199 réponses à ce sujet

[Uhh.. Jonah]

Score matters to the people who care, and definitely translates the teammates cooperation in the match.

[Gornok]

Whats the sense of keeping score when there are no overall stats to compare anything to? A person has a good game where he meets the metrics for stats and gains alot...
and the game is over

and it still doesn't mean anything... because like a fart in the wind so goes your metric of how you did in that particular game with that particular class built in a particular way against that particular enemy... and its over...

as well as the score counts... counts to what? A mere metric?

Many of you have the ideology of pvp games.... the only thing which matters in a coop game is success of the mission.... Who is going to take the time to record their possible stats based off of medals which you get from hitting a certain plateau... that's it...

Until you are able to accumulate anything.... what sense in you caring what another person does in a game... except if they AFK... which have been taken care of by bioware already with their kick script

[Lajkos]

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

[BXpress2]

astheoceansblue wrote...

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.

yes and yes.setting up this freaking geth turret ,takes 0.5 seconds of my attention and then its on to mow things down with my Hurricane or Indra.

people ,just drop the Decoy argument.are you really telling us that pushing one button to set up Decoy requires your undivided attention?

[Sabbatine]

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.

Wrong for two reasons.  First, you can gain score for doing objectives and picking fallen players up, neither of which has anything to do with damage.  Second, score allocation is weighted towards the person who gets the killing blow.  If you did 50% of the damage to an atlas mech, you would not get half credit when that atlas dies unless you got the killing blow... and then you'd get more than half credit.

In order for the person who gets assist credit to outscore the person who gets the killing blow the assist would have to do something like 80% of the total damage.

Yigorse wrote... 

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.

This is easily explained.  The person who got they 150K+ was going for the low hanging fruit leaving the rest of the team to deal with the harder to kill targets like Banshees or Atlas mechs.

Yigorse wrote...  

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.

Actually, the person getting them done often isn't in a position to kill the enemies, especially if there is a team mate who ignores the objectives and focuses on getting easy kills on the endlessly spawning bad guys.  You'll get a much higher score if you ignore your team and focus on improving your score... this is the core reasoning for why people say it doesn't matter.  Being good at getting a high score and being good at the game are two different things entirely... and your team benefits far less if you're focusing on score rather than objectives.

Yigorse wrote...  

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.

 

Score doesn't matter.  It offers players a way of seeing a statistical snapshot of how a round went, but beyond that it's value is negligable.  Nothing fundamental in the game would be changed for better or worse if the score were completely removed.

Modifié par Sabbatine, 17 juin 2012 - 07:57 .

[Wakko.013]

 And ya know what's funny?  Playing gold with my Salarian Engineer, setting up a decoy that after 5 rounds I still only had 14 points while playing a support role.  Yes, you read it correctly, I had 14 points for 5 rounds.  Did my team care?  Nope, because we knew I wouldn't be scoring much with the engineer and the rest of the teams setup that was destroying most of the mobs before I ever got a chance to even energy drain them.  Now granted at the end of it, we were all around 50K; however, having a low score does not indicate you're a poor player... you're just not contributing to finishing the goal faster and you may not be able to.

[XTR3M3]

I don't really care about my score as long as I get around 70,000 credits on gold. I do try and make sure I am not the low score and that I contribute by drawing agro when necessary, killing my share of enemies, ect. The scoring is skewed huge. Kill stealers and people who are shooting at enemies with you don't get proportional points. I remember a match a while ago where I killed a prime with 1 shot with my carfinex and I got over 1000 points for that. I was thinking..."geez, that is lame after the other guy did most of the work."

[paincanbefun]

astheoceansblue wrote...

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.

i'm going to assume that your last sentence is general and not directed at me personally.

this is what i meant: if i put my power points into utility ability evolutions, my killing (and thus, scoring) potential will be lower than if i did not.  my utility in both cases may be the same.

some people seem to think that score is a metric for ballance- and this is what i'm strenuously objecting to.

yes, of course, everyone should also be killing things, and that will be reflected in the score.

however, any atempt to directly compare the contribution of, for instance, a GE with a fully healing turret and one with a fully damaging turret, is misguided in my opinion.

conversely- and if you were playing during the game's first month, you played with this guy- there's the example of the nova guard who does huge damage and has the top score, but doesn't contribute on the objectives and needs constant rezzes.  to some degree, yes, all that killing did contribute, but his participation had a cost too and so the sum utility is much lower than the score reflects.

so...if you are saying the score accurately and precisely measures contribution, then i totally disagree.
if you are saying that a non-contributing player will also have a low score and even a fully utility specced played will have a reasonable score if they play right, then of course i agree.

the reason i think this distinction is important is because some of the "nerf infiltrators" arguments i've heard recently seem to define ballance as all classes with all specs for all players scoring equally.  i think this entire line of reasoning is flawed.

sorry for the long post.

Modifié par paincanbefun, 17 juin 2012 - 08:00 .

[astheoceansblue]

Gornok wrote...

Whats the sense of keeping score when there are no overall stats to compare anything to? A person has a good game where he meets the metrics for stats and gains alot...
and the game is over

and it still doesn't mean anything... because like a fart in the wind so goes your metric of how you did in that particular game with that particular class built in a particular way against that particular enemy... and its over...

as well as the score counts... counts to what? A mere metric?

Many of you have the ideology of pvp games.... the only thing which matters in a coop game is success of the mission.... Who is going to take the time to record their possible stats based off of medals which you get from hitting a certain plateau... that's it...

Until you are able to accumulate anything.... what sense in you caring what another person does in a game... except if they AFK... which have been taken care of by bioware already with their kick script

Some of us care about the process of plaging, you know, enjoying the game?

My favourite games are those that are fluid, even, with moments of tension but never frustration. This usually means having a balanced team, not someone hugging the corners checking a turret at as too scared to pop off their weapon often enough.

I don't care about score when I play with my friends, I can tell when we're all ok form without having to check, but the score always shows us when one of us is tired or distracted.

Not saying it's important, really. I don't mind playing with people who need a little carrying, but score does show us enough to know who's contributing and who isn't.

[MWaHa]

BXpress2 wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

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.

yes and yes.setting up this freaking geth turret ,takes 0.5 seconds of my attention and then its on to mow things down with my Hurricane or Indra.

people ,just drop the Decoy argument.are you really telling us that pushing one button to set up Decoy requires your undivided attention?

I can understand the original argument to some degree. If I'm the only debuffer on the team, especially if playing against geth, I'll ignore the targets that have red and only focus on the targets that have blue, and only long enough to get their shields down. So I'll strip shields, and instead of taking the kill shot, move onto the next thing with shields, trusting my team to finish up what's behind me. It's true I could finish off those targets, but it's more efficient for me to move on and strip the next enemy's shields.

On games like this my score is moddestly lower than otherwise, but the game runs more smoothly and fewer people die. But the larger point is well taken: debuffers still have guns. The only time I can think that it's perfectly OK for a player to have a low score is someone who spends 100% of his time detonating biotic explosiosn. If you get a good biotic duo going, the detonator really doesn't have time to shoot because he's doing nothing but detonating. But aside from that exception, you should be able to put up a decent score, even if your primary role is something other than being a heavy hitter. It's OK if you're a support character to have a score around 50k or so, it's not ok to have a score around 30k regardless of your role.

Modifié par MWaHa, 17 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[Rafficus III]

I see your point, but it's not entirely accurate. I've had people follow me around and refrain from shooting until select times. Sure I had high assists, but I had a low score. By account of just measuring usefulness by score, I would have been deemed barely mediocre even though I was responsible for completing the objectives and being an avid medic. A player's worth is measured by their team's success.

[Wolfsbladex]

Tokenusername wrote...

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

Might want to read OP's again. Your ignorance is showing.

[MWaHa]

Wolfsbladex wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

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

Might want to read OP's again. Your ignorance is showing.

This

Modifié par MWaHa, 17 juin 2012 - 08:11 .

[Star fury]

Score doesn't matter to me, unless I'm the last. And that is true to many.

[astheoceansblue]

paincanbefun wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

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.

i'm going to assume that your last sentence is general and not directed at me personally.

this is what i meant: if i put my power points into utility ability evolutions, my killing (and thus, scoring) potential will be lower than if i did not.  my utility in both cases may be the same.

some people seem to think that score is a metric for ballance- and this is what i'm strenuously objecting to.

yes, of course, everyone should also be killing things, and that will be reflected in the score.

however, any atempt to directly compare the contribution of, for instance, a GE with a fully healing turret and one with a fully damaging turret, is misguided in my opinion.

conversely- and if you were playing during the game's first month, you played with this guy- there's the example of the nova guard who does huge damage and has the top score, but doesn't contribute on the objectives and needs constant rezzes.  to some degree, yes, all that killing did contribute, but his participation had a cost too and so the sum utility is much lower than the score reflects.

so...if you are saying the score accurately and precisely measures contribution, then i totally disagree.
if you are saying that a non-contributing player will also have a low score and even a fully utility specced played will have a reasonable score if they play right, then of course i agree.

the reason i think this distinction is important is because some of the "nerf infiltrators" arguments i've heard recently seem to define ballance as all classes with all specs for all players scoring equally.  i think this entire line of reasoning is flawed.

sorry for the long post.

Basing balance changes on anything but varied correlated data is absurd. Anyone suggesting score alone should be that marker should probably be ignored.

My posts state clearly what I mean: that score isn't precise, but does show us who's contributed. The difference of potential between scores of a defensive and aggressive Geth turret don't differ enough for a huge difference to be justified by the idea that the defensive player who only hit 40k was contributing well.

As others have mentioned, the way this game is designed the best way to contribute is to kill things fast. Debuff and defensive powers and even revives and objectives don't take up enough space to make the gap justified in terms of equal contribution.

Of course, there are times when scores skew (certain builds dominate in rooms if equal skilled players), but in general score gives us a decent idea of contribution.

Support might mean slightly less killing, but it doesn't justify a lot less.

[Gornok]

astheoceansblue wrote...

Gornok wrote...

Whats the sense of keeping score when there are no overall stats to compare anything to? A person has a good game where he meets the metrics for stats and gains alot...
and the game is over

and it still doesn't mean anything... because like a fart in the wind so goes your metric of how you did in that particular game with that particular class built in a particular way against that particular enemy... and its over...

as well as the score counts... counts to what? A mere metric?

Many of you have the ideology of pvp games.... the only thing which matters in a coop game is success of the mission.... Who is going to take the time to record their possible stats based off of medals which you get from hitting a certain plateau... that's it...

Until you are able to accumulate anything.... what sense in you caring what another person does in a game... except if they AFK... which have been taken care of by bioware already with their kick script

Some of us care about the process of plaging, you know, enjoying the game?

My favourite games are those that are fluid, even, with moments of tension but never frustration. This usually means having a balanced team, not someone hugging the corners checking a turret at as too scared to pop off their weapon often enough.

I don't care about score when I play with my friends, I can tell when we're all ok form without having to check, but the score always shows us when one of us is tired or distracted.

Not saying it's important, really. I don't mind playing with people who need a little carrying, but score does show us enough to know who's contributing and who isn't.

I don't care for it regardless if on random or with friends... especially with randoms though... they only get one game in a lobby out of me anyway and I'm on to the next one.

I only care about the success, whether if I'm over by 2,000 or under by 20,000... don't care about any of it...

where is my money
where is my xp

and that is it. The stats merely show the extent of YOUR gameplay... how many kills, by what weapon, by tech or biotic, any grabs? that is based on you and who cares enough to cry about that? It doesn't say how many times someone had to revive you for being an idiot and recklessly trying to kill stuff.. and since there is no such thing as kill stealing in a coop game... those numbers only mean you finished a guy off... not that you sat there and personally killed all those people from start to finish...

What irks me is poor gameplay, seeing someone throw themselves at a turret in the hopes of killing it with a heavy melee and dying while looking for people to revive him... nope
What irks me is not taking part of the objectives and simply going off to kill things
What irks me is passive aggressive comments about my high N7 number... really how did my number get high? what type of imbecile are you for asking it...even as a poor pathetic joke to cover your insecure butt.

but coming in first or last on a game based on teamplay? not at all... there is nothing after that game to care about.

[paincanbefun]

astheoceansblue wrote...

My posts state clearly what I mean: that score isn't precise, but does show us who's contributed. The difference of potential between scores of a defensive and aggressive Geth turret don't differ enough for a huge difference to be justified by the idea that the defensive player who only hit 40k was contributing well.

Of course, there are times when scores skew (certain builds dominate in rooms if equal skilled players), but in general score gives us a decent idea of contribution.

Support might mean slightly less killing, but it doesn't justify a lot less.

we're not arguing.

[saxybeast418]

I've written a couple of tl;dr posts on this subject. I'll try to dig them up if you are interested, but the gist is that while the rest of the game design rewards cooperative play, the scoring system bizarrely punishes cooperative play.

I submit the following:

1) Score doesn't matter insofar as it has no in-game consequences. Stats aren't publicly tracked, and everyone gets the same XP at the end of the match.

2) Score can often be a terrible indicator of a person's skill and/or contribution to the team. Granted, I've played with some fantastic players who were so good that no matter which class they played, the outscored the entire team without noticeably going out of their way to just inflate their score (i.e. they stuck with the team, did the objectives, rezzed players, etc.). But sometimes the most skilled and most valuable player is the one stripping defenses, distracting enemies, capping objectives, and keeping everyone alive, while some other guy is just trying to get the most kills regardless of what is happening to anyone else.

3) Despite the co-op focus of the game, score *does* matter, even if the vast majority of players aren't hyper-competitive jerks. It matters just by virtue of the fact that we are keeping score. It provides a goal, a way to compare skills, a focus, etc.

As such, I would ask Bioware to consider overhauling the score system so that it meshes better with the rest of the game's design. More medals and points for assists is a great place to start, but also see if you can implement stuff like killing an enemy about to kill a teammate, avenging teammates, drawing fire away from the team, interrupting insta-kills, escorting the package, setting up combos, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, make it reflect and reward all of the possible ways for a player to help their team and contribute to the match.

[Yigorse]

Sabbatine 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.

Wrong for two reasons.  First, you can gain score for doing objectives and picking fallen players up, neither of which has anything to do with damage.  Second, score allocation is weighted towards the person who gets the killing blow.  If you did 50% of the damage to an atlas mech, you would not get half credit when that atlas dies unless you got the killing blow... and then you'd get more than half credit.

In order for the person who gets assist credit to outscore the person who gets the killing blow the assist would have to do something like 80% of the total damage.

You people need to look up what "directly related to" means, If I'd meant "entirely dependent upon" I would have written it.  As said: more damage = more score, I then went on to discuss cases where that's not the whole story.

Still, to address the root point....

Yep, objectives and revives do grant you score, but it's not a lot, and I still don't see why doing these things is stopping me from killing stuff AS WELL.

What's more, the assist system, despite making no sense as you explained, still doesn't throw out entirely ridiculous results.  I had a game where I played almost purely as a Biotic detonator for another player.  For the kills we got together, they got about 70-80% of the score, but that doesn't stop me from shooting other stuff while I wait for my cooldowns, or for him to stick another warp on the target.

In a purely weapons situation, where it's just damage, yes player A can do about 50% damage, but player B, who gets the killing blow gets almost double their score, but unless player B is purposefully going for easy killing blows (and believe me, it's pretty obvious when they are) you just chalk it up to chance and move on.  I've yet to see someone outscore me by 50k adn think to myself: "it's only coz he was killstealing".

[MWaHa]

saxybeast418 wrote...

I've written a couple of tl;dr posts on this subject. I'll try to dig them up if you are interested, but the gist is that while the rest of the game design rewards cooperative play, the scoring system bizarrely punishes cooperative play.

I submit the following:

1) Score doesn't matter insofar as it has no in-game consequences. Stats aren't publicly tracked, and everyone gets the same XP at the end of the match.

2) Score can often be a terrible indicator of a person's skill and/or contribution to the team. Granted, I've played with some fantastic players who were so good that no matter which class they played, the outscored the entire team without noticeably going out of their way to just inflate their score (i.e. they stuck with the team, did the objectives, rezzed players, etc.). But sometimes the most skilled and most valuable player is the one stripping defenses, distracting enemies, capping objectives, and keeping everyone alive, while some other guy is just trying to get the most kills regardless of what is happening to anyone else.

3) Despite the co-op focus of the game, score *does* matter, even if the vast majority of players aren't hyper-competitive jerks. It matters just by virtue of the fact that we are keeping score. It provides a goal, a way to compare skills, a focus, etc.

As such, I would ask Bioware to consider overhauling the score system so that it meshes better with the rest of the game's design. More medals and points for assists is a great place to start, but also see if you can implement stuff like killing an enemy about to kill a teammate, avenging teammates, drawing fire away from the team, interrupting insta-kills, escorting the package, setting up combos, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, make it reflect and reward all of the possible ways for a player to help their team and contribute to the match.

I could agree with this. I've been on the "score is a somewhat helpful metric if interpreted judiciously" side of the argument, but i think it could still be approved. 

I would be happy if there was a more comprehensive number of counters. Something like "total amount of damage done," "amount of damage done to cannibals," "amount of damage done to marauders," "number of each enemy type killed," "total number of kills," "accuracy," "number of assists," etc. (I'm sure the actual list of counters could be refined by someone with more time and thoughtfulness than I.)

Of course, a system like this could still be gamed, but I think it would be more informative and more helpful.

[MWaHa]

Yigorse wrote...


In a purely weapons situation, where it's just damage, yes player A can do about 50% damage, but player B, who gets the killing blow gets almost double their score, but unless player B is purposefully going for easy killing blows (and believe me, it's pretty obvious when they are) you just chalk it up to chance and move on.  I've yet to see someone outscore me by 50k adn think to myself: "it's only coz he was killstealing".

This seems right. The obvious response to the argument about kills getting more point is that, unless someone is being a dick, it probably all works out evenly in terms of who gets the kill shot (if not within a particular game, then overall). If two people are firing at an enemy, all things equal, it's probably a coinflip who gets the kill shot, and over the course of 100 enemies, each person will probably get the same number of kill shots. So while it's true that kill shots skew the score for a particular enemy, the kill bonus each person gets probably cancels out the bonuses the other person gets.

Having said that, I hate when my infiltrator proxy mines and then javelin's a prime, only to leave it with one bar of health left. I WANTED THAT KILL SHOT SO BAD!

[holdenagincourt]

Sometimes, I'll be in second place and feel like I was a burden, because even though I was doing a lot of damage, I was also dying a lot and compromising my team.

Other times, I'll be clearly last and feel like I played a huge part in the team's success because I was the only infiltrator on a team with three vanguards, I got to the disable devices, packages and assassinations quickly, and I kept the team fighting through revives and taking out Marauders/Hunters who were trying to flank the CQ people.

[Schneidend]

Score is really only useful for determining how well you did with a build designed to kill everything in sight. Even then, it's nothing concrete.

[Drussius]

I will not say that score does not matter at all. It can reflect how much a player helped to kill things. But that's all it reflects is how much killing they did (for the most part... yes, there are scores given for capping objectives or hitting plateaus on revives, but these are not even close to on par with the scores one can attain for killing things in the same span of time).

When scores start giving you a bonus for every enemy distracted by your decoy, every point of damage healed by your geth turret, every single revive, extra points are awarded for capping objectives, you get assist points when your bubble applies DR to your team, and so forth, THEN score will really have meaning.

Until then, it's an inefficient means of judging a player's utility in the game.

Take for example the Quarian Engineer I played with on Silver yesterday. Armed with a Falcon with cryo rounds and making heavy use of the Cryo Blast skill, he/she ran around freezing or chilling EVERYTHING, but not killing much of anything. The rest of us followed them around mopping up. At the end of the game, their score was at the bottom of the scoreboard, but I considered them MVP by far.

[BLAHBLUE2001]

Score matters very little to me. With my AJA and GE I can usually land in the top and with my HA and SE I might be in the bottom, but I feel I'm always an asset.

The scoreboard can give you somewhat of an idea of what happened in a game, but it's simply not specific enough. If I join a game at wave 5 or higher I may not be close at all to number 1 if the team already present is good. It doesn't mean that because I have half the score of the top player that I didn't contribute to a sucsseful extraction. I know this is not common, but to me its just an example on how score does not equal skill all the time.