Let me float an idea past you... (PvP Map-Wide Variables)
View Single Post
Join Date: Jun 2012
02-25-2013, 10:23 AM
I can't quite believe my eyes. I feel like giving an oscar speech here.
"There is some actual thinking being done about PvP *snif* *snif*. This moment feels so much bigger.......I wanna thank my CAAATTT"
It would be great if you could share what observations lead you to this brain storming? What would you like to achieve?
All my comments are concerning space pvp only, i have no experience on ground.
Originally Posted by
1) Max Hitpoints/Shields Increases
This was originally considered for Ground PvP specifically, but we later began to wonder if it might be appropriate for Space as well. For now, we're considering very large increases - as much as 200%-300% of your base hitpoint and shield amounts.
We fully realize that changing this one factor, without modifying powers, would fundamentally alter the flow of battle. It would completely change the intrinsic values and opportunity costs associated with many powers, as well as changing the perceived value of cooldowns and escape tactics.
The recent thread titled "Spike vs. Pressure" paints a picture that seems to indicate that this would end up being a bad thing for Space PvP, resulting in the very real possibility of matches where ships never died. However, we've yet to see any evidence that this would be anything other than a good thing for Ground PvP.
This options sounds absolutely horrible. I would love to see tall battles but this seems the completely wrong way to achieve this, here is why.
With more shields and hull points, spike would become even more precious. Battles would continue for a long time, so the kill count would have to be lowered, making the first kill even more decisive for the whole match, since more HP and SP are lacking. Escorts would become even more invincible, cruisers further obsoleted.... There are no tanks in PvP. Players choose targets! If you need evidence, just come onto the Boot camp TS and we'll show you a 5 carrier or 5x galaxy team in a match. You ll get the idea of why this will be bad very quickly. The insane spike needed to kill something 300% of its current value..... is not in-game. Many many ships would become obsolete, unless that is your goal. Constantly pulling of combination of my abilites which are on a 3min cd max, becomes silly, when the combo needs to remove 3x the hp it currently does. Their would be a great disconnect between planning an attack, and seeing its results. "do this, and statistically in 3 mins from now someone is more likely to die"
If you could tweak the injury system for PvP. So that certain high level (mostly) eng (bo and or cpt) skills actually remove pvp injuries (instead of consumables), pressure damage could receive a boost. So borg procs restore hull, but won't clear injuries, you would need a (preferrably) eng healer for that.
A fed eng/cruiser could thus help to generate kills (especially to escorts), by inflicting injuries first, and without back-up these injuries begin to wear the target down. Escort level healing abilities would resive a subtle nerf. This would bring more engs and cruisers into matches and create the effect of longer, less fidgity battles, without making the "double snb/alpha combo taking place in under two seconds" the only way of generating kills. Once 3xsci + 2xtac is no longer the most viable Pre-made options, more engs will also mean longer slower matches.
Yo-yo healing (especially that healing from randome procs) is what prevents tall battles. Not the lack of HP or healing abilities. I hope I m making my idea clear here, less proc based healing, and a different damage category similar to the injury system of elite difficulty missions, would go a long way.
Originally Posted by
2) Healing -OR- Damage Output Decreases
Unlike the previous option, which would have a fairly equal impact on both Damage and Healing effectiveness, these ideas are more surgical, affecting either one or the other, at disparate levels.
Applying Healing effectiveness reduction to PvP maps would lead to extremely volatile matches unless it came hand-in-hand with limitations to Spike Damage potential. While limiting overall damage output would likely be a bad idea because it impacts "Pressure" DPS more profoundly than "Spike" -- not a great idea to exacerbate this issue. This probably means that this option is even less likely to be a good idea, than the previous notion. At least for Space PvP.
A better option in my view. If you don't nerf/buff all healing dmg abilities by a flat number. Non player healing is too strong. Engs are superfluous. Spike rules all.
Simple things like giving cruisers x% damage bonus against
escorts, would be a subtle way of shifting things in the right direction. Might even be good for PvE. Cruisers to clear escorts pets, while escorts are needed to kill tac cubes.
Fix beam energy drain issues, and make their effective use dependent on eng skills. SO that tac and sci cruiser are not the only viable cruisers to have, and you get a better game imv. I guess that was the intention behind NE, to begin with, but with overall power creep (as in more power for everyone's subsystems from different sources), some adjustments seem necessary.
As i said above, if you want to nerf healing make sure to nerf proc based healing. Escorts need to be squishy, while dedicated healing abilites (ie. cmdr level Eng BO, or LtCmdr Level Sci) need to compete with Cmdr Level Tac options. Defense score is something to look at for grand adjustments.
Buffing eg. Aux2Sif3 by 300% and Aux2Sif1 by only 10%, will still tip the scale towards more spike damage. THe underlying isses remains, but *Great Maker* don't make escorts any more tanky, just because people blow up in the tac kumari, by buffing ensign level healing skills.
The same goes for unison buffs to dmg. If anything buff dmg and nerf healing. If you twitch defense scores slightly, the HP and Shield mod bonus of sci and cruisers would count for more. While escorts live more on the wild side, which is where they should be. I'll not comment on the lack of Vesta, Kumari, and Armitage type ships for the KDF. But please keep faction imbalances in mind should you continue to think about these changes.
Originally Posted by
3) Reduction in Status Ability Effectiveness -OR- the Resistance Thereof
Presume that the term "Status" refers to just about anything that is not Damage. Buffs, Debuffs, Repel, Disable, Confuse, etc.
To be frank, we're fairly well satisfied with how effective most powers are in PvE in terms of their ability to inflict Status effects, and manipulate the flow of an encounter. As well as players' options to resist the effects of these abilities when they are used by NPCs. That's not to say that they are perfect, or that there isn't room for improvement, but we're OK with them as they are. Generally speaking.
In PvP however, the combination of extreme skill stacking and high resistance factors, cause us difficulty when attempting to find the correct balance point of an ability's effectiveness. We have therefore theorized that allowing us to limit one side of the equation or the other, ONLY in PvP, might allow us to tune these abilities in a more focused, controlled manner.
And the oscar goes to....... all sci BO abilities. *applause*
Player Sci resists are to high when facing other players. Keeping resists at current levels against NPC sci skills, but decreasing resists against those same abilities from players would be grand. This would also be a first step into the direction of reducing pet spam problems.
So this would be a split between player skills and NPC skill. If, however, danoobs when they are a player pet in an arena, suddenly inherit player level TB, this would be bad. Since Cryptic has introduced a plethora of pets, and fed ships with hangars. This is a great idea, but not on a per map bases, but on a player activated / NPC basis.
A further reduction of cmdr level sci abilites, would be a disaster. They are borderling weak in PvE, but most of them useless in PvP. A further nerf to sci skills is the last thing we need.
Last edited by havam; 02-25-2013 at