I realize that it is difficult to balance a game, and there are so very many factors that it can seem impossible sometimes... I woudl ask however do you guys keep track of the wins/losses/kill of the diffrent factions vs eachother? IF you do are they balanced? Does one side win far more often than the other? Are the factors of the matches tracked? Could u say tell what kind of ships were in the match or what abillites they were using? What type of officers they were?
I am certain that you could introduce some internal code(if it doesnt already exist). That allowed you to track and compare these factors.. Give you an overall feel.
You could look at the stats forinstance after a week or 2 and go...
HMM it looks like in 500 Fed vs Klingon matches The klingons won 350 Of those matches.. And in those matches 90% of these ships were using FBP or RSP.. as were the other side... or not..
I hope you understand what i am saying. WHat i am not saying is that this would be a sole tool to use, merely a handy one to look at then go to the forums and see what ppl are saying, then pose quesitons to the community based on this data....
I believe you mean well but this "balance" issue because one side wins more often than other is a very tricky thing to balance becasue you have no way to account for organization, skill and other factors like equipment and BO loadouts if you look just at the win/loss ratio. And you can't look at the pure number of how often certain skill was used as well. Klingons are forced to pvp to level so they do it a lot more than Feds, and their tactics are more developed compared to Fed side which is more pve oriented. Some players only play Kingon side as well. I think that once the "equal number on both sides" is fixed the kill/loss ratio will change as well. Many games I enter and at the end we see too often that one side is significantly outnumbered due to people leaving or other factors.
I'll however state that having the ability to strike from stealth is the form of an "alpha strike" is a big adventage for the Klingon side. Whoever dictates the terms of engagement from the start usually wins. The SNB/VM combo in itself I do not think is a huge adventage for either side but being able to use them out of stealth is a big plus for the Klingon side and I'm a sci Klingon officer in a BoP.
I would never expect this tool to be used to exclusivly determine balance. This would only be used as a way to compare things on a large scale... I totally understand there are other variable that simply cannont be logged by any computer. But what i do belive is that there are various factors that very much can be recorded by a computer and do apply to a great degree. Hence my suggestion to look at the numbers then refer to the forums... Then they could test it out for themselves.
Really this would just be a trend analysis, plain and simple. So anyway, there it is.
every player, regardless of their skill or effort, has paid their subscription fee to play this game. it is totally fair to expect each of them to win about half the time in pvp, and lose about half the time in pvp. really, how is it fair that a fed player should lose 9 games out of 10 just because most klingons have more pvp experience than most feds? hardcore players always beating casual players isn't fair, you might as well make it so that hardcore players can use casual players as mounts as well.
so if you have any kind of tool that lets you measure win/loss ratios, then you should use it to enforce a 50/50 win/loss target. if klingons are winning 90% of the time, it doesn't matter if it's teamwork, skill or experience -- the end result is that fed players are losing 90% of the time, having less fun despite paying their subscription fee just like everyone else, and as a result the klingons need a handicap applied.
this is exactly what WoW does with their arenas, except that Blizzard has the resources (and enough players) to successfully implement a rating system that handicaps different-ability teams. Cryptic doesn't have those kinds of development resources, and there aren't enough klingon players anyway to be able to set up meaningful brackets, so in the short term look for them to take the easy road instead -- blanket nerfs to the obviously overpowered side.
in the long term, here's where I see pvp in this game going (assuming Cryptic cares enough about pvp to bother, which I'm not certain they are): FvK will become the preferred pvp style for casual gamers and roleplayers. "serious" pvp will happen in FvF only, which has enough players to support a queue system that uses individual ratings to construct approximately "fair" teams. any casual players who want to FvF will still be able to do so (although they'll generally be in the lower brackets). KvK will continue to be as dead as it is now.
But I agree balance is needed across the board for BO skills.
ur "US v Them" mentality is really NOOOBISH . Thought I let you know
Just because you dont understand something, and have absolutly no valuable input on the subject dosent mean that its retarded. Your response clearly indicates that you dont even know what this thread is about.