Lucius Aelius wrote...
People need to realize score isn't totally meaningless just because it isn't comprehensive, with enough context (character/build/consumables, map/enemy/dificulty, medals earned, and most importantly first hand experience both of the game in question and the typical performance good players can achieve given different classes) it is very possible to fill in the blanks ourselves and put 2 and 2 together. Tbe way score works is that you get points for killing enemies (and damaging them, but a disproportionate number of points for the killing shot) and some for completing objectives (about the same number of points as a boss enemy) and of course from earning medals (20 HS, 15 melee, etc.) comparable to the point boost of killstreaks or from extraction.
While it isn't as effective as it should be at representing in-game performance, that score can be put together with all that other info and used in comparisons between players of any given match. It isn't uber-accurate, but it is approximate at the least and as such not totally meaningless. As for sweeping claims of minimum scores necessary to have properly contributed, those stem as much from experience as much as anything, 99.9% of the time someone with a score (on Gold+) of 50k (40k with specified enemy/map) or below is someone who didn't contribute, regardless of the spread of scores.
Some scores are just so low that it simply isn't possible to have contributed enough not to be carried, whatever the reason for your low score not even all the other considerations added together outway how little you did of the things score does count, damage to enemies among them, which is an aspect that is very important for proper contribution and cannot be outweighed by reviving and "support" beyond the threshold of the minimum score. That's why it is the "minimum" score, it's the point beyond which no amount of other considerations can outweigh the lowness of the score.
Maybe my numbers are off (it's all very roughly thrown together in my head by way of experience and retrospection, this being the first time I've written it all down), but the concept and basis of my process is sound, and IMO 50k is the bare minimum for any charachter/build/whatever (on Unknown/Unknown/Gold, 40k Any/Any/Gold, 60k U/U/Platinum). Any less and you should play on a lower difficulty, and even people scoring higher I would often say the same of, achieving the bare minimum still isn't very good (and if the person in first place has a higher score than everyone else combined, even bare minimum isn't enough to say you weren't carried, barring extenuating circumstances (just as low score doesn't mean much on it's own, so too must high scores be viewed with caution).
People taking issue with my opinion of where the bare minimum lies is fair game (it is, after all, an opinion), but it is a fact that there is a bare minimum, wherever it lies. So in conclusion, score on it's own is almost meaningless, but there is a bare minimum and there is also room for comparison between players of a single match, albeit only with as much background information as possible.
This got lost on the previous page, also the Paladin is one of the best characters in the game, if I don't break 100k I consider it a bad game, yesterday I had two games in a row with 135k and I wasn't even carrying (they were lagging around 60-90k, but holding their own). In other words anyone suggesting the Paladin shouldn't be scoring high has no clue what they're talking about.
Retour en haut
