Star Trek Online

Star Trek Online (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/index.php)
-   Star Trek Online General Discussion (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/forumdisplay.php?f=128)
-   -   Is PVP the only factor you judge "Balance" by? (http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?t=357241)

cusashorn 08-17-2012 10:28 AM

Is PVP the only factor you judge "Balance" by?
 
I don't PVP. I hate doing it and just enjoy playing against the NPCs in this game.

But something has me curious. I don't know if that's actually the case, but I tend to notice here on the forums that whenever anyone is discussing gameplay balance whenever a skill gets nerfed or a new ship is introduced, I get the feeling that they're only specifically talking about how those changes stack up to other skills and other ships in PVP only.


Am I kind of in the ballpark here? I dont' really see why there would be any need to discuss how well the Regeant class Assault Cruiser holds up to other vessels in the game if that wasn't the case, because all ships are suppose to have a defining trait, no matter how offset the gameplay might be because of it.

kylesal24 08-17-2012 10:43 AM

Seems that way. I still get made fun of my build because it would so called stick in PVP. I don't do PVP so I set up my ship for what I want which is PVE.

If someone asks a question about a set for PVE. Please don't answer telling them they should only set it up for PVP.

Kyle

sollvax 08-17-2012 10:45 AM

Golden rule

YOUR SET UP IS YOUR BUSINESS

Silver Rule

PVP is less than 5% of the game

Bronze Rule

A ship speced perfectly for PVP will SUCK in some missions

azurianstar 08-17-2012 10:49 AM

When it comes to PvP and balance, for years I've advocated that Cryptic adopt a 2-value system (one for PvP and one for PvE), just like Everquest had for it's PvP. That way you can adjust PvE, but not affect PvP, and vice versa. And I honestly would like them to reconsider this, because as it is now, it's going to be a major difficult task in finding that sweet spot where it's okay for both sides.

Though many people whom I knew that were hardcore PvPers are stopping not solely because of the no new maps, but because STO's PvP has gotten to ridiculous levels with ability spam or fancy weapons like these Phased Tetryon or Spiral Disruptors. It really shows that the game is becoming "Pay to Win" (when it comes to PVP that is).


Now when it comes to ship balance, well its up to us to determine that. But the way the game's changing, it looks like every slot is going to be filled up. Though it's up to us to really question imbalances as soon as we can. Though I honestly think Cryptic's at their limit with balanced configurations that we likely will start seeing imbalanced configurations. Hopefully not, but you never know.

qjunior 08-17-2012 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azurianstar (Post 5328761)
When it comes to PvP and balance, for years I've advocated that Cryptic adopt a 2-value system (one for PvP and one for PvE), just like Everquest had for it's PvP. That way you can adjust PvE, but not affect PvP, and vice versa. And I honestly would like them to reconsider this, because as it is now, it's going to be a major difficult task in finding that sweet spot where it's okay for both sides.

Though many people whom I knew that were hardcore PvPers are stopping not solely because of the no new maps, but because STO's PvP has gotten to ridiculous levels with ability spam or like these Phased Tetryon or Spiral Disruptor weapons that the games just no longer fun. Because it really is Pay to Win, when it comes to PVP.


Now when it comes to ship balance, well its up to us to determine that. But the way the game's changing, it looks like every slot is going to be filled up. Though it's up to us to really question imbalances as soon as we can. Though I honestly think Cryptic's at their limit and we likely will start seeing imbalanced configurations. Hopefully not, but you never know these days.

I`d like a two-value system as well. Guild Wars had that too. Some skills would even work differently when used in PvP. :)

cusashorn 08-17-2012 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azurianstar (Post 5328761)
When it comes to PvP and balance, for years I've advocated that Cryptic adopt a 2-value system (one for PvP and one for PvE), just like Everquest had for it's PvP. That way you can adjust PvE, but not affect PvP, and vice versa. And I honestly would like them to reconsider this, because as it is now, it's going to be a major difficult task in finding that sweet spot where it's okay for both sides.

I remember what the devs did to PVP in EQ2. They actually managed to make things a bit more balanced by scaling back all damage by 33% when PVPing, as well as introduced a mitigation system that ONLY worked in PVP. I thought that was a pretty good change.

aveldra 08-17-2012 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azurianstar (Post 5328761)
When it comes to PvP and balance, for years I've advocated that Cryptic adopt a 2-value system (one for PvP and one for PvE), just like Everquest had for it's PvP. That way you can adjust PvE, but not affect PvP, and vice versa.

I've seen this done in many MMOs with great success, from Dragon Nest and Guild Wars 1 being the two most prominent which run it.

It's the least drama inducing, as we've seen in WoW when arenas came into the game raiders and pvpers were really at each other's throats when "balancing" occurred after patches. Because of such a system, the environment between the two sides stops becoming fluid and becomes more divided and hostile. In the end it just becomes us vs them mentality and that poisons the community. People that would otherwise try to raid or pvp would be less inclined to try.

thepleasuredome 08-17-2012 11:27 AM

Considering NPC's don't use a skill tree or custom power levels (they run 50/50/50/50), balancing a power against nothingness wouldn't work either. They have to (at least try) balance to pvp. Cryptic's been so bad at it lately though, even the pvp'ers who think that separating pvp and pve skills would create an even steeper learning curve and make pvp even more inhospitable to newbies are beginning to support a differentiated system.

It doesn't stop them from attempting to make balance via pvp though. It would help if the devs pvp'd regularly in their own game, and they stopped releasing new skills/powers untested.

loganwilliams1 08-17-2012 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thepleasuredome (Post 5329531)
It would help if the devs pvp'd regularly in their own game, and they stopped releasing new skills/powers untested.

The devs do test powers and abilities. They go to Kerrat on their Federation carebear and then suggest removing pvp from the game after they get beat with the whumpin' stick.

The only way to really balance everything is to adopt standard console/boff layouts and then make different skins for the standard ships that result. As of this moment I'd suggest that Feds have better ships, period.

kazapsky 08-17-2012 01:12 PM

I don't factor PVP into balance consideration at all, because there's no such thing as balance in PVP unless both sides are literally identical.

Attempting to balance for PVP only succeeds in botching up PVE - ie the actual game. This has been clearly demonstrated by pretty much every game that's ever tried it.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:23 PM.