Maybe it was just too deep for you, it was a point. To his original rebuttal, he tried to poke and point blame that I was assuming (which I was) to his statement which was (literally and without assumption) an assumption. It took 4 pages, but he realized the point finally: That he was trying to dictate where I should and should not assume things. I knew what he was trying to say, and assumed such even in my assumption as a counterargument. But as soon as he pointed out that it was an assumption, I wanted him to point it out himself that he was in the same sentence asking or expecting me to assume what he meant -- a double standard. He pointed this out.
....so you're telling me that, even though you're typing in english, you don't actually understand it?
I think the reason why there's no teamwork is that the addiditional gain from working as a team compared to everybody acting selfishly is so small hardly anybody cares. Most of the PvE fleet actions have become so easy they end up successfully in 19 out of 20 times. And the rewards for completing the optional are really not that great.
I would not call this behaviour sociopathic though. It's just the usual self centered individual maximizing utility while minimizing costs.
I agree with the first part, but the behavior is textbook. Sociopaths lack empathy and compassion for others. Any contact sport, for an example, of sociopaths would get bloody very quickly -- as none of the contenders would care about life or limb or the pain they put the others through. Thankfully that can't happen here because it is a virtual world, but it rears its ugly head in other forms -- such as people feeling completely comfortable afking an entire mission and walking away with the rewards (which they are addressing) or jumping into an elite STF first thing with no other experience in an STF as a freshly leveled VA in a RALH ship and expect to walk away with the reward (and get mad if they don't btw).
Showing no respect to your team-mates and letting a team-mate die because he's out-dpsing you is the very epitome of sociopathic behavior. While by doing this on a video game may not clinically make you a sociopath, the behavior none the less is indicative of such.
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
They need to fix this then, but I'm pretty sure the same rulesets that applies to starfleet can't apply generically because of this very situation. Admittedly this was thought up entirely from a starfleet prospective and it is precisely this as what I was asking for in the suggestions and critique.
And again, you have proposed nothing, instead you seem to support the current system of ONLY rewarding a single anti-team play-style.
I have provided my view on this on a number of threads... add disabling or actually boarding as possible alternates, call it different things, regarding the appropriate Ability, Disabling is just a header I choose for Scientific Alternates and Boarding for Engineering, to destruction and people won't be strictly focused on damage only freeing up mental capacities, Builds and general mindsets for things like "heal" and "Debuff".
If your Solo Action is forced to be all Damage and Team Action is forced to be all Damage you will get stuck in "All Damage" Mode...
When you learn from the very beginning that there are alternates and that every alternate is unique you will be more inclined to actually use said abilities and provide others with support.
If Everything is Damage, why should you care about that stupid Tacscort that can't manage to stay the ef alive (and to be fair you have to be completely BrainAFK for repeatedly dying in a Tacscort) and compromise yourself AND the Team when you go out of your way to help that one Ship, cutting your possible damage out of the Overall Team Damage?
If it is not some special tactic that is needed the best way to win is to kill the enemy as fast as possible and that is NOT achieved by having 2/3s of the Team not focusing on Damage...
Again... I am NOT a glorified Combat Pet that loves to stick by some Tacscort and just debuffs his/her Target to actually acumulate Participation Points in your proposed System... that is EVERY inch on the way NOT FUN because we don't even have a properly working auto-follow and auto-target.
And yes that last bit in color was a joke...
....so you're telling me that, even though you're typing in english, you don't actually understand it?
You're the one that just admitted to not correctly formulating the first part of it. How is me pointing this out and exaggerating the problem to prove a point illiteracy?
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
And you didn't see where nearly every play style besides non-group oriented styles are accommodated and rated?
In your own words, if you're not in an escort or not a tac captain, you shouldn't DPS. Right now, there are no requirements to perform support duty in any STF. Ok...well sometimes Kang needs a heal here and there but you don't need a cruiser to drop a heal or two on Kang. Generally, support duty is not required. Why do you want to persist in forcing people in this manner?
This is inference. You have to apply a little logic to understand that the only jackpot reward in PUGs at the current are for those with the most damage. This means that it is not productive for a cruiser to heal a tacscort, because when the tacscort dies, his overall damage is severely diminished from the respawn cooldown. Because of this, it is inferred (and opposite to your statement) that cruisers are indeed rewarded for denying heals and support to those who need it.
My experiment I ran early this morning was also crystal clear about this as well, showing the reward for being a sociopath was some 1000% more rewarding than being a team player -- and this is so very wrong.
This is an inference too. You infer that a cruiser is not healing a tacscort due to vindictiveness. While I'm no mind-reader, I suspect the usual PUG is either unskilled or just too lazy to heal others. How do YOU know the non-escort/non-tac is a sociopath instead?
This still doesn't remove the fact that a tacscort (or any ship for that matter) has options on how to survive without relying on others.
Or you're not pugging on elite or on CCe. That's a fact. Because looking over the logs in ACT, not a single escort went with no deaths on a single pug I've done in this experiment.
I don't run normals. It'll be a waste of time for me. Your opinion also doesn't magically become a fact just because you want it to be.
As I also said, I don't even need to pug -- I'm suggesting it change to prevent pugs from being the universal "I quit" mechanism in the game -- especially being as it is in content you and any other player will spend 99% of their time. Again, my toons are maxed, each faction has anywhere from 8-28K marks unspent. I do it because I ENJOY HELPING OTHERS and perfecting my builds when there is nothing else to do.
So it is you who is making the wild assumptions in some rash attempt to discredit the point. Get hit with the brick too did you?
At least we have something in common. I don't need to PUG too. I don't avoid PUG as if it's the plague though. It's a useful queue when I'm with some fleet mates and due to the timezone difference, not enough people are online to form a full team. I actually have 4 max levels covering all 3 factions and all 3 classes. Admittedly, I don't have 8-28k marks unspent though. I do enjoy trying to perfect my build though. My fleet mates and I like to go for crazy STF runs and complete them in the shortest time possible.
Also, you do know that 99% (percentage value randomly pulled out of a hat) of the people who say "I quit" never do? Those people are just seeking attention.
You enjoy helping others? Strange, I didn't get the impression. Based on the responses you're getting, I don't seem to be the only one. The way you present your viewpoint might need some help.
However, one thing is nearly always true no matter the pug, those who play as a team are greatly outnumbered and dwarfed by those whom seem to be mindless drones/bots.
Can't say this holds true for me. I pug a lot, even CSE, and mostly wind up getting the Optional. Sure, it gets occassionally botched, but overall ppl know relatively well what to do these days.
There is one more observation I'd like to make. As a tacscort, I died about 1 out of 2 PUG's. Some were more, which averaged about 1 per PUG. I did this pug in the Fleet Armatage with a tactical captain who only gets 5 available heals (Ltcmdr Engineer, Lt Science). This is one of the more common tacscort builds I see, and playing with the fleet, my death ratio is nearly always 0
I'd like to make an observation of myself, here. First of all, 'sociopathic' behavior is a gross misnomer; lack of sufficient team work, yes; self-oriented, probably also true; but nowhere near sociopathic. Turnabout is fair play, though! So, to turn your whole argument around, you seem to rely heavily on others. On this flipside, needing others to 'carry' you is also frowned upon. It's nice that your own team mates heal you, and prevent you from dying; but to rely on it, and expect it even, that doesn't feel right, either. Not for a pug, at least. When I enter an Elite pug, I come prepared: I do not require others to pull themselves off their duties, and come to my aid. And I certainly don't go post about it on a forum then, calling them all 'sociapaths' (!) for not doing so.
Cooperation in a pug is voluntary. The pugs I'm usually in, ppl cooperate on a fairly loose basis: we see a swarm of Raptors, we go after them -- with usually one having enough common sense to stay behind and protect Kang (when needed). That sort of cooperation is purely ad-hoc, though, and merely stems from ppl having done the mission a zillion times before. To expect, yay, demand a stronger form of cooperation and coordination even, is unrealistic and unwarranted. Strangers are not beholden to you in any way: they simply usually kinda work together, what with sharing a common goal and all.
I have provided my view on this on a number of threads... add disabling or actually boarding as possible alternates, call it different things, regarding the appropriate Ability, Disabling is just a header I choose for Scientific Alternates and Boarding for Engineering, to destruction and people won't be strictly focused on damage only freeing up mental capacities, Builds and general mindsets for things like "heal" and "Debuff".
If your Solo Action is forced to be all Damage and Team Action is forced to be all Damage you will get stuck in "All Damage" Mode...
When you learn from the very beginning that there are alternates and that every alternate is unique you will be more inclined to actually use said abilities and provide others with support.
If Everything is Damage, why should you care about that stupid Tacscort that can't manage to stay the ef alive (and to be fair you have to be completely BrainAFK for repeatedly dying in a Tacscort) and compromise yourself AND the Team when you go out of your way to help that one Ship, cutting your possible damage out of the Overall Team Damage?
If it is not some special tactic that is needed the best way to win is to kill the enemy as fast as possible and that is NOT achieved by having 2/3s of the Team not focusing on Damage...
Again... I am NOT a glorified Combat Pet that loves to stick by some Tacscort and just debuffs his/her Target to actually acumulate Participation Points in your proposed System... that is EVERY inch on the way NOT FUN because we don't even have a properly working auto-follow and auto-target.
And yes that last bit of the sentence after the ellipsis was a joke...
And I'm not suggesting that players be solely gauged on DPS -- my entire argument has countered this and been entirely against it the entire time. I've been suggesting the entire time that other types of ships and captain combinations be guaged on heals, and other elements which are contributory to the team and these contributions be fairly tallied up and loot awarded according to the highest scores of that.
In essence, the "BEST tacsort", "BEST engineering cruiser", and "BEST sci-sci" vessel should TIE if they all three did their best or come damn close to tying. Likewise, The best EngiScort, best Taccruiser, and Best (you get the idea) should also TIE if doing their best with even the combinations stated above. That's the point. It is not to punish a play-style, its to reward teamwork and nothing more. Don't read too much into it.
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
The Game has changed to a point that EVERY class can in ANY ship that isn't subpar to the level range (IE: bringing a captain class ship to the action or a shuttle etc) can partake and be selfsustaining in any of the space combat scenarios.
Your idea of roles is antiquated and a tad bit stupid to boot.
Simply put: If you come to the Elite instances you are EXPECTED to bring enough Tank and Gank to do the mission quickly and in an orderly fashion. You are expected to look for the "slot" that is left open ,if people are already shooting the gens, you do probes. you do whats left over when the others went their merry ways and you go check what holes you can plug.
What i am saying is this: Get a good build. All of the space elites can be effectvely 2 manned if those 2 bring the tank and gank required.
So in a pugroulette you need 2 good ones, the rest is irrelevant. And the number of good ones is rising, since LO AND BEHOLD: Other players see those players who do really well and get motivated to improve themselves. Its a creeping process but its there.
I am pugging everyday and its rare to face a group that cant hack it. Really rare.
People are willing to improve on their own volition, and they will ask for help, not from you but from friends, fleet mates, forums (or just go read guides) etc. They want to improve because once they see whats doable, greed and envy will set in which are 2 of the premier motivators for people.
What NO player EVER wants or needs is some random person preaching to him via chat.
If he wants your opinion or help, he WILL ask.
The Best Team play you can bring is being well prepped and CAPABLE to do your task self sufficiently.
And so you're saying it is fine to only cater to the DPS role? Reworking the loot -- that's PRECISELY what this thread is about.
I understood what the thread is about. That's why I'm not getting into a sociology rhetoric.
We speak of "roles" based upon other games. This one is different so we can't think and judge with the same bases.
"Starship captains are like children. They want everything right now and they want it their way. The secret is to give them what they need, not what they want."
- Scotty, to La Forge
Sociopath? Really? I have two tacs and an engineer as toons, how are they supposed to heal you? I typically either attack the targets or play roadguard between the gate's or the Kang when playing those missions, if i move to go heal anyone (not that i have heal abilities) those little probes go in or the Kang gets destroyed. So who exactly is supposed to fix you other than yourself?
Maybe you need to think of some better words to use than "sociopath", and go play with your fleet members.
Where was the comma after If then? Were you wanting me to assume that?
Not everyone who doesn't chat right now is a sociopath. No where did I imply otherwise. As it stands the game doesn't give you a reason to chat and that's the point. The behavior that is ENCOURAGED is sociopathic and sadly it is the sociopaths that thrive under this reward system.
False. What this game does is cater to both the casual player who just wants to queue up for an event and get their prize without needing to put a boatload of effort into min/max nor having a high skill level. It also caters to the more hardcore player who does want to min/max and attempts to have a high skill level with a chance at a slightly better prize.
Who it doesn't cater to? Those with the authority complex who wish to devote their entire play experience ensuring the proper mix of roles within a team performing correctly. Those who require a high difficulty level to feel a sense of accomplishment from defeating the content.
This is not the game for a highly dedicated uber guild to get it's 'server firsts/accomplishments', even though it does try to cater to that crowd to an extent at times.
Their are plenty of games where you are forced to fill the group roles before you can roll. They may fit your playstyle a bit better. Or stick to organized PvP perchance where dedicated roles and TryHard players tend to thrive.
I'd rather have a game encourage sociopathic behavior than masochistic behavior.
Maybe it was just too deep for you, it was a point. To his original rebuttal, he tried to poke and point blame that I was assuming (which I was) to his statement which was (literally and without assumption) an assumption. It took 4 pages, but he realized the point finally: That he was trying to dictate where I should and should not assume things. I knew what he was trying to say, and assumed such even in my assumption as a counterargument. But as soon as he pointed out that it was an assumption, I wanted him to point it out himself that he was in the same sentence asking or expecting me to assume what he meant -- a double standard. He pointed this out.
No, it was not too deep for me.
Here's how it went down:
The question was asked, and in your response to the question, you changed the conditions by adding your assumption that someone else was healing him if he wasn't dying. He pointed out that you were making an assumption, which you then attempted to justify by saying the entire initial question was already a hypothetical, so you should have the right to make hypothetical assumptions too. You went back and forth about grammar, obfuscated the meaning of the original question by slicing it up in various non-contextual ways, and now are concluding that expecting someone to understand language in context (as you concede you did) somehow makes it hypocritical to expect you to not change that context in a way that furthers your own argument.
I strongly suspect that, far from an intentional attempt to critique the idea of contextual language, you have instead latched on to this idea of a "double standard" as a way to salvage some sort of victory from this mess. If so, congratulations, you have proven that language doesn't necessarily have only one meaning (even though you admit that you did, in fact, understand the statement in question), and that those meanings can be contested. I'm not sure how that helps your cause, other than demonstrating (at best) that you care more about scoring minor points off people's grammar, rather than addressing the central issue of the question, which was to show that your proposal is nothing more than your ego-maniacal way of attempting to shame players into behaving as you wish them to.
Showing no respect to your team-mates and letting a team-mate die because he's out-dpsing you is the very epitome of sociopathic behavior. While by doing this on a video game may not clinically make you a sociopath, the behavior none the less is indicative of such.
Hmm call me naive or stupid but I don't believe that more than a handful of players is actually doing this on purpose.
Can't say this holds true for me. I pug a lot, even CSE, and mostly wind up getting the Optional. Sure, it gets occassionally botched, but overall ppl know relatively well what to do these days.
You're also giving the easiest pug as an example where a fresh VA science officer in a vesta could solo it.
I'd like to make an observation of myself, here. First of all, 'sociopathic' behavior is a gross misnomer; lack of sufficient team work, yes; self-oriented, probably also true; but nowhere near sociopathic. Turnabout is fair play, though! So, to turn your whole argument around, you seem to rely heavily on others. On this flipside, needing others to 'carry' you is also frowned upon. It's nice that your own team mates heal you, and prevent you from dying; but to rely on it, and expect it even, that doesn't feel right, either. Not for a pug, at least. When I enter an Elite pug, I come prepared: I do not require others to pull themselves off their duties, and come to my aid. And I certainly don't go post about it on a forum then, calling them all 'sociapaths' (!) for not doing so.
Cooperation in a pug is voluntary. The pugs I'm usually in, ppl cooperate on a fairly loose basis: we see a swarm of Raptors, we go after them -- with usually one having enough common sense to stay behind and protect Kang (when needed). That sort of cooperation is purely ad-hoc, though, and merely stems from ppl having done the mission a zillion times before. To expect, yay, demand a stronger form of cooperation and coordination even, is unrealistic and unwarranted. Strangers are not beholden to you in any way: they simply usually kinda work together, what with sharing a common goal and all.
For the sake of argument, allow me to use this site as an example. Feel free to read the symptoms of a sociopath.
Now, obviously, we can't use examples such as arrests, or whatnot as an indicator in a game. However, everything that could be applied to a game, fits the definition entirely.
Disregard for right and wrong (letting someone die so they achieve a higher score in a pug PVE, check)
Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others (constantly hitting "need", check)
Intense egocentrism, sense of superiority and exhibitionism (lol check)
Repeatedly violating the rights of others by the use of intimidation, dishonesty and misrepresentation (see the folks in here that don't want this? Notice how this isn't a problem at all for them? Somehow it is all the fault of those who identify this as a problem? -- check)
Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, impulsiveness, aggression or violence (check)
Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others (check, check, check)
Poor or abusive relationships (they're in a Pug, check)
Failure to learn from the negative consequences of behavior (they sometimes fail over and over again -- check)
That was about 80% of the symptoms.
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
And I'm not suggesting that players be solely gauged on DPS -- my entire argument has countered this and been entirely against it the entire time. I've been suggesting the entire time that other types of ships and captain combinations be guaged on heals, and other elements which are contributory to the team and these contributions be fairly tallied up and loot awarded according to the highest scores of that.
In essence, the "BEST tacsort", "BEST engineering cruiser", and "BEST sci-sci" vessel should TIE if they all three did their best or come damn close to tying. Likewise, The best EngiScort, best Taccruiser, and Best (you get the idea) should also TIE if doing their best with even the combinations stated above. That's the point. It is not to punish a play-style, its to reward teamwork and nothing more. Don't read too much into it.
You don't want to get it, do you?
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING RANKING AND REWARD SYSTEM!
I am talking about WINNING the Encounter and THAT is done with DAMAGE ONLY!
You cannot outdebuff the Borg-Raptors that want the Kang, you cannot outtank them... YOU NEED DAMAGE... LOTS OF IT... ONLY DAMAGE... TO KILL THEM...
And I didn't even start to talk about specific tactics as needed in Cure etc.
YOU CAN'T FOLLOW "STRICT TEAMWORK" THERE.
Do this and you fail..
You need to know when to destroy what with sh*tloads of damage!
Try to stick around others, debuffing and healing AND YOU ARE A F*CKING BURDEN!
Anyone in these missions that cannot or will not contribute in KILLING THE ENEMY is USELESS.
The ONLY Instance were heals are needed is ON THE KANG, ON THE STARBASE and ON THE FREIGHTERS...
It doesn't matter if you friggin' die in your escort as long as the f*cking objective is met!
Just thinking about it, if you want to look for "sociopaths" in gaming, then go pick on the campers on spawn points in other games, that dont give a chit about your game, they just want to TRIBBLE you off and make you miserable. That would be far closer to a sociopath than anything in STO....
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING RANKING AND REWARD SYSTEM!
I am talking about WINNING the Encounter and THAT is done with DAMAGE ONLY!
You cannot outdebuff the Borg-Raptors that want the Kang, you cannot outtank them... YOU NEED DAMAGE... LOTS OF IT... ONLY DAMAGE... TO KILL THEM...
And I didn't even start to talk about specific tactics as needed in Cure etc.
YOU CAN'T FOLLOW "STRICT TEAMWORK" THERE.
Do this and you fail..
You need to know when to destroy what with sh*tloads of damage!
Try to stick around others, debuffing and healing AND YOU ARE A F*CKING BURDEN!
Anyone in these missions that cannot or will not contribute in KILLING THE ENEMY is USELESS.
The ONLY Instance were heals are needed is ON THE KANG, ON THE STARBASE and ON THE FREIGHTERS...
It doesn't matter if you friggin' die in your escort as long as the f*cking objective is met!
And you're not getting it that people don't care about winning the encounter! They'll throw you under the freaken BUS (let your TRIBBLE DIE) for a higher leaderboard score if YOU outdps them. Of course, I don't give a dam about the leaderboard, but it burns me up when people are leaving the game because of some idiot thought higher of their leaderboard score than playing as a team.
Winning an encounter is not about damage only. I challenge you to win a hive elite with damage only. In fact, I challenge you to win it with a premade with only self-heals -- I'll even give you that. The fact is, you can't, and that's how it should be, and that is how it is for any elite pug with less than end-game gear. Your gear literally allows you the privilege to subvert the team rule (which is wrong) and that is a privilege not everyone has. But because you "can" do this, it doesn't give you the right to throw these toons under the bus when they need a heal because some new escort just burst 10K dps on you.
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
I am talking about WINNING the Encounter and THAT is done with DAMAGE ONLY!
You cannot outdebuff the Borg-Raptors that want the Kang, you cannot outtank them... YOU NEED DAMAGE... LOTS OF IT... ONLY DAMAGE... TO KILL THEM...
And I didn't even start to talk about specific tactics as needed in Cure etc.
YOU CAN'T FOLLOW "STRICT TEAMWORK" THERE.
Do this and you fail..
You need to know when to destroy what with sh*tloads of damage!
Try to stick around others, debuffing and healing AND YOU ARE A F*CKING BURDEN!
This is kinda true. The only thing the CSE team, as a whole, needs to assess, is whether they, as a whole, have enough DPS to kill the Cubes early. A low-DPS team will be overrun by the Raptors then if they don't; with a good team it won't matter. Other than that, yeah, just kill em hard, and kill em fast! When you do it right, Kang doesn't need protecting, really.
And you're not getting it that people don't care about winning the encounter! They'll throw you under the freaken BUS (let your TRIBBLE DIE) for a higher leaderboard score if YOU outdps them. Of course, I don't give a dam about the leaderboard, but it burns me up when people are leaving the game because of some idiot thought higher of their leaderboard score than playing as a team.
No... they are very much caring about winning Cure...
They want the friggin Optional...
Your friends were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt the need to complain afterwards, they were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt that others had the obligation to leave whatever duty they were assigned to or have assigned themselves to, to help them out because they don't know how to friggin play the game
And then again...
LET ME DIE IF THIS MEANS THE KANG CAN SURVIVE!
I'll gladly give 20 Seconds of my friggin lifetime for it.
1.) What happens when a PUG gets filled with all of one class? Or just two out of the three classes? It is likely that someone is going to have to play outside of Lordlalo's roles in order to complete the encounter in a reasonable amount of time. (this assumes that people buy in to Lordlalo's role definitions and gears their ship/crew accordingly)
2.) How do you compensate for the disparity in gearing (equipment and crew) between relatively new 50s and those that have been around forever that are optimally geared already? I am talking about competent new 50s that are geared enough to complete an elite.
3.) There are some encounters where the team needs to be spread out a fair bit. Sometimes far enough that they cannot lend support in a timely manner (you'd spend too much time traveling back & forth). Or maybe you catch too much attention an you have to focus on saving yourself. Or you die (careless, bad luck, whatever) and you have to wait to respawn. How do you compensate for the lost opportunities to debuff or heal?
4.) Do you envision that only Tactical characters should fly Escorts (Science fly Science, Engineers fly cruisers)?
5.) Given the situation that you have two Engineers in Cruisers that are geared to heal and one of them maintains aggro. What can the other Engineer do to be a team player other than dps? The Science guy will presumably be debuffing while the aggro target is hardening shields/polarizing hulls and running Hazard emitters.
6.) How does implementing a "queue ignore" function help the overall health of the PUG playerbase? What is the average person's threshold for wanting to make someone go away and never come back? Could a language barrier set someone off? Could an alternate strategy TRIBBLE you off enough? What if they go link dead long enough for you to notice and assume they are leeching? Reducing the available player pool will only frustrate you and make it harder to get PUG groups off the ground. (faction specific queues would be hit even harder)
The game currently rewards damage output. Everyone can skew their setup towards damage output. Everyone can massage their setup to be somewhat balanced (damage, soak, CC) so they can temporarily step in to fill a role if something goes wrong. Part of the problem is power creep (gear & rep rewards). If you skew towards damage you skew away from survivability, thus towards a destabilization and the need to rely on someone else.
Making the rewards system (primary/secondary/tertiary) more complicated only makes it more likely that doing something other than damage output will net you fewer rewards. The power creep problem still exists, but there is a mechanic in place to reward people for stepping outside of the damage envelope. The new problem is that the reward mechanic can be circumvented/marginalized by another player reacting quicker than you. A coordinated team can minimize this by having set responsibilities (with backups), but then we aren't really talking about PUGs anymore.
The problem that should be addressed is individual rewards vs group rewards. Team oriented goals garnering team-wide rewards. If only X number of deaths occur, the team earns a little bonus. If optional goals are achieved, the team earns a little bonus for each. If the team finishes under a certain time limit, the team earns a little bonus. The group's goal is still to finish, but there is incentive to do more to earn more. Maybe a jack of all trades geared ship can handle an objective that would require two specialized ships.
If you end up with a PUG full of Tactical damage mongers, then maybe you can only meet the minimum bar of finishing and hit the time bonus. If you end up with a PUG light on damage output maybe you can finish and complete an optional goal but totally miss the time limit. Being skewed to far to one side will limit your possibilities. The problem with this approach is people will initially try to complete every single goal and stretch themselves too thin. After a few runs, you will get a feel for what a group can achieve based loosely on class composition and eyeballing what ships they are driving.
If you can assume that people will not talk much, then a new rewards scheme won't magically make them start talking. The current scheme is primarily driven by completing and secondarily by damage output. Shifting the secondary factor to group objectives will nudge people towards gearing to complete multiple objectives and away from glass cannon syndrome. You can still be a glass cannon and you will still have a purpose/role in completing the PUG, but it will be more beneficial to have some flexibility to handle a wider variety of objectives.
No... they are very much caring about winning Cure...
They want the friggin Optional...
Your friends were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt the need to complain afterwards, they were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt that others had the obligation to leave whatever duty they were assigned to or have assigned themselves to, to help them out because they don't know how to friggin play the game
And then again...
LET ME DIE IF THIS MEANS THE KANG CAN SURVIVE!
I'll gladly give 20 Seconds of my friggin lifetime for it.
You missed the point. If they get more loot by throwing you under the bus that's what happens. Sure they want the optional, IT IS MORE LOOT! But tell me, if its all about the "win" and not about the loot, then why in the HELL does 20% or so of the players in the 20 player fleet event leave before the final boss (I've personally witnessed before more than half drop)? Hmm?
Said NO to Arc. Gets punished by not being given a free outfit, free lobi, and free shuttle. Now forced to use Arc's site when trying to get to STO site. Still not rewards for beta testing the Arc website by force. Bravo Cryptic.
Frankly, you can discuss the ostensible sociopathological implications of self-sufficiency over teamwork in STF pugs all you like, but it is neither significant nor particularly relevant to whatever course of action PWE decides to take regarding the fact that, as it stands, the holy trinity has been rendered defunct. Any profession in any ship has the capability of being fully self-sufficient - and increasing self-sufficiency is a trend across MMOs at the moment because feedback tends to support it as popular with MMO gaming populations. Like it or not, the majority of MMO players play for fun, and "fun" typically equates to pew-pewing the bad guys until they're dead, and then receiving shinies for doing it. Hence why tanks & healers are, in general, far harder to come by in group play than DPS - pick any MMO that still pays homage to the holy trinity, and it's easy to see the truth of that.
Honestly though, this is a very long-winded and obfuscative way of reiterating that your tacscorts essentially blow up whenever a borg farts.
Now, obviously, we can't use examples such as arrests, or whatnot as an indicator in a game. However, everything that could be applied to a game, fits the definition entirely.
Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others (constantly hitting "need", check)
Once again subjective. Everyone needs EC and the loot that drops in the game is 98% vendor trash, 1% great for the exchange, and maybe 1% actual upgrades for others. And once again you are assuming motive, that players view the 'need' button as 'upgrade'.
Intense egocentrism, sense of superiority and exhibitionism (lol check)
I wonder if creating a thread and constantly attacking others while attempting to be witty and display your ability to 'outsmart' them on a forum for the public to see about how you personally think a video game should both be played and designed qualifies.
Repeatedly violating the rights of others by the use of intimidation, dishonesty and misrepresentation (see the folks in here that don't want this? Notice how this isn't a problem at all for them? Somehow it is all the fault of those who identify this as a problem? -- check)
Attempting to significantly change the play experience of others who currently enjoy the status quo more-so than your personal proposal just might fall under this. Especially when you consider gems like:
I welcome feedback, but don't troll and keep in mind one thing before you start a rebuttal that this doesn't happen or I'm somehow misunderstanding "everything": When you toss a brick in a pack of dogs, the one it hits barks the loudest.
that which just may qualify as intimidation, dishonesty, and/or a misrepresentation.
Failure to learn from the negative consequences of behavior (they sometimes fail over and over again -- check)
For as long as I can remember their has always been that one person campaigning for a hard line trinity style to be forced into this game. Fortunately it has yet to happen. Oh wait learning from the mistakes of others is an example of wisdom and something we all tend to lack.
Why am I wasting my time in this thread, I'm done.
When one uses the definition and symptoms of ASPD as loosely as you do pretty much anyone in the world can be called a sociopath, hell I meet a few of the symptoms myself, do I consider myself a sociopath? No. But I suppose if you want to take things to your extreme and use these as loosely as you do then I suppose you would call me a sociopath.
Repeatedly violating the rights of others by the use of intimidation, dishonesty and misrepresentation (see the folks in here that don't want this? Notice how this isn't a problem at all for them? Somehow it is all the fault of those who identify this as a problem? -- check)
That's not in any way reasonable, to disagree with you is not to violate your rights in any way shape or form, it's not dishonest and we're not misrepresenting anything.
But you insist on placing the rewards on the roles you deem fit. I really have to disagree here.
Right now STO has a lot of hybrid designed ships that allow captains to fill a variety of roles. There are cruisers with good DPS and escorts with crowd control abilities. What you propose would not work.
Indeed. I also have to disagree with the original post. This game is not and never has been a hard trinity game (which is a good thing).
You missed the point. If they get more loot by throwing you under the bus that's what happens. Sure they want the optional, IT IS MORE LOOT! But tell me, if its all about the "win" and not about the loot, then why in the HELL does 20% or so of the players in the 20 player fleet event leave before the final boss (I've personally witnessed before more than half drop)? Hmm?
I think you mean Fleet Alerts?
Simple, it's because you "Win" after every Wave... it's just so that they packed several smaller missions, all complete with their own reward into one big mission... there is nothing special at the end...
And yet you are STILL Ignoring the fact that you can't do jack sh*t with heals and debuffs...
You ignore it, keep it ignored and propagate your system as a solution when it does nothing but add yet another layer on the Illness that plagues the game, supremacy of Damage Based Gameplay and Supremacy of appropriately equipped and skilled Escorts.
We need to change how to win the game! Not Force 2/3s of the Classes into an Inferior Gameplay for absolutely NO Reason
Indeed. I also have to disagree with the original post. This game is not and never has been a hard trinity game (which is a good thing).
Howevr the designers intent was clear when we saw their ship classes at first and the focus of the boff powers.
Its just that cryptic are pretty horrible at making trinity-esque content (as basically all devs are because the trinity is a ****ty idea to begin with) and diss on them all you want: they often enough recognize when they are horrible at something. Thats why every ship released after roughly odyssey has been a flexible hybrid capable of being pretty much molded into something damaging that can stay alive.
Add in the power creep from equipment and the game has pretty much moved towards being "bring what you like, if its well build and equipped you can do whatever you want".
AND THATS GOOD! Star Trek was never about healers tanks and dps. it was about self sufficiently and finding ways to use what you have available to full fill a task.
For example:
You need those raptors destroyed before they reach the kang:
If you have the DPs, gun em down.
If you are more on the tanky side perhaps use your snaring abilities to buy a you a few more seconds of time to to burn them down.
As a sci, why not drop that grav well, whatever other science powers you have for damage and then gun them down?
I like to alternate between grav well and tykens so they ar either rooted or so slow that they might as well b rooted. Ever seen what transphasic clusters do to grav welled targets?
Now mix any combination.
The end result is an alive player, dead targets and happy feelings all around.
Which is good.
Forcing roles on people is bad, and this "trend" towards self sufficiently is in MMO's today because PEOPLE and with that i mean players GET older and grow more self reliant. OF course they do not want to lose that in a game.
You work together with other self reliant people not because someone told you so via game design: you do so because you RECOGNIZE that a common goal is easier to reach if you cooperate. You do it because you want to, to easier get whatever you went to get.
I do not need healers or CC or dps in my pugs. I want people who know the scenario and can do anything in any capacity to an extent that we reach the common goal of MOST LOOT, and do so without dieing and needing my support to not die.
This whole thread is insulting BS.
Sociopaths. DUDE look at governments and corporations and all those spy Agencies, THERE you will find some fckn sociopaths....
Comments
....so you're telling me that, even though you're typing in english, you don't actually understand it?
I agree with the first part, but the behavior is textbook. Sociopaths lack empathy and compassion for others. Any contact sport, for an example, of sociopaths would get bloody very quickly -- as none of the contenders would care about life or limb or the pain they put the others through. Thankfully that can't happen here because it is a virtual world, but it rears its ugly head in other forms -- such as people feeling completely comfortable afking an entire mission and walking away with the rewards (which they are addressing) or jumping into an elite STF first thing with no other experience in an STF as a freshly leveled VA in a RALH ship and expect to walk away with the reward (and get mad if they don't btw).
Showing no respect to your team-mates and letting a team-mate die because he's out-dpsing you is the very epitome of sociopathic behavior. While by doing this on a video game may not clinically make you a sociopath, the behavior none the less is indicative of such.
http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showpost.php?p=13347971&postcount=12
5th Paragraph, first sentence...
I have provided my view on this on a number of threads... add disabling or actually boarding as possible alternates, call it different things, regarding the appropriate Ability, Disabling is just a header I choose for Scientific Alternates and Boarding for Engineering, to destruction and people won't be strictly focused on damage only freeing up mental capacities, Builds and general mindsets for things like "heal" and "Debuff".
If your Solo Action is forced to be all Damage and Team Action is forced to be all Damage you will get stuck in "All Damage" Mode...
When you learn from the very beginning that there are alternates and that every alternate is unique you will be more inclined to actually use said abilities and provide others with support.
If Everything is Damage, why should you care about that stupid Tacscort that can't manage to stay the ef alive (and to be fair you have to be completely BrainAFK for repeatedly dying in a Tacscort) and compromise yourself AND the Team when you go out of your way to help that one Ship, cutting your possible damage out of the Overall Team Damage?
If it is not some special tactic that is needed the best way to win is to kill the enemy as fast as possible and that is NOT achieved by having 2/3s of the Team not focusing on Damage...
Again... I am NOT a glorified Combat Pet that loves to stick by some Tacscort and just debuffs his/her Target to actually acumulate Participation Points in your proposed System... that is EVERY inch on the way NOT FUN because we don't even have a properly working auto-follow and auto-target.
And yes that last bit in color was a joke...
You're the one that just admitted to not correctly formulating the first part of it. How is me pointing this out and exaggerating the problem to prove a point illiteracy?
This is an inference too. You infer that a cruiser is not healing a tacscort due to vindictiveness. While I'm no mind-reader, I suspect the usual PUG is either unskilled or just too lazy to heal others. How do YOU know the non-escort/non-tac is a sociopath instead?
This still doesn't remove the fact that a tacscort (or any ship for that matter) has options on how to survive without relying on others.
I don't run normals. It'll be a waste of time for me. Your opinion also doesn't magically become a fact just because you want it to be.
At least we have something in common. I don't need to PUG too. I don't avoid PUG as if it's the plague though. It's a useful queue when I'm with some fleet mates and due to the timezone difference, not enough people are online to form a full team. I actually have 4 max levels covering all 3 factions and all 3 classes. Admittedly, I don't have 8-28k marks unspent though. I do enjoy trying to perfect my build though. My fleet mates and I like to go for crazy STF runs and complete them in the shortest time possible.
Also, you do know that 99% (percentage value randomly pulled out of a hat) of the people who say "I quit" never do? Those people are just seeking attention.
You enjoy helping others? Strange, I didn't get the impression. Based on the responses you're getting, I don't seem to be the only one. The way you present your viewpoint might need some help.
Its an "If X, then Y" statement. The comma occurs after the "X" clause, not after the "if"
Can't say this holds true for me. I pug a lot, even CSE, and mostly wind up getting the Optional. Sure, it gets occassionally botched, but overall ppl know relatively well what to do these days.
I'd like to make an observation of myself, here. First of all, 'sociopathic' behavior is a gross misnomer; lack of sufficient team work, yes; self-oriented, probably also true; but nowhere near sociopathic. Turnabout is fair play, though! So, to turn your whole argument around, you seem to rely heavily on others. On this flipside, needing others to 'carry' you is also frowned upon. It's nice that your own team mates heal you, and prevent you from dying; but to rely on it, and expect it even, that doesn't feel right, either. Not for a pug, at least. When I enter an Elite pug, I come prepared: I do not require others to pull themselves off their duties, and come to my aid. And I certainly don't go post about it on a forum then, calling them all 'sociapaths' (!) for not doing so.
Cooperation in a pug is voluntary. The pugs I'm usually in, ppl cooperate on a fairly loose basis: we see a swarm of Raptors, we go after them -- with usually one having enough common sense to stay behind and protect Kang (when needed). That sort of cooperation is purely ad-hoc, though, and merely stems from ppl having done the mission a zillion times before. To expect, yay, demand a stronger form of cooperation and coordination even, is unrealistic and unwarranted. Strangers are not beholden to you in any way: they simply usually kinda work together, what with sharing a common goal and all.
And I'm not suggesting that players be solely gauged on DPS -- my entire argument has countered this and been entirely against it the entire time. I've been suggesting the entire time that other types of ships and captain combinations be guaged on heals, and other elements which are contributory to the team and these contributions be fairly tallied up and loot awarded according to the highest scores of that.
In essence, the "BEST tacsort", "BEST engineering cruiser", and "BEST sci-sci" vessel should TIE if they all three did their best or come damn close to tying. Likewise, The best EngiScort, best Taccruiser, and Best (you get the idea) should also TIE if doing their best with even the combinations stated above. That's the point. It is not to punish a play-style, its to reward teamwork and nothing more. Don't read too much into it.
Its called XYZ ELITE.
Elite means: Come prepared with a good build.
The Game has changed to a point that EVERY class can in ANY ship that isn't subpar to the level range (IE: bringing a captain class ship to the action or a shuttle etc) can partake and be selfsustaining in any of the space combat scenarios.
Your idea of roles is antiquated and a tad bit stupid to boot.
Simply put: If you come to the Elite instances you are EXPECTED to bring enough Tank and Gank to do the mission quickly and in an orderly fashion. You are expected to look for the "slot" that is left open ,if people are already shooting the gens, you do probes. you do whats left over when the others went their merry ways and you go check what holes you can plug.
What i am saying is this: Get a good build. All of the space elites can be effectvely 2 manned if those 2 bring the tank and gank required.
So in a pugroulette you need 2 good ones, the rest is irrelevant. And the number of good ones is rising, since LO AND BEHOLD: Other players see those players who do really well and get motivated to improve themselves. Its a creeping process but its there.
I am pugging everyday and its rare to face a group that cant hack it. Really rare.
People are willing to improve on their own volition, and they will ask for help, not from you but from friends, fleet mates, forums (or just go read guides) etc. They want to improve because once they see whats doable, greed and envy will set in which are 2 of the premier motivators for people.
What NO player EVER wants or needs is some random person preaching to him via chat.
If he wants your opinion or help, he WILL ask.
The Best Team play you can bring is being well prepped and CAPABLE to do your task self sufficiently.
I understood what the thread is about. That's why I'm not getting into a sociology rhetoric.
We speak of "roles" based upon other games. This one is different so we can't think and judge with the same bases.
- Scotty, to La Forge
Maybe you need to think of some better words to use than "sociopath", and go play with your fleet members.
False. CE rewards healing and it is the best way to take 1st place.
False. What this game does is cater to both the casual player who just wants to queue up for an event and get their prize without needing to put a boatload of effort into min/max nor having a high skill level. It also caters to the more hardcore player who does want to min/max and attempts to have a high skill level with a chance at a slightly better prize.
Who it doesn't cater to? Those with the authority complex who wish to devote their entire play experience ensuring the proper mix of roles within a team performing correctly. Those who require a high difficulty level to feel a sense of accomplishment from defeating the content.
This is not the game for a highly dedicated uber guild to get it's 'server firsts/accomplishments', even though it does try to cater to that crowd to an extent at times.
Their are plenty of games where you are forced to fill the group roles before you can roll. They may fit your playstyle a bit better. Or stick to organized PvP perchance where dedicated roles and TryHard players tend to thrive.
I'd rather have a game encourage sociopathic behavior than masochistic behavior.
No, it was not too deep for me.
Here's how it went down:
The question was asked, and in your response to the question, you changed the conditions by adding your assumption that someone else was healing him if he wasn't dying. He pointed out that you were making an assumption, which you then attempted to justify by saying the entire initial question was already a hypothetical, so you should have the right to make hypothetical assumptions too. You went back and forth about grammar, obfuscated the meaning of the original question by slicing it up in various non-contextual ways, and now are concluding that expecting someone to understand language in context (as you concede you did) somehow makes it hypocritical to expect you to not change that context in a way that furthers your own argument.
I strongly suspect that, far from an intentional attempt to critique the idea of contextual language, you have instead latched on to this idea of a "double standard" as a way to salvage some sort of victory from this mess. If so, congratulations, you have proven that language doesn't necessarily have only one meaning (even though you admit that you did, in fact, understand the statement in question), and that those meanings can be contested. I'm not sure how that helps your cause, other than demonstrating (at best) that you care more about scoring minor points off people's grammar, rather than addressing the central issue of the question, which was to show that your proposal is nothing more than your ego-maniacal way of attempting to shame players into behaving as you wish them to.
Hmm call me naive or stupid but I don't believe that more than a handful of players is actually doing this on purpose.
For the sake of argument, allow me to use this site as an example. Feel free to read the symptoms of a sociopath.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antisocial-personality-disorder/DS00829/DSECTION=symptoms
Now, obviously, we can't use examples such as arrests, or whatnot as an indicator in a game. However, everything that could be applied to a game, fits the definition entirely.
Disregard for right and wrong (letting someone die so they achieve a higher score in a pug PVE, check)
Persistent lying or deceit to exploit others (constantly hitting "need", check)
Intense egocentrism, sense of superiority and exhibitionism (lol check)
Repeatedly violating the rights of others by the use of intimidation, dishonesty and misrepresentation (see the folks in here that don't want this? Notice how this isn't a problem at all for them? Somehow it is all the fault of those who identify this as a problem? -- check)
Hostility, significant irritability, agitation, impulsiveness, aggression or violence (check)
Lack of empathy for others and lack of remorse about harming others (check, check, check)
Poor or abusive relationships (they're in a Pug, check)
Failure to learn from the negative consequences of behavior (they sometimes fail over and over again -- check)
That was about 80% of the symptoms.
Not a dime. I just hope it helps.
You don't want to get it, do you?
I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING RANKING AND REWARD SYSTEM!
I am talking about WINNING the Encounter and THAT is done with DAMAGE ONLY!
You cannot outdebuff the Borg-Raptors that want the Kang, you cannot outtank them... YOU NEED DAMAGE... LOTS OF IT... ONLY DAMAGE... TO KILL THEM...
And I didn't even start to talk about specific tactics as needed in Cure etc.
YOU CAN'T FOLLOW "STRICT TEAMWORK" THERE.
Do this and you fail..
You need to know when to destroy what with sh*tloads of damage!
Try to stick around others, debuffing and healing AND YOU ARE A F*CKING BURDEN!
Anyone in these missions that cannot or will not contribute in KILLING THE ENEMY is USELESS.
The ONLY Instance were heals are needed is ON THE KANG, ON THE STARBASE and ON THE FREIGHTERS...
It doesn't matter if you friggin' die in your escort as long as the f*cking objective is met!
And you're not getting it that people don't care about winning the encounter! They'll throw you under the freaken BUS (let your TRIBBLE DIE) for a higher leaderboard score if YOU outdps them. Of course, I don't give a dam about the leaderboard, but it burns me up when people are leaving the game because of some idiot thought higher of their leaderboard score than playing as a team.
Winning an encounter is not about damage only. I challenge you to win a hive elite with damage only. In fact, I challenge you to win it with a premade with only self-heals -- I'll even give you that. The fact is, you can't, and that's how it should be, and that is how it is for any elite pug with less than end-game gear. Your gear literally allows you the privilege to subvert the team rule (which is wrong) and that is a privilege not everyone has. But because you "can" do this, it doesn't give you the right to throw these toons under the bus when they need a heal because some new escort just burst 10K dps on you.
This is kinda true. The only thing the CSE team, as a whole, needs to assess, is whether they, as a whole, have enough DPS to kill the Cubes early. A low-DPS team will be overrun by the Raptors then if they don't; with a good team it won't matter. Other than that, yeah, just kill em hard, and kill em fast!
No... they are very much caring about winning Cure...
They want the friggin Optional...
Your friends were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt the need to complain afterwards, they were nothing but a burden on the team if they felt that others had the obligation to leave whatever duty they were assigned to or have assigned themselves to, to help them out because they don't know how to friggin play the game
And then again...
LET ME DIE IF THIS MEANS THE KANG CAN SURVIVE!
I'll gladly give 20 Seconds of my friggin lifetime for it.
1.) What happens when a PUG gets filled with all of one class? Or just two out of the three classes? It is likely that someone is going to have to play outside of Lordlalo's roles in order to complete the encounter in a reasonable amount of time. (this assumes that people buy in to Lordlalo's role definitions and gears their ship/crew accordingly)
2.) How do you compensate for the disparity in gearing (equipment and crew) between relatively new 50s and those that have been around forever that are optimally geared already? I am talking about competent new 50s that are geared enough to complete an elite.
3.) There are some encounters where the team needs to be spread out a fair bit. Sometimes far enough that they cannot lend support in a timely manner (you'd spend too much time traveling back & forth). Or maybe you catch too much attention an you have to focus on saving yourself. Or you die (careless, bad luck, whatever) and you have to wait to respawn. How do you compensate for the lost opportunities to debuff or heal?
4.) Do you envision that only Tactical characters should fly Escorts (Science fly Science, Engineers fly cruisers)?
5.) Given the situation that you have two Engineers in Cruisers that are geared to heal and one of them maintains aggro. What can the other Engineer do to be a team player other than dps? The Science guy will presumably be debuffing while the aggro target is hardening shields/polarizing hulls and running Hazard emitters.
6.) How does implementing a "queue ignore" function help the overall health of the PUG playerbase? What is the average person's threshold for wanting to make someone go away and never come back? Could a language barrier set someone off? Could an alternate strategy TRIBBLE you off enough? What if they go link dead long enough for you to notice and assume they are leeching? Reducing the available player pool will only frustrate you and make it harder to get PUG groups off the ground. (faction specific queues would be hit even harder)
The game currently rewards damage output. Everyone can skew their setup towards damage output. Everyone can massage their setup to be somewhat balanced (damage, soak, CC) so they can temporarily step in to fill a role if something goes wrong. Part of the problem is power creep (gear & rep rewards). If you skew towards damage you skew away from survivability, thus towards a destabilization and the need to rely on someone else.
Making the rewards system (primary/secondary/tertiary) more complicated only makes it more likely that doing something other than damage output will net you fewer rewards. The power creep problem still exists, but there is a mechanic in place to reward people for stepping outside of the damage envelope. The new problem is that the reward mechanic can be circumvented/marginalized by another player reacting quicker than you. A coordinated team can minimize this by having set responsibilities (with backups), but then we aren't really talking about PUGs anymore.
The problem that should be addressed is individual rewards vs group rewards. Team oriented goals garnering team-wide rewards. If only X number of deaths occur, the team earns a little bonus. If optional goals are achieved, the team earns a little bonus for each. If the team finishes under a certain time limit, the team earns a little bonus. The group's goal is still to finish, but there is incentive to do more to earn more. Maybe a jack of all trades geared ship can handle an objective that would require two specialized ships.
If you end up with a PUG full of Tactical damage mongers, then maybe you can only meet the minimum bar of finishing and hit the time bonus. If you end up with a PUG light on damage output maybe you can finish and complete an optional goal but totally miss the time limit. Being skewed to far to one side will limit your possibilities. The problem with this approach is people will initially try to complete every single goal and stretch themselves too thin. After a few runs, you will get a feel for what a group can achieve based loosely on class composition and eyeballing what ships they are driving.
If you can assume that people will not talk much, then a new rewards scheme won't magically make them start talking. The current scheme is primarily driven by completing and secondarily by damage output. Shifting the secondary factor to group objectives will nudge people towards gearing to complete multiple objectives and away from glass cannon syndrome. You can still be a glass cannon and you will still have a purpose/role in completing the PUG, but it will be more beneficial to have some flexibility to handle a wider variety of objectives.
You missed the point. If they get more loot by throwing you under the bus that's what happens. Sure they want the optional, IT IS MORE LOOT! But tell me, if its all about the "win" and not about the loot, then why in the HELL does 20% or so of the players in the 20 player fleet event leave before the final boss (I've personally witnessed before more than half drop)? Hmm?
Honestly though, this is a very long-winded and obfuscative way of reiterating that your tacscorts essentially blow up whenever a borg farts.
Sure, sounds fun.
That is a stretch. You are attaching motive to the lack of an action which is a mighty big assumption of an assumption.
Once again subjective. Everyone needs EC and the loot that drops in the game is 98% vendor trash, 1% great for the exchange, and maybe 1% actual upgrades for others. And once again you are assuming motive, that players view the 'need' button as 'upgrade'.
I wonder if creating a thread and constantly attacking others while attempting to be witty and display your ability to 'outsmart' them on a forum for the public to see about how you personally think a video game should both be played and designed qualifies.
Attempting to significantly change the play experience of others who currently enjoy the status quo more-so than your personal proposal just might fall under this. Especially when you consider gems like:
that which just may qualify as intimidation, dishonesty, and/or a misrepresentation.
I'm sure not a single one of your statements falls under this category, other than the entirety of your original post...
Really just a repeat, changing the play experience others currently enjoy so it fits your definition of 'fun' just might show a lack of empathy.
And just why are you in PuGs might I ask?
For as long as I can remember their has always been that one person campaigning for a hard line trinity style to be forced into this game. Fortunately it has yet to happen. Oh wait learning from the mistakes of others is an example of wisdom and something we all tend to lack.
Why am I wasting my time in this thread, I'm done.
When one uses the definition and symptoms of ASPD as loosely as you do pretty much anyone in the world can be called a sociopath, hell I meet a few of the symptoms myself, do I consider myself a sociopath? No. But I suppose if you want to take things to your extreme and use these as loosely as you do then I suppose you would call me a sociopath.
That's not in any way reasonable, to disagree with you is not to violate your rights in any way shape or form, it's not dishonest and we're not misrepresenting anything.
Indeed. I also have to disagree with the original post. This game is not and never has been a hard trinity game (which is a good thing).
I think you mean Fleet Alerts?
Simple, it's because you "Win" after every Wave... it's just so that they packed several smaller missions, all complete with their own reward into one big mission... there is nothing special at the end...
And yet you are STILL Ignoring the fact that you can't do jack sh*t with heals and debuffs...
You ignore it, keep it ignored and propagate your system as a solution when it does nothing but add yet another layer on the Illness that plagues the game, supremacy of Damage Based Gameplay and Supremacy of appropriately equipped and skilled Escorts.
We need to change how to win the game! Not Force 2/3s of the Classes into an Inferior Gameplay for absolutely NO Reason
Howevr the designers intent was clear when we saw their ship classes at first and the focus of the boff powers.
Its just that cryptic are pretty horrible at making trinity-esque content (as basically all devs are because the trinity is a ****ty idea to begin with) and diss on them all you want: they often enough recognize when they are horrible at something. Thats why every ship released after roughly odyssey has been a flexible hybrid capable of being pretty much molded into something damaging that can stay alive.
Add in the power creep from equipment and the game has pretty much moved towards being "bring what you like, if its well build and equipped you can do whatever you want".
AND THATS GOOD! Star Trek was never about healers tanks and dps. it was about self sufficiently and finding ways to use what you have available to full fill a task.
For example:
You need those raptors destroyed before they reach the kang:
If you have the DPs, gun em down.
If you are more on the tanky side perhaps use your snaring abilities to buy a you a few more seconds of time to to burn them down.
As a sci, why not drop that grav well, whatever other science powers you have for damage and then gun them down?
I like to alternate between grav well and tykens so they ar either rooted or so slow that they might as well b rooted. Ever seen what transphasic clusters do to grav welled targets?
Now mix any combination.
The end result is an alive player, dead targets and happy feelings all around.
Which is good.
Forcing roles on people is bad, and this "trend" towards self sufficiently is in MMO's today because PEOPLE and with that i mean players GET older and grow more self reliant. OF course they do not want to lose that in a game.
You work together with other self reliant people not because someone told you so via game design: you do so because you RECOGNIZE that a common goal is easier to reach if you cooperate. You do it because you want to, to easier get whatever you went to get.
I do not need healers or CC or dps in my pugs. I want people who know the scenario and can do anything in any capacity to an extent that we reach the common goal of MOST LOOT, and do so without dieing and needing my support to not die.
This whole thread is insulting BS.
Sociopaths. DUDE look at governments and corporations and all those spy Agencies, THERE you will find some fckn sociopaths....