227 réponses à ce sujet

[JxLegend]

N7 = call of duty prestige to me.
Money is much more important than N7 anyway which is shared by everyone regardless of score.

[Ladsworth]

N7 Rating really doesn't matter. You could be a Bronze player in the thousands.

I'm N7-450, been playing since launch, like to think that I'm at least decent at the game, yet I often destroy those in their thousands on the scoreboard.

N7 rating REALLY doesn't matter.

[Disciple888]

Lots of bad players be posting in here lol

[Omega2079]

FirroSeranel wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...

Omega2079 wrote...

LOL, no. It doesn't work like that. Your statements show you don't understand what you're talking about.

You can't have it both ways. One example does not show correlation. Correlation does not imply causation.

Actually, correlation does imply that there's SOME causal relationship. Regardless of that, if correlation could be proven (which I doubt), you could actually rationally assume, without regards to causation, that if high N7 level is presented, a high score will present itself as well.

Of course, you actually can't claim correlation from one sample. Or even two. A two-sample OLS regression will pretty much always yield a 100% correlation on a single predictor variable. The only way it wouldn't is if the two samples included someone of the exact same N7 level or score, but not the same on both.

I really doubt that N7 rankings or scores are normally distributed, too, so we'd need a LOT of samples to invoke the central limit theorem, since one of the assumptions behind OLS regression is the normality of residuals. Any individual person's experience can't even be shown to imply correlation.

But I'm not trying to prove a correlation.  I'm just saying that -others- can't prove there -isn't- any.  Which is true.  And yes, it does work like that.  Not because I'm a "raving forum poster"  Because that's how -logic- works.

You tried to bring statistics into this and got called on it. You're backtracking again.

[Zero132132]

FirroSeranel wrote...

But I'm not trying to prove a correlation.  I'm just saying that -others- can't prove there -isn't- any.  Which is true.  And yes, it does work like that.  Not because I'm a "raving forum poster"  Because that's how -logic- works.

Fine. Others can't prove there isn't any. That's all well and good. So you're essentially agreeing that your claims are absolutely unfounded, and since they aren't falsifiable with information we have access to, beyond any sort of scientific inquiry?

Essentially, you're admitting that you aren't actually making a concrete claim of any sort?

[Revuhlooshun]

I'm a flat 120. Here's my manifest: http://social.biowar...lay=multiplayer

N7 means nothing.

[HinDae]

Oooh, I promoted my characters 50+ times after farming W/G/G I'm so f***in' good at this game.

Skill is how well you play your chosen class, and how adaptable you are. The true show of skill is soloing a wave when all your teammates died due to "Hurr but if I revive you someone else will steal all my kills, fak u BK"

[Disciple888]

HinDae wrote...

Oooh, I promoted my characters 50+ times after farming W/G/G I'm so f***in' good at this game.

Skill is how well you play your chosen class, and how adaptable you are. The true show of skill is soloing a wave when all your teammates died due to "Hurr but if I revive you someone else will steal all my kills, fak u BK"

True show of skill is soloing, period.

[Mr. Heavy]

Here's my problem worth the N7=skill argument. N7 is a relative number. There is no intrinsically high value, only a comparison to other values. Somewhere around 200-300, a lot of people stop promoting. Maybe they only got there because of the weekend events anyway. So the ability to make a comparison is somewhat broken. I agree that N7 500s will generally be superior to N7 200s, but the difference is not enough to be predictive.

For example, boys do better in math than girls in general. But nobody would think, "I need a mathematician, find me a bunch of dudes to interview.". That's because the "between group variance," while existant, is nominal. What you want is someone who has a PhD in math. Similarly, if I see an N7 between 200 and 2000, I look at the loadout. No telling if the player is any good from the score alone.

Crazy high n7 may be an exception. At some point there is likely some predictive value. However, in the ranges I normally encounter, I find there is little use in trying to predict performance from N7 alone.

[FirroSeranel]

Zero132132 wrote...

FirroSeranel wrote...

But I'm not trying to prove a correlation.  I'm just saying that -others- can't prove there -isn't- any.  Which is true.  And yes, it does work like that.  Not because I'm a "raving forum poster"  Because that's how -logic- works.

Fine. Others can't prove there isn't any. That's all well and good. So you're essentially agreeing that your claims are absolutely unfounded, and since they aren't falsifiable with information we have access to, beyond any sort of scientific inquiry?

Essentially, you're admitting that you aren't actually making a concrete claim of any sort?

*sighs*  I am not making any claims at all.  I am presenting a case to -refute- other people's claims.  Yes.  As part of that, yes, I (and every other player I've ever actually met or hold any respect for whatsoever), claim that N7 rating is a better method for judging an unknown player's future performance in a match than NOTHING.  Are you honestly trying to recruit that?

I'm also -strongly- asserting that score and performance are closely linked, with a VERY few rare possible exceptions.

So yes.  If I enter a Gold lobby and see three people with ratings of 7, 46, and 132, I'm probably going to just quit the lobby and try again.  If I see 68, 154, and 280, I'm probably going to give it a shot, but not use any consumables beyond level I.  If on the other hand, I see 680, 1893, and 6841, I'm probably going to suggest running Platinum.

If you're claiming that you wouldn't at least -consider- doing the same, then quite frankly, I think you're a troll, and a liar, and I'm quite done arguing about it.

[FirroSeranel]

Mr. Heavy wrote...

Here's my problem worth the N7=skill argument. N7 is a relative number. There is no intrinsically high value, only a comparison to other values. Somewhere around 200-300, a lot of people stop promoting. Maybe they only got there because of the weekend events anyway. So the ability to make a comparison is somewhat broken. I agree that N7 500s will generally be superior to N7 200s, but the difference is not enough to be predictive.

For example, boys do better in math than girls in general. But nobody would think, "I need a mathematician, find me a bunch of dudes to interview.". That's because the "between group variance," while existant, is nominal. What you want is someone who has a PhD in math. Similarly, if I see an N7 between 200 and 2000, I look at the loadout. No telling if the player is any good from the score alone.

Crazy high n7 may be an exception. At some point there is likely some predictive value. However, in the ranges I normally encounter, I find there is little use in trying to predict performance from N7 alone.

That's true.  But what if you needed to hire a good mathematician, and the ONLY information you could possibly acquire before hiring them, was their gender, and what brand of calculator they have in their pocket that day?  That's the comparison here.

There IS no other way to judge a player before playing with them.  N7 and loadout is it.  Period, end of line.  Therefore, it DOES matter.  -That- was my point.  That it matters.  Not that it's strongly correlative.  Not that it's a good metric.  That it matters, and nothing more.

[FirroSeranel]

And actually, the more important point I was trying to make is that -score- matters. I just threw in N7 rating more as an aside. I had no idea I was apparently stepping into a collossal pile of horse manure.

Frankly, anyone who can't comprehend, or can't admit to comprehending, that in general, experience equates to skill, and skill leads to high scores, is a moron, or just downright argumentative.

I'm officially done wasting my time with any of you.

[Omega2079]

FirroSeranel wrote...
I am not making any claims at all. 

Which runs contradictory to your original post, or even making a post.

[Feauce]

FirroSeranel wrote...

And actually, the more important point I was trying to make is that -score- matters. I just threw in N7 rating more as an aside. I had at least some clue I was apparently diving headfirst into a colossal pool filled with horse manure.

Fixed.

FirroSeranel wrote...

Frankly, anyone who can't comprehend, or can't admit to comprehending, that in general, (a) experience equates to skill, and ( skill leads to high scores, is a moron, or just downright argumentative.

I don't think anyone is arguing against point A; skill will naturally come with experience. What we are saying is that there's very little practical (read: visible to us as players) correlation between player skill and high scores and/or N7 ratings. Player skill is very difficult to quantify given the metrics we have to work with. Even in games like Battlefield and Call of Duty that keep track of multiple numerical ratings, it can be difficult to prove anything other than "They've been playing for X amount of time." Even for that purpose, those two numbers are poor indicators, as N7 ratings can remain static for long periods of time while the person in question continues playing.

For an example... Take two hypothetical people, both considered equally skilled. One is better at holding a choke point, while the other is better at roaming the map with another person or two. If either of these get placed in a group where the other three people are of the opposite disposition, they're not likely to score as well as they would otherwise. That's why we say score is a very poor indicator of skill. All it does is tell you how a person performed that match, compared to the squad they were with at the time. It says nothing of how they typically operate, how well they've done in their previous X number of matches, etc.

That isn't to say there aren't certain trends that are visible to us, but those are about as useful as social stereotypes in a discussion like this. The bottom line is, like it or not, neither score nor N7 rating indicate much at all about the skill of the player in question.

[M A F I A]

This is a battle that cannot have any winners because the opposition arguments are based on prejudice instead of facts. Fact is most people don't promote not because "it's pointless" (as they say) but because they have troubles playing with a char which is not a level 20. So they mask their inability to play low level character resulting from multiple promotions by saying "I don't care about promotions you nerd, because if I did promote by now I would be XXXX N7" while on the other hand those who promote often are forced to play low level characters and face a constant, hard challenge in most matches which in turns result often in a "low score" which substantiate the opposition's theory of "I played with plenty of high N7 - which of course they never mention - and they scored very low" and on that matter it happened to me several times that I was more efficient as a level 1 adept as opposed to other lvl 20 players.

Also, something else I don't like about the "community" is the blatant hypocritical behaviour of "I never vote-kick anyone, everyone has a right to play", yes, sure everyone has a right to play but I only have a limited amount of time to play and I am certainly not going to waste it playing with a low N7 player WITH a bad loadout so I *DO* votekick anytime the "curriculum" is not good. Sometimes the votekick results in a kick and some other times it doesn't (and I leave the game) this is actually called democracy.

Modifié par M A F I A, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:25 .

[Killateral DMG]

My N7 ranking was 120 for the first 3 months of the game because I got every class to rank 20 and didn't promote anymore because I didn't feel a need to (And I had about 600 reset powers). Someone with an N7 rank of 4 is obviously going to be useless to the team on higher difficulties but I'd say over 120 is fine. And I have played with some quad digit people who just sucked.

[Revuhlooshun]

M A F I A wrote...

Fact is most people don't promote not because "it's pointless" (as they say) but because they have troubles playing with a char which is not a level 20. So they mask their inability to play low level character resulting from multiple promotions by saying "I don't care about promotions you nerd, because if I did promote by now I would be XXXX N7" 

You really believe that, don't you?

What me and my friends think when we see someone with a high N7 is A.) That person made way too many mistakes with their builds, and B.) Couldn't afford respec cards back when the game first came out.

Modifié par Revuhlooshun, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:43 .

[Doc-Jek]

I'd be well into the 4 digits if I bothered promoting. There are plenty of people that have tons of skill and experience in the game, but have a low N7 level because they don't promote. I've seen plenty of N7 120s with level 10 ultra rares....

[Stardusk]

Some of the best players on PC have only 3 digit N7s. Your premise is incorrect.

Modifié par Stardusk, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:58 .

[Aaron360]

Revuhlooshun wrote...

M A F I A wrote...

Fact is most people don't promote not because "it's pointless" (as they say) but because they have troubles playing with a char which is not a level 20. So they mask their inability to play low level character resulting from multiple promotions by saying "I don't care about promotions you nerd, because if I did promote by now I would be XXXX N7" while on the other hand those who promote often are forced to play low level characters and face a constant, hard challenge in most matches which in turns result often in a "low score" which substantiate the opposition's theory of "I played with plenty of high N7 - which of course they never mention - and they scored very low" and on that matter it happened to me several times that I was more efficient as a level 1 adept as opposed to other lvl 20 players.

You really believe that, don't you?

What me and my friends think when we see someone with a high N7 is A.) That person made way too many mistakes with their builds, and B.) Couldn't afford respec cards back when the game first came out.

You really think that? wow

What's a high N7 to "you and your friends" ?

Mines at 3100 and neither your A and B apply to me. I just get bored with lvl 20 characters and promote and start over. I think I've used 5 respec cards in 5 months. I tend to come here to see what builds others are using and 99% of the time, it's what I end up liking.

Back on topic....I played with a guy during last weekends challenge, I was hosting a silver as a lvl 1 asari vanguard. 2 others were decent (n7's of around 150 each)and who was the 4th? Possibly the worst player I have ever witnessed(and if the person is a forum member and puts two and two together afer seeing the info I'm about to post, you were added to my Avoid list and I hope it works lol)...

He was a lvl 11 Krogan sentinel, N7 of 8062...Yes there's no doubt he bought his way to that rating by using character cards(bet hes pissed those are no more hahahaha). He might be solely responsible for us getting free DLC   Used a wraith, or should I say he had 1 equipped and dropped several times every wave. I was praying he'd just leave but nope! My AV with next to nothing health/barrier was reviving him nonstop. He left after the game and 1 of the other guys was laughing and asked how he was so bad. I told them to not let that guys high N7 speak for others, the amount of facepalms during that match was uncountable.

So ya never know what that N7 means. It could be some rich little ****** spending a thousand $$ on packs getting character cards, getting to 20 and promoting nonstop. He had no experience, none. Now I will say this, the ONLY excuse I could think of is he let someone, a friend or relative, take the controls for a match, and if that's the case, I sound like an ass and typed this all for nothing

I don't look at N7, and lately I've stopped looking at loadouts cuz once I get my hopes up and  think I'll be surprised and have some fun, I am taught once again to never underestimate the amount of stupidity that is taking over the ME3 community.

Modifié par Aaron360, 21 juillet 2012 - 09:59 .

[Rhayak]

It's true that high N7 score does not mean good playing.
Although when i meet guys with 2400 or so, they're usually terrific.

However, if i see that someone is N7 14 and is playing with a level 14 character.... i don't really expect miracles.

I'm 580 or so. Played since launch. I have almost all classes at 20 and don't feel like promoting right now. I'll just wait another bounty weekend with the Promoting goal.

[Revuhlooshun]

Aaron360 wrote...

Revuhlooshun wrote...

M A F I A wrote...

Fact is most people don't promote not because "it's pointless" (as they say) but because they have troubles playing with a char which is not a level 20. So they mask their inability to play low level character resulting from multiple promotions by saying "I don't care about promotions you nerd, because if I did promote by now I would be XXXX N7" while on the other hand those who promote often are forced to play low level characters and face a constant, hard challenge in most matches which in turns result often in a "low score" which substantiate the opposition's theory of "I played with plenty of high N7 - which of course they never mention - and they scored very low" and on that matter it happened to me several times that I was more efficient as a level 1 adept as opposed to other lvl 20 players.

You really believe that, don't you?

What me and my friends think when we see someone with a high N7 is A.) That person made way too many mistakes with their builds, and B.) Couldn't afford respec cards back when the game first came out.

You really think that? wow

What's a high N7 to "you and your friends" ?

Mines at 3100 and neither your A and B apply to me. I just get bored with lvl 20 characters and promote and start over. I think I've used 5 respec cards in 5 months. I tend to come here to see what builds others are using and 99% of the time, it's what I end up liking.

Hit a nerve, didn't I? The generalizations work both ways.

Modifié par Revuhlooshun, 21 juillet 2012 - 10:09 .

[DHKany]

Just because they kicked ass doesn't mean you didn't contribute. Who knows? Maybe you were the person covering the flanks killing smaller mooks, whilst the slayer went on a rampage to kill all the bosses in the area. Maybe you gave the shields that he desperately needed to continue slaying with your Geth turret? Just because you scored 50-60000 point less doesn't mean you didn't contribute, especially with the shield bosting. Also, N7 120 is enough for me, and so is scoring 30000-40000 points in gold with a sabotage QFI and healing speccd geth engineer.

[M A F I A]

M A F I A wrote...
Fact is most people don't promote not because "it's pointless" (as they say) but because they have troubles playing with a char which is not a level 20. So they mask their inability to play low level character resulting from multiple promotions by saying "I don't care about promotions you nerd, because if I did promote by now I would be XXXX N7"

Doc-Jek wrote...

I'd be well into the 4 digits if I
bothered promoting. There are plenty of people that have tons of skill
and experience in the game, but have a low N7 level because they don't
promote. I've seen plenty of N7 120s with level 10 ultra
rares....

Anybody spots similarities?

Stardusk wrote...

Some of the best players on PC have only 3 digit N7s. Your premise is incorrect.

And you know that how since you don't know the skill of all the other 4 digits N7 players?

Also, let me stress out something I said earlier. More often than not High N7 players score LESS than non-promoters BECAUSE they are playing low level chars as opposed to level 20 chars. Do I really need to explain that having ONE OR TWO powers at level 1 makes thing harder than having them all MAXED?

[Buzykill]

The high N7=good player is true, with few exceptions.

First im going to put the competitive players to the chopping block. They are first of all annoying since they don't care about rest of the players, what they are shooting or where they are or whats their status. Secondly you don't have to wait for them to revive you since it will doubtly happen. Usually even if there are those guys i beat them relatively easily in score, just because of the teamplay and quick reflexes. What then happens is the huge missilespam in wave 11 in hope to get them to first place. This is what i call the CoD series players. (Sorry for those who like the game).

Then there is the player experience, which high N7 should represent. Well it only tells how much they have been playing ME3 MP. It don't tell of how much they have been playing Battlefield, Call of Duty or other shooting games. You might know everything about ME3 computer ai, but you cant overrule experience. As an example, playing in six man squad in BF2 (good old times) has forged me as a solid team player. And i hit my targets with great speed.

Then comes the reaction times and stuff which nobody cares about, neither do i, but it is a fact that draws a line between good players and damn good players. And that comes from the experience i listed above. As an example i put one of my BF3 friends play MP on silver with random team, (he has never played ME3 before) and he scored first on his first game of MP. So it tells that even a ME3 rookie can be good. Experience matters. There are snipers and there are snipers. The first ones are those who hit their targets with first, second or third shot of their black widows. The latter ones are those who let the widow go full auto while headshotting with every three bullets from the gun. Precision and speed.

Then there are tactics, which usually require teamplay. It makes playing damn much easier. (And please, i'm not referring to FBWGG)

And then about the score.. well i just say that it means only how good you have been in last-hitting targets in the given round. Ok, i place first 90% of the time when i play. I play for the joy of playing as a team. I help other players. So thats why i say it here and now: Scoreboard ruins ME3 MP. I wish people didn't care about their score. I beg them to care about the TEAM! Thats how you win in Battlefield, thats how you win in ME3. A bad scoring player is helping in many ways, he is making damage, helping good scoring in their business and maybe most importantly, they are taking bullets for you.

And to say a word about soloing which seems to be the real proof of how good you are, i say it is not quite that way. I don't deny a fact that you don't have to be good to solo, but what i mean is that you also need luck. Luck with connection, no lag. Luck with enemy positions. Luck with their accuracy. You can't solo certain things. You just cannot.

This has been quite long wall of text, i hope someone at least skims it thru.

I sum my conclusion here: It matters for 50% of its value.

I'm always up for a good game and good team, so feel free to add me in origin.