169 réponses à ce sujet

[astheoceansblue]

WaffleCrab wrote...
 Map and enemy type is a huge factor in your score too, for example an overload CC build on a support does not do nearly as much damage to reapers as it does to geth.

I don't know, I use my overload CC Geth on Reapers all the time and score highly. The group stagger coupled with HMs buffs let you take down groups of little mobs very, very effectively, and it's wonderful versus Mauraders.

Honestly, I've not come across a support role or type of class/faction combination that is an excuse for a drastically low relative score, not constently at least, and most of the time I can keep up even if I'm laying a shield turret every few seconds or debuffing with Cryo, etc...

Of course, if your team finds its groove and you find yourself stripping shields and moving on without killing letting others mop up after you and your clear times reflect the synergy positively, then screw score! For the most part though, you can mop up after yourself and still be working as a team player. I find the latter way to usually be more effective, especially as the type of synergy required for the former is usually restricted to friends groups.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 05 juillet 2012 - 10:28 .

[SlimJim0725]

I would go as far to say more often then not, yes. Most of the low score players I come across tend to be down the majority of the game and don't do much in terms of helping the team except a few revives if a teammate goes down by them. I would not say always at all, just usually.

[sclera]

Higher score = better at killing stuff. Or more correctly, did kill more stuff. There are ways to be helpful that don't add to your score, such as getting on your mic and telling your team mates to follow you to a good position. 

[A Wild Snorlax]

Depends, but often yes.

[Zaxares]

It depends. Some classes/builds will just not be able to keep up with the high number of kills that other builds can attain (my "Geth Medic" is one of those. He almost always comes last in the score, but feedback has been overwhelmingly positive whenever he's on a team), so score can't be used as a reliable indicator of whether somebody is a bad player or not. Not to mention that lag can play a huge factor in not being able to score shots and land powers for combos.

A better indicator is to see how they contribute to the team. Do they just follow someone around and fire a few shots now and then? Do they just hide in a corner somewhere or refuse to follow instructions? Or are they actively helping to activate objectives, revive people, and setting up combos? As long as somebody's pulling their weight, I don't consider them a bad player.

[dzero]

I really wish BioWare would think up a new, more complex scoring system...

[Fortack]

astheoceansblue wrote...

Too many factors to consider to call it absolute, but if you're consistantly only scoring 20k in Gold while all the randoms you play with are getting 70k+, you should probably head to Silver to practise your killing.

There are very few classes that have support roles that take up enough actions that your score would be that low if you're being efficient. Even if you're de-buffing and laying shield  turrets, you still have a gun... even if you're running a duration infiltrator, you still have a gun...

Indeed. The best way anyone can "support" the team effort is killing stuff. For good players it's irrelevant who or what they're playing. Every character with a good gun (which everyone should be using anyway - on gold at least) can be a killing machine and in most games I play (with friends) the difference between the highest and lowest score is somewhere within a 10-20% margin. The one topping the list is usually the one who got "lucky" reaching enemy spawn points before the others could join the carnage

Getting a low score doesn't mean someone is a bad player, but it does mean they can do better.

[kww75]

Fun, teamwork >>>> score

Score is a secondary thing for me. Fun is the primary importance to me. The only time a low score ever matters to me is when its obvious someone is afk a lot.

Low score is seen as a symptom of a few things, but you need to exercise some grey matter (otherwords use your head) before passing judgement.

The worst symptoms that are a result of a low score is
1. An afk player/leecher (not as big a problem now)
2. A player who is dying a lot

Acceptable symptoms of low score
1. Someone using newbie weapons or trying out a new/unfamilar weapon loadout
2. Someone who is camping a spawn site to prevent spawns from a certain map point
3. There is one or two people in group "score farming" (usually aoe classes or grenaders)
4. It's obivious that player is suffering from very bad lag!

As you can see from these reasons a low score does not indicate a good player or not.

Score never justifies a good player to me, the only thing I use as an indication a player is better than me is whether they can hit their twenty headshots achievement before me (if I'm not suffering from lag). 

[Feneckus]

If you stay alive, especially on waves 9-10, then who cares.

[veramis]

A player is playing bad if he dies 5-10 times per wave, runs off to lala land, doesn't go into blue circle during hack. Even on gold, a player who stays in cover but hardly kills anything is better than a suicidal player, because at least he draws enemy attention and doesn't need to be baby sitted.

You don't have to have good aim to do well on gold, you just have to understand game mechanics, ie tech burst, biotic explosion, how facing the same direction as your cover gives you 40% damage reduction, how enemies act, and how to do objectives.

It looks extremely strange, but when I play novaguard, I very often hug any random wall and stare at it after a charge and nova, and that 40% DR greatly reduces my death rate. It;'s either that or abusing nova roll ..

[himohillo]

Score doesn't really mean anything, unless they do something about it. Like giving assist points for detonating the biotics, scanning enemies, reviving and all that fun stuff.

If the player is behind ~40k, that usually means they're bad players, but not always. One time i had this really good teammate, i was spamming warp and he always detonated them with throw, he was ~30k points lower than me but without his help we wouldn't have taken the bosses down as quickly as we did.

[BXpress2]

astheoceansblue wrote...

Honestly, I've not come across a support role or type of class/faction combination that is an excuse for a drastically low relative score, not constently at least, and most of the time I can keep up even if I'm laying a shield turret every few seconds or debuffing with Cryo, etc...

Ah yes.the falsehood/excuse card of "i supported".let me ask you question,to all people who keep bringing up Geth Turrets and Decoys.once you place that Decoy what do you do next?do you stand there and maintain it with your screw driver?where are you guns and offensive powers?

I have scored over 140k with Geth and Human Engineers.the only reason why i could do that is because my teammates are simply bad,and the work falls on my shoulders.a fact in this game.in a game with equally skilled players ,where everybody makes an equal amount of effort,you could never outscore somebody by nearly 100k points.the gap between the players would be 10-20k.

Biotic detonators should be an exception.if somebody constantly and reliably detonates,you dont need to look at the scoreboard.it wont matter,because every reasonable player will recognize his/her contribution.

player#1 100.000
player#2   80.000
player#3   70.000
player#4   55.000

a balanced team.there will always be one guy who just couldnt be fast enough at the spawn=score doesnt matter.

player#1  150.000
player#2    50.000
player#3    40.000
player#4    30.000

3 people suck and got carried=score matters.

[Adamantium93]

It really depends. I find that if someone's score is very far behind everybody else's than yes, score matters. But even then...

I primarily play silver and one of the best games I've ever been in was my Drell Adept, a Turian sentinel, a male Quarian engineer, and a Salarian engineer. We instinctively split into two teams, I with the sentinel and the two engineers together.

On the engineer team, the Quarian acted as support, keeping the enemies back while the salarian picked them off with a sniper rifle.

Meanwhile, my sentinel overloaded shields and kept aggro off my squishy drell while I made things go boom. Sure he could've helped with biotic detonations, but that's ok.

At the end of the match, the Salarian and I were about even in score but miles ahead of the other two. However, I would still play with them again because we just worked really well together.

Modifié par Adamantium93, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:23 .

[Vistav]

Having a low score doesn't mean the player is bad, a good example to it is detonating biotic explosions, it is clearly seen how usefull 1 is. Reviving teammates, staying alive, sticking to the same tactics, staying close and assisting with objectives, especially on gold , shows that the person is skilled, or atleast has a brain.

[GallowsPole]

You don't even need to look at scores to know if a team is gelling. If I'm not killing myself to get my credits, then I could care less. I'll keep playing with the same team. If not, I just leave the lobby afterwards.

[astheoceansblue]

Vistav wrote...

Having a low score doesn't mean the player is bad, a good example to it is detonating biotic explosions, it is clearly seen how usefull 1 is. Reviving teammates, staying alive, sticking to the same tactics, staying close and assisting with objectives, especially on gold , shows that the person is skilled, or atleast has a brain.

No amount of support work prevents you from killing things enough to keep up, unless the entire team is score whoring and not capping objectives/reviving but you, but then it'll be obvious who the better co-op players are so it won't matter.

[indy500fan]

BXpress2 wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

Honestly, I've not come across a support role or type of class/faction combination that is an excuse for a drastically low relative score, not constently at least, and most of the time I can keep up even if I'm laying a shield turret every few seconds or debuffing with Cryo, etc...

Ah yes.the falsehood/excuse card of "i supported".let me ask you question,to all people who keep bringing up Geth Turrets and Decoys.once you place that Decoy what do you do next?do you stand there and maintain it with your screw driver?where are you guns and offensive powers?

I have scored over 140k with Geth and Human Engineers.the only reason why i could do that is because my teammates are simply bad,and the work falls on my shoulders.a fact in this game.in a game with equally skilled players ,where everybody makes an equal amount of effort,you could never outscore somebody by nearly 100k points.the gap between the players would be 10-20k.

Biotic detonators should be an exception.if somebody constantly and reliably detonates,you dont need to look at the scoreboard.it wont matter,because every reasonable player will recognize his/her contribution.

player#1 100.000
player#2   80.000
player#3   70.000
player#4   55.000

a balanced team.there will always be one guy who just couldnt be fast enough at the spawn=score doesnt matter.

player#1  150.000
player#2    50.000
player#3    40.000
player#4    30.000

3 people suck and got carried=score matters.

That second example could easily be an Adept reaving everything in first, one of the others an adept throwing everything to set off the combos, and everything dying too quickly for soldiers to get kills. Possibly not any bad players.

[DemonZeeman]

It depends IMO, there is always going to be someone at the top of the lists, and at the bottom of the score board. but that person isn't necessarily a bad player. A bad player i think is someone who doesn't seem to care much for team based game play, such as going on his own little missions that cause him to go down, not assisting with objectives or whatever just examples. i've seen some players with low scores giving it their all, sure they might go down a bit more and they may not be doing as much damage in comparison to the rest of the team, but they're still trying and for me that counts a lot. I've been in a situation once or twice where i had a newbie playing and he went down a span of times, I revived him plenty of times and when i went down on occasion that little guy went out of his way to return the favor. If your score is low it shouldn't matter, as long as you contribute willingly to the team. You should enjoy the game more and worry about the score less

[Disciple888]

I agree with astheoceansblue completely. A good player will revive, do objectives, and still score 100k plus no matter the class. A bad player will use garbage guns, kill nothing, never use medigel, never use rockets, score 20-40k on r/r/g and then come on bsn and say he was "support" lol. Yeah u support so much that I have to solo waves 8-10, great.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Score means exactly nothing. I just played a game where somebody was CONSTANTLY jumping in front of me to block my fire so he could get the kill. There are lots of VERY poor who don't have skill and who suck at teamplay but who use overpowered guns who get good scores. They suck and bring down the team morale wise and performance wise. They will "kill steal", refuse to revive, won't hack, ect, to pump their score. Bleh.

Lol, and they'll use rockets to pump up their score instead of when they are actually needed. Pathetic.

Contrary to what some people say, all classes and builds do not have equal killing speed and some were designed more for support.

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .

[LeandroBraz]

Maurodax wrote...

Hi there!

I am a pretty average player, i usually don't have any problem with silver and definetly not bronze (unless i get to cocky), so i've started playing Gold and cleared it twice.. not thanks to me tho, mostly because of my teammates.
Anyways, enough about me.

From reading different threads aswell as listening to teammates ingame, i've gotten the feeling that most people think that a low score is equal to a bad player, but is that really true?
I am a huge fan of supporting, so i play engineer (Mostly human male/female or Quarian Male) or increased duration infiltrator, just so i can remove the shield from as many enemys as possible, tactical scan (i have "enemy vision" or whatever it's called, instead of the extra damage) or as an infiltrator run around invis trying to revive or get those devices that are placed in an open space.
So all that usually makes me score 3rd or 4th place, specially on gold. But am i really all that useless just because i have a low score?
 
I've outmost respect for people who top the scoreboards, like the first time i cleared gold, the nr1 guy had around 100k more than the rest of us, so he clearly was the one doing ****, although rest of us helped. But both me (as an engineer) and our adept, were mostly supporting, not really killing anything but rather disable them (stasis bubble and whatever engineers paralyzing thingie is called).

So i guess what i'm trying to say, is it really true that low score = bad player?

Sorry for my bad english.

Regards Maurodax

The last thing I look is the score. You can see in the match that a guy is a bad player.
 For example, yesterday the guy topping the score was a infiltrator with the krysae. He was doing more damage than us (mostly because of the weapon), but was clearly a bad player. We was playing on condor against geth, everyone was staying in the highest point of the map, he was the only one trying to defend the middle of it (that balcony in the middle, from where you can see the place we start the match. I asked him to stay with the team, multiple times, he just ignored. He just keeped falling, forcing us to move to his position, where we almost loose more than one time. He used so many medigels because he was too far from us, completely unecessary. We only won because the team was keeping him alive, he almost jeopardize me match in every single wave.

 This is one type of bad player. You can top the score, but if you are a liability, if you only do that because the other 3 players are keeping you alive and the match going, so you are a bad player...

[Variasaber]

Low score can indicate a player was underperforming compared to the others, but it doesn't have to. Any player in a support role will have naturally lower scores than his/her frontline assault teammates.
Keep in mind that you don't get a lot of points for reviving teammates (do you get any at all?), and you get nothing for taking on a pseudo-medic role with the GE's turret. But both of these can be immeasurably helpful to the team if used effectively, and your score will not reflect that.

If you want to figure out the value of a player, don't look at their score, look at how they play. If they ignore objectives to get kills (and not kills that take the heat off their teammates, just killing as much as they can), they're not helping the team very well. If they always go for objectives and revives and you frequently find your shields being restored by your friendly neighborhood Geth Turret, that player is definitely helping the team in ways that their score won't reflect.

[dumdum2]

I would say that a low score often means the player is crap. The definition of "low score" on the other hand can be discussed.

Even if you play a support role you can still get a very high score if you know what you're doing. In my opinion there really is no such thing as a "support" role. My trolling pink Krogan named Fluffy is a medic God and also caps all of the objectives, she's using a crappy weapon like the Crusader and still manages to get the highest score on gold most of the times even though she was only made with the purpose of being a crappy character.

Salarian Engineer? Support role? No no no, you should be able to get high scores with that one if you know how to use it correctly.

[astheoceansblue]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...
Contrary to what some people say, all classes and builds do not have equal killing speed and some were designed more for support.

The difference between most is not massive, though. I play in rooms of good players who score within around 20k from 4th to 1st pretty much always, and we use whatever classes we want. I've never noticed a massive divide unless someone was running an underdog class such as the QFE and a sub-par weapon or kooky build for fun.

"support" is no excuse to score low by itself. Combined with other factors (such as absolute team synerygy wherein one player strips shields and another finishes off in solid ryhthm, for example) and yes, "support" might justify it. But for your your average random pub, no, that kind of synergy is rare and everyone has a gun.

Score often indicates the better player in random pub games (especially if a player is using a so called "support" class and topping the board) just as much as it often indicates the least skilled.

There are a few classes that make scoring high easy (especially if you ignore the team and kill hog), but aside from a few underpowered classes the majority are pretty even. So a room with a Human Soldier, a Geth Engineer, an Asari Adept, and a Turian Sentinel should can all fulfill their role AND score evenly. Yes, it's likely the Human Soldier and AA will top, but that doesn't mean the margin between them and the others should be massive, and it doesn't mean the leaderboard won't be diifferent... "support" characters can be set up to support and kill efficiently.

Every class has a power that helps them kill, and every class has access to a decent gun for it's CD requirements. Unless you're a new player with a low manifest, "support" does not mean you can't keep up.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:41 .

[Drummernate]

If the score difference is larger than 50k between each player... then typically each player is progressively worse than the last one.

Engineers and Adepts are not only for support, they can easily top scoreboards by considerable amounts... in Gold

The only time a large score difference does NOT mean a lack of skill, is when the first place guy is using a Krysae.

Modifié par Drummernate, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:46 .