Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 31
10-20-2010, 12:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
I forgot to mention canon adherence. That's another one.
Although I agree with some of your points, this is not one of them.

STO has always been a star trek sandbox game, it the way cryptic does things apparently. Even in beta we had the Miranda and the TMP constitution which were both far outdated by the time of STO. Then we had the Olympia which was from an alternate time line which no longer existed. That didn't change and its only been expanded on since launch.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 32
10-20-2010, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS Parallax
I forgot to mention canon adherence. That's another one.
Canon wasn't strictly adhered to by TOS writers or any writes for the shows since.

I'm not sure why we'd start now when even Gene said to hell with it on occasion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 33
10-20-2010, 03:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenrir1536 View Post
Although I agree with some of your points, this is not one of them.

STO has always been a star trek sandbox game, it the way cryptic does things apparently. Even in beta we had the Miranda and the TMP constitution which were both far outdated by the time of STO. Then we had the Olympia which was from an alternate time line which no longer existed. That didn't change and its only been expanded on since launch.
Eh, the Miranda we see during the Dominion War with new registry numbers, so it's pretty clear they were still being constructed in "recent history". So not a stretch there. We don't have quite the same with the TMP Connie but we do see evidence of it being in some level of use during the 24th century, but we don't see a registry number to know if they were still being actively constructed. Considering it uses similar components as the Miranda I wouldn't consider it impossible.

Anyway, those classes as well as the Excelsior I have no problem seeing in the 25th century as lower-tier ships. A T5 Excelsior is pushing it and the only reason I can accept that is that the Lakota was as tactically strong as the Defiant during DS9, demonstrating a high capability to be kept up technologically.

The TOS Connie crosses the line, though, since we effectively know they were all refit into the TMP Connie. It doesn't make sense for them to exist in any capacity in the 25th century... except in a holodeck or museum. The saving grace there was that it was only available as a pre-order bonus from one retailer, so negative impact was minimized.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 34
10-22-2010, 03:57 PM
Too much to read all of it so this might have been said;

I cant see why if you have a lower lvl player in the group and you que as a team that the lower players are bought into the pvp tier of the joining player. It would mean you have a full team, instant required numbers and no chance of ending up with 3 out of 4 or 5 players being low lvl when you were not expecting it.

I had a couple of games today with -TSI- and i flew a t2 cruiser, ok mk X wpns and shields, in arena matches and we won 15-0 and 15-2 or 3 and i survived without a death. I am not suggesting that you want t2 players but a t5 in t6 is not really at a disadvantage in all honesty.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 35
10-23-2010, 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ardept View Post
I had a couple of games today with -TSI- and i flew a t2 cruiser, ok mk X wpns and shields, in arena matches and we won 15-0 and 15-2 or 3 and i survived without a death. I am not suggesting that you want t2 players but a t5 in t6 is not really at a disadvantage in all honesty.
lol agreed, once in a blue moon I take a Cheyenne-class T3 cruiser out into PvP for a laugh, and it's not bad. Even won some 1v1s in it against decent enough players with good T5 builds. Still, it's just a gimmick.

In response to the OP and main thread topic: IMO, much of the game has actually improved since Beta, but almost all aspects of PvP gameplay have gotten worse. At launch we had a generally well-balanced and perfectly-paced PvP game, with the ol' Subnuke/VM lolcombo possibly being the only OP/imbalanced thing. Now we've got a boring cruiser/sci facerolling yawnfest.

PvP today is far, far poorer for all the "balance" changes that have been made, and I pity anybody just starting out in PvP now, who doesn't know just how much more fun it all used to be not so very long ago ...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 36
10-24-2010, 01:28 AM
the open level PvP system is extremely flawed.

the matches need to be done with the current restrictions, because more PvP doesnt necessarily mean more fun- especially if your poor Mk II covariant shield array cant seem to take the beating that say a Mk X disruptor dual cannon pumps into it. all it will do is cause major problems.

what needs to be done imo is to remove the PvP dailies entirely. this will put a halt on the flow of afkers, team ignorers, runners, and just plain useless players that cause imbalances.

also i have noticed since their most recent PvP fixes, the matches generally have even numbered teams, though i have noticed the odd person getting the boot from the match when the server realises it put in uneven teams- and thats annoying for the one who got booted

the old system from day 1 used to almost always throw in less Feds than Klinks for me, so we Feds had to learn to work harder to win
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 37
10-24-2010, 09:59 AM
The player attitude has gotten worse, though I'm not surprised.

There are always those who think their button pressing skills in an MMOG's PvP system somehow make them better than other people.

We call those people idiots, and other less polite words.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 38
10-24-2010, 10:14 AM
Un-tiered PvP is fail, and would make new players avoid it even more. Bad idea.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 PM.