199 réponses à ce sujet

[Heldarion]

Well, played Gold today with a bunch of guys, We all had 50+ kills and it was like 3/1 (or 2/2) infiltrators/sentinels. Was kinda hilarious.

[astheoceansblue]

BXpress2 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Some people might just want to play it bit more slow and being supportive.

where do you see the connection with these two?you are most supportive if you participate in the fragging as best as you can,and definetly not by taking it  easy and make some pot shots here and there.

 those "support" classes are perfectly capable killers.especially Human Engineer,Geth Engineer,Turian Sentinel ect.

about the objectives.even on delivery you have to kill enemies ,and for devices
you get points aswell.when i play Inf i do the devices and still end up on top.on hacking ,all you have to do is stand there and kill.for assasination youll have to frag your way through the enemies to get to your target.so there is no way to not score points.

so please people explain,what exactly is "support" role?Overload and then wait for the others kill them?you have your own gun you know...

Exactly.

Even if you complete every 1234 and object run by yourself, revive every fallen squadmate, and place your shield restore turret for your tram constantly, you still have your own gun, and nothing above stops you killing things for the majority of a game.

There is absolutely no support role that will mean your score will drop off to a sizable amount, perhaps a 20k or so allowance at most, and even then it shouldn't really happen.

If you're being outscored substantially then you're generally being outclassed by a higher skilled player. In rooms of equally skilled players, if one is a Krysae wielding Gi and another a QFE, then a score difference could be expected... but a Geth Engineer can keep up with an Si no problem, even if the shield turret is constantly being laid well.

Again, the finer points of the score system are not accurate, but it is a good indicator for a general idea if contribution.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 17 juin 2012 - 12:48 .

[78stonewobble]

Seerezaro wrote...

sclera wrote...

Generally speaking, the highest scoring player in a match was the most helpful. This isn't always the case, especially as the margins between scores get tighter, but overall I think score is a pretty accurate representation of players' contributions.

This is actually a fallacy.  Their could be large gaps in score and the top person be the least useful and helpful person in the game.

The statement you made is only true on bronze and partially true on silver, it has no meaning in gold.

Take for example this group:

Infiltrator(any really)
Geth Engineer
Salarian Engineer
Human Sentinal

The following scores will read out something akin to:

(made up numbers)
130k
70k
55k
45k

The top score will be the infiltrator as they'll gain the most straight up kills, the second will be one of the engineers who ever gets luckiest with tech bursts really, in this case most likely the Salarian due to energy drain aoe, the third and fourth will alternate between the sentinel and the other engineer.

Getting a BE in this party is rough as it'll sometimes take up to 4 throws before the boom occurs in the meantime however, the engineers TBs have been blasting the party,  energry drain has been priming everything and overload has been stunlocking large groups.

The most important person in this party?  Hard to say, but the Sentinel really is responsible for the majority of the damage even though his score will be amoung the lowest as he's the one setting off the TBs making it so they go off at a much faster rate than just the SE or the GE could do together.

This particular combo is extremely hard to kill, the infiltrator can be taken out of the equation completely and they'd still manage to extract just fine.

Same goes for a combo of

Asari adept/vanguard, Engineer, Infiltrator, Soldier.

Against Cerberus the last two will end up with the highest score but the true saviors will most likely be the Asari who kept all the phantoms statis'd or the engineer who would be doing with an engineer does best.

Edit:  Just thought I'd mention that in most cases I'm playing the infiltrator, simply because the main group I run with doesn't like the sniping aspect and I'm fairly quick on the aim, but I've played it from the adept and engineer perspective.

I agree BUT, since we don't have any other stats to go by, score is a way to gauge performance. It's not accurate and it's only a hint.

It would be nice and more accurate if stuff like "stasis'ed enemies" and the auxillary stuff counted for more.

[.458]

This game could give values for things like damage done, but it does not. What really matters is applying the right force at the right moment in the right place. The guy that stands back and doesn't kill everything, but drops that little husk before it sneaks up on someone under ravager fire while carrying the objective item, just saved the moment. The guy that blows away the phantom just before it introduces its sword to the "star" player created that star player's opportunity. Score is at best a plea to be mediocre, at least when it is kept the way it is now. I often wonder why BW never put a real score screen up with stats on damage done. On the other hand, how would it know you saved someone at a critical moment?

[Rick__D]

Yes but a lot of things can influence score. Sometimes you get a player who runs around actively trying to outscore everyone. I usually let them if it means that much to them. Other times you can set up in cover to cut off a new spawn from flanking the team Then someone sees your getting kills and runs past your cover right in front of you. Kinda of like in the Babylon five episode shattered dreams when the humans fortify a choke point and the Narn run ahead of them.

The problem with score is player mentality. You could have 2 players of equal skill with one trying to succeed and one trying to win.

[BXpress2]

Rick__D wrote...


The problem with score is player mentality. You could have 2 players of equal skill with one trying to succeed and one trying to win.

you know people say "its coop,score doesnt matter".oh so that is the reason why i have to do 80% of the work in every damn public game i enter.

it was never about being the best ,but about Effort.that is the key word here.i think the score board does an acceptable job of reflecting individual effort.nobody would say a word to you if you are just 20k or even 30k below the top scorer.you contributed.but if i see my 140k but 2nd and 3rd are at 50k-60k i conclude that i only scored so much because these guys are either lazy or dont know how to play their classes to full effect.

i know very well what it is like to play with people who know what they are doing.when i play with my friends ,we are almost always tied in points or its just a 5k-10k difference between us.

there is no excuse for me having more points than 2nd and 3rd player put together,whether they are lazy or just unskilled.its semi-leeching.plain and simple.and they shall receive the boot after the match.

[Rick__D]

BXpress2 wrote...

Rick__D wrote...


The problem with score is player mentality. You could have 2 players of equal skill with one trying to succeed and one trying to win.

you know people say "its coop,score doesnt matter".oh so that is the reason why i have to do 80% of the work in every damn public game i enter.

it was never about being the best ,but about Effort.that is the key word here.i think the score board does an acceptable job of reflecting individual effort.nobody would say a word to you if you are just 20k or even 30k below the top scorer.you contributed.but if i see my 140k but 2nd and 3rd are at 50k-60k i conclude that i only scored so much because these guys are either lazy or dont know how to play their classes to full effect.

i know very well what it is like to play with people who know what they are doing.when i play with my friends ,we are almost always tied in points or its just a 5k-10k difference between us.

there is no excuse for me having more points than 2nd and 3rd player put together,whether they are lazy or just unskilled.its semi-leeching.plain and simple.and they shall receive the boot after the match.

No I am not saying its coop it doesnt matter. I am saying that some players don't play to keep up.

[BXpress2]

i never said that you said that.i meant people often tend to say that.

[Rick__D]

BXpress2 wrote...

i never said that you said that.i meant people often tend to say that.

cool

[astheoceansblue]

.458 wrote...

This game could give values for things like damage done, but it does not. What really matters is applying the right force at the right moment in the right place. The guy that stands back and doesn't kill everything, but drops that little husk before it sneaks up on someone under ravager fire while carrying the objective item, just saved the moment. The guy that blows away the phantom just before it introduces its sword to the "star" player created that star player's opportunity. Score is at best a plea to be mediocre, at least when it is kept the way it is now. I often wonder why BW never put a real score screen up with stats on damage done. On the other hand, how would it know you saved someone at a critical moment?

Critical moment saves by themselves are nowhere near as heroic as you make them out to be. You're either pulling your weight or you're not. A player who consistently makes crucial saves will be playing well by default, a player who is hardly contributing but saves the biggest contributor once probably lucked out.

Score shows us how much people are contributing well. As people have already explained, there are not enough objectives or support actions to take away from your score enough for it to be a huge divide. If someone's at the top with 100k and someone's at the bottom with 40k, the person at the bottom is simply contributing less.

Yea, you might be debuffing a lot as a Sentinel, but you do have a gun too... the difference between you and the top should not be huge. The way that mobs attack and move, sometimes it's good to communicate a debuff from one and a kill from another, but mostly you're better off finding a natural rhythm which involves everyone killing stuff together. Perhaps if a group is moving as a pair priming and detonating it would be a legit instance of score not reflecting effort, but only if they were being fluid and then it would be pretty obvious to everyone in game anyway.

Of course there are times when it skews. A player could be actively score whoring with a Gi, for example, and messing up the pace of the game for everyone, but this kind of imbalance is a different issu

The point is, I play with people of equal overall skill. We all mix up our classes and often one of us chooses support" roles like Geth Engineer. When that happens, there is no divide in score.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 17 juin 2012 - 04:08 .

[shadowkinz]

U kno i got outscored last night for the first time in months. The only people that would ever outscore me would be friends sometimes. When i saw score i tried to think when was the last time i got outscored and really couldn't think.. only really when i am messing with new combos lol. But score matters to an extend. There are thresholds when score matters and doesnt matter. I have been in games where by wave 7 someone has 6000 points and everyone else has over 40, so that would be a good example of score mattering

[Biotic_Warlock]

But the scored don't even give you credit for assisting detonating bioplosions or tech bursts...

I detonated a banshee 4 times that was primed with warp whilst spamming shockwave... i only got +90 assist points...

[Drussius]

This thread makes me want to spec a Female Quarian with backfire evolutions for sabotage and try to get a final score as close to 0 as possible while taking out as many enemies as I can...

[Hexfield]

Thanks OP for this thread... Score DOES matter. And for the support/debuff argument, one can use tactical scan, geth heal turret. drain shield, weaken armor etc. and still do a ton of damage... if my score exceeds the the second highest by at least double, you are doing something terribly wrong. If you were setting up tech burst etc, your score should also skyrocket from the resulting damage and the kills you should be getting by doing damage. If not you were just putting an overload and two bullets in a banshee and "supported"

[paincanbefun]

i appologise for not reading the thread.

score (pretty much) only measures damage but damage is not the only measure of utility.

a salarian decoy that holds a chokepoint and keeps you safe
a female quarian cryo burst that freezes a bunch of mobs for you to shoot
a geth turret that heals you
a justicar full defense bubble that gives the whole team 40% dr

are just a few examples of ways you can spend power points to produce effects that clearly benifit that group in helping achieve extraction, but do not (or barely)  increase your score as the effect providing player.

1. score is only a good measure of contribution for classes that have no support utility whatsoever (an infiltrator that uses cloak to rez and capture is providing support utility)

2. score focused play is douchey (an infiltrator who prefers to build his/her score through kills over rezing and capturing is not someone anyone else would want to play with)

3. even if your teammates score low because they are not as good at playing as you, if the team as a whole achieves it's goal, your extra contribution should make you feel proud of yourself, not resentful of them.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 17 juin 2012 - 04:53 .

[ToaOrka]

No. Weapons like the Krysae nullify any meaning score had.

[BiO]

Score doesn't matter because different gears and weapons.

Go and tell me if I score less than a Turian Soldier w/ Hurricane, while playing as a Human Engineer, that I'm less skilled that the TSoldier.

[5DVz]

Guys, I have no life.

Score matters to me.

[MWaHa]

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.

So, because you say it's dead wrong, it's dead wrong? I don't mind being incorrect, but if you could explain why I'm incorrect, using, you know, reasons, instead of just repeating what you think like a skipping record, that would be more helpful. I'm at least trying to let people know why I think what I think, so they can use my reasoning to help them decide for themselves. 

And I don't "want" score to matter... I could care less either way.

[MWaHa]

Kyerea wrote...

MWaHa wrote...


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.... 

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:

Okay, it's fact: give me reasons to believe that it's a fact rather than simply asserting it's so. I don't mind being wrong, but it is annoying when an issue is obviously something people disagree about to assert that your view is not only correct but factual without giving reasons. I gave reasons for my view. Maybe my view is wrong, maybe it's right, but I'm not going to be a jerk about it by saying "My view is right and if you don't agree then you're not very good at this game."

[MWaHa]

To anyone who says score doesn't mean anything:

Imagine a gold game where the Geth Infiltrator that plays the whole game (from start to extraction) with a BW gets 20k. Assume no glitches, cheat, hacks, etc. Just a normal game of 4 people trying to kill everything as fast as they can. The GI is the only infiltrator, and no one has a krysae.

Explain to me how this score does not prove that the GI in question is terrible.

Modifié par MWaHa, 17 juin 2012 - 05:43 .

[soldo9149]

Score does and does not matter, yes it can tell you who got the most points but the killing blow rewards more points which is a odd choice to me.

For a perfect example of this. My buddy loves to play his asari adept and dont ask me why I dont understand it. So I often bring out my drell or asari justicar so I will apply reave on the mobs without them rolling all over the place to dodge it. Now with reave on every single thing that moves for him, and he spam's throw every time its back up and for the most part we are ungodly force of biotic death even on gold games. The score system gives me most of the points though for the kills which is unfair for him. I have had game in which case i had over 150k and him at a little over 70k. Wish i remember to take pictures more often. All I have is pictures of is my solider being top of the score board by no large margin or anything. I just wanted those pictures is all just to remind me it can be done.

So yes until the score is more accurate for what folks who like the adept mostly just set's off my biotic explosions since ive tagged every mob on the match which are all taking small amounts of damage and primed for him or others to kill for me, I will keep saying score does and does not matter, because without them I would have little to no explosions. Also yes I know the grenades are fantastic at setting my BE's off and I sometimes clear spawn areas because of them.

[Achossa]

No it doesn't

[Yigorse]

Achossa wrote...

No it doesn't

Oh I see!  Kind of obvious now that you mention it.  I suppose when you put it that way it makes my argument look sort of stupid...

Thanks to all those who posted their justified opinions and thoughts, like I said in the OP, I don't believe score is the most important measure of a player's skill, just that it does have some bearing, especially in extreme cases.

I'm aware that some abilities and effects don't grant the score they should, but this doesn't seem to stop me from achieving a respectable score when I use them.  I still have a a gun, and everyone has offensive powers to use.

[astheoceansblue]

paincanbefun wrote...

i appologise for not reading the thread.

score (pretty much) only measures damage but damage is not the only measure of utility.

a salarian decoy that holds a chokepoint and keeps you safe
a female quarian cryo burst that freezes a bunch of mobs for you to shoot
a geth turret that heals you
a justicar full defense bubble that gives the whole team 40% dr

are just a few examples of ways you can spend power points to produce effects that clearly benifit that group in helping achieve extraction, but do not (or barely)  increase your score as the effect providing player.

1. score is only a good measure of contribution for classes that have no support utility whatsoever (an infiltrator that uses cloak to rez and capture is providing support utility)

2. score focused play is douchey (an infiltrator who prefers to build his/her score through kills over rezing and capturing is not someone anyone else would want to play with)

3. even if your teammates score low because they are not as good at playing as you, if the team as a whole achieves it's goal, your extra contribution should make you feel proud of yourself, not resentful of them.

None if the things you've listed prevent a player from killing. Placing a decoy doesn't disable your powers or weapons.

I can play my Geth Engineer in full support mode and still hit 80-100k. Support doea nor mean lower score.

People who can't score highly play the "support" card too often. All skill levels enjoy this game, that's fine, just don't hide behind the idea that to support well you need to ignore killing stuff.