Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay

Closed Thread
Thread Tools Display Modes
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 4,742
# 81
02-26-2013, 06:50 AM
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
That can be very difficult to determine because you need to know *exactly* how the game works to know all the dirty tricks and how they can be stacked together for great effect.

When Diogene or any other experienced PvPer goes into a PUG, they dominate, and the PUG largely will have no clue how, nor will they learn much of anything. Then they get super frustrated and say "&#$^ this game's PvP".
Lots of the hardcore pvpers that have the time, coach for the boot camp.

Others of us answer questions as best we can on Opvp.

I just spent 30min PMing someone that asked for help.

Ask and you will discover there are no dirty secrets... just answers to questions you have yet to ask.
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 417
# 82
02-26-2013, 07:11 AM
I haven't read this whole thread into details.

But is this idea ever suggested?

The kinetic weapons, torpedo's and mines, deal only 25% of its damage to shields. This because they are, as the word says, kinetic weapons.

However, energy weapons deal 100% of their damage to shields AND hull (I think this is strange, since the hull can also absorps heat etc from beam weapons.). You can make the energy weapons the oposite of kinetic weapons, so that they would do less than 100% of their dameg to hull, like only 50%. That way escorts would need also torpedo's, which is kind of canon and the DPS of energy weapons can be increased a bit.

Then to get rid of the OP spike damage, you can think of implementing a few seconds "no fire cooldown"after a rapid fire volley, or increase the power drain from rapid fire.
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,202
# 83
02-26-2013, 07:32 AM
Originally Posted by atatassault View Post
That can be very difficult to determine because you need to know *exactly* how the game works to know all the dirty tricks and how they can be stacked together for great effect.

When Diogene or any other experienced PvPer goes into a PUG, they dominate, and the PUG largely will have no clue how, nor will they learn much of anything. Then they get super frustrated and say "&#$^ this game's PvP".
Indeed. When I want to troll people in kerrat or sometimes in arena withmy KDF tac/escort, i often say that it's easier than the tau dewa patrol. Seriously, my poor krenn destroyer can take a lot of damage, and two escorts aren't enough to take it down (unless there's a sci/escort), and most of the times i need 1 to 4 second or so to kill unexpecting players, and they just say you cheat and so on. In both cases this is too extreme.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 18
# 84
02-26-2013, 09:00 AM
Unfortunately, I think PvP is complex enough that it would not be straightforward to provide a more enjoyable experience by tweaking a set of global parameters. I suspect the main thing that would emerge is even more complexity of balance, and even more complexity of gameplay.

I've often heard it recommended that things should behave differently in PvE from PvP, with the best of intentions -- surely it would be simpler to work in an isolated environment to balance each? Well, perhaps it would in the beginning, by working from a cleaner slate, but I think the truth is that it is still one game. It is not as isolated as all that. Having separate behaviors literally doubles (or worse) the number of things that need to be considered for balance, and introduces the possibility of unintended bleed-through of effects from one to the other. It becomes very, very, very difficult indeed to determine if everything is working as desired in both situations.

And it must be taken into the account that, as the game continues to change (as it always will, with new gear, new abilities, new and unexplored design spaces), there will be emergent gameplay and gameplay trends that may not be foreseen through design. Any kind of tweaking must be continuously evaluated and reevaluated. That's the nature of gameplay, which can be highly sensitive to even small changes in abilities. Not that change is bad, by the way. Change is good, and the only way there can be improvement.

That said, I would welcome a Tribble environment test lab, where broad changes to how the game works could be experimented with, or specific adjustments to powers could be explored, with no commitment to bringing them in to the main game. I think this would benefit both PvE and PvP. But it does come with a considerable commitment of developer resources, to set it up and to run it.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 677
# 85
02-26-2013, 10:09 AM
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
For some time now, we have been kicking around the idea of instituting map-wide variables on all PvP maps we currently have in the game, in order to apply global changes to the way that certain powers operate. While this wouldn't be considered a true "fix" for PvP overall, we feel that, if we got the numbers right, it could go a long way towards addressing some points of primary concern among both players that are both Casual and Hardcore PvP enthusiasts.

Before I go into the details of what's so far been considered, I want to make it absolutely clear that these are only IDEAS, and stating them here for feedback is absolutely NOT a guarantee that they will be implemented. And even if they are, there's a good chance they will not see the light of day, even on Tribble, until after our May Update.

With that in mind, here are a couple of the map-wide modifications we've been considering:

1) Max Hitpoints/Shields Increases

This was originally considered for Ground PvP specifically, but we later began to wonder if it might be appropriate for Space as well. For now, we're considering very large increases - as much as 200%-300% of your base hitpoint and shield amounts.

We fully realize that changing this one factor, without modifying powers, would fundamentally alter the flow of battle. It would completely change the intrinsic values and opportunity costs associated with many powers, as well as changing the perceived value of cooldowns and escape tactics.

The recent thread titled "Spike vs. Pressure" paints a picture that seems to indicate that this would end up being a bad thing for Space PvP, resulting in the very real possibility of matches where ships never died. However, we've yet to see any evidence that this would be anything other than a good thing for Ground PvP.

2) Healing -OR- Damage Output Decreases

Unlike the previous option, which would have a fairly equal impact on both Damage and Healing effectiveness, these ideas are more surgical, affecting either one or the other, at disparate levels.

Applying Healing effectiveness reduction to PvP maps would lead to extremely volatile matches unless it came hand-in-hand with limitations to Spike Damage potential. While limiting overall damage output would likely be a bad idea because it impacts "Pressure" DPS more profoundly than "Spike" -- not a great idea to exacerbate this issue. This probably means that this option is even less likely to be a good idea, than the previous notion. At least for Space PvP.

3) Reduction in Status Ability Effectiveness -OR- the Resistance Thereof

Presume that the term "Status" refers to just about anything that is not Damage. Buffs, Debuffs, Repel, Disable, Confuse, etc.

To be frank, we're fairly well satisfied with how effective most powers are in PvE in terms of their ability to inflict Status effects, and manipulate the flow of an encounter. As well as players' options to resist the effects of these abilities when they are used by NPCs. That's not to say that they are perfect, or that there isn't room for improvement, but we're OK with them as they are. Generally speaking.

In PvP however, the combination of extreme skill stacking and high resistance factors, cause us difficulty when attempting to find the correct balance point of an ability's effectiveness. We have therefore theorized that allowing us to limit one side of the equation or the other, ONLY in PvP, might allow us to tune these abilities in a more focused, controlled manner.


So, those are the main ideas we've had so far. We'd like to hear some open-minded feedback on what consequences any of the above could potentially have on the viability and flow of PvP combat, and its popularity among Veterans and non-Veterans alike. Keep in mind that we recognize the potential risk involved with making global changes of this nature, so you can bet your self-sealing stem bolts that we'd be testing any map-wide alterations extensively on Tribble before sending them into a Live environment (we've already investigated how to control this).
I think the best 'fix' for everything is to simply implement a Intelligent queue system where people of equal gear/experience is queued up together.

As it stands now, there are a few premades active in a specific timezone, both premades queue up only knowing they are being queued up against pugs. (The system simply has 0% intelligence to wait for both fleets to have queued and then put them together. Just a pure example. (In this particular situation id rather wait 5/10 minutes to be queued against experience players, then do another round of pugstomping)

Lets say there are 10 good and long term pvp'ers playing, and 50/100 newbies or first time players, as it is now they are all scattered along the whole queue system and we all have to be lucky not going up a gainst a full newbie team, and the other newbie team unfortunately gets ququed up against very good players.

This is the FIRST step that has to be made, im 100% sure with such a queue system/player ranking system the first steps to making pvp better has been set, and this change will automatically make newbies stick to pvp longer because they are not getting insta vaped.

and also the long-term hardcore pvp'ers keep playing because they are not constantly queued up versus a team full of newbie pugs.
Super Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,235
# 86
02-26-2013, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by borticuscryptic View Post
Well, I think this thread may have already ran its course.

Thank you all very much for your feedback, and taking the time to consider the possibilities.

It sounds like we're all fairly well agreed that the benefits of the originally-stated proposals would range from "Minimally-Good" to "Massively-Bad," and are therefore not really sound propositions as large, sweeping changes.
Like the man said, sounds like we're done here so I am going to go ahead and close the thread.

(Bort, if you need it reopened for some reason please let BranFlakes or one of us mods know.)

Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
Closed Thread

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 10:36 PM.