199 réponses à ce sujet

[MWaHa]

megawug wrote...

So my HE who holds banshees at bay and stuns enemies isn't decent support because my score is lower? Riiiiight.

If the scores are extremely different, like 100k+ difference, then okay. What's important is how your teammates were *in-game*. Did they revive you? Did they take out the enemy at a key moment? Did everyone do the objectives as a team and cover each other? Etc., etc....

As long as no one was a liability, who cares?

Strawman fallacy is fallacious.

OP clearly states that it's not the only thing that matters. There's a difference in saying that score is important and score is the only important thing. OP is just frustrated at people who say score is irrelevant (it's not). 

OP has been critiqued a bit for his position, but his basic point is that scores matters, not that score is the only thing that matters. In fact, it seems like there are lots of people on this thread who agree: there are many factors that should be taken into consideration, and score is one of those factors. No, low score doesn't automatically mean you're not contributing, but that doesn't mean that score tells you nothing at all.

[78stonewobble]

In my games there are usually 1 high scorer and then 2-3 average scorers (within 1000's of eachother) and/or 1 low scorer.

Last guy could suck or just be new at game/class/weapon, have a low level or be supporting in other ways like geth/salarian gineers.

The top guy can be different classes but eg. as infiltrator it's allways easiest to get that spot (and do loads of dmg. in general) with a great supporting team.

[MWaHa]

IAMREALITY wrote...

You're just quite simply dead wrong.  Dead wrong.

Score means nothing.  Some of the most valuable players end up in 3rd or 4th.  They don't need to explain their score away.  They just don't.

You know if someone is useful or not, if someone dies all the time or not, if they work as a team or not, provide cover fire or not, race to objectives or not or if they come to your aid or not.  THAT is what matters.  Score is worthless in determining skilll.  I've had some of the worst players end up in first. 

If you give a **** about score then you're quite simply flawed in your perception.  Just care about playing as a team and let the score go. You and the people you play with will be better off for it.

Let me suggest an analogy to national league baseball. Batting average (slugging percentage / on base percentage / whatever moneyball stat you want to use) is useless because some of the most valuable players (i.e. pitchers) have some of the lowest batting averages (whatever stat you want to use) in the league.

The flaw with that argument is obvious: just because pitchers have low batting averages doesn't mean that batting average is a useless metric. Likewise, just because valuable players have low scores doesn't mean that scoring is a useless metric. It just means that it's not the only metric, and that in certain cases for certain chararcters, it's might not be a relevant metric.

Is score a perfect metric? Of course not; no one is saying it is. But there is a differernce in saying that score is not a perfect metric and score is useless, just like there is a difference in saying score is useful and saying that score is the only thing that matters. Any reasonable person recognizes that score is one useful metric, not always the most useful or most appropriate, but it does have some value when interpreted intelligently.

It's one thing to disagree with an inappropriate reliance on score. It's another thing to disagree with score altogether.... 

Modifié par MWaHa, 16 juin 2012 - 11:38 .

[Treacherous J Slither]

Earlier this week I played a match in which there was this one guy mercilessly obliterating everything on the map but also going down in every single wave. Without fail. The only objective I remember him contributing to was the "Eliminate Target" one.

Guess who got the highest score? Must've used up every consumable he had by wave 8 but i'll bet he felt real proud of himself because he "topped the board".

[xtorma]

To you.

[ElementL09]

Medals are a better representation of how much work someone did in game I think. Medals > Score.

[Venth1]

Some things you just cant measure. the guy who leaves a situation where he could rack up big points to go rez a teammate or take out a turret and enemies that some teammates may be pinned down by. backup on a tricky objective. Keeping your survival supplies fully stocked.

These things are not going to boost ones score directly all the time but in many cases can save a mission from being scrapped completely and having to start over.

And yet, this same guy may come in first place some games (or that very game) as well. these are type of people i regularly play with. Anyone could come in first on a given match, yet all will go out of their way to assist others pinned down without a second thought to how this might affect their final score.

always on gold/unknown/unknown and id say 8+ games out of 10 end in success.

[IAMREALITY]

MWaHa wrote...

IAMREALITY wrote...

You're just quite simply dead wrong.  Dead wrong.

Score means nothing.  Some of the most valuable players end up in 3rd or 4th.  They don't need to explain their score away.  They just don't.

You know if someone is useful or not, if someone dies all the time or not, if they work as a team or not, provide cover fire or not, race to objectives or not or if they come to your aid or not.  THAT is what matters.  Score is worthless in determining skilll.  I've had some of the worst players end up in first. 

If you give a **** about score then you're quite simply flawed in your perception.  Just care about playing as a team and let the score go. You and the people you play with will be better off for it.

Let me suggest an analogy to national league baseball. Batting average (slugging percentage / on base percentage / whatever moneyball stat you want to use) is useless because some of the most valuable players (i.e. pitchers) have some of the lowest batting averages (whatever stat you want to use) in the league.

The flaw with that argument is obvious: just because pitchers have low batting averages doesn't mean that batting average is a useless metric. Likewise, just because valuable players have low scores doesn't mean that scoring is a useless metric. It just means that it's not the only metric, and that in certain cases for certain chararcters, it's might not be a relevant metric.

Is score a perfect metric? Of course not; no one is saying it is. But there is a differernce in saying that score is not a perfect metric and score is useless, just like there is a difference in saying score is useful and saying that score is the only thing that matters. Any reasonable person recognizes that score is one useful metric, not always the most useful or most appropriate, but it does have some value when interpreted intelligently.

It's one thing to disagree with an inappropriate reliance on score. It's another thing to disagree with score altogether.... 

Dude, you could post as many analogies as you want.  But dead wrong means dead wrong.  It means nothing, period.  You want it to.  I get that.  But it doesn't.  Get over it.

[Barneyk]

I mostly agree with OP.

But, there have been instances where I have been in a support position and covering the flank while the rest of the team is busy killing whatever is right infront of them and don't seem to worry about whats going on around them.

Depending on the opponent, reapers its usually pretty soon, cerberus it is usually quite late, it takes me a while to start getting my points up since I am just covering the flank.
I have been last by wave 7 and finished WAY ahead of everyone by the end of wave 11 since they start dying when it gets hard.
But I have also been busy saving and covering the ass of the #1 scorer the whole game, so, that is one example where the points dont tell the whole truth.

Sometimes you can also be a glass cannon role, you keep killing everything really fast but you also keep dying a lot and depending on your team to revive you when it happens.

But overall, I think the scores is a pretty good indication on the usefulness.

[Barneyk]

IAMREALITY wrote...

Dude, you could post as many analogies as you want.  But dead wrong means dead wrong.  It means nothing, period.  You want it to.  I get that.  But it doesn't.  Get over it.

I have never been in a game where I felt the scores meant nothing.
Theoreticcly it is possible, but out of all the games I have played, it has always meant a lot more than nothing.

Sometimes it only told us something, sometimes it told us everything.
150K
120K
33K
29K

The story of those scores is pretty clear.

[Krade2k20]

IAMREALITY wrote...

MWaHa wrote...

IAMREALITY wrote...

You're just quite simply dead wrong.  Dead wrong.

Score means nothing.  Some of the most valuable players end up in 3rd or 4th.  They don't need to explain their score away.  They just don't.

You know if someone is useful or not, if someone dies all the time or not, if they work as a team or not, provide cover fire or not, race to objectives or not or if they come to your aid or not.  THAT is what matters.  Score is worthless in determining skilll.  I've had some of the worst players end up in first. 

If you give a **** about score then you're quite simply flawed in your perception.  Just care about playing as a team and let the score go. You and the people you play with will be better off for it.

Let me suggest an analogy to national league baseball. Batting average (slugging percentage / on base percentage / whatever moneyball stat you want to use) is useless because some of the most valuable players (i.e. pitchers) have some of the lowest batting averages (whatever stat you want to use) in the league.

The flaw with that argument is obvious: just because pitchers have low batting averages doesn't mean that batting average is a useless metric. Likewise, just because valuable players have low scores doesn't mean that scoring is a useless metric. It just means that it's not the only metric, and that in certain cases for certain chararcters, it's might not be a relevant metric.

Is score a perfect metric? Of course not; no one is saying it is. But there is a differernce in saying that score is not a perfect metric and score is useless, just like there is a difference in saying score is useful and saying that score is the only thing that matters. Any reasonable person recognizes that score is one useful metric, not always the most useful or most appropriate, but it does have some value when interpreted intelligently.

It's one thing to disagree with an inappropriate reliance on score. It's another thing to disagree with score altogether.... 

Dude, you could post as many analogies as you want.  But dead wrong means dead wrong.  It means nothing, period.  You want it to.  I get that.  But it doesn't.  Get over it.

There should be a law that state's you are only entitled to your opinion so long as you recognize that is just an opinion.

[ThirdChild ZKI]

For me personally, I enjoy seeing high scores. It's less a measure of skill, but more of a visible measure that you've done something. It's the reason WHY people score games. Why play football and run a bunch of touchdowns if you're not keeping score?

If you score well; keep it up. If not, try harder.

Now, yes, we all know there are ways to exploit scoring, but the rest honestly needs to be shelved with egos. Sure, the guy with the Krysae or whatever might be waiting to get the last shot each time and steal your kills/points, but that only means he's lazy or unable to get the job done himself. In situations like that, I distance myself from that player/team, and just self-manage, while ensuring anything coming at me doesn't get through to the rest of the team, and helping my squad when/where they need me.

[alayyubi]

Just finished two rounds of Gold without having to use medigel. Team of 3 GIs and 1 Batarian soldier. The score diff was only 10-15k among us four. Crowd control was superb, we never get flanked, and while doing pizza mission, I clear a crowd of Atlas and phantom using Rocket.

Super satisfaction !!!

[Zero132132]

I'll admit, I like it when I'm the top on the scoreboard, and I hate being the lowest. I don't think it does properly measure contribution, though. Sometimes, as the AA, I've stasised about 3 phantoms at once with stasis bubble, and the team gets points for the kills because they shot the hell out of them. Doesn't reflect in the score, and barely get points for the assist. Using 'throw' on some enemies and stasising others also gives breathing room to revive people. And sometimes, your role might just be to aggro enemies, try to herd them in specific ways, and it won't be reflected in the score (Salarian engineer w/decoy on W/G/G is key, but rarely is the highest scoring).

There's an ego boost with being the high scorer, and if you're also the only one with a revive medal and you did most of the objectives, you probably genuinely did really well, but that can't be compressed into one number based on damage done and kills.

Disciple888 wrote...

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.

I hear stuff like this, and I always think the players are less skilled than they believe. In my experience, in gold games that go well, no one breaks 100k. It only happens when one player carried the team like all ****, or (more common) the objectives took way too damned long. I played one game where every single one of us broke 100k (we intentionally did every objective in the last few seconds and spent the whole time getting kills), but the overwhelming majority of the time, nobody does. When that HAS happened, it's usually been in games that took a long damned time, or games where at least half the team was dead weight.

Modifié par Zero132132, 17 juin 2012 - 12:37 .

[alayyubi]

So although score does matter to some, it is about winning the game. The score diff was big when u have diff role in the team (or skill). When u have pure damager on all squad, it is pretty even

[alayyubi]

also, from credits standpoint (which is all that matter if u are max on level), the difference is between 60k (from last position) to 70-75k (from first position). i don't really mind the position as long as there is teamwork. i must admit the class i seldom see working in a team is vanguard (no offense to anyone ! )

the goal is max out credit (targeting 10mil above) until the next expansion. then go on psp + sp shopping spree.

[Irkalla]

What matters is that you enjoy your game with whatever character you want. I've been playing my QFE a lot lately, not a top scorer, but she gets the job done. The best satisfaction is when all your team gets downed by banshees/or whatever, and then the biggest underdog, namely the QFE, saves the day. Happens to me a lot. You are all welcome.

[Kyerea]

IAMREALITY wrote...

MWaHa wrote...

IAMREALITY wrote...

You're just quite simply dead wrong.  Dead wrong.

Score means nothing.  Some of the most valuable players end up in 3rd or 4th.  They don't need to explain their score away.  They just don't.

You know if someone is useful or not, if someone dies all the time or not, if they work as a team or not, provide cover fire or not, race to objectives or not or if they come to your aid or not.  THAT is what matters.  Score is worthless in determining skilll.  I've had some of the worst players end up in first. 

If you give a **** about score then you're quite simply flawed in your perception.  Just care about playing as a team and let the score go. You and the people you play with will be better off for it.

Let me suggest an analogy to national league baseball. Batting average (slugging percentage / on base percentage / whatever moneyball stat you want to use) is useless because some of the most valuable players (i.e. pitchers) have some of the lowest batting averages (whatever stat you want to use) in the league.

The flaw with that argument is obvious: just because pitchers have low batting averages doesn't mean that batting average is a useless metric. Likewise, just because valuable players have low scores doesn't mean that scoring is a useless metric. It just means that it's not the only metric, and that in certain cases for certain chararcters, it's might not be a relevant metric.

Is score a perfect metric? Of course not; no one is saying it is. But there is a differernce in saying that score is not a perfect metric and score is useless, just like there is a difference in saying score is useful and saying that score is the only thing that matters. Any reasonable person recognizes that score is one useful metric, not always the most useful or most appropriate, but it does have some value when interpreted intelligently.

It's one thing to disagree with an inappropriate reliance on score. It's another thing to disagree with score altogether.... 

Dude, you could post as many analogies as you want.  But dead wrong means dead wrong.  It means nothing, period.  You want it to.  I get that.  But it doesn't.  Get over it.

I gotta agree dude, score has and always will mean nothing in determining player skill/performance. If you think it does, then get better at the game. It's just the facts:

[IAMREALITY]

Barneyk wrote...

IAMREALITY wrote...

Dude, you could post as many analogies as you want.  But dead wrong means dead wrong.  It means nothing, period.  You want it to.  I get that.  But it doesn't.  Get over it.

I have never been in a game where I felt the scores meant nothing.
Theoreticcly it is possible, but out of all the games I have played, it has always meant a lot more than nothing.

Sometimes it only told us something, sometimes it told us everything.
150K
120K
33K
29K

The story of those scores is pretty clear.

Just because you felt they meant something doesn't mean they did.  Like I said, they mean absolutely nothing, and if someone claims they do then they are simply using flaweed perception, which you are in fact guilty of if you put weight behind the scores every game.  Cause the story of those scores you posted is anything but clear.  In fact, they tell us absolutely nothing as far as the realities of the game.

People who use scores to gauge anything need to learn to let it go.  They are wrong, and they and their teammates suffer because of the flawed judgment.  Play, have fun, allow your teammates to have fun.  Stop judging them on their score.

[megawug]

MWaHa wrote...

megawug wrote...

So my HE who holds banshees at bay and stuns enemies isn't decent support because my score is lower? Riiiiight.

If the scores are extremely different, like 100k+ difference, then okay. What's important is how your teammates were *in-game*. Did they revive you? Did they take out the enemy at a key moment? Did everyone do the objectives as a team and cover each other? Etc., etc....

As long as no one was a liability, who cares?

Strawman fallacy is fallacious.

OP clearly states that it's not the only thing that matters. There's a difference in saying that score is important and score is the only important thing. OP is just frustrated at people who say score is irrelevant (it's not). 

OP has been critiqued a bit for his position, but his basic point is that scores matters, not that score is the only thing that matters. In fact, it seems like there are lots of people on this thread who agree: there are many factors that should be taken into consideration, and score is one of those factors. No, low score doesn't automatically mean you're not contributing, but that doesn't mean that score tells you nothing at all.

Well, I think the score does matter a little bit, but only if the score clearly shows that someone carried the team.  And that's what I was implying.

There's been many times where I've stayed out of the firing lane on purpose to watch the other players' backs, while they were wailing away at bosses.  Sure my score was/will be lower, but it feels like sh*t when I let enemies flank us and we all go down (and there have been times that have happened).

Damage output is really important, but tactical awareness is even more so, especially on gold, where you can be taken out in 2 seconds flat.

[soldo9149]

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.  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.

this

[Rifneno]

Hmm. Does score matter... Sten, your thoughts?


Thanks, Sten.

[Quarian Pro]

score doesn't mean jack. When I play Adept or Vanguard Asari all I do is assist the team. 9/10 of my kills I could have had are taken from other teammates becasue I stasis them for my teammates so they can easily snipe or shotgun the target to death. If I cared about score I wouldn't play the assistsnt role with only weapons that give me lightwieght power bonuses.

This isn't Halo or Cod where points, k/d, and 'score' matter in terms of who did the 'best' in the match or who is more skilled. This is a co-op game meant to have FUN and play with your team, not compete against them. Sure, I can go in with a new account with basic starter weapons on silver with a N7 lvl 8 or smething and get a really good score compared to teammates who are using widows and N7 lvl 20 characters. That's not the same as the ending score which just tallies up how much damage you've dealt and crap. I can stasis an enemy and only get a +17 assist becasue a teammate finished him off from long range ... which is exactly I expect to have happen. I want them to get the kills / points while I debuff and stagger the enemy for them (when I am playing a support role of course).

I support the team so we win. Get credits, get XP, and roll out =) Score doesn't factor in anywhere for me. My gold 50+ assists medal and revive medals are all I need to see to know I helped the team out greatly.

[DnVill]

yes.. don't shoot a boss until it has 1 bar of armor left. Shoot once = kill.. at least 1k points. try it.

"skill"

/sarcasm

[Zero132132]

Barneyk wrote...

I have never been in a game where I felt the scores meant nothing.
Theoreticcly it is possible, but out of all the games I have played, it has always meant a lot more than nothing.

Sometimes it only told us something, sometimes it told us everything.
150K
120K
33K
29K

The story of those scores is pretty clear.

There are plenty of different stories that could tell. The 150k and 120k guys could have consistently let the other 2 bleed out, using infiltrators and deflecting aggro to the other 2 when cloaking. One could have been a geth engineer, using the turret to restore shields so that the high-scorers could be more aggressive, and the other could have been on decoy **** duty. The two high-scorers might have run around the map killing **** constantly, ignoring objectives, leaving the other two to actually handle things. The lower scorers could have joined the match late.

Seriously, the scores don't tell any kind of story. I played a game earlier where the high-scorer only got there because the rest of us kept rezzing him, and we expected him to return the favor, since he could turn invisible and was never far away. He was a ****ty player, and he didn't deal with anything that we couldn't have handled if we'd had a reliable team mate. On wave 10, the rest of us were in the hack zone, and he was off shooting stuff. When he went down, despite my advice, one of the guys in the hack went to rez him, and we ended up wiping. Just looking at the scoreboard, though, you might imagine that he was an amazingtastic player carrying the rest of the team.

Were those scores on unknown/unknown? If not, it seems pretty likely that you guys were slow to complete objectives. That could be because the two low-scorers were competing for worst-squatmade-of-the-year award, or it could be because the "better" players weren't bothering with objectives. Point is still the same. Too much variation in how these sorts of games play out. You can't reliably conclude anything at all from the scoreboard alone.