Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
05-11-2012, 10:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemotherapy
Doesn't this infer absolute homogenization though? If you are consistent in the application of this concept, musn't all players, at the game mechanic level, be completely equal?
Not necessarily, a strong comeback mechanic can easily allow the losing team to take control of the game. Take Street Fighter's combo gauge, for example. It fills up faster for the player that's losing which means that they will get access to their stronger combos sooner than the person that's winning. This in turn allows for them to 'fight back' and potentially overcome a weakness.

A great comeback mechanic doesn't even have to feel like a comeback mechanic at all, too! In guild wars, the pvp arenas with resurrection shrines favor the team that is losing because they have to travel less distance to return to the fight after they die. Yes, it's bad when someone dies, but the comeback mechanic mitigates this and you can even use it to your advantage by 'timekilling' your opponent in such a way that they are instantly respawned back at their base.

As long as the players have the option to take the counter, however, Hoyle's law stands true. The option is available to them, they just didn't take it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Data
The one problem with PvP in this game is the need for pretty much for every team to be made the same. In other words there are maybe 3-4 team builds and rest fall by the wayside quickly. This game when it lauched used the term IDIC, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations, we know that was hyperbole but to have 3-4 team builds that everyone needs to run to be competitive is absurd. I know some team builds fail and I know some team builds need to be good to make PvP more fun for the majority you need team builds that really do fall in the middle. Team builds need to be so diverse that it is almost impossible to find the few ones that really suck and the ones that really work and everyone is in the middle like a bell curve. What will happen eventually is tactics and strategy will make teams better and bring the skill level of the whole game up.
The problem with IDIC is that balanced teams are usually far stronger than anything else because they don't have a definitive and exploitable weakness. Innovation will always happen, and players will always be looking for that 'next big thing' that gives them the edge in pvp.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
05-12-2012, 01:23 AM
I think, that perhaps you need to come play again ... then lets have a reappraisal on the "fun" theme. Currently, I think we can all agree - it's just is not fun.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
05-12-2012, 02:56 AM
An interesting post and I don't disagree. I believe you posted something similar earlier, and I remember that this was really a problem with a lot of abilities at the time.

Someone once described a game as, I believe "Series of interesting/Meaningful Choices/Decision". A lot of "unfun" abilities tend to take away choices. Being stunned means you can't make a choice. Being scrambles means your choice is overriden. Counters in and on themselves do not necessarily fix this. If you're stunned and you have a counter available, you should take it, so you don't really make an interesting decision. A power like Feedback Pulse is theoretically more interesting here - there can be multiple counters- you keep firing, risking the damaeg, you stop firing, risking the target to recover, or maybe you can subnuke it away, but then you may not have the power ready for a while and the enemy can use another defensive buff. Feedback Pulse problem were always the details of its implementation (beam cycles too long meant you died even if you tried to change targets), it's core idea was cool.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
05-12-2012, 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kemotherapy
Doesn't this infer absolute homogenization though? If you are consistent in the application of this concept, musn't all players, at the game mechanic level, be completely equal?
Not necessarily. For example, if one side has Console X which is determined to be unique for that faction, then the other side needs equal access to a counter to that ability.

To extrapolate: If a carrier pet is an EC item, an EC item of more or less equivalent value which counters pets should be available. Say, a point defense turret or something designed to eliminate pets as rapidly as a carrier can spawn them. If Player A upgrades to Dil version carrier pet, a Dil version of the turret should be available, with the EC version performing in an inferior manner, and if a C-store version is available, a similarly available turret should be a C-store item. Given the example above the turret may require a time span equal to the cooldown time of the equivalent value hangar to eliminate the squadron launched.

A perfect counter-example: there is no counter to chroniton procs, but they are available to either side, they do not stack but can be applied consecutively, and they do not completely immobilize, though they do completely annoy. By my definition, these are fair. If one side chooses to equip them and the other does not, this is a strategic decision, and the game should be played out to see if it was a wise one or not.

Please do not mistake the example above as advocating any particular item: it was an illustration of a concept only. I would also like to add that allowing a broken game mechanic to be available to both sides is technically fair, but not fun, as in my chroniton example. Players should not have to go down a list of items which will be allowed or disallowed when setting up a premade vs. premade.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
05-12-2012, 08:48 AM
I very much agree with the OP. But it's something that PvE effects too.

What I'm getting at is that a player will be driven off by "unfun", but when fighting an NPC abilities need to be excessively powerful to even have a noticeable effect.

If you stun a player for 3 seconds, that's a big deal. Players have full slates of BOFF powers and pop them off as rapidly as possible, to that 3 second stun stops the player from healing to full, or from doing something unfun to you. But an NPC might not even auto-fire it's weapons in that gap.

Mobility reductions are another thing that in order to be noticeably powerful in PvE, need to be dramatically overpowered against players. You can cruise around in the slowest of cruisers, and still mostly hit NPCs on one shield facing, or bring any firing arc to bear on them. But holding a player motionless to avoid their best weapons and pound on one shield facing pretty much means you win automatically.



You can actually see the screwed up balance in STO just by looking at the numbers, and it's always been plain. In other games, damage buffs are 5%, resistances are 10%, and those little bits add up. But since NPCs are made "tougher" by giving them more health, a player needs to be able to hit so hard that they vaporize another player in 5 seconds flat in order to be able to feel like they're damaging the NPC. And in order to survive that much damage, players need resistances that make any unbuffed attack inconsequential, and healing that restores them to full in seconds.
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 04:05 PM.