Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
05-03-2011, 10:23 AM
Honest question... will healing also be reduced by 25%. I really don't think the "spike" dmg right now is too much. Spike was toned down a few times... with reductions to Rapid Fires, reductions to crazy crtis. (We don't hit 100k+ Beam Overloads anymore.)

Honestly a Well flown engi anything can tank 3-4 ships almost endlessly. Is dmg a dmg reduction needed. I agree that some cruisers seem to melt under rapid fire / BOL / HY type attacks... of course those that know what there doing will tank that from 3-4 ships with ease.

All a dmg reduction does is give even less incentive to fly anything other then a cruiser.

If spike is to be rounded off any further then healing needs to have diminishing returns... or some sort of Incoming and Outgoing healing needs to be added. Perhaps as some other games have done incoming and outgoing healing ratings need to be implemented so for example;

- Cruisers get an outgoing heal bonus with a incoming penalty (Good at support, large ship size makes beamed over engi teams ect less effective)
- Escorts get an outgoing healing penalty with an incomming bonus (Some thinking the nature of the Escort tac orianted crew and crew size make them poorer healers of other ships... but ship size makes it easier to support)
- Sci ships Perhaps get a more balanced number... being fiar at both incomming and outgoing.
- Changes to some of the engi and sci units to effect this stat... ie Hazard System offers +to outgoing Sif unit overs +to incomming or perhaps new consuls to effect both states.

Bottom line healing is far more out of wack then dmg.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
05-03-2011, 10:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Husanak View Post
Honest question... will healing also be reduced by 25%. I really don't think the "spike" dmg right now is too much. Spike was toned down a few times... with reductions to Rapid Fires, reductions to crazy crtis. (We don't hit 100k+ Beam Overloads anymore.)

Honestly a Well flown engi anything can tank 3-4 ships almost endlessly. Is dmg a dmg reduction needed. I agree that some cruisers seem to melt under rapid fire / BOL / HY type attacks... of course those that know what there doing will tank that from 3-4 ships with ease.

All a dmg reduction does is give even less incentive to fly anything other then a cruiser.

If spike is to be rounded off any further then healing needs to have diminishing returns... or some sort of Incoming and Outgoing healing needs to be added. Perhaps as some other games have done incoming and outgoing healing ratings need to be implemented so for example;

- Cruisers get an outgoing heal bonus with a incoming penalty (Good at support, large ship size makes beamed over engi teams ect less effective)
- Escorts get an outgoing healing penalty with an incomming bonus (Some thinking the nature of the Escort tac orianted crew and crew size make them poorer healers of other ships... but ship size makes it easier to support)
- Sci ships Perhaps get a more balanced number... being fiar at both incomming and outgoing.
- Changes to some of the engi and sci units to effect this stat... ie Hazard System offers +to outgoing Sif unit overs +to incomming or perhaps new consuls to effect both states.

Bottom line healing is far more out of wack then dmg.
Agreed! I do, however, think that the damage reduction was meant to be in regards to BFAW only, as opposed to fixing (or nerfing) it. I could be wrong though.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
05-03-2011, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHale View Post
Agreed! I do, however, think that the damage reduction was meant to be in regards to BFAW only, as opposed to fixing (or nerfing) it. I could be wrong though.
Awww my reading skills are not always fantastic, if I miss read that; woops.

FAW I think mostly needs some bug fixing, if it didn't ignore ACC and Defence (if that is in fact what is happening) the dmg numbers could perhaps be looked at diffrently, its possible the dmg numbers are not that bad. (I believe given the massive arcs of beams it would still be too high) However given that basic game mechanics seem to be broken in regard to the skill, its really honestly hard to say.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
05-03-2011, 11:09 AM
A problem inherent in the game is that the difference between totally unbuffed and normally buffed are already vastly different. Just running two Emergency Power to Shields can turn you into a tough enemy that cannot be easily killed without some focus fire or a decent amount of damage buffs (and usually more then two.)

But if you are unbuffed, you can be easily and quickly killed, especially if you also have slow reflexes or no heals in the first place.

If Cryptic wanted to change this, it would have to rework the entire damage scaling, it has to bring down the variance between (e.g. the difference between low and high values).

Would this really improve gameplay? Maybe. Maybe not.

Nerfing damage across the board is pointless. Nerfing damage for BFAW at will only might work. For PvP. In PvE, the power is still overpowered compared to equal or higher level alternatives. Can we not just enable the Foundry Map Preview UI and give every player his kill button?I mean, what's the point? If you don't care about balancing powers in PvE, what is the point of all those powers? To feel good? Are they purely cosmetic, like costumes? Should we just have 10 powers that let you shine in different lights to make you invulnerable and 10 powers to make the enemy shine in different lights and explode?

Maybe there need to be differences between PvE and PvP powers. I think it will make getting into PvP different, but if the community and the Cryptic Devs start to believe that this is the only way, so be it. Maybe in Season 10 or so they get around to actually do something for actual PvP content and people will want to do that extra learning because they want to be part of saving the Federation from the KDF agressors. Maybe not.
But that doesn't mean you can just abandon balance in PvE. It just means the balance might look different. Maybe chain stuns are no problem in PvE because the enemy might still take time and skill to beat even with that trick at your disposal - NPCs just don't get annoyed if they are stunlocked, they are not paying to actually play this game, they are just there to provide a reasonably challenging obstacle. They might be able to do that even if stunlocked and scrambled the entire combat. But if they cannot even provide a reasonably challenging obstacle regardless of the difficulty level because of broken powers and weak creature design, that is a problem.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
05-03-2011, 01:16 PM
Noble idea, but I still feel it would merely lower the Quo and keep the status the same.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
05-03-2011, 03:39 PM
This is a poor solution to the problem, one which seems to come from someone who has not fully understood the pvp dilemma. If you really want to end FAW then buff cannon skills or move them down a tier. There is no reason for a cmdr. ability like rapid fire 3 to be out-dps'd by FAW 3 a lt. cmdr. ability. Personally I'd like the old FAW back, it was much better for mine clearing than the current incarnation is.

The problem we have now has nothing to do with PvE vs PvP, it stems from the fact that cryptic knee-jerk nerfed cannon skills so hard about 9 months ago that abilities a full tier below them are now doing more damage than cannon skills.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
05-03-2011, 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Esquire View Post
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...21#post3519621 For a little background.


We all know that "new FaW" is causing some problems within PVP gameplay. There are still MANY people who consider the Klingon faction and escorts, in general, to be OP with their "spike damage". The EFF engine NERF? However, in each of these instances, there are people who want to keep what's there now or see other problems that need to be "fixed" 1st. Some have even stated they were leaving STO due to some of these, or have left due to past CHANGES/NERFs. PVE players end up being affected via our never ending quest for "balance", most of which don't even come to the forums to see there even is a problem. They just play the game and find something they liked CHANGED/NERFED via a patch. Rage/quit becomes a factor. So, how do we "fix" the problems without affecting the sub base, Cryptic profits, and the funds necessary for continued development for the content/additions that we all would like to see?
I suspect that there have been more people that have chosen not to continue playing STO due to lack of changes to problematic situations/skills/etc. than have left as a result of changes. In many cases, PvE-primary players will complain about changes to some things that they like (new toys such as the Tractor Mines, or the Ghostbuster Gun) or things that they had become accustomed to using (RSP is a great example); however, most complaints last about a week, then the PvE players generally adapt and move on (with the occasional grumble about those 'stupid PvP-ers'), but, in the end, they continue to have just as much fun as they had before the changes.

When problems are left un-fixed, on the other hand, particularly when those problems are severe enough to drastically affect the balance of at least one portion of gameplay (in the case of New Faw™, it affects all aspects of gameplay, whether the PvE crowd chooses to admit it or not), the value of gameplay is diminished. An over- or under-powered skill detracts from the overall 'fun factor' of the game, by limiting viable choices within the game. If an ability is under-powered, no one chooses to use it, and selects their powers from a list of more viable candidates; by the same token, if an ability is demonstratively over-powered, everyone ends up choosing it (or, purposely handicapping themselves, in the case of PvP, whether for fun, challenge, or principle), invalidating all other choices for builds.

While, personally, I find that the Efficient Engine nerf (and it 'is' a nerf, not just a 'change') seems rather silly at this point, regardless of data-mining. Instead of reducing the effectiveness of such a useful engine (at least until reaching top-tier, where, for PvP, at least, choosing to use this Engine is choosing to severely handicap several aspects of one's ship), it would have been better to offer more useful alternatives through the tier progression, much as they are starting to do at end game (the new Breen Set Engine, for example); however, at the same time, I do understand why they are changing it, because it does invalidate all other options, until a player has access to the Borg/Aegis sets, leading back to the problems mentioned above. This is the type of change that needs to be accompanied by an acknowledgement that the options available in the interim tiers were sub-standard, and that the Devs plan to address the issue.

Choosing not to allow changes to happen, however, would be even more detrimental to the long-term health of the game, because the gameplay will become stale and repetitive when balance concerns are ignored, because items and abilities that have power levels out of line with the rest of the game's systems. Instead of blanket rebellion against change, it is far more beneficial for us, the players, to provide substantive feedback to the Devs, as they investigate the need for making changes, and offer advice and suggestions to help improve balance and, by extension, the game, for everyone.

Quote:
I have played another game, off and on for about 7 years, that may have somewhat an answer to this. How about a 25% DAMAGE REDUCTION TO PVP gameplay, ONLY? SOE tried that in SWG and the NERF calls seemed to die out while it was instituted. Almost to the minute that they removed it, the NERF calls came back in full force. While I can be extreemly crticle of SOE Austin, I can also see what worked for the betterment of the game as a whole.

New FaW would only be 75% as devestating as it is now. FAW 5 man "fed balls" end up being 75% of what they are now. Escort/klingon "spike damage" would only be 75% as damaging as it is now. Healing, snare, root, etc would stay EXACTLY the same as it is now in PVP, just if it includes damage, that gets lowered by 25% also. What this would end up resulting in (as I've already seen it happen), was and is;

1. Group tactics would become even more important as it would require group co-ordination to take some1 out effectively and quickly.

2. NOTHING ends up OP in the damage dept. NO 1 shot, 1 straffing run kills (from a single player) and allows the other group more time to respond.

3. NO PVE players get affected. Therefore, all damage is the same in PVE content as it is today. Their game doesn't CHANGE 1 bit.

4. Pretty much NOTHING would end up being considered OP as, depending on who you talk to, it is today. No where near as many NERF calls. No where near as many dev calls for a NERF we didn't even know that there was a problem in. (EFF engine)

5. Not many "Star Players" would be as prevelant as they are today. "Star groups" would still retain their titles.

6. New players to PVP might have a little bit more of a chance than they do today and that can only be a good thing as more PVP players = more PVP going on.

7. Since PVP gameplay is instanced, this should be an easy development CHANGE for Cryptic to accomplish. Just make the PVP instances at 75% DPS power.

I've seen this work before.
Using SOE is better as an example of what not to do with an MMO, rather than a place from which to glean ideas. SWG was a robust, entertaining game with a reasonably-balanced (with a few exceptions) system that was fun for the vast majority of its players. The havoc wrought upon the game when SOE started to flex its intractable influence was felt by all players, from the most seasoned veteran, down to the newest subscriber, and little, if any of their changes were beneficial in the long-term (the current state of its subscriber base is a perfect representation).

As far as the blanket reduction in damage for PvP, there are several problems, and many of the arguments have already been stated by knowledgeable Members like SteveHale and Husanak (etc.), but I will offer them again here...
  • First, the Devs have already expressed that the engine does not lend itself well to the idea of split natures for PvE and PvP, largely due to the complexity of the game's coding (for example, New Faw™ would already have received changes if not for the extreme complexity such an alteration is going to entail, involving some 4000+ data structures... It will be fixed, but it will be a time-consuming and likely none-too-soon appearing fix...)...
  • Second, a blanket reduction in damage output without a similar reduction in healing and power duration would not make PvP take longer, it would reduce the game to an unplayable stalemate. Skilled Healing already trumps skilled damage-dealing, and this is true in team, PuG, and solo (even PvE) play; therefore, just choosing to reduce damage will render an already-challenging aspect of PvP into an impossible-to-overcome component (either that, or the only remaining valid teams will consist of 5 Science Captains with SNB's <shudder>)...
  • Third, PvP already has a steep learning curve for newcomers, adding in a system wherein items and abilities work differently in differing gameplay types would further decrease the accessibility of the PvP Community from the general player-base... Steps should be taken to encourage newcomers to try a new and exciting aspect of the game, rather than make it more difficult and challenging for them to adapt than it already is...
  • Finally, to make a dramatic change like this seems more like trying to perform open heart surgery with a katana, rather than a scalpel... They both might be razor-sharp, but using the more dramatic and powerful tool simply does not serve the needs of the patient, and ultimately will cause far more, irreparable harm than good. Change can be painful, but it can also be productive, even when those changes include nerfs; if the end result is a better-balanced and more enjoyable game, then change should be supported and encouraged, with appropriate, constructive criticism and feedback.

I hate the 11,000 char-limit... 638 character too long... REALLY?! LOL...
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
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
05-03-2011, 11:01 PM
Implementing the OP's idea would make me invincible. Do you really want that? In my Star Cruiser build I can already easily take on most groups of 3 players all alone. 2 players is no problem at all.

Any decent healer will be practically impossible to kill even in a group of 5, unless they are the only decent player on their team, and all players on the other team are decent dps.

Most players who get easily owned now, probably don't do much damage either. You may be making it easier for them to heal, but you're making it a cakewalk for good players.

When a bunch of good players fight another group of good players, the fight would last even longer than it already does. Two good premades facing each other can take a good deal longer than 30 minutes as is. These fights require very intense dps coordination, great knowledge of the game, and great timing, all due to the good healing going around, which doesn't even require a dedicated healer. Removing 25% damage will make these fights ridiculously long - nearly unendable.

1v1 would be dead. Even between two escorts. Fights between evenly matched good escort players can EASILY go over 30 minutes as is. Two good cruisers or scis can't really end a fight.

This idea may have worked in other games, but I don't think it would be a good idea in STO - there are way too many heals going around.

A better idea would be to implement a leaderboard, which would rank all players, and then base the queue system off of players ranks. When people queue up, it would want to put more closely ranked players together. The problem with this is that most of the time, there aren't enough players online pvping to make multiple of these games and have the differently ranked people in separate games. It would make it much easier for new players to enter pvp, as they would enter at the lowest rank, and raise as they get better.

However, were this to be implemented, there would be a rush of people pvping to test it out, which would shortly get the good pvpers highly ranked and just pvping each other, with the normal and worse players playing each other, having a good time, and not getting popped in a few seconds. The good pvpers would be off playing each other, having awesome fights every time because fights would be more challenging, and fun.

If there weren't enough players, then it would be just like it is anyway.

Adding an in-game voice chat would make pugs better, as well.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
05-04-2011, 08:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigRedJedi
Continued from above...



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
Very insightfull arguments, all. And you asked the 64 dollar question at the end that I'm sure I, or even Cryptic, doesn't have the answer to.

These NERFs/CHANGES seem to happen over here alot. If we take new FaW as an example, appearently, Cryptic thought that FaW was underpowered and there was a reason (probably more than just the spam we all talk about here) for it to be "upped" in the fashion that they did. Due to the complexity of FaW and the 4000 items it affects, time will be needed for any CHANGE to it's processes back, down, or whatever they plan to do with it now. That allows for use and the playerbase to get used to it and it becomes the new status quo. Then, months later, a new status quo is introduced and more rage/quit, more complaining, more etc etc etc happens, all on the exact same issue. How many times have we seen just FaW incur CHANGES now? Same for klings.

As for SWG, there seems to be a point that the masses will no longer accept CHANGE or a point in which CHANGE means that the game you subscribed to is no longer the game your playing. As with the history of SWG, that should be a concern to any developer now. Just how much a game developer can get away with seems to be personal decision with every player. One will adapt, the next will quit over the same exact thing.

I don't have the "answer" but if they continue as has became the normal, Cryptic does run a risk. Best case senario is to have "us" come up with something, along with "them", and try to get a consensus. That seems a very hard thing to do with any game and the players.

On another note, as you sound like you played SWG for a bit yourself, SOE/Sony computer systems have been hacked. They currently have ALL their games down as well as all the forums and have been down for a few days. It appears that their entire database has been stolen, names, addresses, emails, DoB, passwords, etc and even some credit card numbers from 2007 that they have found so far compromised. There has been suit filed in Federal Court for regress against Sony already and it is seeking "class" status for damages associated with the "hack". If they had your info, it might be wise to keep an eye on your credit ratings, etc. I'm also going to be canceling the cards I used with SOE and re-issuing them. They have a press release out and you can find it at the station for what info they have made public so far.
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 02:22 AM.