69 réponses à ce sujet

[Prestacious]

Diablo comes to mind as comparison, where when you play coop with a friend (at least on console), there is no score. You work together to get through the game and level up. In some ways, because of this, I think it is a better co-op than mass effect. I know it's like comparing fruits and vegetables, but it got me thinking...

 

Would the next mass effect benefit from removing the score?

If so, are there alternative ways of telling how you're doing in a match?

Should it matter?

 

Or is the score such an inherent part of the Mass effect multiplayer, that removing it would ruin the game?

 

 

[Quarian Master Race]

removing it would ruin the game?

 

yes

[FullSpe3D]

They need to fix score, not remove it.

 

Make missiles give no score, remove all score for kills during objective waves (unless you kill a target), and have a more even point split between combo primers/detonators.

[Ghost Of N7_SP3CTR3]

It's too late for that idea.We're already indoctrinated by scores and medals.

[Prestacious]

It's too late for that idea.We're already indoctrinated by scores and medals.

 

What if we kept medals? We can't go cold turkey.

[capn233]

I don't know.  If they just had medals instead, people would try to use that as some sort of metric.

 

Really it would have been better with co-op missions instead of a horde mode, but that wasn't in the cards for this release. Since we got to play all the races, maybe there should have been a way to co-op the SP campaign where someone plays as Ash, Garrus, Liara, etc.

[crashsuit]

They need to fix score, not remove it.

Make missiles give no score, remove all score for kills during objective waves (unless you kill a target), and have a more even point split between combo primers/detonators.

Also points for devices and maybe restoring shields? More points for revives, and debuffs that lead to kills?

[DisturbedPsic0]

Score is fine, they just need to expand it. It's generally considered inefficient to do anything besides kill. Buffing teammates, debuffing enemies, restoring shield, and such should result in point as well.  Add more medals as well. After net code fixing and RNG revamp of course 

[Excella Gionne]

Missile'd enemies do not reduce wave budget as said in that one thread.

[Ghost Of N7_SP3CTR3]

What if we kept medals? We can't go cold turkey.

I suppose replacing score with a body count would be okay,but the medals are a must.

[FasterThanFTL]

Hell no. People would have lost interest too quickly. That being said I feel they can improve the scoring system for the next installment of the game like for example not rewarding any points for missile kills (they can still reduce wave budget) and not awarding any points for kills in objective waves. This will encourage more teamwork and fair play.

[Prestacious]

I feel that medals alone would be a good measure. The medals could be expanded to include completing objectives as well as other cooperative themed achievements. Then by reaching a certain amount of medals and having a good overall time, you could be said to have a had a good match, even if by the me3 method, you may not have topped the score leaderboard.

[NuclearTech76]

They need to fix score, not remove it.

 

Make missiles give no score, remove all score for kills during objective waves (unless you kill a target), and have a more even point split between combo primers/detonators.

Couldn't agree more. 

 

No matter how much people ******, whine, and complain about scorewh0res, elitests, and spawn nuking scrubs, part of what brings you back is the competition. 

[TheNightSlasher]

They need to fix score, not remove it.

 

Make missiles give no score, remove all score for kills during objective waves (unless you kill a target), and have a more even point split between combo primers/detonators.

I agree with this. 

[Prestacious]

Do people lose interest with games like Diablo because there is no score? 

 

I guess my point is that even a working score still implies a competition between you and your teammates as opposed to a mission or objective focused style, a more "co-op" approach, if you will.

 

Is that competitive aspect the only thing that keeps me3 players playing?

[capn233]

People would not lose interest in ME3 if there was no score.  Not any significant number of them.  The weapon unlocks and the Challenges are what keep people around, and the fact that there are a ton of characters and builds you can fool around with.

[WestLakeDragon]

Score adds a competitive side to things that I like. It doesn't make it worse in any way IMO, it just gives me something extra to do during a match.

[NuclearTech76]

Do people lose interest with games like Diablo because there is no score? 

 

I guess my point is that even a working score still implies a competition between you and your teammates as opposed to a mission or objective focused style, a more "co-op" approach, if you will.

 

Is that competitive aspect the only thing that keeps me3 players playing?

IDK. I think it's more that there are more playable kits than Diablo. A lot of it has to do with the community as well, theme based runs, speed running, soloing etc, etc keep this game going IMHO. 

[Andr0idOS]

Do people lose interest with games like Diablo because there is no score? 

 

I guess my point is that even a working score still implies a competition between you and your teammates as opposed to a mission or objective focused style, a more "co-op" approach, if you will.

 

Is that competitive aspect the only thing that keeps me3 players playing?

I admit that it does encourage me to play this game more. I enjoy coming in 1st for a change, in games like Halo, Titanfall, and Battlefield 4, I get sh*t on by the hardcore players most of the time. 

 

Although I'd still love and play this game a lot even without score, because it's fun.

[capn233]

Eh, with no score the new hot thing might be "how fast I completed a match with randoms."  Who knows?  People that want to be competitive will find something to be competitive with, so I don't think removing the individual scores would matter all that much from that standpoint.  Specific behaviors in game might require different choices or changes.

[Pee Jae]

I've said it before and I'll say it again; the scoreboard is one more screen in between me and the next match. Medals, I like, but how long are you going to actually look at them before you ready up again? 10 seconds? Get it out of my way, I need to kill more things.

[Knockingbr4in]

The only thing that matters are points.

[J. Peterman]

The only thing that matters are points.

 

This.

[Cyonan]

Do people lose interest with games like Diablo because there is no score? 

 

I guess my point is that even a working score still implies a competition between you and your teammates as opposed to a mission or objective focused style, a more "co-op" approach, if you will.

 

Is that competitive aspect the only thing that keeps me3 players playing?

 

Diablo 2 actually had a good amount of people for a very long time. A lot of people lost interest in Diablo 3 because it was a fairly bad game at launch, not because it didn't have a scoreboard.

 

It might reduce some of the epeen waving to not have the scoreboard in ME3, but people who want to be competitive will still find a way to do so. It wouldn't really make the game any better or worse to remove it.

[Deerber]

Would ME3 be a better co-op if there were no score?

Would the next mass effect benefit from removing the score?

If so, are there alternative ways of telling how you're doing in a match?

Should it matter?

 

Or is the score such an inherent part of the Mass effect multiplayer, that removing it would ruin the game?

 

1. Not really. It would only be a better co-op if the game as a whole, and specifically objectives, were designed differently.

2. I don't see how. It would be nice to see the scoring system get fixed, as someone said, but it's VERY hard to pinpoint a good scoring system, there will always be some faults. But take the score out altogether wouldn't help in any way, I think. What I would be MUCH more interested into, would be a complete change of the gameplay and of the objectives, to make cooperation not encouraged, but *required* in order to play at least the highest difficulties.

3. Most definitely. 99% of the times, I don't need to watch the scoreboard to know exactly where I'm at. It's obviously less accurate and reliable that way though.

4. Yes, I don't see why not. Frindly competition, while keeping the objectives of the game in mind, is a nice thing in my opinion. The fact that people gets obsessed over it is only their fault, not the game's.

5. Not really, but it would change it, most definitely.