179 réponses à ce sujet

[Heldarion]

XFG-65 wrote...

Uh Cold wrote...

XFG-65 wrote...

Uh Cold wrote...

I played with certain people from the top 10 for N7 on xbox because they wanted to join spectre back in the day.
They weren't good enough to join and I ended up removing them from my list because they weren't reliable teammates.

Dat high N7 skill.

This statement is invalid. Dumdum has wiped the floor with each and every single xbox Spectre, yet he's not a Spectre himself. He proved himself to be a better player than your leader Biggs by completely smashing his score after you guys tried to set him up. Then he turned you down and made a mockery of the Spectre group. You really do hold yourself in very high regard. But you're noweher near as good as you think you are, mate. Very few Spectres are as good as the group description claims them to be.

First of all I was leader when the group was only a handful of players which were the best on xbox at the time and then we all moved on and I gave up leader to biggs due to me being inactive.
I know who the best players on xbox are and yes dumdum is one of them in his own way, he didn't want to be a spectre for his own reasons and none of us cared.
Beating new spectres in score means nothing as most of them don't even care about score unless you do that stupid thunderdome challenge.
I don't expect someone with a high n7 complex to understand any of this though since without a definite way to determine skill everyones left with their imagination to decide it's meaning.

Please don't misunderstand. I'm not saying the Spectres are bad players. Quite the opposite. They're excellent players. But the one thing that really caught my attention was the group's description. "A group of the very best Mass Effect players. Exceptional players that rise above the rest."

I understand what you are saying. I myself have played with quite a few Spectres and they've been very impressive and very strong. They obviously know how to play the game.

But for the members of your group to claim that they're the best Mass Effect players out there is just...absurd, sorry to say. (A few notable exceptions: Invaderone, Ferocious Panda, DanDCD, and others. From what I have seen, these players are right up there with the very best, hands down.)

It's hard to determine 'skill' in a co-op game like this against buggy AI. But when someone consistenly doubles other people's scores, then it raises a few questions, and all of a sudden, the so-called elite are no longer considered elite.

I have a problem with the group description only. It's grossly inaccurate and misleading. You're excellent, but you're not the best. Far from it.

Don't you think you should be promoting some more right now?

[Supreme Leech]

Heldarion wrote...

Don't you think you should be promoting some more right now?

Wish I could. Haven't promoted in, like, 9 days.

[Uh Cold]

XFG-65 wrote...
I have a problem with the group description only. It's grossly inaccurate and misleading. You're excellent, but you're not the best. Far from it.

Don't take it so literal, I just copied and pasted it from the PC description when making the xbox branch.
We don't live by these words, we live and die by the honor of wave 11 missile score boosts and recruit pack spams to determine meaning in this meangless life.

[The Last]

There is "Good" there is "Bad" and there is "Excellent", but there is no "Best" in a coop game, take that to Call of Duty or Battlefield.

N7 points mean nothing but promotions, promotions speaks for itself...just promote characters...and challenge points helps determine how long they played in a way, but none explains skill level.

[robarcool]

b00g13man wrote...

XFG-65 wrote...

I didn't say he played with every Spectre.

XFG-65 wrote...

This statement is invalid. Dumdum has wiped the floor with each and every single xbox Spectre, yet he's not a Spectre himself. 

[AGCeyx]

In a futile attempt to return this thread to the original topic, my rating would be 124,57

with the new scaling its is just 31,18! That is four times less! Zomg!!!!

Modifié par AGCeyx, 27 octobre 2013 - 05:47 .

[Yo Son]

XFG-65 wrote...

Heldarion wrote...

Don't you think you should be promoting some more right now?

Wish I could. Haven't promoted in, like, 9 days.

scrub- real elite promote atleast 3 times a day.

[Red Panda]

AGCeyx wrote...

In a futile attempt to return this thread to the original topic, my rating would be 124,57

Did you divide by 4?

[robarcool]

Isn't it kind of dumb that the time/number of games gives you game per unit of time rather than time per unit of game? This means that if you finish your games faster, you will get a lower game per unit of time and hence penalized, implying that the formula (meaningless as it is) is even more meaningless. Just trying to extract some sense that could be possible in this expression.

Modifié par robarcool, 27 octobre 2013 - 05:50 .

[AGCeyx]

OperatingWookie wrote...

AGCeyx wrote...

In a futile attempt to return this thread to the original topic, my rating would be 124,57

Did you divide by 4?

Just edited my original post

[ComradeShepard7]

If you actually want to ensure that it never goes over 100% you would need to turn it into an actual efficiency calculation which are of a general form (measured performance)/(ideal performance). Just scaling it won't achieve this as you have already seen. Also, any percentage calcuation sould be unitless but right now this calculation has units of hours if you treat challenge points, N7 points, and number of games played as unitless numbers. None of this actually matters though since this whole thing is just silly.

[IllusiveManJr]

I've spent just under 100 hours playing ME3 MP since the challenge system was introduced though, that's less then a tenth of my total MP playtime.

[Lady Abstract]

Idk

N7 rank? Irrelevant. It simply means you've promoted your characters a lot. Doesn't mean that you are "skilled" at the game.

Challenge points? Viable possibility but for the most part no. It means they've took the time out to do the challenges and get the points or they just play a lot and are very versatile and the challenge points just came naturally.

In my honest opinion I feel those that solo a lot learn to get skilled at the game. It puts them in the position to learn small survivability techniques.

As well as soloing, being diverse with classes and kits and mastering them also helps with skill. Learning the AI and exploiting their stupidity can also help.

[Simba501]

ComradeShepard7 wrote...

If you actually want to ensure that it never goes over 100% you would need to turn it into an actual efficiency calculation which are of a general form (measured performance)/(ideal performance). Just scaling it won't achieve this as you have already seen. Also, any percentage calcuation sould be unitless but right now this calculation has units of hours if you treat challenge points, N7 points, and number of games played as unitless numbers. None of this actually matters though since this whole thing is just silly.

I have some meaningful data coming up .  Be on the lookout.

[DullahansXMark]

(100(sqrt(challenge point total)/sqrt(N7 ranking total))(Time played in hours/games played in total))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(sqrt(12170)/sqrt(2449))(613/1935))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(110.32/49.49)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(2.23)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(0.70691))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(70.691)/4 = Your percent efficiency

17.67275

Son, your new formula has to be wrong, there's no way I'm this weak.

[Red Panda]

DullahansXMark wrote...

(100(sqrt(challenge point total)/sqrt(N7 ranking total))(Time played in hours/games played in total))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(sqrt(12170)/sqrt(2449))(613/1935))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(110.32/49.49)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(2.23)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(0.70691))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(70.691)/4 = Your percent efficiency

17.67275

Son, your new formula has to be wrong, there's no way I'm this weak.

Or you're just not playing efficiently enough.

Or the bar is set way too high.

Or you're just not iDieAtWaveOne.

Or you think that that is a bad rating.

[robarcool]

OperatingWookie wrote...

DullahansXMark wrote...

(100(sqrt(challenge point total)/sqrt(N7 ranking total))(Time played in hours/games played in total))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(sqrt(12170)/sqrt(2449))(613/1935))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(110.32/49.49)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(2.23)(0.317))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(100(0.70691))/4 = Your percent efficiency

(70.691)/4 = Your percent efficiency

17.67275

Son, your new formula has to be wrong, there's no way I'm this weak.

Or you're just not playing efficiently enough.

Or the bar is set way too high.

Or you're just not iDieAtWaveOne.

Or you think that that is a bad rating.

Nope, your formula is senseless. I stated just now why. Read a few posts above.

[Red Panda]

robarcool wrote...

Isn't it kind of dumb that the time/number of games gives you game per unit of time rather than time per unit of game? This means that if you finish your games faster, you will get a lower game per unit of time and hence penalized, implying that the formula (meaningless as it is) is even more meaningless. Just trying to extract some sense that could be possible in this expression.

Based on previous interactions, people declared speed running to be unskilled.


This formula is spawned by the logic of this community.

Would you say that you are more logical than the entire community?

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:37 .

[TheNightSlasher]

ComradeShepard7 wrote...

If you actually want to ensure that it never goes over 100% you would need to turn it into an actual efficiency calculation which are of a general form (measured performance)/(ideal performance). Just scaling it won't achieve this as you have already seen. Also, any percentage calcuation sould be unitless but right now this calculation has units of hours if you treat challenge points, N7 points, and number of games played as unitless numbers. None of this actually matters though since this whole thing is just silly.

This post reflects my thoughts exactly. 

@OP: According to your formula, people who play longer games are more skilled, which makes no sense. You must compare it to an 'ideal' case scenario. Take the highest CP across all platforms, least N7 without having to promote (i.e. 120) and has a pretty low time/game (somewhere around 10-15 mins may be). Assign a skill level of 100 to such an 'imaginary' player and use that to normalize others' numbers.

Having said that, the parameter 'CP/N7 rank' doesn't make much sense. A CP/games or CP/time ratio would give a better estimate of the skill level (not taking lot of time to complete challenges is indicative of a good player). The N7 ranking shouldn't enter the formula at all. There are many good players who promote regularly.

In a Co-op game, relative skill hardly matters but I am in the scientific research field and these kind of things spark my interest. 

Modifié par bgsam1990, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:38 .

[Red Panda]

ComradeShepard7 wrote...

If you actually want to ensure that it never goes over 100% you would need to turn it into an actual efficiency calculation which are of a general form (measured performance)/(ideal performance). Just scaling it won't achieve this as you have already seen. Also, any percentage calcuation sould be unitless but right now this calculation has units of hours if you treat challenge points, N7 points, and number of games played as unitless numbers. None of this actually matters though since this whole thing is just silly.

True, I would have to agree.

This thread is now expired.

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:42 .

[robarcool]

OperatingWookie wrote...

robarcool wrote...

Isn't it kind of dumb that the time/number of games gives you game per unit of time rather than time per unit of game? This means that if you finish your games faster, you will get a lower game per unit of time and hence penalized, implying that the formula (meaningless as it is) is even more meaningless. Just trying to extract some sense that could be possible in this expression.

Based on previous interactions, people declared speed running to be unskilled.


This formula is spawned by the logic of this community.

Would you say that you are more logical than the entire community?

Don't bring the 'community logic' argument to defend yourself. The point is your formula strictly penalizes for finishing games faster. If you really want to get into speedrunning, put some penalty if per game time is less than say, 11 minutes, as that is the typical missile speed running time. Else, the score should reward for finishing matches faster. So think logically if you want to make your senseless formula even a bit sensible.

Modifié par robarcool, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:42 .

[Red Panda]

robarcool wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

robarcool wrote...

Isn't it kind of dumb that the time/number of games gives you game per unit of time rather than time per unit of game? This means that if you finish your games faster, you will get a lower game per unit of time and hence penalized, implying that the formula (meaningless as it is) is even more meaningless. Just trying to extract some sense that could be possible in this expression.

Based on previous interactions, people declared speed running to be unskilled.


This formula is spawned by the logic of this community.

Would you say that you are more logical than the entire community?

Don't bring the 'community logic' argument to defend yourself. The point is your formula strictly penalizes for finishing games faster. If you really want to get into speedrunning, put some penalty if per game time is less than 11 minutes, as that is the typical missile speed running time. Else, the score should reward for finishing matches faster. So think logically if you want to make your senseless formula even a bit sensible.

True.

I guess this game is up. It was meant more as a joke than anything. I wanted to parody and mock people subtly based on the content of the original post.

Updating now.

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:44 .

[Ganius]

Once upon a time, Leone Battista Alberti said that:

No art, however minor, demands less than total dedication if you want to excel in it.

Therefore the more you play this game, it's "expected" that you get better at it. Any formula that dares to calculate the skill level of players in a co-op game should of course take a combination of "times played" and "games played" values into account. Nevertheless, they should not be directly proportional to the final score as it is here. They should be normalized for players that have spent thousands and hundreds (and even tens) of hours. 

Also one should not forget that N7 rank and Challenge Points are also directly related to the times played and games played. 

IMHO, a better ranking algorithm would be to come up with a random map/faction/kit and ask the player how he/she will build the kit given these circumstances. There you have it. Any skilled player will instantly know what gun/power/equipment works best with the given kit against given enemy on the given map. 

Modifié par gnsmsk, 27 octobre 2013 - 07:50 .

[megabeast37215]

Uh Cold wrote...

XFG-65 wrote...
I have a problem with the group description only. It's grossly inaccurate and misleading. You're excellent, but you're not the best. Far from it.

Don't take it so literal, I just copied and pasted it from the PC description when making the xbox branch.
We don't live by these words, we live and die by the honor of wave 11 missile score boosts and recruit pack spams to determine meaning in this meangless life.

Burn.

[DHKany]

This is what the thread should've been 7 pages ago

Who Cares.