Mostly agreed. There were really only three things I'm not sure about:
Originally Posted by inktomi19d
Another thing that could help is lengthening CDs on some of the more ridiculous powers enough that they couldn't be used in every fight.
I'm a fan of shorter cooldowns. All that really needs to happen is an adjustment of some of the skills, so that they are balanced enough to use each fight. Nothing is "un-fun" quite like being unable to use the fun toys you worked so hard for, due to some cooldown.
Also along the lines of allowing more diverse skills, all of the "Teams" should remove all types of debuffs. So Engineering or Tactical Teams could remove VM, instead of just Science Team (they share a CD anyway).
Instead, I think each ability should have different counters, instead of always coming back to the Teams. Those should be important, but not always ESSENTIAL. For instance, I think that VM should have a chance to break every 5 seconds based on a target's Auxiliary power. Give your aux a boost, and you can break it without Sci Team--maybe.
That would be better than just allowing every "Team" to be an automatic counter. Leave it to Science, or try your luck with Aux. Similar methods can work for nearly every debuff that needs a counter.
Some of the other proposed changes might go a long way to mitigate the effectiveness of universal BO stations. If victims were better able to survive the alpha strike or CC, then it doesn't matter so much that certain officer types can be stacked.
I don't want to see the ABILITIES nerfed, when it's the COMBINATIONS that are overpowered. It's fine if there are some decent combos that require coordinated teamwork, as long as it requries TEAMWORK--meaning no one should be able to have the entire combo on a single ship. Especially not if they can cloak, and thus start combat at their own discretion.
Basically, combos are generally good... they are only bad when:
1) They can be accomplished by a single ship.
2) They are far more powerful than other combos that SHOULD be comparable.
3) There is only one counter for them.
I'd say any 2 of those 3, and you have a broken combo.
I am for anything that will but the meaning of Tactical back to tactical combat, soften up on abilities and their use and make ship board weaponry shields and maneuvers the primary combat means and elements.
Spamming VM, SNB etc...is not tactics for Ship to ship combat.
If you are worried about shields dropping, you can stack resistances even tho there is a HEAVY diminishing return.
By that I mean an item that says it gives 15% will only give you 13%....rofl
You just lost 2% before you even reached 20%
Anyway it can still be very helpful, and I don't worry too much about my shields dropping unless there are 3 or more ships attacking me
As I can reliably keep all my resistances at around 30% with kinetic(torpedo's mines and I assume ram) at around 48%
This is opposed to the 45% and 100% via tooltips, so yea the return is rather severe but as I said even 30% of all damage mitigated is rather useful
And easy to attain, 1 15% console from pvp vendor and 1 level of hazard emitter or engineering team; both of which are ensign level skills! HE from science and ET from engineering, so it is easy to have 1 of each.
There are problems of course:
You might need the science slot for science team since everyone and their mom uses multiple VM now.
Having used said science team or tactical team prevents you from using any team again for what 30 seconds?
And there are people who will follow you around and wait for you to blow a team then use vm on you, so that even without snb you are still dead in the water with no way to counter unless someone is actually supporting their team.
If people played a science officer/ship as a support role instead of an LOLOLOL I DISABLED YOU and an engineer/cruiser as a healer instead of the uss almost invincible it might go a long way toward making pvp a bit more enjoyable as well.
I am not sure there is any way to fix the pvp tho.
I mean even if you made the only ship to have weapons an escort and gave them no way to heal or buff/debuff everyone would fly a escort.
Yes even tho there are clearly broken mechanics in this game, but it takes people to abuse those mechanics.
I am thinking this is much like warhammer was, big hype big sales big dropoff.
My sub runs out in a few days and trust me I know nobody will miss me, about like how I will not miss sitting in line for 30+ minutes for a less than 2 minute disable-fest. But then I should QQ more and l2p. It is somewhat gratifying to roll over people who rely solely on hit and run stay cloaked spam snb/vm tactics but even then they still cry out QQ more and l2p.
Team only oriented players won't like this. Everything is a linedance. 1 vs 1 encounters between starships NEVER happened, Wrath of Khan is a propaganda lie. There has to be the one best build that renders all others obsolete. Crowd Control has to be the deciding factor of the game, otherwise real fighting might break out and that takes longer to resolve then CC + focus fire.
KIRK was NOT a team player, he almost never rolled with a fleet. He was a noob and has no business here.
1) Many accept that certain ships (ie, BoP) are "supposed to win in 1-on-1 combat."
2) Certain combos allow these ships to do MORE than just win, but rather win UNSCATHED (ie, lockdown combos)
3) The supposition is that, while they win 1v1, these combos do nothing against teams.
These 3 facts bring us to a very unfortunate conclusion. When you get into a 5-on-5 battle, if the opposing team has 5 of the "1v1 ownage" ships and combos, AND they have cloak, which allows them to decide where and when the battle actually begins, they can easily turn the encounter in to five separate 1-on-1 battles by each locking down one target and melting face.
Don't misunderstand me--it is 100% okay to have certain ships that are FAVORED to win 1-on-1. But not GUARANTEED. Similarly, it is okay to have ships that can defeat more than one player in certain situations--as long as it's not the same ship as the 1-on-1 favorite.
The problem is NOT that different ships have different strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that the game currently favors ONE strength (lock down and apply burst damage) with combat that is too fast, and that it favors that strength by too wide a margin.
Unfortunately, once the effectiveness of two combatants differs by more than maybe 20%, you're basically equipping one of those combatants to beat the other 100% of the time.
WARNING, PSEUDO-MATH TO FOLLOW:
Cruisers and Escorts, for example. Escorts are all about heavy up-front damage to "beat the clock." Cruisers are all about survivability to "outlast the clock." I'm oversimplifying a bit, but in principle this is true. For sake of example, I will only use these two extremes. Science Vessels are discussed later.
This means Cruiser effectiveness is DIRECTLY proportional to the length of the encounter. The longer the fight, the more effective the Cruiser. We could say that Cruisers tend to do best in fights that are 2 minutes or more.
This also means Escort effectiveness is INVERSELY proportional to the length of the encounter. Get it done fast, or risk losing the burst advantage. We could say that Escorts tend to do best in fights that are shorter than 1 minute.
With the current damage scale, available combos, and unbalanced skills, the average length of a ship-to-ship encounter is 45 seconds. Note well: AVERAGE. There is a spread, and there are outliers.
This means that current game mechanics HEAVILY favor the Escort over the Cruiser. Fights already tend to be short, so the Escort doesn't have to do much to push that advantage... whereas the Cruiser has to work impossibly hard to make the fight last into its own territory. This is like starting a Tug-Of-War with one team already standing on the center line.
The ideal thing to do would aim for most encounters being around the 90 second (1.5 minute) "mid-range" mark. This means that NEITHER side has the clear advantage, and it's their job to either:
a) Pull the fight up/down into their ideal territory.
b) Bolster themselves to fight better in the "mid-range" and just keep the fight from bleeding into the opponent's territory.
c) Have a way out if things are getting out of hand.
Special Consideration: Cloak/Battle Cloak - This combination of skills currently allows the BoP to decide to start combat when best for the BoP, and ALSO to end combat and run as soon as the situation becomes disadvantageous. Conversely, the Cruiser (or any non-cloak ship) cannot do EITHER of these. Steps need to be taken to allow the Cruiser to choose to begin combat in a more advantageous position, AND/OR to escape a disadvantageous situation.
This comes back to the idea of sharing INITIATIVE. Think back to chess--white moves first, and white wins more often. This is statistical fact, and most tournament chess players will tell you that "black plays for the DRAW more than the WIN" because of it. If one side always gets to decide how the fight starts (and they also get a "reset" button for when it doesn't go right), they are too heavily favored to be considered balanced.
SCIENCE VESSELS: As support ships, Science vessels can fit easily into one of two roles. As a Debuff ship, they can be used to decrease the length of the fight--assisting an Escort with gaining the advantage, or bolstering a Cruiser's ability to compete in the mid-range. As a healing ship, they can increase the length of the fight--assisting a Cruiser with gaining the advantage, or helping an Escort last longer in the mid-range.
Currently, several Science Abilities seem overpowered (particularly VM and SNB). While balance is a concern, there are other things that lead to the APPEARANCE of overpower:
1) They are being used most often in Escort-type ships, coupling CC with high damage. This is a COMBINATION that is rarely ever balanced. The problem isn't specifically the abilities, but rather the combination of the two in one ship.
2) The current state of the game is such that combat only lasts about 30 seconds.... so a 20-second hold of ANY kind seems extremely unfair. The problem, however, isn't the length of the hold. It's clearly the length of combat. If the ideal length of combat shifts closer to 90 seconds, a 20-second hold (breakable by Sci Team) is reasonable.
In short, don't nerf Sci abilities. They were designed well for a combat system in which fights lasted longer, as was most of the stuff in this game, so we should instead strive to make combat a more appropriate length (on average).