Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,015
# 51
02-01-2013, 01:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtshead View Post
My opening argument on that remains: People want to play with friends, therefore teams are better.

Your move.
You do realize that you just responded to a post in which Soph was talking to himself? The argument that people want to play with friends is lost on him because when people refuse to debate him, he just debates himself. He's the Tyler Durden of STO, you just walked up on him punching himself in a parking lot because he couldn't find anybody to fight.

Seriously, does anybody else think this is disturbing? He didn't just quote himself, he responded to himself point-by-point. I didn't think things got any nuttier than the shuttle PvP thread, but they have.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,337
# 52
02-01-2013, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtshead View Post
[...]
Are you trying to be funny here?
No.

Quote:
Because this example was the one I used to show exactly why the 1v1 balance doesn't scale - you just lopped off the part where I pointed out that after the first ship falls the disparity in firepower to healing/tanking means the remaining ships fall even faster.
And this is different from a situation where the game has been balanced for 5v5 or 10v10... how?

It isn't. Once you loose a team meamber, it is just as bad as when the game is balanced for a given team size, because you now miss a vital component that the game design assumed for a balanced game. Loosing a team member is always bad. So what are you trying to say?

Quote:
Your 'no heals' scenario is even worse, in fact, unless you only want people to run tac/escorts, since in a world with no heals dps is always king.
I was trying to prove a point, not propose a specific solution in this case. The point being that yes, of course things can be balanced so that things work 1v1 and 5v5. To disprove a statement of "it is not possible", all that is needed one example how it is possible.

So, now that we know it is possible, we can look if it is desireable, by what critieria, and and under which circumstances, and see how it could or should be done.

Quote:
[...]
The central point is that if you balance for 1v1, it damages the balance at the team level.
A claim often made, but I haven't seen any evidence for that yet. But even if there was any, see, the problem is: That does not invalidate the arguments for why 1v1 must work, too. Could you address those arguments and tell why you don't think they are valid?

Quote:
The primary argument you are overlooking is the one that answers your entire premise - 5v5 is actually EASIER to balance, because you can set up a rock/paper/scissors model that looks very unbalanced in 1v1 but works in a 5v5.
Do you think we do have such a rock/paper/scissors right now? Because, if you dig into te forums a bit, you will find that many people here will disagree with that notion (even those who might now claim otherwise). We do have teamwork, but it is not rock/paper/scissors.

Quote:
For instance, if hypothetically a tac always beat a sci in 1v1, that looks 'broken', especially if you are the Sci player. However, if in a team setting a sci/tac combo was preferable to a tac/tac combo because of better synergy, you have balance.
In 2v2, but not in 1v1. Now, what happens when you are in a 1v1 situation for one reason or another? Ah, poor sci. He's a looser. He should get a team! Or... mabye he just won't PvP again, because it hasn't proven to be fun, and he sees no point in playing something that he can't win. One less PvPer.

Sounds familiar?

Quote:
In any case, if you are right that scaling from 1v1 to NvN is possible, then it must necessarily be true that you can balance perfectly at the NvN level and have it scale down effectively to 1v1, in which case there is no reason to prefer one method over the other, so lets just stick with what we've got.
Hm. Are you saying that you believe we do have 1v1 balance right now in the game?

Quote:
[...]
Your move.
Move? I am not here for forum PvP, but for an exchange of arguments and thoughts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,766
# 53
02-01-2013, 03:16 PM
I was unaware that APA and SNB can be used in combination in a 1v1?
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 457
# 54
02-01-2013, 04:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post

And this is different from a situation where the game has been balanced for 5v5 or 10v10... how?

It isn't. Once you loose a team meamber, it is just as bad as when the game is balanced for a given team size, because you now miss a vital component that the game design assumed for a balanced game. Loosing a team member is always bad. So what are you trying to say?
You are being ridiculous at this point. You have not responded at all to my argument. To make it clear, this is what I'm saying: If you balance damage versus healing so that ships last (arbitrary acceptable time) in a 5 v 5, then it will last AT LEAST five times as long in a 1v1, if it is even possible to score a kill at all. On the other hand, if you balance so that 1v1 situations are (arbitrary acceptable time), then a 5v5 will last less than one fifth that, due to the way firepower advantages actually work. The implication is that it seems unlikely that you can have a satisfying match at both levels.

As for your point that losing a team member is always bad, well, yes, it's always bad, but my point (again) was that if you balance for 5v5, those situations aren't necessarily fatal, because if you are balancing the defenses of a team around resisting the firepower of 5 other ships, it is possible that your team will be able to weather the storm long enough for a friend to respawn.

Perhaps it will help to clarify this for you if I put it this way - firepower advantages don't scale linearly - they scale exponentially. For example - a two to one advantage in ships is actually a 4 to one advantage in firepower, because doing twice as much damage means you kill enemies twice as fast, and thus take half as much damage. The result is that a slight imbalance at 1v1 will become much, much greater at 5v5, while a slight advantage at 5v5 will be basically non-existent at 1v1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
I was trying to prove a point, not propose a specific solution in this case. The point being that yes, of course things can be balanced so that things work 1v1 and 5v5. To disprove a statement of "it is not possible", all that is needed one example how it is possible.

So, now that we know it is possible, we can look if it is desireable, by what critieria, and and under which circumstances, and see how it could or should be done.
So, you are not trying to give an example, because you don't have to provide an example to prove that it is possible to give an example, because all you have to do is provide an example, which you have done. What? This isn't even a tautology, it's just flat illogical.

Let's try again - you have not proven that it is possible, because you have not provided an example of a system that works in both worlds, you have simply asserted that it is possible to do so while denying that the counter arguments matter since they don't directly answer the nebulous non-example you are using in place of a reasoned argument.

Put even more bluntly - I agree that if you can provide an example of this working at both levels, then we can move forward. I contend you have not done so, since the only specific example you provided demonstrably failed to establish that it worked in both settings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
A claim often made, but I haven't seen any evidence for that yet. But even if there was any, see, the problem is: That does not invalidate the arguments for why 1v1 must work, too. Could you address those arguments and tell why you don't think they are valid?
The explanation is everything I have been saying - specifically, the fact that powers, firepower, healing, etc, don't scale well. The reason your arguments are not valid is because they don't take into account the counter arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Do you think we do have such a rock/paper/scissors right now? Because, if you dig into te forums a bit, you will find that many people here will disagree with that notion (even those who might now claim otherwise). We do have teamwork, but it is not rock/paper/scissors.
I think we COULD have that balance in 5v5, but not 1v1 - I will explain below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
In 2v2, but not in 1v1. Now, what happens when you are in a 1v1 situation for one reason or another? Ah, poor sci. He's a looser. He should get a team! Or... mabye he just won't PvP again, because it hasn't proven to be fun, and he sees no point in playing something that he can't win. One less PvPer.

Sounds familiar?
It does sound familiar - it sounds like exactly what I said was wrong with 1v1 in my first post - it's actually HARDER on newbs because there is no team to help carry the weight and learn from. You say people will be sad because they get isolated and beaten. Okay, think about that for a second - how is the correct response to that setting it up so that new players are isolated by default?

Moreover, again, 1v1 eliminates the ability to create 'roles' for player, as that leads to rock paper scissors style balancing, which means that certain matchups in 1v1 become foregone conclusions, whereas a team setting allows ships to cover each other's weaknesses.

You seem to think you're making hay out of the point that 1v1 situations happen now. You are not, because right now, those situations are not the norm, and are typically evidence of bad play. In any case, how does this help you? 1v1 happens now - so what? Should we balance for it at the cost of the majority of play?


Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Hm. Are you saying that you believe we do have 1v1 balance right now in the game?
No, I'm saying you are in a no-win scenario. If you are right that it is possible to have a balance that scales up, it means it must be just as possible to have 5v5 balance that scales down, so there is no reason to privilege 1v1 balance from a 'capability' perspective. Getting 5v5 balance right should work just as well at 1v1, right?

If you are wrong that balance doesn't scale well, then you have to show that there is a reason 1v1 is a better bet, and you haven't. It seems to me that the fact that you feel the current 5v5 game play is not amenable to your desired 1v1 setup says something about the conflict between these two play styles, even if you don't want to acknowledge it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Move? I am not here for forum PvP, but for an exchange of arguments and thoughts.
Glad you're not here for forum PvP, because I'd hate to see how you'd try to balance that. Boom.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,337
# 55
02-01-2013, 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtshead View Post
[...]
Put even more bluntly - I agree that if you can provide an example of this working at both levels, then we can move forward. I contend you have not done so, since the only specific example you provided demonstrably failed to establish that it worked in both settings.
Just to be clear: By "working at both levels", what precisely do you mean?

Quote:
It does sound familiar - it sounds like exactly what I said was wrong with 1v1 in my first post - it's actually HARDER on newbs because there is no team to help carry the weight and learn from.
That probably depends on the way a given individual learns. Many people learn best from direct feedback. A team that covers your back diminishes that feedback, while when you are on your own, you get feedback for each and every mistake.

Quote:
You say people will be sad because they get isolated and beaten.
No.

Quote:
Moreover, again, 1v1 eliminates the ability to create 'roles' for player, [...]
1v1 happens in the game, and looking at all the duels that are even set uo intentionally that way, there also seems to be a certain desire for it. That is a fact, as far as I can see. Do you disagree?

If they happen, then they need to work. Therefore, the space combat system needs to be balanced to work in these cases.

Also, 1v1 situations can happen even in the middle of a 5v5 fight. If abilities are not balanced on the 1v1 level, using the imbalances becomes a good move, which makes for an unbalanced game, obviously. 1v1, even in the middle of everything, is a subset of 5v5 of NvN. Do you disagree about that?

Quote:
[...] 1v1 happens now - so what? Should we balance for it at the cost of the majority of play?
No. We should have the game balanced for both 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, 1000v1000. Do you disagree about the desireability of this design goal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584
Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 328
# 56
02-01-2013, 05:45 PM
It is really disturbing to see wall of texts from this OP guy, in pvp section of the forum, the same guy I saw couple of times in capture and hold (last time iirc, it was a beam escort spiraling upward), discussing potential pvp solutions. It...feels ...wrong.
[10:49] [Combat (Self)] Your Proton Barrage deals 96581 (43411) Proton(Critical) to Seto.
Poor soul didnt have time to log out.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,394
# 57
02-01-2013, 06:06 PM
Guys, don't feed the OP. He gets his kicks by just arguing.

He lives in his own little world of STO where if he cant win, he either claims it broke or wants to change the surrounding to suit him. No one takes him seriously, so you are just wasting time with this guy.

You will get more reasonable success here on this thread getting things done in a none derogatory manner. Arguing or debating with this guy is like debating with a person who is blindly in love with a build / game type and refuses to acknowledge it really isn't what everybody wants.

He will twist your words to keep this thread going knowing that all he is doing is winding people more and more and more.
He has little game knowledge, he has no ability, yet he tries to come out as "I know all".
The whole world will say the sky is blue, but this guy will always argue the sky is pink.
Leave him be in his little world.
3 letter Soph, M.M.O. - what does the middle letter stand for? If it was your way, it might have been M.S.O.
Grow up and move on. Your arguments are baseless and just pure inflammatory to the rest.

You sir are not here for "Exchange of thoughts" but to argue and argue and argue. The best section for you I have always maintained is the RP Section. They will role play argue till you have had your fulfilment. They will welcome you open hands because you surely aren't getting welcomed here by the responses you are receiving in this thread.

I challenge you to find 5 people in this community who would actually take ANY of your views seriously.

You started this thread and look what happened.

And another one here

And this WOW, you killed it yourself....

This one is good - You realised the silliness of it and stopped responding thankfully!

I seem to get a "De Ja Vous" feeling with this thread. Oh yeah, this one.

And my personal favourit that gave me the most chckles - Formation Flying in PVP. That was hee-lair-yos!
aka NazHuggyBear2

"No, there is no real problem with P2W in STO. Obviously, if you fight against someone with an equal level of skill in the game, better equipment will give you an edge. But usually, it is the skill level that determines the outcome, not the P2W." - Sprinkles

Last edited by naz4; 02-01-2013 at 06:42 PM.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 457
# 58
02-01-2013, 06:33 PM
I'm going to do something a little different and deal with the end of your post first, since I think it will make it more clear why you are having such a hard time with this. You close by saying:

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Also, 1v1 situations can happen even in the middle of a 5v5 fight. If abilities are not balanced on the 1v1 level, using the imbalances becomes a good move, which makes for an unbalanced game, obviously. 1v1, even in the middle of everything, is a subset of 5v5 of NvN. Do you disagree about that?



No. We should have the game balanced for both 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, 1000v1000. Do you disagree about the desireability of this design goal?
First, I may agree that such a design goal is desirable, but that's not the point. It doesn't matter how much you want something, if that thing is impossible. It's like trying to find bigfoot, or a unicorn - no matter how awesome it would be, it's just not going to happen, so you need to make your peace with that and move on.

Second, I absolutely disagree that 1v1 is simply a subset of NvN. Remember when I pointed out that power differences don't scale linearly? That's one reason why. Oh, also, remember when I pointed out that a key difference between 1v1 and 5v5 was that team performance degrades as it reaches certain key damage thresholds (the hp of member ships, essentially), while in 1v1 ships with 1% health are still as effective as ships at 100%? That's another reason why.

Basically, even if it was true that 2v2, 3v3, 5v5, 1000v1000 etc balance would scale into each other, you still haven't dealt with that fundamental divide of 'one' versus 'many', and the fact that certain powers and situations just don't scale well. Here's a great example:

Team setting, Target Subsystems Weapons - procs the disable, reduces incoming fire from the other team by roughly 20% for 10ish seconds. Probably balanced, or even a little UP.

1v1 setting, Target Subsystems Weapons - procs the disable, reduces incoming fire by 100% for 10ish seconds. Different magnitude of effect.

See what I mean now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
Just to be clear: By "working at both levels", what precisely do you mean?
I mean 'providing an equally satisfying game experience in both one and one and team v team scenarios.' The ONLY example you provided that attempted to do that was the 'no heals' example, which was a) largely non-specific and b) shown to not, in fact, be desirable in a team setting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
That probably depends on the way a given individual learns. Many people learn best from direct feedback. A team that covers your back diminishes that feedback, while when you are on your own, you get feedback for each and every mistake.
So, the player that left his/her team and got smoked just learned an important lesson, and got some 'good feedback', and is quitting as a result. I'm not sure how the "I got clowned 1v1" feeling is any more or less 'feedback' in either case.

Also, a teammate saying "Your Tac carrier build probably could use emergency power to shields in order to tank better" is a form of direct feedback, FYI. Seems like in order to make sense, the distinction you are making in learning styles here is someone who can't process "I survived only because that guy threw me a heal" and "I died because I didn't tank well enough" send largely the same signal about a build. That person may well exist, in exactly the same way that unicorns and your perfect balance might, I suppose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
No.
Yes. Your position was that a player will get separated from his/her team, get beaten, and feel like a loser and quit. My counter is that the same player will feel exactly the same way when he/she queues up for a 1v1 and gets crushed by a player that is almost certainly more skilled, since a new player is, by definition, NEW. In a team setting, the new player has team-mates to help cover weaknesses, draw fire, etc, all of which means that a new player can have an easier time of it, and has at least a greater possibility of having a positive experience that draws him/her back to try again.

Even if you are right that there are some players who learn better in a 1v1, that doesn't change the fact that there are players who learn best in a 5v5. Since neither of us are qualified to say what portion of the population falls into those respective camps, this is at best a wash for you.

Oh, and to preempt your 'this is a reason both need to work' response - again, show me the unicorn. Doesn't matter how desirable it is, if it can't happen, you need to make some hard choices, sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo View Post
1v1 happens in the game, and looking at all the duels that are even set uo intentionally that way, there also seems to be a certain desire for it. That is a fact, as far as I can see. Do you disagree?

If they happen, then they need to work. Therefore, the space combat system needs to be balanced to work in these cases.
And the counter is, and has been, and will continue to be, FOREVER, that if you take that stand, you are making team matches no longer work. The clearest piece of evidence I can give you for this is the status quo - you seem to be asserting that 1v1 doesn't work right now - I'll stipulate that is true. Why is it true? Because a game balanced for 5v5 doesn't work as well at 1v1. What does that imply? That balance doesn't scale. What is the implication? You can't have both, so something has to give.

Let me just lay it on the line for you: you are not more clever than the development team of this game, or the hundreds of other MMOs out there that also balance for team play at the expense of 1v1 situations. There is no 'magic bullet' that makes things work equally well at both levels because the game types are fundamentally different, which is something you have consistently failed to address.

If you want to make the argument that 5v5 is not, in fact, perfectly balanced right now, that's fine - I agree with you. If you want to fix that, balancing for duels is not the way, and never will be.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,766
# 59
02-01-2013, 10:43 PM
If getting beat is the path to enlightenment in PvP then Im the Bhudha of PvP...



Or Im on the Bhudha while I PvP...

Or something like that....
Richard Hamilton (1975-2014)
goodbye good friend. We will see you in the DMZ in the sky oneday, save a shot for us.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,337
# 60
02-02-2013, 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtshead View Post
[...]
First, I may agree that such a design goal is desirable, but that's not the point.
Yes, it is the point. It is indeed the whole point of this thread: Should this be a design goal or not.

Thank you for agreeing on this one, at least up to the point where we ask a very vital question:

Quote:
It doesn't matter how much you want something, if that thing is impossible.
That is true. Is this really the case? Is it impossible? If it was, a single example for how it is possible would remove that notion from the debate, right?

So, now we need to find criteria that, in for example your opinion, have a given solution count as "working". What are your criteria for that?

Quote:
Second, I absolutely disagree that 1v1 is simply a subset of NvN. Remember when I pointed out that power differences don't scale linearly? That's one reason why.
Are you seriously claiming that 1v1 situations don't happen in 5v5 fights?

Quote:
I mean 'providing an equally satisfying game experience in both one and one and team v team scenarios.'
[...]
Well, unfortunately, that is not a useable definition, because "satisfying" depends on highly subjective matters of taste and custom. What we need are objetive criteria here, such as "fight lasts no less than X, but no more than Y", and other objetively measureable criteria. Could you give a list that works for you, so that I can design an example that scales for 1v1, 5v5 and 10v10 for those criteria?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Promote what you love, instead of bashing what you hate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...lM_skuv4#t=584

Last edited by sophlogimo; 02-02-2013 at 12:44 AM. Reason: Grammar and spelling.
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 07:57 PM.