Thread: How about this?
View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
05-03-2011, 09:49 PM
Continued from above...

Quote:
I plan to be playing this game for some years and I make this proposal, 1st to the PVP community, with no other agenda than I'd like to see this game continue and have the chance in the market that it deserves. Something like this, or some other variation of it, (depending on what you all think) should get rid of most of the NERF calls, the contention within the PVP community itself, and we all can get back to the instances and our perfered gameplay. (Making players go boom) Might have us all in game a bit more and off the forums, too.

The only downside that I've seen of this, is that combat can be a little more "drawn out". However, personaly, I could consider that a plus also. Giving some1 a touch more time to use all the keybinds, counters, heals, etc (buttons) in this game might make PVP even more interesting and more dependant on co-ordination. Duels would be affected (1 v 1), however, I've seen many calls to make this more of an MMORPG (group play) since STO launched.

We should get a consensus of the PVP community before submitting a proposal such as this, or any for that matter, before submitting a request to Crptic to "make it so". I ask that the PVP community actualy consider ALL the ramifications before making a "knee-jerk" reaction or trying to just perserve their considered damage "OPness".

Red, I'm really interested in what you think of this.
Which solution, in the long-term, serves the entire Community better?
  • 1.) Change (or nerf, if necessary) a power, ability, item, or series of such, to pursue a level of balance that is as optimal as can be reasonably achieved? Acknowledging that change can be unpleasant, but, in the aftermath, adaptation occurs and the end result can be positive.
  • 2.) Completely overhauling the system, whether through blanket reductions in effectiveness or blanket modifications of effects of powers, abilities, items, or series of such; whether through the proposed -25% alteration, or some elsewise-determined conditional?

If change is bad, does that not make Option #2 the greater of two evils?

In any case, I do appreciate the willingness to dialogue on the issue, as there have been far too many voices on both sides of the Community that have merely tried to shout down those that prefer a different aspect of the game, and that only serves to divide the Community and leaves the Devs on their own, unable or unwilling to listen to feedback that might benefit everyone, at the risk of inciting the negativity that appears, sadly, all-too-often on these Forums.

-Big Red