Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
02-05-2010, 06:36 AM
I would like to see there be a pvp touney similar to heros accent in guildwars where u fight a series of maps againt different teams getiing to a final where winning/holding ur map earns you and your team a chest that contains items
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
02-05-2010, 08:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher Lloyd
The only incentive to queue up for Klingons is that's the only way we can level effectively. Therer's no incentive for Federation players except to fight Klingons. You're not reading what I'm saying either. These would be open, optional tournaments sponsored by Cryptic. Cryptic puts up the money, the players just compete. You don't have to participate. But if you disagree, give specifics. No, I don't know Fury. Kindly explain. Are you saying better players will come in and defeat you?
Fury was a little PvP MMO that offered cash rewards for PvPing. And that was part of the reason it died, as any sense of actually playing a game went out the window. People just stopped playing and Fury didn't even make release.

Also, I don't give two flying ****s if people kill me. Besides, lolpvp.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
02-05-2010, 07:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mewnie View Post
Fury was a little PvP MMO that offered cash rewards for PvPing. And that was part of the reason it died, as any sense of actually playing a game went out the window. People just stopped playing and Fury didn't even make release.

Also, I don't give two flying ****s if people kill me. Besides, lolpvp.

Oh, okay. I didn't mean that the tournaments would take the center stage. Meaningful RvR should. If there is meaningful RvR I'll be happy. As before, tournaments were only a suggestion.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
02-05-2010, 07:47 PM
A good way to make sure PvP stays balanced is rather than nerfing each side, making sure that each side has similar advantages. To be more specific, segregating individual PvP matches from Fleet based ones. Or even makling PvP/ FvK require fleet membership. This would promote fleet growth and coordination between players in PvP and iron out those who are just complaining from the ones who are able to tell through similar faction efforts what is and is not overpowered.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
02-05-2010, 07:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emn1ty View Post
A good way to make sure PvP stays balanced is rather than nerfing each side, making sure that each side has similar advantages. To be more specific, segregating individual PvP matches from Fleet based ones. Or even makling PvP/ FvK require fleet membership. This would promote fleet growth and coordination between players in PvP and iron out those who are just complaining from the ones who are able to tell through similar faction efforts what is and is not overpowered.

A decent idea.

There are other posts in this Klingon PvP forum regarding balancing issues. Indeed, it would be ideal if Excellent Federation and Excellent Klingon PvPers fought against each other. I'm not sure whether World Class PvPers play here (some might be checking it out for fun). They mainly play in sponsored tournaments for money. These are the pros of the PvP world.

It's also why I suggested Cryptic have some occasional (perhaps quarterly) Tournaments and have the top prize be around $10,000. I don't want the tournaments to take center stage, but it would ensure that some top notch players played. That would be a good way to see if the Klingons and Feds are balanced.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
02-05-2010, 08:04 PM
I agree wholeheartily with:
  • Rankings
  • Solo queue=PuG [vs] PuG / Group Queue=Premade [vs] Premade
  • Objective based PvP (DM is just boring to me) most of which doesn't appear to be working currently (Resource War or whatever its called with the Borg).
Might be nice to get some King of the Hill mechanics on PvP instances (winning stays for another match and another team comes in or possibly opposite). I know the Queue wouldn't move as quickly but it might be nice in certain modes/queues (I really Hate loading screens and Queue's despite understanding their value).

The tournament (even with real life cash at some point) seems like it should probably wait until the game is more mature and more refined where tournament play would actually be something to respect (if PvP hits off better - probably as most players look to it at End-Game).
The Real Life Cash Tournament deal should at most occur once a year though (annual event etc.- though your quarterly recommendation might work - I'd test it annually before trying it quarterly) to avoid the downside of something like that in a Game centered around an IP (worked for Battletech - but those were essentially LAN Tournanments nor was that an MMO), and only if PvP gets really big in this game (and the game itself).

[edited]
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
02-05-2010, 08:58 PM
Keep the good ideas coming.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
02-05-2010, 09:05 PM
Quote:
Unskilled players in these latter mentioned games curse their bad luck or scream "Nerf!", never realizing that they lose because they are just outclassed. They play against the Garry Kasparov of Poker, Backgammon or STO PvP and they just can't figure out why or how they lose all the time.
really and truthfully the arguement isn't quite logical because games such as backgammon/poker are inherantly balanced in their nature while poker relies heavily on luck (no world class poker player will win if he is dealt absolute garbage every time). If STO were balanced I would be inclined to agree with you, but the game isn't and thus you cannot throw every arguement of balance out the window with an "l2p" style response.

also, if I still had the links I woulda shown you 7 links to various mental and psycological disorders/effects that would help to prove your point (but I accidently deleted them when I cleared off some useless text files)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
02-05-2010, 09:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by faithborn
really and truthfully the arguement isn't quite logical because games such as backgammon/poker are inherantly balanced in their nature while poker relies heavily on luck (no world class poker player will win if he is dealt absolute garbage every time).
Backgammon has a lot of luck as well (you roll dice).

With poker, in the long run everyone is dealt the same amount of bad and good hands. The better players win more money with their good hands and lose less money with their bad hands than the weaker players. The excellent players will also win more money on their marginal hands than some "merely" good players.

The trend in poker tournaments (the big money tournaments) has been that "usually" the better players will win. But often enough a pretty bad player will win 1st place because there's a time limit and escalating blinds (antes) and luck dominates poker in the short term. That's why millionaires don't bet money to play chess against Garry Kasparov, but they will play poker with millions against Johnny Chan, Doyle Brunson and the other superstars. They know if they get lucky they can beat them (they like the thrill). But they won't win in the long run.

Also, regarding poker tournaments, even if you are dealt Aces every hand you are sure to bust out if you keep going all-in with them (provided you are called). Aces will win heads up about 82% of the time but you'll lose the other times. So the better tournament players try to let the hand unfold rather than stick all their money in before the flop. Of course, even most great players will be willing to go All-In with a pair of Aces (they know they have to push their really good hands to have any shot at winning the tournament). There are a few situations at the last few tables and at the final table where you would throw Aces away preflop. They come about when you have a moderate or small amout of chips left (among other factors) and two "big" stacks have already gone All-In and one of them will bust out or be left with very few chips (barring a tie), allowing you to go from 7th place to 6th place (and win an additional amount of money, say $650,000--to keep it simple).

An interesting and overlooked fact is that "ideally" you never, ever (normally) want anyone to call your raise. Whether in a ring game or tournament, if no one calls you you will win the blinds and never lose. In a ring game you will even make more money that way than if you played normally (it's faster stealing the blinds). But they would almost always have to fold if you raised. If no one ever calls you, how can you lose?

The good player who has the best luck will usually win the tournament, but I've personally known some horrible players who won some big money tournaments. They just got lucky.


Quote:
Originally Posted by faithborn
If STO were balanced I would be inclined to agree with you, but the game isn't and thus you cannot throw every arguement of balance out the window with an "l2p" style response.

also, if I still had the links I woulda shown you 7 links to various mental and psycological disorders/effects that would help to prove your point (but I accidently deleted them when I cleared off some useless text files)

Sure, I have nothing against thinking players posting their suggestions. We all want a balanced game. Since my PvP skills are only fair (if even that) I don't post much except to say that some sort of ranking system would help the game.

Below is a good and succinct post by another poster.

http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=101230
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
02-05-2010, 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by faithborn
really and truthfully the arguement isn't quite logical because games such as backgammon/poker are inherantly balanced in their nature while poker relies heavily on luck (no world class poker player will win if he is dealt absolute garbage every time). If STO were balanced I would be inclined to agree with you, but the game isn't and thus you cannot throw every arguement of balance out the window with an "l2p" style response.

also, if I still had the links I woulda shown you 7 links to various mental and psycological disorders/effects that would help to prove your point (but I accidently deleted them when I cleared off some useless text files)
Believe it or not, you make a very good point about something, but Christopher also has a lot of valid points. Its just not very straight-forward.

Measure of skill is very subject to perception which isn't just determined by skill but also opportunity and experience/knowledge. Essentially Luck is always a factor (opportunity / X factor / Unknown). Also, perception can be, to some degree or another, dictated by personality and experience and usually is an extremely significant factor.

Idea regarding the rankings and ladders would be to make the various leagues optional and the ranking specific to each with an overall ranking average possibly. Default league/ranking ladder being the easiest (average could be done but would probably imply/send the wrong message to players that went lower) and to make sure the names were such that no insult would be taken by being in that ladder.
Essentially Christophers labels wouldn't work at all - something more like lightweight, welterweight, heavyweight, etc except more in character with the IP.

The ladders in each league would assist in matchmaking and the leagues themselves would function as 'Difficulty' setting for the PvP (possibly with harsher settings on ambient / map / mission / objectives etc.)

It would require some work with queue system since combined with map selection, PuG / PreMade queues implementd a lot of league and/or match types would be barren where others would be overloaded. So you'd want to be in more queue's as well manage movement thru those queues better than current state as well as provide more flexiblity and scalability in the queue options (defining a range acceptable instead of just 1 particular, priorities in choices/matches etc.).
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 10:31 AM.