Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
So much of the complaints regarding major PvP and balance concerns such as cloaks mechanics/cloak stalling(Klingons seemingly refusing to fight), Fed balls, suicide PvP rank up grinds and over-powered skills, etc, results not so much from bad skill design, but ill-conceived quest objectives and rewards, and from a lack of tactical/strategic, objective based open PvP within an expansive area.

The PvP suicide grinds is encourage soley through the poor PvP quest rewards. You currently reward one's presence in a PvP session instead of one's contribution in PvP. Since being present is all thats required, grinders will do and desire the shortest time possible in and for these sessions...they'll complain about how long they are and suicide into the enemy at the expense of those of us who actually take the content seriously. There grind(fine for PvE) totally disregards the players and spirit of the content the other players have come to participate in. Instead, have PvP quest require the attainment of a certain number of PvP points which come in an assorted variety of PvP contributions such as healing, capturing objectives, destroying enemy units, etc. This allows anyone to acquire these points toward quest completion based on whats best for their build/role, without requiring their side win or that they be a high DPS unit.

The cloak stalling complaint wouldnt be an issue if we eliminated team death match as a major PvP content mode(leave it as a duel/team duel content). Team death match does nothing but promote PvP quest grinds and contention between the Fed ballers and tactical cloakers. The lack of objectives means that intelligent cloakers have no reason to uncloak and engage unless they feel there is a tactical benefit for themselves. Fed ballers cant understand why the cloakers arent attacking and assume its griefing.

The fact that these PvP "sessions" are qued battles in a bottle, the Feds are expecting their "play date" to be productive, but because its a pre-planned battle, they have the benefit of being on guard and the fed ball pre-prepped. The strength of the Fed ball keeps the intelligent cloakers from engaging against bad odds. Its a cycle only broken by Feds or cloakers with bad team work and//or poor tactical IQ...or worse, rank grinders.

Many cry nerf, but thats not the problem...undoubtly the various skills need to be tweaked, but Devs, the problem is not in your skill design necessairly...but in your choice of environment for their use in PvP.

Give us open and expansive PvP combat based on wide-spread and multiple objectives. No Fed ball can last forever, no combat group can stay on high alert at all times, no military can be everywhere at once. This takes the currently pre-meditated Fed ball and forces it to maintain discipline at all times. It allows for complacency to creep in over time and gives cloakers opportunities to exploit the weakness. This brings us out hiding and gives the Feds the ability to re-act and engage Klingon incursions into the gaps in their front.

Objectives force us(Klingons) out of hiding to acquire the much need asset. Wide spread objectives throught out multiple systems force all sides to spread out, and it removes some of the clustering tendencies we see in PvP(Fed and Klingon a like). Mixed rank Fleet engagements help to balance out everything.

Lastly, deminish the differences between the levels...right now, the difference between a Lt. Com 2 or 3 is way less than that of a Lt. Com 8 or 9....the disparities are too much.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-05-2010, 01:49 AM
Constribution based rewards have the disadvantage that they usually introduce a heavy bias on play styles that are rewarded. Let's say I tractor beam a klingon and my friend blows him up, he wouldn't have been able to do that without me, but a game can't judge the value of an action like that. What if I am at an objecive in a neck in neck race and I'm under attack, I have reinforcements coming in, and I could make a run for it, but we might lose the match, so I stick around and die. Once again, a situation where your sacrifice earned your team a victory, but a computer would not be able to understand the complexities that made dying preferable to running in that situation.

I do think that having more objective based PvP and less deathmatch type PvP would improve PvP in general. Objective based PvP removes the focus from simply gaining kills and instead places it on accomplishing goals. Kills can still factor into the overall win or lose condition, but if they aren't the only way to win or lose you open up the arena for a whole range of strategies that weren't there before. Having to defend a location makes it suddenly desirable to be slow, but extremely tough to kill because it lends itself to that task, even though it doesn't at all lend itself to straight kill exchanges where being tough to kill is nice, but if your enemy can always run from you when he's losing, but you can never run from your enemy if you're losing you always come out on the bottom if there is nothing to be gained from producing a lot of draws.

As far sas cloaking is concerned, it's still stupidly overpowered, no matter how many people try to invent reasons why it isn't. In every other two faction MMO people would storm the ramparts if one entire faction had near stealth and speed on their side in every encounter. You simply cannot strategize against it in any way, which means that any time you add a strategic element the side with stealth and speed has a massive advantage.

I mean, an aligator doesn't get its prey most of the time, but he doesn't have to succeed all the time to get a meal, he just has to succeed once every so often, and its not like a wilderbeast can do anything to prevent getting attacked every time it wants to drink.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-05-2010, 02:11 AM
what are these bird and alligator stuffs in an MMO forum ?

PvP in STO is TEAM PvP, if you dont have a team that aims for domination and basicly WIN WIN WIN. Then do not post.

Stop posting, your postage is irrelevant as of what you represent. => puggy boy
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-05-2010, 04:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rothnang
Constribution based rewards have the disadvantage that they usually introduce a heavy bias on play styles that are rewarded. Let's say I tractor beam a klingon and my friend blows him up, he wouldn't have been able to do that without me, but a game can't judge the value of an action like that. What if I am at an objecive in a neck in neck race and I'm under attack, I have reinforcements coming in, and I could make a run for it, but we might lose the match, so I stick around and die. Once again, a situation where your sacrifice earned your team a victory, but a computer would not be able to understand the complexities that made dying preferable to running in that situation.


This really isn't a hard fix or difficulty. Abilities would be assigned a numerical value that would be added to your total that would include damage done, time engaged, damaged received, and healing provide to give a avg. higher placing players would receive a large sum of the pot total and low ranking players less. Players who have a 0 value in any trait receive none. Players who have a say 10 % comparative value would receive non.

I do think that having more objective based PvP and less deathmatch type PvP would improve PvP in general. Objective based PvP removes the focus from simply gaining kills and instead places it on accomplishing goals. Kills can still factor into the overall win or lose condition, but if they aren't the only way to win or lose you open up the arena for a whole range of strategies that weren't there before. Having to defend a location makes it suddenly desirable to be slow, but extremely tough to kill because it lends itself to that task, even though it doesn't at all lend itself to straight kill exchanges where being tough to kill is nice, but if your enemy can always run from you when he's losing, but you can never run from your enemy if you're losing you always come out on the bottom if there is nothing to be gained from producing a lot of draws.

Objective based RvR PvP is always the best answer.

As far sas cloaking is concerned, it's still stupidly overpowered, no matter how many people try to invent reasons why it isn't. In every other two faction MMO people would storm the ramparts if one entire faction had near stealth and speed on their side in every encounter. You simply cannot strategize against it in any way, which means that any time you add a strategic element the side with stealth and speed has a massive advantage.

FOR THE LAST TIME CLOAK IS NOT OP'ED

I mean, an aligator doesn't get its prey most of the time, but he doesn't have to succeed all the time to get a meal, he just has to succeed once every so often, and its not like a wilderbeast can do anything to prevent getting attacked every time it wants to drink.


Please stop helping.... cause your not helping

aw crap the bold are my comments. F'd up good on this one
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-05-2010, 05:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zugstum
Please stop helping.... cause your not helping

aw crap the bold are my comments. F'd up good on this one
He is mostly correct though.

- Team death-match was the stupidest idea since errr... putting team-deathmatch in Champion's online [press z]. Glad to see someone paid attention .

On the other hand, the whole idea of contribution is flawed. It's like asking a computer to judge 'beauty' - the computer doesn't have a clue. How do you compare tanking to DPS or healing to capturing points? Does it make any difference if the whole team heal, and you heal 10k, or whether you are the lone healer who heals 100k? Whatever you come up with, it will be exploitable, and it will be unfair to one playstyle.

Make contribution = time taken, and kick people that are afk.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6 Possible PvP Change Formula?
02-05-2010, 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zugstum
This really isn't a hard fix or difficulty. Abilities would be assigned a numerical value that would be added to your total that would include damage done, time engaged, damaged received, and healing provide to give a avg. higher placing players would receive a large sum of the pot total and low ranking players less. Players who have a 0 value in any trait receive none. Players who have a say 10 % comparative value would receive non.
You mean... kind of like Warhammer Online has for their Open Quests? They have an algorithm that plays into how much damage you did/took/healed(prevented) and what your role in the group was. I think that that would be nice, and beneficial. It would make it so that you don't get "graded" on dying, instead you would get graded on your overall contribution.

I believe that would work in a game such as this, where you might need to hold a choke point. You would obviously get more points if you figured in not only how much damage the "choke holder" took, but if they were able to successfully stave off the attack until reinforcements arrived. That would be pretty simple to quantify I imagine.

For example:

5 BoP's trying to stealth into a corridor.
[If BoP succeeded in this scenario, let's say 200 points a piece for successful stealth]+[Group bonus for difficulty [75 Points / Starship in formation] = 575 Total per BoP.

Detected by a Reconnaissance Science Vessel
[5 BoP * X [X = 150 Points for every vessel detected]=750 Points for detection].

Assault Cruiser steps in and attempts to delay the units.
[points for damage to units]+[damage taken] + [Time survived(cruiser survives 5 seconds before dying((Perhaps for simplistic's sake... 100 pts / sec) = 500 pts for that delay)] + [flat rate for each unit delayed[Say 50 points] = Time Survived + Time Delayed + Damage Dealt + Damage Taken


For a grand total of:

IF THE BIRDS of PREY GROUP STEALTHED THROUGH SUCCESSFULLY:

Each Bird of Prey = 575 Points for successful stealth past Reconnaissance Science Vessel + whatever points for future engagements/stealths = 2875 TOTAL points for the entire group of BoP's

IF THE BIRDS of PREY WERE DETECTED AND INTERCEPTED:

Reconnaissance Science Vessel = 750 Points for Alerting the Feds of the threat
Assault Cruiser = 750 Points (Time Survived+Time Delayed) + Damage Dealt + Damage Taken

So, what do you say? I know that it is rudimentary, and the numbers would have to be edited to fit the current/future PvP point systems, but they were just place holders for future actual formulas. Do YOU think that would work, and if so, do you think it would be beneficial? It would award everyone for doing their roles. Detection and reconnaissance would get a boost as it would make it a viable (In PvP anyways) build and it might make it more played since it would be awarded.

Please, be critical. Don't worry about bad mouthing it. Let me and Cryptic know what you think. I think that if it got some testing and was implemented properly, it could make PvP more fun and tense in a good way.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-05-2010, 07:47 AM
there already are contribution rewards inplace in pvp battles. The amount of medals and skill points, boff points merit/honor and such awarded to a player is directly tied to the amount they contribute. Which is why two players on the same side can recieve differnt amounts of rewards. Addtionally, most of the PvP missions require a player to win x type of pvp fights or kill x ammount of players. Only 4 ( as a klingon) missions per rank require you to die x amount of times to advance the mission. Two place additionaly requirements on pvp rewards when they are pretty much all klingons have to advance would cripple the ability of many klingons to advance. There are I am sure many players on both sides that are not very good PvPers. They try their best to help their sides. You would be hurting them. Yes there are a few who exploit the system but to punish all for the few is not right.
.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-05-2010, 07:56 AM
How is it punishing them by ... 'training' them to use their ship/style as it was intended instead of just blitzing and dying? It would make them better combatants, more valuable to their team since they would have learned how to fight with their ship. Even if it they are learning to 'just fight that way for the points', they would still effectively make themselves better PvPers because they are learning how to do it.

I for one, do NOT like PvP where it is a mass zerg rush and no strategy is involved. If I wanted that, I would play SC and go back to NO RUSH 20 games. I want strategy, and I am sure that many more people want their to be some sort of 'organized' PvP where people are actually fulfilling their roles. I have heard countless times that no one heals. You know why no one heals? No one heals because if they heal, they generally don't get the points that they are looking for. But if they did it like this, they would be able to get points for healing that they are looking for.

Also, based off of my previous formulas (Granted not perfect, but something tangible and constructive), the people whom are dying would get those points as well since it would count as taking damage and being a distraction by aiding their side in the fight against the Klingons/Federation.

The game is in it's first week, I know this. I also know that from what I have experienced and seen, it wouldn't hurt to make it more contribution based. You would not have to see the actual results, but wouldn't you like it to affect how you get your PvP medals/etc? That way, you would be able to tell whom is actually good at PvP and not just "Who is always there.. but does nothing". As long as a ship is flying around, without implementing a formulaic expression like I expressed, it is not AFK and won't be booted by the machine.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-05-2010, 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckeye.Trizzd
How is it punishing them by ... 'training' them to use their ship/style as it was intended instead of just blitzing and dying? It would make them better combatants, more valuable to their team since they would have learned how to fight with their ship. Even if it they are learning to 'just fight that way for the points', they would still effectively make themselves better PvPers because they are learning how to do it.

I for one, do NOT like PvP where it is a mass zerg rush and no strategy is involved. If I wanted that, I would play SC and go back to NO RUSH 20 games. I want strategy, and I am sure that many more people want their to be some sort of 'organized' PvP where people are actually fulfilling their roles. I have heard countless times that no one heals. You know why no one heals? No one heals because if they heal, they generally don't get the points that they are looking for. But if they did it like this, they would be able to get points for healing that they are looking for.

Also, based off of my previous formulas (Granted not perfect, but something tangible and constructive), the people whom are dying would get those points as well since it would count as taking damage and being a distraction by aiding their side in the fight against the Klingons/Federation.

The game is in it's first week, I know this. I also know that from what I have experienced and seen, it wouldn't hurt to make it more contribution based. You would not have to see the actual results, but wouldn't you like it to affect how you get your PvP medals/etc? That way, you would be able to tell whom is actually good at PvP and not just "Who is always there.. but does nothing". As long as a ship is flying around, without implementing a formulaic expression like I expressed, it is not AFK and won't be booted by the machine.
becasue it is not a rush zerg in most cases. The only ones doing that are either trying to PL or the very very bad players. The Plers you can not do anything about they have them in every game. The current system does reward those who contribute more better rewards. It also rewards klingons for winning as that is required in most cases to advance our pvp fights ( might for feds as well but I do not know their missions if they have pvp ones). What it does is punish poor players and also hurts even good players who wind up in PUGS if you change the rewards even more to favor winning.

Again I find it funny that it is FEDS who want the system changed when they are the same ones you scream and whinne if the battles take a long time due to the Klingons using tactics instead of zerging to death against the ball.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-05-2010, 10:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baaddare View Post
What it does is punish poor players and also hurts even good players who wind up in PUGS if you change the rewards even more to favor winning.

Again I find it funny that it is FEDS who want the system changed when they are the same ones you scream and whinne if the battles take a long time due to the Klingons using tactics instead of zerging to death against the ball.
I am not complaining about the length of time of the battle. This way does not favor winning, it favors actually playing the game the way that your class is designed to be played. I am not stating that you get points for winning and none for losing. I even stated that. The cruiser in that example does not win, yet he still got rewarded. Or did he not? Remember, as of this writing, there is NO death penalty, so his death actually got him points in which case he would have otherwise fled...

And to use your own quote in favor of my argument.... That cruiser commander would have died glorious and with pride as opposed to fleeing from a fight.
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 02:25 AM.