I.leary]

Jernau11 wrote...

Is possible, also playtimes are a factor not accounted for most of these games took place between 5 and 10pm EST. I didn't figure in N7 scores, but I made these observations over the last week with the new matching system. I might have to do it again and complile in N7 scores and do an ANOVA instead of a T-Test. Give me another week and I'll have a better idea of how much of a factor player experience is.

Sounds like you have a knack for statistics. If you even get to raise that much data, do post it here. It should be very interesting.

[Whimper]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

No, even though I'm a teamplayer I still like to push myself to beat my own scores.

I'm the same way.  My score (and my medals) are a way for me to have an idea of how well I'm playing.  Some things aren't quantifiable, like times you've stepped out to draw fire from a weaker squadmate.  But other things are worth tracking, and kills/assists fit the bill.

I'm stronger now than I was when I started, and my scores and medals show that, not my N7 rating.

[Mal3fact0r]

Apl_J wrote...

They should just make it like Battlefield 3's scoring system; points for everything.

In BF3, I can top the scoreboards without killing a single person. Doing an objective in that game netted you a huge amount of points. In ME3, support classes get shafted really hard; we aren't rewarded for revives, healing, support skills like Tac Scan and Defensive bubble, etc. I think the scoring system needs to be more than 'did you kill that guy?' or 'did you at least shoot at that guy?'

This is probably the best solution, and would likely reduce the amount of nerf crying we see on these boards. The main issue is that killing rewards the most, leaving those who prefer a support role feeling less accomplished when they look at the score board, even though they contributed greatly to the team's success.

[sareth_65536]

 However, I'm afraid that would be awfully complex to implement.

Not so complex. You already get points for staying in the hack zone, but veeery little (log says: 3 players are now hacking: +xxx). So it's easy to get points for delivery, revives, disabling device.
Other things like healing will be more complex, yes

[elessarz]

This game really needs some sort of mechanic to quantify suppression and tanking. But how do you turn into the points the fact that you distracted the enemy and kept him away from the hacking zone so that your allies had an easy time defending?

[Kuato Livezz]

Jernau11 wrote...

I've been watching how the dynamics of gold matchs have changed over time and I've noticed people seem to have a propensity to expose themselves to more and more risk in order to get a higher score. This seems especially true for the person in the bottom rank. To this extent I was hoping some community discussion could shed some light on weither or not having match scores has increased or decreased their game experience and how folks feel not having them might impact on their games.

Yes, I Agree 100%.  Its a PvM game, its not difficult to get to lvl 20, the end result is the same creds for everyone.   Its about completing the mission and working together as a team.  All this moaning about kill stealing and the quality of kills etc is getting old.  I am sure there are players out there who look at their 2nd place finish and mentally say:

"Well I used a skill gun, if I used a noob cannon like you, I would have doubled my score."

I don't care what my squadmates equip themselves with.  I'm not an elitist and tell the asari adept that they should use a carnifex rather than using a GPS and BW.

People play the game to enjoy themselves.  If you're underwear is gettting knotted up because you're not getting props, go play counter-strike.

[Lee80]

The score system serves no real purpose. Keep the medals, ditch the board. I doubt it would change all the woes, cause the bad players will still want to rush into the mobs thinking they can WIN DA GAME.

[Shadow Shep]

I don't really see the point of them removing it. I'm not great and I don't always come in first, I also don't really care if I do because there are different roles to be played in a team. Also, if it weren't for the scoreboard I probably never would have tried half as many new and different builds. I see someone owning everything with some class and it encourages me to want to check it out. I just wish they had more frequently occurring medals. Headshots seems bugged or I don't know if it's possible to get more than 20? It would be nice if they showed on a personal screen afterwards more exact numbers.

[Kuato Livezz]

Mal3fact0r wrote...

Apl_J wrote...

They should just make it like Battlefield 3's scoring system; points for everything.

In BF3, I can top the scoreboards without killing a single person. Doing an objective in that game netted you a huge amount of points. In ME3, support classes get shafted really hard; we aren't rewarded for revives, healing, support skills like Tac Scan and Defensive bubble, etc. I think the scoring system needs to be more than 'did you kill that guy?' or 'did you at least shoot at that guy?'

This is probably the best solution, and would likely reduce the amount of nerf crying we see on these boards. The main issue is that killing rewards the most, leaving those who prefer a support role feeling less accomplished when they look at the score board, even though they contributed greatly to the team's success.

So true.  I've been playing a lot of QMI with tac scan speced for area scan.  During the match, a player came over the mic and said keep up the area scan, commented on how it was good.  I did as well as squeeze in a few kills.  No deaths at the end of the match, team took advantage of tac scan, and ended up in last place with 32k in points.  No problem.  The we get back to the lobby.  "Hey man, your score sucks, can you change char or leave?"  Uhh.....WTF. 

[D Amiri]

Hiding the scoreboard would actually hurt people who play "unpopular" classes. If I can't point to the scoreboard then my Drellguard can't even prove itself. People will just use the fact that they remember me dying 2 or 3 times during a match to prove I was useless and they carried me when in fact I had the top score.

[Jernau11]

PossibleCabbage wrote...

I think the person who creates a lobby should have the option to toggle between three options:
Display Score
Hide Score
Display Score only at end of match.

This is a pretty facinating option.