you ok buddy? a few weeks ago, you were starting threads for the devs and the game
Cups empty, kool aides gone...:(
Let's face it, to have anything to do with PvP right now, we all have to be a little bi-polar.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Fleet Marks are rewarded by Fleet Content.
Romulan Marks are rewarded by Romulan Content.
Omega Marks are rewarded by Borg Content.
The only one of these that leaves wiggle room as a possible PvP reward is Fleet Marks, and that continues to be a topic of discussion. But it's a topic with relatively low priority when we're all running around trying to get Season 7 out the door on time.
Would it help at all if I mentioned that we've been kicking concepts for a possible PvP Reputation track?
Not really. We've had concepts for two years, now. This is very simple, if you queue up for it, it should reward Fleet Marks.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
I don't have the authority to do so, and wouldn't even if I did. I love the Foundry dearly, and want to encourage as much play of it as possible.
I also don't have the authority to add Marks of any kind to PvP. It's a discussion that requires examination and discussion by many different parties, and I am not one of the decision-makers in that mix. Just the advocate.
i really don't understand what there is to discuss. fleet marks were added to foundry daily even thought that has to be the most exploitable thing ever and has nothing to do with fleets. its simply incensing content, something that has never been done for pvp,
nothing has more to do with fleets then pvp, it was the original fleet content! adding 50 marks to the pvp daily should literally be a knee jerk reaction that should have been included in season 6 launch. it is unacceptable that is STILL isn't.
and theres no talk of adding omega marks to otha and karrat, and there is no pvp warzone like these in all that new romulan content for romulan marks. no, just bang your head on the space bar, receive marks. plenty of rewards for content with the absolute minimum of player effort needed, and nothing for the content that requires maximum effort.
I don't have the authority to do so, and wouldn't even if I did. I love the Foundry dearly, and want to encourage as much play of it as possible.
I also don't have the authority to add Marks of any kind to PvP. It's a discussion that requires examination and discussion by many different parties, and I am not one of the decision-makers in that mix. Just the advocate.
And for the answer bort. For one it further clears the scope of influence you have in regards to our requests. I suppose the next question is if you are "advocating" the addition of these currencies in these discussions with other departments? ATM, it seems like even if you can't make the change yourself, appealing to you is still our only hope (help us oborticus one, your our only hope).
On another note, while you say that any incentive to get more ppl playing foundry missions applies to that daily, why doesn't it also stand to reason that same incentive would help pvp? The reason of ppl exploiting the queues can't be made since ppl also exploit the foundry daily as well. While afk'ers affect a queue differently, we all know they could be dealt with given some resources to deal with afk'ers.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
I agree! I feel rewarded every time I kill someone. Of course my mains are healers and c/c sci and with the like of Thales on my team, it doesn't happen very often...:-(
Nerf everything so my healboat ody can make 15 kills a match please...?
If its not true than the que's would be flooded with people for pvp. Especially since this is a game fueled by grind for resources. Pretty much though its nothing more than a deathmatch pvp there isn't anything special about it. I've been playing online games since the late 80's and there have only been a few in last decade that have gone beyond the common death match system. Most of these though have multiple factions and specific structures that benefit a players faction if they control it and the only way to capture such structures is either by beating an enemy faction (either npc or Player Faction) controlling it when its vulnerable to attack.
For those new to muds/mmorpg's it might seem like its pretty decent and just doesn't have many players but when you get a lot of gaming veterans together they just aren't interested in something they can get on any other game.
Edit: Also if you want to understand where I am coming from there is a classic example of a game from almost 30 years ago that was made in text graphics called Trade Wars 2002 and it has a much more advanced style of PvP than STO has ever had. There are still some servers up for it but not as many as back in the day. I just find it really sad an old dinosaur like TW2002 can put a game just barely a few years old to shame when it comes to PvP.
I'm not a PVPer, but I don't understand why they just don't put some kind of fleet marks for a match. If there's a range of values under discussion at Cryptic, just add the lowest one right now to give PVPers something, and then add additional ones upon further evaluation.
Oh, and Kerrat should really have Omega Marks.
ETA: If not per match, at least per the wrapper missions. Just add the same amount that the Foundry wrapper currently has.
If its not true than the que's would be flooded with people for pvp. Especially since this is a game fueled by grind for resources. Pretty much though its nothing more than a deathmatch pvp there isn't anything special about it. I've been playing online games since the late 80's and there have only been a few in last decade that have gone beyond the common death match system. Most of these though have multiple factions and specific structures that benefit a players faction if they control it and the only way to capture such structures is either by beating an enemy faction (either npc or Player Faction) controlling it when its vulnerable to attack.
For those new to muds/mmorpg's it might seem like its pretty decent and just doesn't have many players but when you get a lot of gaming veterans together they just aren't interested in something they can get on any other game.
Edit: Also if you want to understand where I am coming from there is a classic example of a game from almost 30 years ago that was made in text graphics called Trade Wars 2002 and it has a much more advanced style of PvP than STO has ever had. There are still some servers up for it but not as many as back in the day. I just find it really sad an old dinosaur like TW2002 can put a game just barely a few years old to shame when it comes to PvP.
Well, most of the points you make is stuff we've been asking for for years. The fact that there's better pvp in other games is undebateable. Pvp with Sto space dynamics is much more difficult to find which id guess is why most of us are still here hoping for cryptic to change their ways. To say there is no rewards for pvp IS technically wrong. It offers both ec and dilithium, even if doing other things in the game can grind it faster. By your logic, if their are no rewards, why do we still have afk'ers?
Well, most of the points you make is stuff we've been asking for for years. The fact that there's better pvp in other games is undebateable. Pvp with Sto space dynamics is much more difficult to find which id guess is why most of us are still here hoping for cryptic to change their ways. To say there is no rewards for pvp IS technically wrong. It offers both ec and dilithium, even if doing other things in the game can grind it faster. By your logic, if their are no rewards, why do we still have afk'ers?
Well the first thing is as the first problem is involvement in PvP which is a given. So in order for people who are not wanting to go in they need a reason to go into PvP. If you look at it from that perspective on the motivating goal majority of the playerbase has is gathering resources such as doffs, EC, dilithium, etc. So if a person has to decide between getting dilithium, fleet marks, or any other currency they aren't going to go into PvP no matter how good the dynamics are in this game. I like PvP but its rare you will go in PvP in this game and find opponents who actually pose a challenge and in the very rare case you do find a challenging opponent all that happens is you are at a stalemate for around an hour or so until someone gives up because they have better things to be doing.
As far as AFK'ers its very simple on how you get around that. A good systems designer would be able to put pros and cons into the game and someone afk would get the short end of the stick when it comes to that. One thing would be putting into effect like elite stfs when you die you get an injury but make those injuries special where you have to do something as an objective to remove them (so that people don't fill inventory with repair consumables and make bots out of it) and then the system calculates your rewards based on injuries so if you afk and die 15 times that it would put you at 0% for rewards. Basically a well thought out and planned design for pvp goes a long way but they really are not going to divert any resources to PvP they will go to lockboxes before anything else.
They can make pvp better where it is better for the majority of the playerbase but the issue is if they are willing to actually do it which I believe based on the lockbox revenue vs content we get its not ever going to happen. The only thing it seems they are willing to do is once a month change how a few skills work.
Well the first thing is as the first problem is involvement in PvP which is a given. So in order for people who are not wanting to go in they need a reason to go into PvP. If you look at it from that perspective on the motivating goal majority of the playerbase has is gathering resources such as doffs, EC, dilithium, etc. So if a person has to decide between getting dilithium, fleet marks, or any other currency they aren't going to go into PvP no matter how good the dynamics are in this game. I like PvP but its rare you will go in PvP in this game and find opponents who actually pose a challenge and in the very rare case you do find a challenging opponent all that happens is you are at a stalemate for around an hour or so until someone gives up because they have better things to be doing.
As I stated, there are far better ways to get resources in this game than pvp. That is what we're trying to change
As far as AFK'ers its very simple on how you get around that. A good systems designer would be able to put pros and cons into the game and someone afk would get the short end of the stick when it comes to that. One thing would be putting into effect like elite stfs when you die you get an injury but make those injuries special where you have to do something as an objective to remove them (so that people don't fill inventory with repair consumables and make bots out of it) and then the system calculates your rewards based on injuries so if you afk and die 15 times that it would put you at 0% for rewards. Basically a well thought out and planned design for pvp goes a long way but they really are not going to divert any resources to PvP they will go to lockboxes before anything else.
my statement wasn't intended to ask how to fix afk'ers. That subject has been beaten to death with far easier ways to fix it than this. My point was that if farmers are afk'ing pvp matches, your statement of there being "no rewards" in pvp must not be true. Otherwise, what are they farming for?
They can make pvp better where it is better for the majority of the playerbase but the issue is if they are willing to actually do it which I believe based on the lockbox revenue vs content we get its not ever going to happen. The only thing it seems they are willing to do is once a month change how a few skills work.
I KNOW they can make pvp better. We all do. We make the hundred+ suggestions we do everyday in hope and sometimes frustration that they actually DO make the decision to take pvp to the next level. Bort has been a HUGE help to the cause IMO, but it's a long road and really would require the majority of borts time to get it on the right track. I know that's a commitment there not ready to make, but all we have the power to do is make sure our voice is heard.
What baffles me (and I'm positive Bort was being completely sincere when he talked about this) is that the devs see adding currencies/FM to the queues as dangerous, but somehow just tossing 50 (60 with boosts) marks a day onto Officer Reports isn't at all exploitable? At least in one of the options you can't get around doing some work?
I'll maintain again that the only way to have balanced PvP at this point is with limited options and paid entry fees.
No, the skill and teaming gap are what really kill pvp. The best solution is to separate pug and premade queues. At least as a start, more changes can be implemented after the results of the queue splitting can be assessed.
No, the skill and teaming gap are what really kill pvp. The best solution is to separate pug and premade queues. At least as a start, more changes can be implemented after the results of the queue splitting can be assessed.
Back to this again. Know what's going to happen if this is implemented? The guy getting blown away in 5 secs because he doesn't know how to pvp yet is still going to get blown away in 5 secs. If you have e1 that is normally teamed take to the queues individually, then the pugs will still be the weakest link and will be the majority of the deaths on a team. Do you think they'll feel any more inclined to queue up again when they died 10 times in the match they were just in and the whole other team shifted targets and instakilled him everytime he respawned and got back into the mix?
Same problem.
Teams of good players WILL split up and hit the queues individually. They'll continue to ask for private matches is OPVP, but they'll fill their time in the queue that pops the most. The reason youll usually only see critz teams in the queues is because the FvK queue is so slow now due to p2w junk ruining the queue times. Most of us were primarily klink players before p2w was introduced to the game. The players your trying to protect will be just as violated as they were before
In looking at the projects - it's kind of curious thinking about how such a grind would work with PvP projects.
edit: Doh, I got this thread partially mixed with another thread. The projects wouldn't matter for this thread - they would have for the thread asking for other gear. Or was it this thread? Bah, I'm so burned out - I can't remember...meh.
I don't really like that they've so intimately tied in PvE grind with strong passives in PvP but whatevs I guess.
Well to be fair, I don't think theyre aware they do it half the time. For instance, I seriously doubt when they were designing stf gear, they realized the plasma resistance they put on STF shields was gonna ruin an entire weapon choice for us. I mean if they did think about it, wtf were they thinking going ahead with it? For pve, it didnt hurt plasma as a weapon choice at all. Then after they release it, it's too late to take it back without the mobs of pve'rs freaking out about how squishy they will be without it.
Fleet Marks are rewarded by Fleet Content.
Romulan Marks are rewarded by Romulan Content.
Omega Marks are rewarded by Borg Content.
The only one of these that leaves wiggle room as a possible PvP reward is Fleet Marks, and that continues to be a topic of discussion. But it's a topic with relatively low priority when we're all running around trying to get Season 7 out the door on time.
Would it help at all if I mentioned that we've been kicking concepts for a possible PvP Reputation track?
This may sound as a stupid and obvious question, so to make it more stupid and obvious I'll put it in caps:
It's a discussion that requires examination and discussion by many different parties.
Oh yeah, pretty sick discussion I guess. I'd really like to hear those discussions. Must have a been a great discussion that made you eliminate all Science stuff to get your p2w **** sold. I'd kill to hear the diiscussion, that led to the fact that the "Open PVP" from Tribble never arrived on Holodeck. Why? Because it sucked? Since when is that a reason? Just throw a bone now and then, so you don't have to admit, that there is less PVP content in this game than on release.
Why make such a big deal out of a poopy reward, the PVP community wants and deserves.
Why would the Romulans or Omega Force care about what you're doing with your Fleet if it has nothing to do with the Romulans or Omega Force?
Why would the Romulans or SF/KDF care about what you're doing for Omega Force if it has nothing to do with the Romulans or SF/KDF?
Why would Omega Force or SF/KDF care about what you're doing for the Romulans if it has nothing to do with Omega Force or SF/KDF?
Tada...
It's akin to having multiple jobs - would you expect Employer #1 to pay you for work you did for Employer #2...?
I'm not in my roleplaying mode... and the only rp toon I got is Captain Obivous. So let's look at it from another angle:
Marks is the form of ingame currency built in to ensure that user participate, actually *SUFFER* is more suitable word, in a certain content to get desired item, so that he can participate in content that said user actually ENJOY.
I hope that much is clear.
Now that is out of the way, lemme repeat the question:
WHY THE f THERE ARE 3 KINDS of MARKS?
Right now all I can think of is: to ensure that said user participates (suffers) the content for longer period of time, while he can be spoonfed lockboxes and other revenue generating items.
Needless to say I am not satisfied with that answer, so I'm looking for wisdom and guidance from mighty pvp community.
Has nothing to do with RP. Hence the example given with working multiple jobs.
It's pretty simple. If you're doing A for X, then X will give you a reward. If you're doing A for X, then Y is not going to give you a reward.
It's like asking why putting points in Shield Emitters doesn't increase your Hull Repair... like duh.
You put effort into X, you get rewarded from X.
My making nice and flirting with the waitress is not going to get me a reward from the girlfriend later that night...
The question should not really be why are there 3 Marks - but rather why are there not 4 Marks? Where's the PvP Marks? Where's the PvP Rewards? Where's the PvP Sets, etc, etc, etc, etc?
The system is illogical - it's suggesting that flirting with the waitress is going to get you laid with your girlfriend. You PvE to do better in PvP...meh.
Has nothing to do with RP. Hence the example given with working multiple jobs.
It's pretty simple. If you're doing A for X, then X will give you a reward. If you're doing A for X, then Y is not going to give you a reward.
...
QUOTE]
I think we're talking about the same thing. Thou the fact that you yourself accept your own justification confuses me.
I think if there be be marks let there be one and only sort of marks. For everything. Because marks are only part of the picture. There's also dil and time and doffs and whatnot. Marks is just an extra nuisance that cannot be avoided. And the fact that nuisance is perpetually multiplied rather annoys me, so I'm raising my voice in objection.
As for your example, the waitress could teach you a thing or two that can please your girlfriend later on... you never know
Fleet Marks are rewarded by Fleet Content.
Romulan Marks are rewarded by Romulan Content.
Omega Marks are rewarded by Borg Content.
The only one of these that leaves wiggle room as a possible PvP reward is Fleet Marks, and that continues to be a topic of discussion. But it's a topic with relatively low priority when we're all running around trying to get Season 7 out the door on time.
Would it help at all if I mentioned that we've been kicking concepts for a possible PvP Reputation track?
I think a PvP rating system like that used in chess and some other similar games would be awesome. Getting a high rating, ie, a way to somewhat quantify your success, is a great reward for a lot of people. I know personally I would care much more about trying to get a higher rating then I would about getting extra fleet marks. I would like a play to win system less than a win to win system though, so I would prefer that you lose points when you lose and only win points when you win. I know with MMOs a lot of people cry when they dont feel like they are number 1, but the pvp crowd should be able to handle the ups and downs of it better, I think. You could even have seasons with resets and everything so that people would not feel like they are hopelessly behind by others.
If you did seasons with resets I wouldnt even mind a play to win rating type system, though that really is more of an accumulation system then a rating system.
Anyway, yes that is great that you guys are talking about pvp repuatation track stuff. I think a separate pvp thing would be great, and much better than getting fleet marks etc from pvp.
I think a PvP rating system like that used in chess and some other similar games would be awesome. Getting a high rating, ie, a way to somewhat quantify your success, is a great reward for a lot of people. I know personally I would care much more about trying to get a higher rating then I would about getting extra fleet marks. I would like a play to win system less than a win to win system though, so I would prefer that you lose points when you lose and only win points when you win. I know with MMOs a lot of people cry when they dont feel like they are number 1, but the pvp crowd should be able to handle the ups and downs of it better, I think. You could even have seasons with resets and everything so that people would not feel like they are hopelessly behind by others.
If you did seasons with resets I wouldnt even mind a play to win rating type system, though that really is more of an accumulation system then a rating system.
Anyway, yes that is great that you guys are talking about pvp repuatation track stuff. I think a separate pvp thing would be great, and much better than getting fleet marks etc from pvp.
It would only be worth it if the rewards were better then the pve rewards and couldn't stack. Otherwise you'd then NEED both to be competitive.
I think a PvP rating system like that used in chess and some other similar games would be awesome. Getting a high rating, ie, a way to somewhat quantify your success, is a great reward for a lot of people. I know personally I would care much more about trying to get a higher rating then I would about getting extra fleet marks. I would like a play to win system less than a win to win system though, so I would prefer that you lose points when you lose and only win points when you win. I know with MMOs a lot of people cry when they dont feel like they are number 1, but the pvp crowd should be able to handle the ups and downs of it better, I think. You could even have seasons with resets and everything so that people would not feel like they are hopelessly behind by others.
If you did seasons with resets I wouldnt even mind a play to win rating type system, though that really is more of an accumulation system then a rating system.
Anyway, yes that is great that you guys are talking about pvp repuatation track stuff. I think a separate pvp thing would be great, and much better than getting fleet marks etc from pvp.
A rating system would be a total crapshoot unless Cryptic implemented a proper queue first. Even in games like League letting duo queuers into solo queue is a topic of intense debate, a ladder that ranked complete randoms against full teams would be a total mess.
In fact, someone else (Fallout I think?) made the point that because STO's community is so small, separating teams from the queues still wouldn't solve anything. The law of averages wouldn't have time to work itself out and games would just be decided by whichever side had the most regular players.
Shimmerless - that is a good point about the size of the community being important for an effective rating system. In chess, the rating system is not perfect, but there are so many players that it tends to not matter that much. I may actually be 50 or 100 points better or worse then my actual rating, but if I play a couple of games it will fix itself.
I am not so sure it is that important though. Going to what Matteo said about the system needing better or equal rewards to pve, I think the idea is that the rating system is the reward. People play pvp because it is a fun challenge and you want to beat others, and be the best. Getting a high rating would be what you would strive for, ie, it would be the end, not a mean. Thus, it would be different from things like PvE stfs where the end is not necessarily to just beat the thing over and over again, but to get the gear. A pvp rating system you would just try and get a high rating, and beat other players with high ratings. I dont know if you guys play much chess, but chess has a pretty extensive and decently working rating system. People actually pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get better at chess to improve their rating. They dont get gear at the end
No doubt a rating system would be all over the place, but if the rating system is set up decently well, it would correct itself just by people playing. Someone might be able to get an extremely high rating by manipulation, but then when they play a real game, the higher skilled lower rated player would beat them and they would lose a ton of rating points. In effect, the manipulated high rating would be meaningless then, and even if it were possible, people would just not bother doing it.
One problem with a rating system though is implementing it with team play. A very good player could be on a bad team and do very well in a pvp game but lose. That person really shouldnt lose rating points, but it would be difficult to implement a system where they didnt. Ie, if you go by damage output, or kills or something, that would make good healers and good sciencey effect players not have accurate ratings to their skills.
It might be best to just use something simpler, but a rating system would be awesome if it could be implemented.
Shimmerless - that is a good point about the size of the community being important for an effective rating system. In chess, the rating system is not perfect, but there are so many players that it tends to not matter that much. I may actually be 50 or 100 points better or worse then my actual rating, but if I play a couple of games it will fix itself.
I am not so sure it is that important though. Going to what Matteo said about the system needing better or equal rewards to pve, I think the idea is that the rating system is the reward. People play pvp because it is a fun challenge and you want to beat others, and be the best. Getting a high rating would be what you would strive for, ie, it would be the end, not a mean. Thus, it would be different from things like PvE stfs where the end is not necessarily to just beat the thing over and over again, but to get the gear. A pvp rating system you would just try and get a high rating, and beat other players with high ratings. I dont know if you guys play much chess, but chess has a pretty extensive and decently working rating system. People actually pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get better at chess to improve their rating. They dont get gear at the end
No doubt a rating system would be all over the place, but if the rating system is set up decently well, it would correct itself just by people playing. Someone might be able to get an extremely high rating by manipulation, but then when they play a real game, the higher skilled lower rated player would beat them and they would lose a ton of rating points. In effect, the manipulated high rating would be meaningless then, and even if it were possible, people would just not bother doing it.
One problem with a rating system though is implementing it with team play. A very good player could be on a bad team and do very well in a pvp game but lose. That person really shouldnt lose rating points, but it would be difficult to implement a system where they didnt. Ie, if you go by damage output, or kills or something, that would make good healers and good sciencey effect players not have accurate ratings to their skills.
It might be best to just use something simpler, but a rating system would be awesome if it could be implemented.
My point is that the rating system would work itself out... eventually. For the law of averages to apply, you need to play enough games to the point where you approach the normal. This would be very difficult in STO without a vitalized PvP userbase because the existing one is so small.
Comments
Let's face it, to have anything to do with PvP right now, we all have to be a little bi-polar.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
Not really. We've had concepts for two years, now. This is very simple, if you queue up for it, it should reward Fleet Marks.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
i really don't understand what there is to discuss. fleet marks were added to foundry daily even thought that has to be the most exploitable thing ever and has nothing to do with fleets. its simply incensing content, something that has never been done for pvp,
nothing has more to do with fleets then pvp, it was the original fleet content! adding 50 marks to the pvp daily should literally be a knee jerk reaction that should have been included in season 6 launch. it is unacceptable that is STILL isn't.
and theres no talk of adding omega marks to otha and karrat, and there is no pvp warzone like these in all that new romulan content for romulan marks. no, just bang your head on the space bar, receive marks. plenty of rewards for content with the absolute minimum of player effort needed, and nothing for the content that requires maximum effort.
And for the answer bort. For one it further clears the scope of influence you have in regards to our requests. I suppose the next question is if you are "advocating" the addition of these currencies in these discussions with other departments? ATM, it seems like even if you can't make the change yourself, appealing to you is still our only hope (help us oborticus one, your our only hope).
On another note, while you say that any incentive to get more ppl playing foundry missions applies to that daily, why doesn't it also stand to reason that same incentive would help pvp? The reason of ppl exploiting the queues can't be made since ppl also exploit the foundry daily as well. While afk'ers affect a queue differently, we all know they could be dealt with given some resources to deal with afk'ers.
Edit: damn it drunk, I type to slow on a phone.
That is not entirely true.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
I agree! I feel rewarded every time I kill someone. Of course my mains are healers and c/c sci and with the like of Thales on my team, it doesn't happen very often...:-(
Nerf everything so my healboat ody can make 15 kills a match please...?
If its not true than the que's would be flooded with people for pvp. Especially since this is a game fueled by grind for resources. Pretty much though its nothing more than a deathmatch pvp there isn't anything special about it. I've been playing online games since the late 80's and there have only been a few in last decade that have gone beyond the common death match system. Most of these though have multiple factions and specific structures that benefit a players faction if they control it and the only way to capture such structures is either by beating an enemy faction (either npc or Player Faction) controlling it when its vulnerable to attack.
For those new to muds/mmorpg's it might seem like its pretty decent and just doesn't have many players but when you get a lot of gaming veterans together they just aren't interested in something they can get on any other game.
Edit: Also if you want to understand where I am coming from there is a classic example of a game from almost 30 years ago that was made in text graphics called Trade Wars 2002 and it has a much more advanced style of PvP than STO has ever had. There are still some servers up for it but not as many as back in the day. I just find it really sad an old dinosaur like TW2002 can put a game just barely a few years old to shame when it comes to PvP.
Oh, and Kerrat should really have Omega Marks.
ETA: If not per match, at least per the wrapper missions. Just add the same amount that the Foundry wrapper currently has.
Well, most of the points you make is stuff we've been asking for for years. The fact that there's better pvp in other games is undebateable. Pvp with Sto space dynamics is much more difficult to find which id guess is why most of us are still here hoping for cryptic to change their ways. To say there is no rewards for pvp IS technically wrong. It offers both ec and dilithium, even if doing other things in the game can grind it faster. By your logic, if their are no rewards, why do we still have afk'ers?
Well the first thing is as the first problem is involvement in PvP which is a given. So in order for people who are not wanting to go in they need a reason to go into PvP. If you look at it from that perspective on the motivating goal majority of the playerbase has is gathering resources such as doffs, EC, dilithium, etc. So if a person has to decide between getting dilithium, fleet marks, or any other currency they aren't going to go into PvP no matter how good the dynamics are in this game. I like PvP but its rare you will go in PvP in this game and find opponents who actually pose a challenge and in the very rare case you do find a challenging opponent all that happens is you are at a stalemate for around an hour or so until someone gives up because they have better things to be doing.
As far as AFK'ers its very simple on how you get around that. A good systems designer would be able to put pros and cons into the game and someone afk would get the short end of the stick when it comes to that. One thing would be putting into effect like elite stfs when you die you get an injury but make those injuries special where you have to do something as an objective to remove them (so that people don't fill inventory with repair consumables and make bots out of it) and then the system calculates your rewards based on injuries so if you afk and die 15 times that it would put you at 0% for rewards. Basically a well thought out and planned design for pvp goes a long way but they really are not going to divert any resources to PvP they will go to lockboxes before anything else.
They can make pvp better where it is better for the majority of the playerbase but the issue is if they are willing to actually do it which I believe based on the lockbox revenue vs content we get its not ever going to happen. The only thing it seems they are willing to do is once a month change how a few skills work.
I KNOW they can make pvp better. We all do. We make the hundred+ suggestions we do everyday in hope and sometimes frustration that they actually DO make the decision to take pvp to the next level. Bort has been a HUGE help to the cause IMO, but it's a long road and really would require the majority of borts time to get it on the right track. I know that's a commitment there not ready to make, but all we have the power to do is make sure our voice is heard.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
No, the skill and teaming gap are what really kill pvp. The best solution is to separate pug and premade queues. At least as a start, more changes can be implemented after the results of the queue splitting can be assessed.
Back to this again. Know what's going to happen if this is implemented? The guy getting blown away in 5 secs because he doesn't know how to pvp yet is still going to get blown away in 5 secs. If you have e1 that is normally teamed take to the queues individually, then the pugs will still be the weakest link and will be the majority of the deaths on a team. Do you think they'll feel any more inclined to queue up again when they died 10 times in the match they were just in and the whole other team shifted targets and instakilled him everytime he respawned and got back into the mix?
Same problem.
Teams of good players WILL split up and hit the queues individually. They'll continue to ask for private matches is OPVP, but they'll fill their time in the queue that pops the most. The reason youll usually only see critz teams in the queues is because the FvK queue is so slow now due to p2w junk ruining the queue times. Most of us were primarily klink players before p2w was introduced to the game. The players your trying to protect will be just as violated as they were before
In looking at the projects - it's kind of curious thinking about how such a grind would work with PvP projects.
edit: Doh, I got this thread partially mixed with another thread. The projects wouldn't matter for this thread - they would have for the thread asking for other gear. Or was it this thread? Bah, I'm so burned out - I can't remember...meh.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
Well to be fair, I don't think theyre aware they do it half the time. For instance, I seriously doubt when they were designing stf gear, they realized the plasma resistance they put on STF shields was gonna ruin an entire weapon choice for us. I mean if they did think about it, wtf were they thinking going ahead with it? For pve, it didnt hurt plasma as a weapon choice at all. Then after they release it, it's too late to take it back without the mobs of pve'rs freaking out about how squishy they will be without it.
This may sound as a stupid and obvious question, so to make it more stupid and obvious I'll put it in caps:
WHY THE f THERE ARE 3 KINDS OF MARKS?
Why would the Romulans or Omega Force care about what you're doing with your Fleet if it has nothing to do with the Romulans or Omega Force?
Why would the Romulans or SF/KDF care about what you're doing for Omega Force if it has nothing to do with the Romulans or SF/KDF?
Why would Omega Force or SF/KDF care about what you're doing for the Romulans if it has nothing to do with Omega Force or SF/KDF?
Tada...
It's akin to having multiple jobs - would you expect Employer #1 to pay you for work you did for Employer #2...?
so they have even more currencies to merg when the next round of "currency convergance" happens.
they continue to repeat past mistakes.
Oh yeah, pretty sick discussion I guess. I'd really like to hear those discussions. Must have a been a great discussion that made you eliminate all Science stuff to get your p2w **** sold. I'd kill to hear the diiscussion, that led to the fact that the "Open PVP" from Tribble never arrived on Holodeck. Why? Because it sucked? Since when is that a reason? Just throw a bone now and then, so you don't have to admit, that there is less PVP content in this game than on release.
Why make such a big deal out of a poopy reward, the PVP community wants and deserves.
damn greedy f...
I'm not in my roleplaying mode... and the only rp toon I got is Captain Obivous. So let's look at it from another angle:
Marks is the form of ingame currency built in to ensure that user participate, actually *SUFFER* is more suitable word, in a certain content to get desired item, so that he can participate in content that said user actually ENJOY.
I hope that much is clear.
Now that is out of the way, lemme repeat the question:
WHY THE f THERE ARE 3 KINDS of MARKS?
Right now all I can think of is: to ensure that said user participates (suffers) the content for longer period of time, while he can be spoonfed lockboxes and other revenue generating items.
Needless to say I am not satisfied with that answer, so I'm looking for wisdom and guidance from mighty pvp community.
It's pretty simple. If you're doing A for X, then X will give you a reward. If you're doing A for X, then Y is not going to give you a reward.
It's like asking why putting points in Shield Emitters doesn't increase your Hull Repair... like duh.
You put effort into X, you get rewarded from X.
My making nice and flirting with the waitress is not going to get me a reward from the girlfriend later that night...
The question should not really be why are there 3 Marks - but rather why are there not 4 Marks? Where's the PvP Marks? Where's the PvP Rewards? Where's the PvP Sets, etc, etc, etc, etc?
The system is illogical - it's suggesting that flirting with the waitress is going to get you laid with your girlfriend. You PvE to do better in PvP...meh.
I think a PvP rating system like that used in chess and some other similar games would be awesome. Getting a high rating, ie, a way to somewhat quantify your success, is a great reward for a lot of people. I know personally I would care much more about trying to get a higher rating then I would about getting extra fleet marks. I would like a play to win system less than a win to win system though, so I would prefer that you lose points when you lose and only win points when you win. I know with MMOs a lot of people cry when they dont feel like they are number 1, but the pvp crowd should be able to handle the ups and downs of it better, I think. You could even have seasons with resets and everything so that people would not feel like they are hopelessly behind by others.
If you did seasons with resets I wouldnt even mind a play to win rating type system, though that really is more of an accumulation system then a rating system.
Anyway, yes that is great that you guys are talking about pvp repuatation track stuff. I think a separate pvp thing would be great, and much better than getting fleet marks etc from pvp.
It would only be worth it if the rewards were better then the pve rewards and couldn't stack. Otherwise you'd then NEED both to be competitive.
A rating system would be a total crapshoot unless Cryptic implemented a proper queue first. Even in games like League letting duo queuers into solo queue is a topic of intense debate, a ladder that ranked complete randoms against full teams would be a total mess.
In fact, someone else (Fallout I think?) made the point that because STO's community is so small, separating teams from the queues still wouldn't solve anything. The law of averages wouldn't have time to work itself out and games would just be decided by whichever side had the most regular players.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples
I am not so sure it is that important though. Going to what Matteo said about the system needing better or equal rewards to pve, I think the idea is that the rating system is the reward. People play pvp because it is a fun challenge and you want to beat others, and be the best. Getting a high rating would be what you would strive for, ie, it would be the end, not a mean. Thus, it would be different from things like PvE stfs where the end is not necessarily to just beat the thing over and over again, but to get the gear. A pvp rating system you would just try and get a high rating, and beat other players with high ratings. I dont know if you guys play much chess, but chess has a pretty extensive and decently working rating system. People actually pay a lot of money and spend a lot of time to get better at chess to improve their rating. They dont get gear at the end
No doubt a rating system would be all over the place, but if the rating system is set up decently well, it would correct itself just by people playing. Someone might be able to get an extremely high rating by manipulation, but then when they play a real game, the higher skilled lower rated player would beat them and they would lose a ton of rating points. In effect, the manipulated high rating would be meaningless then, and even if it were possible, people would just not bother doing it.
One problem with a rating system though is implementing it with team play. A very good player could be on a bad team and do very well in a pvp game but lose. That person really shouldnt lose rating points, but it would be difficult to implement a system where they didnt. Ie, if you go by damage output, or kills or something, that would make good healers and good sciencey effect players not have accurate ratings to their skills.
It might be best to just use something simpler, but a rating system would be awesome if it could be implemented.
My point is that the rating system would work itself out... eventually. For the law of averages to apply, you need to play enough games to the point where you approach the normal. This would be very difficult in STO without a vitalized PvP userbase because the existing one is so small.
vids and guides and stuff
[9:52] [Zone #11] Neal@trapper1532: im a omega force shadow oprative and a maoc elite camander and here i am taking water samples