199 réponses à ce sujet

[Yigorse]

 A popular response to the various threads about elitism, carrying, the Krysae and other topics related to how much you/your class/your weapon etc. pwns is that "score doesn't matter".

It does.

Your score at the end of the game is directly related to how much damage you did compared to the rest of your team.

Admittedly, it is skewed slightly by the fact that killing blows seem to grant bonus score, and that the "big" enemies don't give score proportional to the amount of time and effort required to kill them.

It's a question of scale really.  If your top scorer gets 150k+ and the next player has only 50k or so, not to mention those below, you can't explain that away by saying "I was playing a support role" or "I spent all my time getting the objectives.

Of the 11 waves in the game only 3 have ulterior objectives.  For the other 8, the sole objective of the game is to kill stuff.  Even during the less militant objectives, you still have to kill the enemies to get them done.

It's not the only factor in deciding wether or not a player was useful, it's certainly not the most important, but it does still matter, so can people stop trying to tell us that it doesn't?  It's becoming such a knee-jerk reaction I'm starting to wonder if these people are getting a little defensive.

[BoomDynamite]

I only care if they do HORRIBLE and aren't spamming Sabotage.

[N7-RedFox]

Score only matters for a short time - like when ur leveling ur character back up to 20 after promoting. Afterwards it meaningless as long as u and ur squad win

[Disciple888]

co-sign.

I've scored 100K+ with a variety of classes, many of which I've never used before. The fact that bad players who regularly use these classes score 20-40K (with a 40% XP boost!) and then call themselves "support" really baffles my mind.

[Rokayt]

I love using score and time composites to measure how well I have been doing, as such, it is a very vital and important measure to me.

[GodlessPaladin]

Yigorse wrote...
Your score at the end of the game is directly related to how much damage you did compared to the rest of your team.

  Not quite.  For example, if you lay down a Tactical Scan which accounts for 5000 damage done to an Atlas, you get less points than if you did 1000 points of damage to it with your gun.  Another issue is that getting the last hit on an enemy gets you plenty of points even if you did next to no damage.  Nevermind harder to quantify things like tactical roles which don't result in as many kills but result in faster clears.  These are just a few points of many.

While score can tell you some things, it is not a particularly accurate measure of player contribution, and reliable inferences based on score can only be made based on extreme values.  Score relative to other players can sometimes be raised through counterproductive behavior or lowered through productive behavior, and that's a big part of why people see the scoring system as deeply flawed.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 16 juin 2012 - 10:04 .

[Rokayt]

Inflicting the last point of damage on a phantom gives you half the points for the kill.

[Tokenusername]

Ah yes, "score". The supposed measure of a player skill.
I thought we had dismissed that claim.

Modifié par Tokenusername, 16 juin 2012 - 09:59 .

[Rokayt]

Tokenusername wrote...

Ah yes, "score". The supposed measure of a player skill.
I thought we had dismissed that claim.

It is a measure of performance. So you are correct in your facts, but wrong in your assertions.

[BoomDynamite]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Yigorse wrote...
Your score at the end of the game is directly related to how much damage you did compared to the rest of your team.

  Not quite.  For example, if you lay down a Tactical Scan which accounts for 5000 damage done to an Atlas, you get less points than if you did 1000 points of damage to it with your gun.  Another issue is that getting the last hit on an enemy gets you plenty of points even if you did next to no damage. 

Nevermind harder to quantify things like tactical roles which don't result in as many kills but result in faster clears.

Also Sabotage. You don't get points awarded for kills with it.

[Cayse]

If you play something like a CS soldier tagging along behind an engy/TS who's spamming overload, or an adept who is doing nothing but throw to detonate BEs, you might score very low, but you were still pushing out a lot of team damage.

[BoomDynamite]

Tokenusername wrote...

Ah yes, "score". The supposed measure of a player skill.
I thought we had dismissed that claim.

Clearly we did. This was given to everyone who follows the Council on Twitter.

Modifié par BoomDynamite, 16 juin 2012 - 10:03 .

[Xx_Belzak_xX]

Right, because focusing on team play, crowd control, and overall, debuffing enemies and supporting the team instead of trying to increase the size of your e-peen is a sign of bad play. Just because someone doesn't have a high score, doesn't mean they're bad. They could be the ones behind the scenes making YOUR kills easier.

These "score matters" threads are always worth a laugh. The E-Peen logic is just so highly amusing.

[Deucetipher]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Yigorse wrote...
Your score at the end of the game is directly related to how much damage you did compared to the rest of your team.

  Not quite.  For example, if you lay down a Tactical Scan which accounts for 5000 damage done to an Atlas, you get less points than if you did 1000 points of damage to it with your gun.  Another issue is that getting the last hit on an enemy gets you plenty of points even if you did next to no damage. 

Nevermind harder to quantify things like tactical roles which don't result in as many kills but result in faster clears.

True, but I think his point is that there is a general correlation between playing well and higher scores.  Can't really draw any determinative conclusions unless there is a pronounced difference. 

Edit: Ach, missed your edit.  My bad

Modifié par Deucetipher, 16 juin 2012 - 10:06 .

[iAFKinMassEffect3]

Score is meaningless, fun is the only value worth keeping track of.

[Papa5murf]

Yigorse wrote...

  If your top scorer gets 150k+ and the next player has only 50k or so, not to mention those below, you can't explain that away by saying "I was playing a support role" or "I spent all my time getting the objectives.

That's true only to a certain extent. For example, i don't give a **** if the Salarian Engineer on the team scores a big fat zero, AS LONG AS he has been spamming Decoy the whole game. That decoy is the difference between your team getting swamped, and having the enemy line up infront of you like a shooting gallery.

[Nissun]

I was playing an infiltrator with a Locust, just for the kicks. By round 4, I get like four stolen kills in a row (thanks to players using the Valiant and the Krysae). I curse to myself and think "Goddammit! I'm not going to kill anything at this rate! Stupid weapon and stupid everything!" blah blah blah.

Out of curiosity, I check the scores. I was leading the match, by a wide margin. I don't know how the hell I did it, though.

That's why I don't trust the scores anymore.

[jordie3000]

I generally feel bad if someone else has been wearing down, like, an Atlas or Phantom, and I wander by and deliver the killing blow with a pistol, but on the other hand my brain can take it out of context and just be all "daaaaang, you're some hot poop right there, killing big baddies with a little pistol". Since it happens the other way as well it probably doesn't matter too much.

As for N7 - I get wary of anyone under 100 trying to do gold (or even silver sometimes), especially when they want to play as some level 10 ___________ or what have you. It's not that someone with a high score is necessarily going to be zomgawesome, but there's a higher chance they've done what you're aiming to do before, and won't go charging around gung ho getting themselves killed all the time as much as a new person would. Sure, they could've bought half their points through character cards, but it's more likely they've just actually played the game a little more.

Without wanting to start another "Krysae sucks/is great" or "ugh infiltrators" thing, it can be guns and the playstyles they encourage that can throw off more conservative players, in the sense that guns like that, or a Reegar, tend to mow down enemies before others can get a shot off. A similar thing occurs when you're the lone biotic among a bunch of infiltrators - good luck getting BEs off when your primed targets are dropped before you can pop them. Obviously you could change class if you wanted in a lobby, but if you're bouncing around from random to random there's not much you can do besides quit the round and lose whatever consumables you put on before joining.

So anyway, N7 is a good starting point for a player's skill, but in some ways every player is a special snowflake because you don't know how they're going to play until you actually see them play.

[jordie3000]

Papa5murf wrote...

Yigorse wrote...

  If your top scorer gets 150k+ and the next player has only 50k or so, not to mention those below, you can't explain that away by saying "I was playing a support role" or "I spent all my time getting the objectives.

That's true only to a certain extent. For example, i don't give a **** if the Salarian Engineer on the team scores a big fat zero, AS LONG AS he has been spamming Decoy the whole game. That decoy is the difference between your team getting swamped, and having the enemy line up infront of you like a shooting gallery.

THIS. This is why I don't feel bad if I score lower than everyone else as an SE, because dude I kept that dang decoy up and without that decoy life would've been much less pleasant for all involved. Obviously one does not coast along just because one has a decoy, but still. 

[Grammaton Dryad]

I somewhat agree with the OP. But you do not get points for watching the objective person's back if you don't kill anything. You do not get points for healing people as the geth engineer. You don't get points for using the justicar's bubble defensively. You do not get points for Tanking or anything like that.

So yeah, points can show how good you are, but there are MANY variables that are not represented.

[Tajah Silver-Sparke]

Don't forget a class like the Geth Engineer who specs his/her turret for healing that saves your ass a whole bunch of times to let you continue on with your explosions. Yet said GE gets no points for your "aliveness" and the damage you did.

[johnstreetmusic]

Score doesn't matter until said score is penalized for going down. Have seen many people top the leaderboard while needing 2-3 rezzes a wave. While someone else is stripping shields and holding down hack objectives you can be the guy aiming out towards objectives from a distance. Strider Lifer is the GT on 360. Catch me on COD then we can have this discussion.

[nicethugbert]

Meh.

[Homey C-Dawg]

I don't really care about score because I take active notice during matches which teammates are contributing to what and how much. I don't usually comment, I just take notice.

Some of the best players I've played with didn't score too high because they were always busy getting into good positions and taking out key enemies and manipulating the enemy to make it easier for everyone else to kill.

[Omega2079]

Yigorse wrote...

Your score at the end of the game is directly related to how much damage you did compared to the rest of your team.

I've been wondering about that.

Most of the time it seems consistent. Every now and again, especially if it's FBWGG there are times where I go to refill ammo, come back, blast a prime once or twice for the kill and I'll get 1300 or so points. I'm pretty sure I haven't previously attacked it. Other times I'll shoot one many times, but get relatively few points.

How well is the mechanic that award points known?

Maybe it's just lag, or I've had too much beer.