169 réponses à ce sujet

[KiraTsukasa]

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

[Drummernate]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

In my experience...

Low score = Layed on the floor or AFK'd for 80% of the match.

[astheoceansblue]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

How is a blanket statement like that helpful to anyone?

Too many variables to say either way, but reviving/completing objectives/putting down a shield turret... none of these things take long enough that it should put you at the bottom of the board unless every other player is kill hogging and you're the only one playing as a team.

And then it would be obvious what happened, so it wouldn't matter.

[WestLakeDragon]

Drummernate wrote...

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

Or when everyone but you is using a Krysae. It's all I see and it looks like I'm doing less with my, say 60K using an AA to everyone elses' 100k+, even though there were people to detonate or setup explosions in the lobby, they'd rather just use those dang Krysaes

/rant

Modifié par WestLakeDragon, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:53 .

[KiraTsukasa]

astheoceansblue wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

How is a blanket statement like that helpful to anyone?

Too many variables to say either way, but reviving/completing objectives/putting down a shield turret... none of these things take long enough that it should put you at the bottom of the board unless every other player is kill hogging and you're the only one playing as a team.

And then it would be obvious what happened, so it wouldn't matter.

Drummernate wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Layed on the floor or AFK'd for 80% of the match.

And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

These two posts are perfect examples of my point. When someone gets a low score, everyone assumes they're doing nothing. It's true, I'm usually the one with the low score. But I'm the one stripping shields so that others don't have to worry about shield gate, I'm the one picking off enemies that come up behind others, I'm the one detonating biotics so other people get their kills. If I wasn't doing what I was doing, YOU would have spent 80% of the match on your back, so get over your elitism.

Modifié par KiraTsukasa, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:59 .

[astheoceansblue]

KiraTsukasa wrote...
And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

So you expect us to belive that the  lowest scoring player in the majority of games you've played was supporting the team so well that it justified their lower score?

As I said, unless you were all kill hogging and they were the only ones completing objectives and reviving, then no amount of  "support" justifies a significantly lower score.

How does dropping a turret, or debuffing a mob prevent you from  shooting exactly?

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:58 .

[Tonymac]

I think that score is all about e-peen. Obviously if I have a high score, it means that my e-peen is bigger then the sandworms of Arrakis.

Or, it could very likely be that score is based upon damage done. Those who have bad luck with guns and bonus equipment stuffs will only be able to put out so much damage. If you do more damage you can kill stuff faster, and get higher scores - even if the other guy is a better shot or player.

For those of us that play in my small groups, its about having fun. We might rib eachother over score in good jest, but its all about extraction.

People on here care too much about score. This is why good classes like the infiltrator are being raped by the developers. For some reason, a soldier with an M-8 Avenger 1 cannot keep up with an infiltrator using a Black Widow 10 with fire ammo. So they snivel, cry, rage, and moan until a fine class is destroyed.

The cycle continues...

[KiraTsukasa]

astheoceansblue wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...
And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

So you expect us to belive that the  lowest scoring player in the majority of games you've played was supporting the team so well that it justified their lower score?

As I said, unless you were all kill hogging and they were the only ones completing objectives and reviving, then no amount of  "support" justifies a significantly lower score.

How does dropping a turret, or debuffing a mob prevent you from  shooting exactly?

A PURE support role is debuffing so that other people can kill faster. As I said, they help the team more than elitists like you will ever give them credit for.

Modifié par KiraTsukasa, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:04 .

[astheoceansblue]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...
And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

So you expect us to belive that the  lowest scoring player in the majority of games you've played was supporting the team so well that it justified their lower score?

As I said, unless you were all kill hogging and they were the only ones completing objectives and reviving, then no amount of  "support" justifies a significantly lower score.

How does dropping a turret, or debuffing a mob prevent you from  shooting exactly?

A PURE support role is debuffing so that other people can kill faster. As I said, they help the team more than elitists like you will never give them credit for.

Nothing prevents the support character from shooting and debuffing. Powers go into CD, you know? In between their usage you shoot which helps you keep up.

As I said, no amount of "support" prevents  you from killing entirely, and if all you're doing is sitting around throwing your powers then ducking behind cover to wait for them to recharge you're not a very good player by default.

We're not talking about last place anyway, we're talking about significantly lower scores than the average in the room. No amount of "support" would justify 20k in a room of three others hitting 80k.

[Grammaton Dryad]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

Sweeping generalization is bad. There is sooo little logic in your comment that even I, a supporter of the "support role" concept, find your comment absurd and wildly incorrect.

You and that one Ryan H guy typically have the most ignorant posts ever....is there a way I can block people's posts so I don't have to read them ever again?

back OT, Oceanblue makes great points though, a good player can score very well (80k+ on silver, 100k+ on gold) with any class. But as long as you get like 60% of that, I'd say you're good. AND for many of us veterans, with our map knowledge and X weapons, some of the casual players and newbies aren't comfortable with a aggressive approach and would just get lost and/or die if they tried what we do.

For me, a good/bad player is defined more during the objective waves & those clutch/panic moments more than anything else. Adaptability and quick, intelligent problem solving = good player.

[Moonphos87]

Different players have different standards of how "bad" a player can be. Score is not necessary a major point, but it's pretty high on the list, if I can tell from threads I've seen so far.

Personally, I think a bad player is those who refused to help the team in any means, which can be a very broad subject. Such as not reviving a person who gets dropped next to you in a not-too-bad situation, or not helping with 4-man hacking, or just trying to RAMBO ALL THE THINGS, etc.

Score, to me, is low on the priority list for being a bad player. At least it's excusable for low N7 genuine newbies and those who are just stepping into higher difficulties.

[Drummernate]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

How is a blanket statement like that helpful to anyone?

Too many variables to say either way, but reviving/completing objectives/putting down a shield turret... none of these things take long enough that it should put you at the bottom of the board unless every other player is kill hogging and you're the only one playing as a team.

And then it would be obvious what happened, so it wouldn't matter.

Drummernate wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Layed on the floor or AFK'd for 80% of the match.

And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

These two posts are perfect examples of my point. When someone gets a low score, everyone assumes they're doing nothing. It's true, I'm usually the one with the low score. But I'm the one stripping shields so that others don't have to worry about shield gate, I'm the one picking off enemies that come up behind others, I'm the one detonating biotics so other people get their kills. If I wasn't doing what I was doing, YOU would have spent 80% of the match on your back, so get over your elitism.

Even when I play as a Geth Engineer or Human Adept I still come in first by like 65,000 or more... on a bad day.
That is using a Geth Pulse Rifle + Geth Plasma Shotgun, and Carnifex + Avenger respectively.

People who say they are "Supporting" don't know how to kill effectively.

Singularity sucks? Well it can lift 3~ enemies and prime all of them for Biotic explosions + it can stagger lock a shielded enemy in place very effectively.

"Geth Engineers who don't spec for shield turret are doing it wrong."

Hmmm not really.

I spec mine for only 3 points and still get top score every match. Teammates and yourself don't need shields when you are killing enemies efficiently.

"Overload is only good for stripping shields".

Nope.

Spec for damage and it does like 468+ damage per cast or something like that. 468 damage every 2.4 seconds is pretty darn good. It makes fire explosions easy.

I'm not an elitist.

I am just elite.

Modifié par Drummernate, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:09 .

[KiraTsukasa]

Grammaton Dryad wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

Sweeping generalization is bad. There is sooo little logic in your comment that even I, a supporter of the "support role" concept, find your comment absurd and wildly incorrect.

You and that one Ryan H guy typically have the most ignorant posts ever....is there a way I can block people's posts so I don't have to read them ever again?

back OT, Oceanblue makes great points though, a good player can score very well (80k+ on silver, 100k+ on gold) with any class. But as long as you get like 60% of that, I'd say you're good. AND for many of us veterans, with our map knowledge and X weapons, some of the casual players and newbies aren't comfortable with a aggressive approach and would just get lost and/or die if they tried what we do.

For me, a good/bad player is defined more during the objective waves & those clutch/panic moments more than anything else. Adaptability and quick, intelligent problem solving = good player.

Yet another post that proves my point.

When you guys get over your elitism, let me know.

[KiraTsukasa]

Drummernate wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

astheoceansblue wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

How is a blanket statement like that helpful to anyone?

Too many variables to say either way, but reviving/completing objectives/putting down a shield turret... none of these things take long enough that it should put you at the bottom of the board unless every other player is kill hogging and you're the only one playing as a team.

And then it would be obvious what happened, so it wouldn't matter.

Drummernate wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Layed on the floor or AFK'd for 80% of the match.

And that's why it's MY experience and not yours.

These two posts are perfect examples of my point. When someone gets a low score, everyone assumes they're doing nothing. It's true, I'm usually the one with the low score. But I'm the one stripping shields so that others don't have to worry about shield gate, I'm the one picking off enemies that come up behind others, I'm the one detonating biotics so other people get their kills. If I wasn't doing what I was doing, YOU would have spent 80% of the match on your back, so get over your elitism.

Even when I play as a Geth Engineer or Human Adept I still come in first by like 65,000 or more... on a bad day.
That is using a Geth Pulse Rifle + Geth Plasma Shotgun, and Carnifex + Avenger respectively.

People who say they are "Supporting" don't know how to kill effectively.

Singularity sucks? Well it can lift 3~ enemies and prime all of them for Biotic explosions + it can stagger lock a shielded enemy in place very effectively.

"Geth Engineers who don't spec for shield turret are doing it wrong."

Hmmm not really.

I spec mine for only 3 points and still get top score every match. Teammates and yourself don't need shields when you are killing enemies efficiently.

"Overload is only good for stripping shields".

Nope.

Spec for damage and it does like 468+ damage per cast or something like that. 468 damage every 2.4 seconds is pretty darn good. It makes fire explosions easy.

I'm not an elitist.

I am just elite.

Oh, you get top score every game so that makes everything you say right.

Sorry, I'll bow down before your greatness now.

[astheoceansblue]

Grammaton Dryad wrote...
You and that one Ryan H guy typically have the most ignorant posts ever....is there a way I can block people's posts so I don't have to read them ever again?

You can only block incming messages, unfortunately.

Grammaton Dryad wrote... 
For me, a good/bad player is defined more during the objective waves & those clutch/panic moments more than anything else. Adaptability and quick, intelligent problem solving = good player.

Agreed. The only way to truly test someone's metal is to play next to them.

I know players who outscore me almost every time but only use Infiltrators. Does that make them better? Maybe at sniping, but as a general player? Score wouldn't indicate that, so it's not perfect.

However, if I don't at least keep up with them I know I didn't polay well and my score will reflect my poor effort.

[Drummernate]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

Oh, you get top score every game so that makes everything you say right.

Sorry, I'll bow down before your greatness now.

Well... would you listen to the guy that gets bottom score in every match and complains about everyone else being elitists or the guy who comes in first every time and actually gives pointers?

[red_ryder]

Tell me if I'm a bad player or if this is to be expected. I'm playing as a lvl 17 human infiltrator on bronze with a Claymore III. The other 3 guys are soldiers, all about the same level.

As an experiment I wasn't doing any support work, and I tried my damnedest to get as many kills as possible. At the end, the scores were 41K, 39K, 37K and I had 22K.

I know the mantra about ignoring the scores and having fun, blah blah blah. But when I get scores so much lower than the other players I can't help feeling I'm doing something wrong. And then my fun level goes down.

[TMB903]

I've played more than enough gold to know when someone is a good squadmate even when they have a low score

[KiraTsukasa]

Drummernate wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

Oh, you get top score every game so that makes everything you say right.

Sorry, I'll bow down before your greatness now.

Well... would you listen to the guy that gets bottom score in every match and complains about everyone else being elitists or the guy who comes in first every time and actually gives pointers?

Have you ever given pointers without being condescending? I've yet to see it.

In fact, I should report the lot of you for your attitudes.

[astheoceansblue]

red_ryder wrote...
I know the mantra about ignoring the scores and having fun, blah blah blah. But when I get scores so much lower than the other players I can't help feeling I'm doing something wrong. And then my fun level goes down.

Getting the lowest or a very low score indicates one of two things to me (unless I am purpously gimped with low-end weapons or builds for the challenge/fun of it):

1. I played badly.
2. I'm in a room with three other people who are much better than me.

The first one is easy to get over, the second I love as it offers me an opportunity to up my game by the bar that's been raised.

Score helps assess things, definitley.

KiraTsukasa wrote...
Have you ever given pointers without being condescending? I've yet to see it.

In fact, I should report the lot of you for your attitudes. 

 
Coming from you, that's actually hilarious.

Modifié par astheoceansblue, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .

[WestLakeDragon]

Drummernate wrote...

Well... would you listen to the guy that gets bottom score in every match and complains about everyone else being elitists or the guy who comes in first every time and actually gives pointers?

If that is the exact circumstances on both parts, then I'd listen to the guy in first, it's moreso with score though, that the guy in first was doing good, but got a decently higher score than last place, even though last place still did decently in their own respect, if Gold was completed sucessfully on a less farm friendly map.

I mean, if it was obvious there was some carrying happening, then disregard the score anyways, and if everyone was playing as a team, then disregard the score anyways. Heck, disregard the score unless you at the end of the match find out that some person that you hadn't really seen but didn't see AFk-ing had less than 10K on Gold.

[KentGoldings]

You should finish in the top two about 50% of time.

[WestLakeDragon]

KentGoldings wrote...

You should finish in the top two about 50% of time.

\\

Although the above stat is a statistic I do fall into, if I'm detonating BEs and not priming them, it can be difficult to not come in 3-4 all of the time.

[Grammaton Dryad]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

Grammaton Dryad wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

*snip*

*snip*

Yet another post that proves my point.

When you guys get over your elitism, let me know.

How did I prove your point? Your point was the lowest score = best player. I said that was a silly notion since there is a significant lack of evidence to support it. According to your logic, and AFKer = best player. Hence the foolishness of your comment.

As for elitism? I only mentioned that your comment(s) are full of ideological facepalms. If you can't support your argument other than labeling me as an elitist (which is silly since my opinions and comments directly negate that), then you only support my point.

So thanks for showing the internet that you're wrong and immature about it. I think you should go back to the playground sir, where "it takes one to know one" is a viable rebuttle.

I think in terms of the opposition of my opinion, that score isn't really important and that support roles will suffer from several thousand points (not more than 10k I'd think), oceanblue has won me over in his ability to use logic and well thought out ideas as the result of the internalization of other people's comments.

You could learn something from him if you'd be a bit more humble. But that's enough of my taking this thread semi-off topic to try to reason with you. Feel free to get the last word; I will feed you no longer. And sorry to the OP for possibly derailing his thread.

[Beerfish]

Drummernate wrote...

KiraTsukasa wrote...

In my experience...

Low score = Helped the team out more than they'll ever get credit for

In my experience...

Low score = Layed on the floor or AFK'd for 80% of the match.

Much like how 'high score by alot' often means the player is either a big fish in a small pond or is a line wolf and cares mostly about jacking up the score.

Reasonable correct?