View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,015
# 15
01-31-2013, 08:02 AM
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
[list][*] 1v1 situations occur a lot in the game. In any PvP mode, you will have situations where 1v1 just happens. Having balanced the game around something else than 1v1 will essentially make some players feel like they are in an inferior ship. That is not a good feeling, and would thus be bad game marketing.
Two generally true statements to get the reader's brain to start agreeing with you. Then a statement that should build on the first two, but does not successfully follow them with any measure of logic. The loser of the impromptu duel in the middle of an arena will feel like they are in an inferior ship? How can this possibly be known? How can game design change what some players attribute their loss to? Further, how can we know what action they will take? Maybe the feeling of having an inferior ship will send them to the Z-Store to buy something better. This would be good marketing.

Overall I find this argument to be lacking any cohesion.
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
[*] In fiction, 1v1 fights are exceptionally common, because they are attractive. It all depends on the hero and the villain, with no outside interference. "Who is the better man" is just an interesting question... in fiction. (In reality, it is a bit silly, of course, but that makes it no less attractive in fiction.)
These statements stand alone as true. However you have failed to make any connection to balancing this game around duels. As is your habit to infer that respondents have missed your implied points, I will do you the favor of taking the mental leap of tying your unrelated statements to the argument at hand.

This entire point is irrelevant because fiction is for spectators. In the example you gave of the duel to the death there is a hero and a villain, true, but there is an audience which gives the entire episode purpose. If you apply this to STO then you force one person to be the villain. "We all live in suspense, from day to day, from hour to hour; in other words, we are the hero of our own story." Hero, not villain, is the oft-misquoted sentiment on human nature.

Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
[*] It is much easier to test a combat system in 1v1 with multiple pairings than to organize a "test match" with a dozen or so people. It just requires less time, fewer people and less analysis to find out what is going on in 1v1.
By this logic college freshman orientation should be done 1 on 1 instead of in an auditorium. Each person should make an appointment and ask their questions one at a time, because it will require less time and be easier to organize than having everybody come to the same place at the same time. Can you see what is wrong with this?

More specific to STO, what need does this address? Has Cryptic issued repeated calls for test match players which have gone unanswered? Further, is what is easiest for the developers to implement necessarily the best choice for the players or the overall success of the game?
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
[*] It is easier to set up a system that is balanced for 1v1 which then scales well for higher numbers then to select a certain team size, balance everything around that team size, and then have it scale up and down properly so that people might enjoy anything else but matches of teams of exactly that size, because if one ship is a self-contained combat unit, bigger team sizes are just multiples of self-contained combat units, while when, say 4 ships are balanced as a self-contained combat unit, you have to find additional ways to have that half combat unit be useful in a 10v10 match, for example.
It is better to buy a car that is a bright color because red is brighter than blue, and if you had a black car it would be darker than red.
You have stated your preference in general terms, then used the word "because," then re-stated your preference in specific terms. The only argument against your preference you seem to be able to find is a vague need "to find additional ways" to balance the game. Nowhere did you actually back up the assertion that it is easier to create a self-contained unit.

Further, you seem to imply that enjoyment is a constant among players. You slipped a point in there that forcing players into a specific team size limits enjoyment. You cannot know what people enjoy.

You are trying to say that if the game is first balanced at the 1v1 level that it will then be balanced with any number of players when the teams have equal players. I cannot for the life of me think of concrete examples of games which allow teams to take the field in varying numbers. You must know of some, please provide them.
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
I would ask those who think that there are good arguments for balancing around a certain team size to list the arguments for it?
No. Here's why: You are arguing for the change. To argue in favor of a specific team size would be to acknowledge that your preference is as valid as any other. This is not a question of choosing how to balance a game that will be made in the future, this is a question of changing the status quo. You have a burden; since you seem willfully oblivious to it I will decline your request for a certain type of argument and make one of my own.

Your argument in favor of balancing STO for 1v1 must:

1. Identify problems with STO which are caused primarily or peripherally by the current 5 man team mechanic.

2. Explain how switching to a 1v1 would fix the problems. This will require specific examples, simply stating "it will be easier" is not sufficient.

3. Justify this change when measured against the problems created by such a balance change to a live game. This is not beta, this is not the drawing board. You are proposing to switch horses midstream.