I suspect you got that sense because you see things purely in terms of your assumptions and observations, which you feel are so self evidently true that anyone who feigns disagreement is either trolling you, or is simply wrong. Many of us don't agree with either of those, though, and I think you'll find much of what you believe to be Truth is really just 'truth' for you.
Often the inexperienced, or those lacking in understanding of game mechanics are one of the first people who speak out against me and think they are on higher ground then me, and even talk abusively mocking my intelligence as you are doing right now. This is people seem to fight their battles these days. Rather then talk to me about actual mechanics, you appeal to the mob rule "many of us" as a method of peer pressure. rather then using factual methods to construct a purpose of replying to this thread.
For starters, I simply don't see escorts categorically outperforming other ships. I do, in PvP, see escorts generally providing the spike damage to kill off a target, but I also see other ships providing heals, team buffs, debuffs, and support damage to allow that kill to happen.
I assume from this statement you are completely unaware of the average half life of a dog fight in pvp. You talk about pvp as if it were a STF, when an entire team can drop 250k damage on you in 4 seconds or less, all of what you said is rhetorical.
The thing is, honestly, at this point "Damage" is something almost any ship CAN bring to the party, at least to some extent. In a very real sense I feel like escorts are the LEAST important ship class to a solid PvP team. Generally speaking, it seems easier to overcome a lack of spike damage than it does to overcome a lack of team heals and buff/debuffs, for example.
It's not purely about spike, it uptime, repair time, execution time of skills, and so much more. Stop cherry picking arguments for your own benefit.
Even in PvE, where many feel pure damage is the ONLY thing that matters, I still don't see escorts universally outperforming FAW cruiser builds, and I still feel like the Grav-well slinging Sci ship has a lot to contribute, both in terms of raw damage, and in terms of controlling mobs.
Again, my last couple of replies are not pure damage related subjects.
Moreover, when I objectively count the ships I see, in both PvP AND PvE, I don't come anywhere near the numbers you are reporting in terms of escort dominance.
Would that be because you don't Pvp often? Or do you find yourself the same fleet team, and are replying to me with anecdotal evidence from a singular perspective? I fight in Ker'rat daily, and see exactly how players fight from the benefit of my cloak, I see the people who die and who live, and the victors are not the slow running cruisers who are more of a pest then a threat.
Thus, I don't agree that escorts are "dominating" the game to begin with. This forces me to evaluate why we have such different worldviews, which is, of course, a dangerous proposition. Dangerous because it's something of a blind leap, right? I mean, I'm pretty confident in my own intelligence, ability, and observations, but presumably you are as well. We thus seem to be at an impasse.
World views? It's a video game, not sociocultural history. Also the number of times you mention danger relative to observations of a video game is amusing, hyperbole at its best.
As for Pvping, lots of people who I have played with think they are experts after just getting their feet wet. That impasse you see, is my unflinching confidence in knowing what I know to be right, not because it makes me feel better, but because I have genuine knowledge and experience, as well as expertise to formulate a coherent statement with regards to game play structure, and immersion factors. It's why the replies I get right now from people who disagree with me have off the wall retorts as they feel the need to make things up or exaggerate their position. Sure you could adapt your opinion on to what I just said, but you would be wasting both of our time, as I only value a persons opinion with equal or better experience in the pvp realm than I and am not easily swayed with some amateurs attempt to kabuki dance into any form of relevance.
The best I can come up with is that you are coming to the game with a set of assumptions about how the ships "should" behave relative to each other that I don't share, and don't think is good for the game. Put simply, I think you fall into the general camp that feels that larger ships "should" be more powerful than smaller ships, and that thus cruisers, battleships, dreadnoughts, etc "should" be the focus of any combat, while smaller ships like science vessels and escorts should be relegated to a support role. This is a debate that goes all the way back to closed beta, btw. There was a very vocal school of thought who felt the game should always have been balanced around cruisers as the ultimate combat ships, while 'escorts' should... well, be simply escorts - there to screen the big guns but not participate much themselves.
Coming to the game? Humor me. How long do you imagine I have been playing this game?
I've never felt this made much sense, for three reasons. First, it seems to fly directly against the canon we see in the show - the Defiant is a purpose built, explicit warship, while the Galaxy class Enterprise was more of a generalist, and an explorer. Compare how the two ships are shown in their respective shows - the Enterprise almost never solves a problem through firepower, while the Defiant happily pew-pews its way through enemies. Narratively, the show was presenting us with a clear contrast - the large, stately Galaxy class that was the proper vessel for diplomacy, science, and exploration, with a captain who was more akin to a philosopher king than a military commander, while the smaller "hot-rod" Defiant was a warship through and through, exactly the thing for a more morally ambiguous and action-oriented captain. The shows, then, didn't seem to have any problems with tiny gunships "dominating" the battlefield, so I don't see why we should.
Why do you insist on debating others arguments in this topic? It has no relevance other then a way to attempt to discredit me.
Two, I think the very assumption that "larger = more powerful" is based on a number of rather specious assumptions about how the technology of Star Trek "really" works, as well as a number of flat out incorrect assumptions about how modern and historical naval design works (or worked, as the case may be). Put simply, there is no inherent reason why size is the key (or even primary) determinant of how powerful a combatant a ship might be - there are any number of ways to rationalize what we see on screen with head-canon of our own, so at best this is always going to come down to opinion.
I am guessing you didn't see Startrek : Nemesis, Best of Both Worlds, Into Darkness, ST09, Startrek First Contact, and a number of other movies and episodes that very clearly showed bigger is better. Bigger shield generators, bigger warp cores, bigger weapon compliments, etc etc. Your opinion, my facts.
Third, and finally, I think that even if it were objectively true that in Star Trek "reality" larger ships "should" be the most powerful, I don't think that works well for the game. You feel like Cruisers are marginalized because Escorts can do more damage etc. The thing is, your proposed solution doesn't really solve that perceived imbalance, it merely seems to shift it so that the ship YOU prefer is the one getting all the advantages. Why would anyone want to play an escort in a world where the one thing they were ostensibly designed to do well (deliver damage) is still better performed by another ship?
This game should have rock paper scissors ships, High damage low accuracy (applies to heavy ships), low damage high accuracy (applies to escorts) , and medium damage medium accuracy (applies to cruisers and science ). Plain and simple. Thus enabling true Dominion Wars style battleship combat instead of uncloak, gank cloak, uncloak gank, cloak.
You will disagree, of course, and argue that you aren't trying to make escorts obsolete, but rather simply trying to make cruisers "viable" again.
Why wouldn't I disagree with you, you aren't even on topic, and half of what you said is made up assumptions, cherry picking, and conjecture.
Unfortunately, your focus on what you feel big ships should be able to do doesn't seem to give much thought to what escorts would be left with.
Translated : I fly a escort.
If cruiser are both the best, most powerful tanks (since you feel escorts are too durable now), AND deliver the heaviest damage,
Again, you have taken what I said out of context, I said there needs to be more importance on the threat value they provide. I personally don't even fly a cruiser, but I have never entered an arena or pvp space and saw a cruiser and though "oh no a cruiser". In fact I am not even fond of them being in the same STF while doing NWS, as they bring almost nothing to the table that a science, or tac cant already do.
what is left for escorts to do?
Drama.
You talk about them being more maneuverable, but that maneuverability is largely moot when the escorts don't have enough firepower to crack a cruiser, nor the defenses to withstand the cruiser's firepower. Hit and run attacks won't work, due to the instantaneous nature of healing in this game, and fixing THAT problem would require even more rebalancing than you're already proposing.
Pvp is going to be rebalanced, or have you not heard?
Even in PvE, the maneuverability of escorts wouldn't mean much since the enemies are generally slow, closely packed together, and/or come to you.
And?
Long and short of it - the game that's in your head might be totally fun for YOU, but it's not THIS game, nor will it ever be, nor SHOULD it be. Your comment below was pretty telling, I think:
Interesting, you say something in my head, and then say "but it's not, this game" Sounds like you are claiming you work for Cryptic, as in you are the shot caller, is that true random forum personalty?
Your railing against the rules of the game in the interest of developing your own, idiosyncratic builds, and your dismissal the "gamers who play with calculators" strikes me as being akin to someone railing against the rules of Chess, because he/she wants the freedom to develop new strategies so that the old grandmasters don't have their "unearned advantage" of years of practice and experience. It might make sense to YOU, but certainly you can see why the people who put in the time and effort to understand the game as it is might look askance as someone who proposed to throw all that away based on his/her own personal preferences for how the game should be.
You seem to enjoy a game where the pawns move like queens and the queens move like knights.
Note that previous sentence was NOT a question - not even a rhetorical one.
Do you even read what you type?
I am certain you can see why your argument could be construed as an attempt to devalue the hard work of others,
Again, an appeal to mob rule to prop up ones own arguments.
and why that might elicit a negative response.
Could it be lack of experience and an over inflated ego that drives the some around here to proclaim excellence? I think so.
What you choose to do with that knowledge is up to you. Right now I'm betting you will double down on that position, and then respond with "righteous" indignation when people respond.
Third time you utilize mob rule. It's a bad habit. Try winning battles on your own merits, instead of trying to get others to cheerleader for your causes.
Reading through all those typed words, almost nothing was relative to the actual topic.
Often the inexperienced, or those lacking in understanding of game mechanics are one of the first people who speak out against me and think they are on higher ground then me, and even talk abusively mocking my intelligence as you are doing right now. This is people seem to fight their battles these days. Rather then talk to me about actual mechanics, you appeal to the mob rule "many of us" as a method of peer pressure. rather then using factual methods to construct a purpose of replying to this thread.
I'm not arguing from "mob mentality" when I say many people disagree with you. I'm pointing out that since your "objective" facts are merely opinions based on your personal assumptions, maybe you should take a step back and realize that the scenario you are positing (wherein you are somehow especially gifted with true insights about the game despite the dearth of support for your position) is not the only possible one, nor even the most likely. It is far more likely that you have no idea what you are talking about, or at least that, as I said before, you are failing to realize just how deeply your assumptions are coloring your view of the game.
Certainly the same can be said for others - I fully expect you to snark up a retort about how I'm making assumptions too - let me save you the trouble. You're right - I have different assumptions than you do. The difference between us is that I understand how those assumptions may affect my interpretation of the game, so I acknowledge that my opinions aren't absolute, and I craft my argument accordingly. In this case, I provided a number of reasons to prefer my assumptions over yours, which you barely engaged with, other than to snipe where you thought you had an easy one-liner.
I assume from this statement you are completely unaware of the average half life of a dog fight in pvp. You talk about pvp as if it were a STF, when an entire team can drop 250k damage on you in 4 seconds or less, all of what you said is rhetorical.
I assume from this statement that you never PvP in the queues, since the experience I have in that format is diametrically opposed to yours. Again - the general consensus seems to be on my side, not yours. Also, I think I know what you meant by "rhetorical" - that is, you mean to say all of what I said was "hypothetical" - based on theory without evidence to back it up. Please feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth there, though. If, instead, you literally meant to say that the words I used to describe my position were an artifact of language intended to be effective and persuasive, then I guess thank you for the compliment - I agree.
To your point - that I have only my own experiences to draw from, I would argue that the only "facts" you have are your subjective experiences which don't match mine, and which you have given precisely zero reason to prefer beyond your own crowing about how you are a double-secret super special PvPer that I've never heard of. Again - your belief that you are "right" is likely based on the set of assumptions you have, as well as a wicked case of confirmation bias. I don't care how much you "feel" right, or how certain you are in your position. Unless and until you can demonstrate some reason to believe that you have special or superior insight into the game, the greatest likelihood is that you are simply wrong.
It's not purely about spike, it uptime, repair time, execution time of skills, and so much more. Stop cherry picking arguments for your own benefit.
Uh...... so, you agree with me that the only thing that an escort uniquely brings to PvP (spike damage) isn't that important? Thanks, I guess. Seriously - do you understand that you are straight agreeing with me here? My point was that PvP is NOT purely about spike - that it's easier to mitigate not having spike damage than it is to mitigate not having good heals etc., the implication being that since the only real advantage escorts have in terms of the PvP relevant skills is spike damage, escorts likely don't dominate PvP in the way you think they do (your subjective experience notwithstanding).
Again, my last couple of replies are not pure damage related subjects.
No, you're right, that's fair. You think Cruisers should be both the most damaging AND the most durable ships. Presumably you also think they should also get TWO clowns AND a bouncy castle for their birthdays, because they are THAT cool.
Snark aside - you didn't actually answer my point - in PvE, escorts don't actually dominate the game either, which again seems like a problem for your thesis that Escorts have the best of everything right now.
To recap - at this point, you've conceded that nothing escorts do is particularly important in PvP, as well as the fact that escorts aren't dominating in PvE. Given that, it seems like even if you were right about escorts being disproportionately represented in the game, that would probably be more a function of aesthetic preferences (or some other, non-mechanical explanation), instead of being a sign that escorts are unbalanced.
Would that be because you don't Pvp often? Or do you find yourself the same fleet team, and are replying to me with anecdotal evidence from a singular perspective? I fight in Ker'rat daily, and see exactly how players fight from the benefit of my cloak, I see the people who die and who live, and the victors are not the slow running cruisers who are more of a pest then a threat.
No, that would be because I usually PvP in the queues, instead of in Ker'rat. Might it be that YOU are looking at the game from YOUR singular perspective (as I've asserted all along)? Yes, yes it might. Again, I'll readily admit that my experiences are no more objective than yours. The difference is I've given some thought to mine, and tried to explicitly state where I'm coming from and why I think my assumptions and experiences are a better gauge of the game than yours.
World views? It's a video game, not sociocultural history. Also the number of times you mention danger relative to observations of a video game is amusing, hyperbole at its best.
As for Pvping, lots of people who I have played with think they are experts after just getting their feet wet. That impasse you see, is my unflinching confidence in knowing what I know to be right, not because it makes me feel better, but because I have genuine knowledge and experience, as well as expertise to formulate a coherent statement with regards to game play structure, and immersion factors. It's why the replies I get right now from people who disagree with me have off the wall retorts as they feel the need to make things up or exaggerate their position. Sure you could adapt your opinion on to what I just said, but you would be wasting both of our time, as I only value a persons opinion with equal or better experience in the pvp realm than I and am not easily swayed with some amateurs attempt to kabuki dance into any form of relevance.
Pfft. Whatever - I've played with many of the people replying to you, and seen them active on the PvP boards and in the PvP chat channels in game. I have no idea who YOU are, and strongly suspect that your accusations of exaggeration and inflated claims of expertise are a classic case of projection. Moreover, your unflinching confidence is laughable on face - you have no idea who I am either, nor do you have any realistic way to gauge my level of skill in the game beyond the fact that I don't agree with you. I already acknowledged that we have different experiences, but I'm the only one who is attempting to explain WHY those experiences are different without resorting to the need to assert that my epeen is superior. Hell, even if there was some way to "prove" who had more PvP experience in terms of hours logged, that doesn't really correlate in any clear way to actual skill. The simple truth is that if your argument is going to depend on people taking your claims of superior knowledge and skill at face value, you're going to have to supply more evidence than the fact that you really really believe in yourself with all of your heart.
Oh, and "worldview" in that context was intended to imply the set of assumptions and inclinations that colored your perceptions of how the game worked, while "Danger" was mostly referring to the danger of sounding like someone who had substituted certainty for reason.
Coming to the game? Humor me. How long do you imagine I have been playing this game?
Your length of time played is irrelevant for at least three reasons -
A) It is virtually certain to be less than mine Time played is not a good measure of skill anyway
C)I wasn't even accusing you of being new to the game anyway (because, see B - that's irrelevant)
"coming to the game" in that context meant essentially the same thing as "coming home" - I was saying that every time you log in (come to the game, in other words), you bring with you your own personal set of assumptions and opinions that color how you perceive the game (as does everyone else). The point, again, is that you are assuming your perceptions are superior without really providing any evidence for that beyond your circular belief that you must be right because you're better than everyone else because you're right because your better... etc. If you really believe that you have some sort of objective lock on the truth, then Ayn Rand called, she'd like her "being catastrophically wrong" back.
Why do you insist on debating others arguments in this topic? It has no relevance other then a way to attempt to discredit me.
Because questioning your underlying assumptions is a good way to attempt to demonstrate the subjective nature of your experiences, as well as a pretty good way to seek to explain why, despite your 'certainty' about your opinions, you may nevertheless be wrong? It's hardly off topic to do so - heck, even if all I was doing was flat out seeking to discredit you, since your only real defense of your position is to assert a personal claim of superiority, discrediting you seems like an on-topic rebuttal of that claim.
I am guessing you didn't see Startrek : Nemesis, Best of Both Worlds, Into Darkness, ST09, Startrek First Contact, and a number of other movies and episodes that very clearly showed bigger is better. Bigger shield generators, bigger warp cores, bigger weapon compliments, etc etc. Your opinion, my facts.
Let's see... Nemesis had the larger Scimitar versus the smaller Sovvy. Remind me again which ship limped back to space dock? Into Darkness had the smaller Enterprise versus the Vengeance, or whatever - again, which ship "lived" and which crashed into a city? Etc. etc.
Honestly, in basically every one of your examples, if we take them at face value, the smaller ship wins. If your argument is that this proves that the cruisers are powerful or whatever, okay, but the fact that the hero ships won those fights is hardly comparative evidence versus other small ships, since the common trope in all of those situations is "good guys are the underdogs, but win with pluck, guile, and superior moral fiber". Again, read textually, the way the ships are presented in their relative shows and movies does NOT support the claim that bigger is better in terms of combat power. As a simple example, when the Enterprise D was replaced with the Enterprise E, we were given a ship that was clearly meant to be leaner, meaner, and more powerful as a warship - it was also SMALLER, in terms of mass and internal volume.
At any rate, again, this just shows that your assumption that the big ships should be the focus of combat is simply that - an assumption. You can rationalize what you see on the screen all you want, but so can I - good luck proving that your "facts" are any less a matter of taste than mine are. As long as I've demonstrated that your viewpoint isn't objectively true, I've gotten what I needed here.
This game should have rock paper scissors ships, High damage low accuracy (applies to heavy ships), low damage high accuracy (applies to escorts) , and medium damage medium accuracy (applies to cruisers and science ). Plain and simple. Thus enabling true Dominion Wars style battleship combat instead of uncloak, gank cloak, uncloak gank, cloak.
I don't want to play Dominion Wars style battleship combat, but thank you for making explicit the disconnect I've been getting at. You want the game to be something other than what it is, and you aren't willing to recognize that people who don't share your desire aren't "wrong" to feel that way. The fact that the game isn't designed the way you want it to be isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with YOU, and your expectations.
Also, what you proposed above is not, in fact, rock paper scissors balance - it is, for all intents an purposes, a formula for constant damage from each ship type. Unless you are also willing to make ships have equal durability and equal access to buffs/debuffs, this wouldn't work. Rock paper scissors would be something like "Sci ships tend to beat escorts, escorts tend to beat cruisers, cruisers tend to beat sci ships" or the like. There's a legitimate debate to be had about what the best way to balance the game so that each ship type has a role is, but most of that debate is purely academic at this point, since Cryptic seems to have settled pretty firmly on "Damage/Tank/Healer" trinity style play (for better or worse).
Why wouldn't I disagree with you, you aren't even on topic, and half of what you said is made up assumptions, cherry picking, and conjecture.
This barely even warrants a response, but here they are, in reverse order:
Yes, I'm talking about conjecture and assumptions, because the core issue here is that you don't seem to recognize how subjective yours are. No, that's not cherry picking - I don't even think you know what that means, nor what it would look like. Yes, what I said about assumptions IS on topic, since questioning the assumptions that may be clouding your perceptions is a good way to demonstrate why your perceptions seem flawed, and you shouldn't disagree with me because I'm probably right about everything I've said so far, though I doubt you'll realize it.
Translated: I either don't understand this argument, or I have no response. Thus, I'm going to snark with a non-sequitur and then loudly proclaim later that nobody is responding to the substance of my argument.
Again, you have taken what I said out of context, I said there needs to be more importance on the threat value they provide. I personally don't even fly a cruiser, but I have never entered an arena or pvp space and saw a cruiser and though "oh no a cruiser". In fact I am not even fond of them being in the same STF while doing NWS, as they bring almost nothing to the table that a science, or tac cant already do.
I see, I took your claim out of context. It's not that you're saying that cruisers need to do more damage, or that they don't do enough damage now - it's that you're saying they need to provide more "threat" in PvP, and they need to provide more "something that is not damage but helps DPS gated content like STFs and NWS succeed more", whatever that thing might be. This, of course, is despite the fact that cruisers and Especially dreadnoughts like Scimitars are actually among the best PvE damage dealers in the game (assuming an Aux2Bat FAW build). If your complaint is that only optimal damage builds are capable of doing optimal damage... I mean... yeah. That's kind of what optimal damage means. Sorry your special snowflake build isn't optimal, but that's not a reason to re-balance the entire game, nor is it ever really necessary to have an "optimal build" to be successful in PvE or PvP.
So, again, you have no real answer? Point blank - in your version of the game, what mechanical role do escorts play, besides being chaff? Remember - healing is so fast and powerful that attrition through hit and run is impossible, so what would an escort contribute either one on one or in team based play that would make them an attractive choice?
Pvp is going to be rebalanced, or have you not heard?
Re-balanced (if that ever actually happens) does not mean "rebuilt from the ground up", which is what would have to happen to make your vision really work in any kind of way that doesn't simply result in anything that's not a "heavy ship" being trivialized.
And if those conditions accurately describe PvE (which they do), then being maneuverable isn't much of an advantage there, which again begs the question of what you think escorts are actually supposed to do in your "Dominion Wars" style game.
Interesting, you say something in my head, and then say "but it's not, this game" Sounds like you are claiming you work for Cryptic, as in you are the shot caller, is that true random forum personalty?
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a desperate and willful attempt to try to score rhetorical points, and not an honest expression of your (in)ability to follow what I'm saying. To clarify - I'm saying the game you want - the one in your head (the one we can now say is based on Dominion Wars style battleship combat) is clearly NOT the game that Cryptic is making. That's not me saying I'm calling the shots, that's me saying "You want X, but this is clearly Y". Again, the fact that this game isn't what you want doesn't mean that what you want is "right" or "wrong", it just means this isn't it, and you've got a long, long way to go before you can prove making your changes are either necessary or good for the game as a whole.
You seem to enjoy a game where the pawns move like queens and the queens move like knights.
You seem to be (again) mistaking your personal belief about what the game should be like for a sign that the game is actually broken. Again, my point is that you are looking at an established set of game rules and arguing that those rules should be discarded because you would rather your own personal set of rules be used instead. It doesn't matter how much you feel like escorts should do less damage than heavier ships, or that heavier ships should be the focus of the game, or whatever else is stuck in your craw. You have to realize that not everyone shares your view, not everyone wants to play that version of the game, and unless you can come up with a more compelling reason why anyone should listen to you than your self-centered belief in your own unerring "rightness", you're going to be disappointed.
Yes. Carefully. Several times. This is why my argument is well crafted, anticipates your likely responses, and uses rhetoric in a thoughtful, (not hypothetical) way. I still make some typos and am not always as precise as I would like in my word choice, but I feel like generally speaking I do a better job elucidating my point than most. Now that we cleared that up, did you actually have an objection to my argument, or were you hoping that by sarcastically implying what I wrote was nonsense that it would magically become so?
Again, an appeal to mob rule to prop up ones own arguments.
Again, if the only evidence you have in your favor is you believe you're super-smart and have special insight into the game, pointing out that other people who have actually demonstrated said insight disagree with you isn't "mob rule" so much as it is "damning counter evidence".
Could it be lack of experience and an over inflated ego that drives the some around here to proclaim excellence? I think so.
Well, evidently you'd be the expert on lack of experience and an inflated ego, so I'll defer to your expertise on that matter.
Note that I never said I was objectively an expert - I said that I would clearly believe myself to be an expert, just like you would, and that in the face of our mutual inability to verify or test those claims of expertise, we would either be at an impasse, or else we would have to find some other way to evaluating our competing claims (such as examining what possible assumptions they might proceed from).
Third time you utilize mob rule. It's a bad habit. Try winning battles on your own merits, instead of trying to get others to cheerleader for your causes.
Yeah, silly me, pointing out that if your only evidence was your claim to special expertise, the fact that other, established experts disagreed with you might be a reason for you to moderate your claims and actually listen to what others were saying to test if your perceptions actually bore out. I'm sure you think you're some kind of persecuted Galileo figure, heroically attempting to bring enlightenment to us dogmatic followers of... whatever agenda you imagine. The fact is, it's far, far more likely that you are less Galileo, and more Gene Ray.
Reading through all those typed words, almost nothing was relative to the actual topic.
Enjoy another set of typed words. This was a diverting, though I'm sure ultimately futile exercise. I don't think I can make my argument any more clear, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to respond, or don't - I harbor no illusions that anything productive could come out of further discourse.
I don't think this idea is wise because it will essentially attempt to force everyone who may or may not even want to be there to play PvP. The quality of the experience will quickly go down the tubes as the queues fill with people who simply want to do the minimum possible to receive their daily box, so that, upon filling the rep, they can never do that again.
Main reason why I think people don't want to PvP, is that there is no ranking, no matching, you just join a group and get blown to bits by geared-long-playing players.
I'm not arguing from "mob mentality" when I say many people disagree with you. I'm pointing out that since your "objective" facts are merely opinions based on your personal assumptions, maybe you should take a step back and realize that the scenario you are positing (wherein you are somehow especially gifted with true insights about the game despite the dearth of support for your position) is not the only possible one, nor even the most likely. It is far more likely that you have no idea what you are talking about, or at least that, as I said before, you are failing to realize just how deeply your assumptions are coloring your view of the game.
Certainly the same can be said for others - I fully expect you to snark up a retort about how I'm making assumptions too - let me save you the trouble. You're right - I have different assumptions than you do. The difference between us is that I understand how those assumptions may affect my interpretation of the game, so I acknowledge that my opinions aren't absolute, and I craft my argument accordingly. In this case, I provided a number of reasons to prefer my assumptions over yours, which you barely engaged with, other than to snipe where you thought you had an easy one-liner.
I assume from this statement that you never PvP in the queues, since the experience I have in that format is diametrically opposed to yours. Again - the general consensus seems to be on my side, not yours. Also, I think I know what you meant by "rhetorical" - that is, you mean to say all of what I said was "hypothetical" - based on theory without evidence to back it up. Please feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth there, though. If, instead, you literally meant to say that the words I used to describe my position were an artifact of language intended to be effective and persuasive, then I guess thank you for the compliment - I agree.
To your point - that I have only my own experiences to draw from, I would argue that the only "facts" you have are your subjective experiences which don't match mine, and which you have given precisely zero reason to prefer beyond your own crowing about how you are a double-secret super special PvPer that I've never heard of. Again - your belief that you are "right" is likely based on the set of assumptions you have, as well as a wicked case of confirmation bias. I don't care how much you "feel" right, or how certain you are in your position. Unless and until you can demonstrate some reason to believe that you have special or superior insight into the game, the greatest likelihood is that you are simply wrong.
Uh...... so, you agree with me that the only thing that an escort uniquely brings to PvP (spike damage) isn't that important? Thanks, I guess. Seriously - do you understand that you are straight agreeing with me here? My point was that PvP is NOT purely about spike - that it's easier to mitigate not having spike damage than it is to mitigate not having good heals etc., the implication being that since the only real advantage escorts have in terms of the PvP relevant skills is spike damage, escorts likely don't dominate PvP in the way you think they do (your subjective experience notwithstanding).
No, you're right, that's fair. You think Cruisers should be both the most damaging AND the most durable ships. Presumably you also think they should also get TWO clowns AND a bouncy castle for their birthdays, because they are THAT cool.
Snark aside - you didn't actually answer my point - in PvE, escorts don't actually dominate the game either, which again seems like a problem for your thesis that Escorts have the best of everything right now.
To recap - at this point, you've conceded that nothing escorts do is particularly important in PvP, as well as the fact that escorts aren't dominating in PvE. Given that, it seems like even if you were right about escorts being disproportionately represented in the game, that would probably be more a function of aesthetic preferences (or some other, non-mechanical explanation), instead of being a sign that escorts are unbalanced.
No, that would be because I usually PvP in the queues, instead of in Ker'rat. Might it be that YOU are looking at the game from YOUR singular perspective (as I've asserted all along)? Yes, yes it might. Again, I'll readily admit that my experiences are no more objective than yours. The difference is I've given some thought to mine, and tried to explicitly state where I'm coming from and why I think my assumptions and experiences are a better gauge of the game than yours.
Pfft. Whatever - I've played with many of the people replying to you, and seen them active on the PvP boards and in the PvP chat channels in game. I have no idea who YOU are, and strongly suspect that your accusations of exaggeration and inflated claims of expertise are a classic case of projection. Moreover, your unflinching confidence is laughable on face - you have no idea who I am either, nor do you have any realistic way to gauge my level of skill in the game beyond the fact that I don't agree with you. I already acknowledged that we have different experiences, but I'm the only one who is attempting to explain WHY those experiences are different without resorting to the need to assert that my epeen is superior. Hell, even if there was some way to "prove" who had more PvP experience in terms of hours logged, that doesn't really correlate in any clear way to actual skill. The simple truth is that if your argument is going to depend on people taking your claims of superior knowledge and skill at face value, you're going to have to supply more evidence than the fact that you really really believe in yourself with all of your heart.
Oh, and "worldview" in that context was intended to imply the set of assumptions and inclinations that colored your perceptions of how the game worked, while "Danger" was mostly referring to the danger of sounding like someone who had substituted certainty for reason.
Your length of time played is irrelevant for at least three reasons -
A) It is virtually certain to be less than mine Time played is not a good measure of skill anyway
C)I wasn't even accusing you of being new to the game anyway (because, see B - that's irrelevant)
"coming to the game" in that context meant essentially the same thing as "coming home" - I was saying that every time you log in (come to the game, in other words), you bring with you your own personal set of assumptions and opinions that color how you perceive the game (as does everyone else). The point, again, is that you are assuming your perceptions are superior without really providing any evidence for that beyond your circular belief that you must be right because you're better than everyone else because you're right because your better... etc. If you really believe that you have some sort of objective lock on the truth, then Ayn Rand called, she'd like her "being catastrophically wrong" back.
Because questioning your underlying assumptions is a good way to attempt to demonstrate the subjective nature of your experiences, as well as a pretty good way to seek to explain why, despite your 'certainty' about your opinions, you may nevertheless be wrong? It's hardly off topic to do so - heck, even if all I was doing was flat out seeking to discredit you, since your only real defense of your position is to assert a personal claim of superiority, discrediting you seems like an on-topic rebuttal of that claim.
Let's see... Nemesis had the larger Scimitar versus the smaller Sovvy. Remind me again which ship limped back to space dock? Into Darkness had the smaller Enterprise versus the Vengeance, or whatever - again, which ship "lived" and which crashed into a city? Etc. etc.
Honestly, in basically every one of your examples, if we take them at face value, the smaller ship wins. If your argument is that this proves that the cruisers are powerful or whatever, okay, but the fact that the hero ships won those fights is hardly comparative evidence versus other small ships, since the common trope in all of those situations is "good guys are the underdogs, but win with pluck, guile, and superior moral fiber". Again, read textually, the way the ships are presented in their relative shows and movies does NOT support the claim that bigger is better in terms of combat power. As a simple example, when the Enterprise D was replaced with the Enterprise E, we were given a ship that was clearly meant to be leaner, meaner, and more powerful as a warship - it was also SMALLER, in terms of mass and internal volume.
At any rate, again, this just shows that your assumption that the big ships should be the focus of combat is simply that - an assumption. You can rationalize what you see on the screen all you want, but so can I - good luck proving that your "facts" are any less a matter of taste than mine are. As long as I've demonstrated that your viewpoint isn't objectively true, I've gotten what I needed here.
I don't want to play Dominion Wars style battleship combat, but thank you for making explicit the disconnect I've been getting at. You want the game to be something other than what it is, and you aren't willing to recognize that people who don't share your desire aren't "wrong" to feel that way. The fact that the game isn't designed the way you want it to be isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with YOU, and your expectations.
Also, what you proposed above is not, in fact, rock paper scissors balance - it is, for all intents an purposes, a formula for constant damage from each ship type. Unless you are also willing to make ships have equal durability and equal access to buffs/debuffs, this wouldn't work. Rock paper scissors would be something like "Sci ships tend to beat escorts, escorts tend to beat cruisers, cruisers tend to beat sci ships" or the like. There's a legitimate debate to be had about what the best way to balance the game so that each ship type has a role is, but most of that debate is purely academic at this point, since Cryptic seems to have settled pretty firmly on "Damage/Tank/Healer" trinity style play (for better or worse).
This barely even warrants a response, but here they are, in reverse order:
Yes, I'm talking about conjecture and assumptions, because the core issue here is that you don't seem to recognize how subjective yours are. No, that's not cherry picking - I don't even think you know what that means, nor what it would look like. Yes, what I said about assumptions IS on topic, since questioning the assumptions that may be clouding your perceptions is a good way to demonstrate why your perceptions seem flawed, and you shouldn't disagree with me because I'm probably right about everything I've said so far, though I doubt you'll realize it.
Translated: I either don't understand this argument, or I have no response. Thus, I'm going to snark with a non-sequitur and then loudly proclaim later that nobody is responding to the substance of my argument.
I see, I took your claim out of context. It's not that you're saying that cruisers need to do more damage, or that they don't do enough damage now - it's that you're saying they need to provide more "threat" in PvP, and they need to provide more "something that is not damage but helps DPS gated content like STFs and NWS succeed more", whatever that thing might be. This, of course, is despite the fact that cruisers and Especially dreadnoughts like Scimitars are actually among the best PvE damage dealers in the game (assuming an Aux2Bat FAW build). If your complaint is that only optimal damage builds are capable of doing optimal damage... I mean... yeah. That's kind of what optimal damage means. Sorry your special snowflake build isn't optimal, but that's not a reason to re-balance the entire game, nor is it ever really necessary to have an "optimal build" to be successful in PvE or PvP.
So, again, you have no real answer? Point blank - in your version of the game, what mechanical role do escorts play, besides being chaff? Remember - healing is so fast and powerful that attrition through hit and run is impossible, so what would an escort contribute either one on one or in team based play that would make them an attractive choice?
Re-balanced (if that ever actually happens) does not mean "rebuilt from the ground up", which is what would have to happen to make your vision really work in any kind of way that doesn't simply result in anything that's not a "heavy ship" being trivialized.
And if those conditions accurately describe PvE (which they do), then being maneuverable isn't much of an advantage there, which again begs the question of what you think escorts are actually supposed to do in your "Dominion Wars" style game.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a desperate and willful attempt to try to score rhetorical points, and not an honest expression of your (in)ability to follow what I'm saying. To clarify - I'm saying the game you want - the one in your head (the one we can now say is based on Dominion Wars style battleship combat) is clearly NOT the game that Cryptic is making. That's not me saying I'm calling the shots, that's me saying "You want X, but this is clearly Y". Again, the fact that this game isn't what you want doesn't mean that what you want is "right" or "wrong", it just means this isn't it, and you've got a long, long way to go before you can prove making your changes are either necessary or good for the game as a whole.
You seem to be (again) mistaking your personal belief about what the game should be like for a sign that the game is actually broken. Again, my point is that you are looking at an established set of game rules and arguing that those rules should be discarded because you would rather your own personal set of rules be used instead. It doesn't matter how much you feel like escorts should do less damage than heavier ships, or that heavier ships should be the focus of the game, or whatever else is stuck in your craw. You have to realize that not everyone shares your view, not everyone wants to play that version of the game, and unless you can come up with a more compelling reason why anyone should listen to you than your self-centered belief in your own unerring "rightness", you're going to be disappointed.
Yes. Carefully. Several times. This is why my argument is well crafted, anticipates your likely responses, and uses rhetoric in a thoughtful, (not hypothetical) way. I still make some typos and am not always as precise as I would like in my word choice, but I feel like generally speaking I do a better job elucidating my point than most. Now that we cleared that up, did you actually have an objection to my argument, or were you hoping that by sarcastically implying what I wrote was nonsense that it would magically become so?
Again, if the only evidence you have in your favor is you believe you're super-smart and have special insight into the game, pointing out that other people who have actually demonstrated said insight disagree with you isn't "mob rule" so much as it is "damning counter evidence".
Well, evidently you'd be the expert on lack of experience and an inflated ego, so I'll defer to your expertise on that matter.
Note that I never said I was objectively an expert - I said that I would clearly believe myself to be an expert, just like you would, and that in the face of our mutual inability to verify or test those claims of expertise, we would either be at an impasse, or else we would have to find some other way to evaluating our competing claims (such as examining what possible assumptions they might proceed from).
Yeah, silly me, pointing out that if your only evidence was your claim to special expertise, the fact that other, established experts disagreed with you might be a reason for you to moderate your claims and actually listen to what others were saying to test if your perceptions actually bore out. I'm sure you think you're some kind of persecuted Galileo figure, heroically attempting to bring enlightenment to us dogmatic followers of... whatever agenda you imagine. The fact is, it's far, far more likely that you are less Galileo, and more Gene Ray.
Enjoy another set of typed words. This was a diverting, though I'm sure ultimately futile exercise. I don't think I can make my argument any more clear, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to respond, or don't - I harbor no illusions that anything productive could come out of further discourse.
I have never seen such a long winded self congratulating responses that could be summed up as "I know more then you","I don't like your ideas"," I don't like dominion wars, and its not ok because that isn't the status quo, and I would rather hit my spacebar as fast as I can to prove my intellectual superiority", "because the biggest mouth forum personalities agree with me, that means they're smart, thus I am right, and smart", "You don't know me, and that should be important to you, because something".,"Because the technologically more advanced star ships lost due to an indirect plot device, I am still going to claim that they would win under all circumstances"and on and on...
The rest is selective reading,memory, and cognitive understanding. You might not understand this, but I do not envy you. The amount of times you misinterpret what I have said, and then twisted it into every kind of absurd observations, to the times you attempted to act as the intellectual superior through hyperbole, and a small sample of people on this forum whom think their opinions are the best 100% the time (seem familiar?) . You are so sure that most if not all of my data is an opinion, despite not actually being able to prove the contrary. You should put away your Crystal ball and stick to your day job.
I don't think this idea is wise because it will essentially attempt to force everyone who may or may not even want to be there to play PvP. The quality of the experience will quickly go down the tubes as the queues fill with people who simply want to do the minimum possible to receive their daily box, so that, upon filling the rep, they can never do that again.
Which speaks for the quality of the experience more then it speaks for the people imo.
So... a good chunk of the posts in here are back and fourth arguing and fighting.
Now, it's 1:15 am so I'm extremely tired.
I'm giving this as a chance before I come back tomorrow (around 9 hours from now) for quite a few that are flaming and/or trolling to edit their posts and be discussing why pvp should or should not have a reputation system instead of attacking each other or else moderation WILL occur.
Yes, I'm that Askray@Batbayer in game. Yes, I still play. No, I don't care. Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker. Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
Paraphrase? You mean make something up. I never said the Scimitar should outmaneuver an escort, ever. I find that they should be out maneuvered, as for big words, I suggest getting a dictionary or trying a word of the day calendar.
No what you SAID was, it should be as easy to hit a fast moving escort as a slow moving scimitar. I never said a thing about outmaneuvering.
Nice attempt at side stepping to make me look like a fool. I can go back and quote you on all of it if I must to re freshen your memory.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
I don't think pvp should have its own reputation system simply because of the fact, that this would bring even greater disparity between veterans and newcomers. This is of course factoring in the current state of pvp, having no matchmaking of any kind, no leaderboard and thus no way of seperating vets from newcomers.
If anything mentioned above would exist, a pvp centric reputation system can be implemented, because newcomers will only play other newcomers at the beginning and abilities like, +damage against players, might be viable. Sadly the introduction of these abilities would make them a staple in pvp and thus reducing the choices that can be made. Still it would be nice to see such a reputation system give players a chance to earn non zen-store related rare items, such as weapons with [acc]x3 mods on them.
No, a pvp reputation system really wouldn't be such a great incentive to play pvp (and that's what it should be for). I'd rather give out other incentives, like a mixed mark package, so that you can supplement or even completetly forgo doing pve.
The idea of a PvP reputation is to encourage people dive in it. It will need a matchmaking system that based on the participants' stats and ships creates the most balanced team possible. A PvPer runs his own leaderboard and created an algorythm that equilibrates participants based on previous combat logs they had. This way the excuse "longtime players will nuke us" will cease to exist as you fight those on the same level.
Surely not making rambo teams like it happens now. Anyway, how would it break PvP or make people quit? "Undine ships are bad, I will quit if they do" and they'restill here. Wouldn't change anything.
And of course new items doesn't mean they should give epic bonuses. Omega set is seriously thought for escorts, adapted MACO sci friendly and so on.
"Players should be forced to play PvP and lose" doesn't stand. You need to go through a learning curve. It's the same for any other game. How do you unlock weapons in BF4 if you don't play PvP? lol you can't.
A PvP specific reputation is something different than shooting pointless NPCs. It's not fun anymore to do ESTF, Undine space BZ, New Romulus PVE events, at least for me.
So... a good chunk of the posts in here are back and fourth arguing and fighting.
Now, it's 1:15 am so I'm extremely tired.
I'm giving this as a chance before I come back tomorrow (around 9 hours from now) for quite a few that are flaming and/or trolling to edit their posts and be discussing why pvp should or should not have a reputation system instead of attacking each other or else moderation WILL occur.
Not to worry, I am done, these people will clearly knit pick, twist information, and have selective memory at anyone who isn't of the same bullying mentality or rough up a couple of pugs whilst giggling on team speak, I have to realize I am dealing with the "pvp" crowd, which is why the pvp ques are as dry as a bone vs virtually everything else. Their are people who talk and then there are those whom Talk. No ground to be gained when someone just wants to be disagreeable.
Wells temporal science ship doesn't even come close to being an escort. No potential commander tac station, turn rate 15, 6 weapons slot, subsystem targeting. It is a pure science vessel.
Not having a commander tac or 6 weapon slot doesn't denote absence of similarity, even a turn rate of 15 the fastest T5 science vessel in the fleet Including the .2 impulse modifier, universal slots which allows for several tactical combinations. The 1.45 shield mod? This ship is a tank. All of the strengths of the science and none of the weaknesses with a escort slant in maneuvering. I wouldn't take such an issue with that if the game wasn't slanted toward pure dps or drain builds as a whole in pvp.
Science is the most sought after class in PvP since they make easy kills with those disables you consider useless. In fact, science is the biggest force multiplier there is in this game because of those disables you belittle so much. And because you belittle them such, this shows you don't understand support roles at all. I'm not saying this to be an elitist, heck I'm very average at best and I haven't fully mastered the science role but even I can see how wrong you are on this one.
I never belittled the effectiveness of a drain build, my point is that this seems to be the only build that science players seem to aspire to creating when it comes to pvp as an optimal playing route.
Because it seems you have forgotten that premade exists and used to dominate the queues. The typical premade setup required at lease 2 science captains. I have seen premade teams with more than 2 escorts, very rare sight, but they know they're taking a big risk.
Firstly, I wouldn't even say the Pvp ques are dominated (literal, not figurative), people trickle into them because they are often empty, and second setting up private matches in no way reflects your average public match. third Its not how many ships of a type you have its how you use them. 4th because you or someone else happens to be on a channel or organize matches in a certain way, doesn't mean you have privatized pvp and are the official census bureau of pvp. Taking the organizers of Pvp in this game seriously is like saying wheel barrow racing should be an Olympic sport. As this game reflects more quick & the dead dog fighting, rather then classic submarine tactics. Without speed in pvp, you lose.
too many wall of text here... :rolleyes: btw, id not think about another tedious reputation, just more rewards
edit: maybe a kind of ingame league with pvp, like the hilbert leaderboard thing
too many wall of text here... :rolleyes: btw, id not think about another tedious reputation, just more rewards
edit: maybe a kind of ingame league with pvp, like the hilbert leaderboard thing
I agree on both counts, I also think rewards should be spread out equally, instead of benefiting the people who have the most friends with lock box ships, lobi consoles, and fleet gear.
make it holding ore star base like a fleet but not for a group of man but for just one we get a button for PvP Holding where we can add Trophies on ships, others and so on .....
We can have 3 ore 2 lines of progression space and ground ore somatic different.:cool:
Make it so we can inv man to visit ours achievement
make it holding ore star base like a fleet but not for a group of man but for just one we get a button for PvP Holding where we can add Trophies on ships and others and so on .....
We can have 3 ore 2 lines of progression space and ground ore somatic different.:cool:
Make it so we can inv man to visit ours achievement
I'm not so sure about another reputation, but I would LOVE to get accolades or trophies to go on my wall and floor. Something fun like that would be an interesting goal to strive towards, and wouldn't be game breaking.
why not make it consisting off several game-mechanic-teaching tutorials in combo with matches against players of the same level (so yeah: no ranking, no rep)?
or missions with given ships/builds that focus and several snyergies of builds/powers in a group?
in short: institutionalized and coded boot-camp.
Comments
Often the inexperienced, or those lacking in understanding of game mechanics are one of the first people who speak out against me and think they are on higher ground then me, and even talk abusively mocking my intelligence as you are doing right now. This is people seem to fight their battles these days. Rather then talk to me about actual mechanics, you appeal to the mob rule "many of us" as a method of peer pressure. rather then using factual methods to construct a purpose of replying to this thread.
I assume from this statement you are completely unaware of the average half life of a dog fight in pvp. You talk about pvp as if it were a STF, when an entire team can drop 250k damage on you in 4 seconds or less, all of what you said is rhetorical.
It's not purely about spike, it uptime, repair time, execution time of skills, and so much more. Stop cherry picking arguments for your own benefit.
Again, my last couple of replies are not pure damage related subjects.
Would that be because you don't Pvp often? Or do you find yourself the same fleet team, and are replying to me with anecdotal evidence from a singular perspective? I fight in Ker'rat daily, and see exactly how players fight from the benefit of my cloak, I see the people who die and who live, and the victors are not the slow running cruisers who are more of a pest then a threat.
World views? It's a video game, not sociocultural history. Also the number of times you mention danger relative to observations of a video game is amusing, hyperbole at its best.
As for Pvping, lots of people who I have played with think they are experts after just getting their feet wet. That impasse you see, is my unflinching confidence in knowing what I know to be right, not because it makes me feel better, but because I have genuine knowledge and experience, as well as expertise to formulate a coherent statement with regards to game play structure, and immersion factors. It's why the replies I get right now from people who disagree with me have off the wall retorts as they feel the need to make things up or exaggerate their position. Sure you could adapt your opinion on to what I just said, but you would be wasting both of our time, as I only value a persons opinion with equal or better experience in the pvp realm than I and am not easily swayed with some amateurs attempt to kabuki dance into any form of relevance.
Coming to the game? Humor me. How long do you imagine I have been playing this game?
Why do you insist on debating others arguments in this topic? It has no relevance other then a way to attempt to discredit me.
I am guessing you didn't see Startrek : Nemesis, Best of Both Worlds, Into Darkness, ST09, Startrek First Contact, and a number of other movies and episodes that very clearly showed bigger is better. Bigger shield generators, bigger warp cores, bigger weapon compliments, etc etc. Your opinion, my facts.
This game should have rock paper scissors ships, High damage low accuracy (applies to heavy ships), low damage high accuracy (applies to escorts) , and medium damage medium accuracy (applies to cruisers and science ). Plain and simple. Thus enabling true Dominion Wars style battleship combat instead of uncloak, gank cloak, uncloak gank, cloak.
Why wouldn't I disagree with you, you aren't even on topic, and half of what you said is made up assumptions, cherry picking, and conjecture.
Translated : I fly a escort.
Again, you have taken what I said out of context, I said there needs to be more importance on the threat value they provide. I personally don't even fly a cruiser, but I have never entered an arena or pvp space and saw a cruiser and though "oh no a cruiser". In fact I am not even fond of them being in the same STF while doing NWS, as they bring almost nothing to the table that a science, or tac cant already do.
Drama.
Pvp is going to be rebalanced, or have you not heard?
And?
Interesting, you say something in my head, and then say "but it's not, this game" Sounds like you are claiming you work for Cryptic, as in you are the shot caller, is that true random forum personalty?
You seem to enjoy a game where the pawns move like queens and the queens move like knights.
Do you even read what you type?
Again, an appeal to mob rule to prop up ones own arguments.
Could it be lack of experience and an over inflated ego that drives the some around here to proclaim excellence? I think so.
Third time you utilize mob rule. It's a bad habit. Try winning battles on your own merits, instead of trying to get others to cheerleader for your causes.
Reading through all those typed words, almost nothing was relative to the actual topic.
I'm not arguing from "mob mentality" when I say many people disagree with you. I'm pointing out that since your "objective" facts are merely opinions based on your personal assumptions, maybe you should take a step back and realize that the scenario you are positing (wherein you are somehow especially gifted with true insights about the game despite the dearth of support for your position) is not the only possible one, nor even the most likely. It is far more likely that you have no idea what you are talking about, or at least that, as I said before, you are failing to realize just how deeply your assumptions are coloring your view of the game.
Certainly the same can be said for others - I fully expect you to snark up a retort about how I'm making assumptions too - let me save you the trouble. You're right - I have different assumptions than you do. The difference between us is that I understand how those assumptions may affect my interpretation of the game, so I acknowledge that my opinions aren't absolute, and I craft my argument accordingly. In this case, I provided a number of reasons to prefer my assumptions over yours, which you barely engaged with, other than to snipe where you thought you had an easy one-liner.
I assume from this statement that you never PvP in the queues, since the experience I have in that format is diametrically opposed to yours. Again - the general consensus seems to be on my side, not yours. Also, I think I know what you meant by "rhetorical" - that is, you mean to say all of what I said was "hypothetical" - based on theory without evidence to back it up. Please feel free to correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth there, though. If, instead, you literally meant to say that the words I used to describe my position were an artifact of language intended to be effective and persuasive, then I guess thank you for the compliment - I agree.
To your point - that I have only my own experiences to draw from, I would argue that the only "facts" you have are your subjective experiences which don't match mine, and which you have given precisely zero reason to prefer beyond your own crowing about how you are a double-secret super special PvPer that I've never heard of. Again - your belief that you are "right" is likely based on the set of assumptions you have, as well as a wicked case of confirmation bias. I don't care how much you "feel" right, or how certain you are in your position. Unless and until you can demonstrate some reason to believe that you have special or superior insight into the game, the greatest likelihood is that you are simply wrong.
Uh...... so, you agree with me that the only thing that an escort uniquely brings to PvP (spike damage) isn't that important? Thanks, I guess. Seriously - do you understand that you are straight agreeing with me here? My point was that PvP is NOT purely about spike - that it's easier to mitigate not having spike damage than it is to mitigate not having good heals etc., the implication being that since the only real advantage escorts have in terms of the PvP relevant skills is spike damage, escorts likely don't dominate PvP in the way you think they do (your subjective experience notwithstanding).
No, you're right, that's fair. You think Cruisers should be both the most damaging AND the most durable ships. Presumably you also think they should also get TWO clowns AND a bouncy castle for their birthdays, because they are THAT cool.
Snark aside - you didn't actually answer my point - in PvE, escorts don't actually dominate the game either, which again seems like a problem for your thesis that Escorts have the best of everything right now.
To recap - at this point, you've conceded that nothing escorts do is particularly important in PvP, as well as the fact that escorts aren't dominating in PvE. Given that, it seems like even if you were right about escorts being disproportionately represented in the game, that would probably be more a function of aesthetic preferences (or some other, non-mechanical explanation), instead of being a sign that escorts are unbalanced.
No, that would be because I usually PvP in the queues, instead of in Ker'rat. Might it be that YOU are looking at the game from YOUR singular perspective (as I've asserted all along)? Yes, yes it might. Again, I'll readily admit that my experiences are no more objective than yours. The difference is I've given some thought to mine, and tried to explicitly state where I'm coming from and why I think my assumptions and experiences are a better gauge of the game than yours.
Pfft. Whatever - I've played with many of the people replying to you, and seen them active on the PvP boards and in the PvP chat channels in game. I have no idea who YOU are, and strongly suspect that your accusations of exaggeration and inflated claims of expertise are a classic case of projection. Moreover, your unflinching confidence is laughable on face - you have no idea who I am either, nor do you have any realistic way to gauge my level of skill in the game beyond the fact that I don't agree with you. I already acknowledged that we have different experiences, but I'm the only one who is attempting to explain WHY those experiences are different without resorting to the need to assert that my epeen is superior. Hell, even if there was some way to "prove" who had more PvP experience in terms of hours logged, that doesn't really correlate in any clear way to actual skill. The simple truth is that if your argument is going to depend on people taking your claims of superior knowledge and skill at face value, you're going to have to supply more evidence than the fact that you really really believe in yourself with all of your heart.
Oh, and "worldview" in that context was intended to imply the set of assumptions and inclinations that colored your perceptions of how the game worked, while "Danger" was mostly referring to the danger of sounding like someone who had substituted certainty for reason.
Your length of time played is irrelevant for at least three reasons -
A) It is virtually certain to be less than mine
C)I wasn't even accusing you of being new to the game anyway (because, see B - that's irrelevant)
"coming to the game" in that context meant essentially the same thing as "coming home" - I was saying that every time you log in (come to the game, in other words), you bring with you your own personal set of assumptions and opinions that color how you perceive the game (as does everyone else). The point, again, is that you are assuming your perceptions are superior without really providing any evidence for that beyond your circular belief that you must be right because you're better than everyone else because you're right because your better... etc. If you really believe that you have some sort of objective lock on the truth, then Ayn Rand called, she'd like her "being catastrophically wrong" back.
Because questioning your underlying assumptions is a good way to attempt to demonstrate the subjective nature of your experiences, as well as a pretty good way to seek to explain why, despite your 'certainty' about your opinions, you may nevertheless be wrong? It's hardly off topic to do so - heck, even if all I was doing was flat out seeking to discredit you, since your only real defense of your position is to assert a personal claim of superiority, discrediting you seems like an on-topic rebuttal of that claim.
Let's see... Nemesis had the larger Scimitar versus the smaller Sovvy. Remind me again which ship limped back to space dock? Into Darkness had the smaller Enterprise versus the Vengeance, or whatever - again, which ship "lived" and which crashed into a city? Etc. etc.
Honestly, in basically every one of your examples, if we take them at face value, the smaller ship wins. If your argument is that this proves that the cruisers are powerful or whatever, okay, but the fact that the hero ships won those fights is hardly comparative evidence versus other small ships, since the common trope in all of those situations is "good guys are the underdogs, but win with pluck, guile, and superior moral fiber". Again, read textually, the way the ships are presented in their relative shows and movies does NOT support the claim that bigger is better in terms of combat power. As a simple example, when the Enterprise D was replaced with the Enterprise E, we were given a ship that was clearly meant to be leaner, meaner, and more powerful as a warship - it was also SMALLER, in terms of mass and internal volume.
At any rate, again, this just shows that your assumption that the big ships should be the focus of combat is simply that - an assumption. You can rationalize what you see on the screen all you want, but so can I - good luck proving that your "facts" are any less a matter of taste than mine are. As long as I've demonstrated that your viewpoint isn't objectively true, I've gotten what I needed here.
I don't want to play Dominion Wars style battleship combat, but thank you for making explicit the disconnect I've been getting at. You want the game to be something other than what it is, and you aren't willing to recognize that people who don't share your desire aren't "wrong" to feel that way. The fact that the game isn't designed the way you want it to be isn't a problem with the game, it's a problem with YOU, and your expectations.
Also, what you proposed above is not, in fact, rock paper scissors balance - it is, for all intents an purposes, a formula for constant damage from each ship type. Unless you are also willing to make ships have equal durability and equal access to buffs/debuffs, this wouldn't work. Rock paper scissors would be something like "Sci ships tend to beat escorts, escorts tend to beat cruisers, cruisers tend to beat sci ships" or the like. There's a legitimate debate to be had about what the best way to balance the game so that each ship type has a role is, but most of that debate is purely academic at this point, since Cryptic seems to have settled pretty firmly on "Damage/Tank/Healer" trinity style play (for better or worse).
This barely even warrants a response, but here they are, in reverse order:
Yes, I'm talking about conjecture and assumptions, because the core issue here is that you don't seem to recognize how subjective yours are. No, that's not cherry picking - I don't even think you know what that means, nor what it would look like. Yes, what I said about assumptions IS on topic, since questioning the assumptions that may be clouding your perceptions is a good way to demonstrate why your perceptions seem flawed, and you shouldn't disagree with me because I'm probably right about everything I've said so far, though I doubt you'll realize it.
Translated: I either don't understand this argument, or I have no response. Thus, I'm going to snark with a non-sequitur and then loudly proclaim later that nobody is responding to the substance of my argument.
I see, I took your claim out of context. It's not that you're saying that cruisers need to do more damage, or that they don't do enough damage now - it's that you're saying they need to provide more "threat" in PvP, and they need to provide more "something that is not damage but helps DPS gated content like STFs and NWS succeed more", whatever that thing might be. This, of course, is despite the fact that cruisers and Especially dreadnoughts like Scimitars are actually among the best PvE damage dealers in the game (assuming an Aux2Bat FAW build). If your complaint is that only optimal damage builds are capable of doing optimal damage... I mean... yeah. That's kind of what optimal damage means. Sorry your special snowflake build isn't optimal, but that's not a reason to re-balance the entire game, nor is it ever really necessary to have an "optimal build" to be successful in PvE or PvP.
So, again, you have no real answer? Point blank - in your version of the game, what mechanical role do escorts play, besides being chaff? Remember - healing is so fast and powerful that attrition through hit and run is impossible, so what would an escort contribute either one on one or in team based play that would make them an attractive choice?
Re-balanced (if that ever actually happens) does not mean "rebuilt from the ground up", which is what would have to happen to make your vision really work in any kind of way that doesn't simply result in anything that's not a "heavy ship" being trivialized.
And if those conditions accurately describe PvE (which they do), then being maneuverable isn't much of an advantage there, which again begs the question of what you think escorts are actually supposed to do in your "Dominion Wars" style game.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this was a desperate and willful attempt to try to score rhetorical points, and not an honest expression of your (in)ability to follow what I'm saying. To clarify - I'm saying the game you want - the one in your head (the one we can now say is based on Dominion Wars style battleship combat) is clearly NOT the game that Cryptic is making. That's not me saying I'm calling the shots, that's me saying "You want X, but this is clearly Y". Again, the fact that this game isn't what you want doesn't mean that what you want is "right" or "wrong", it just means this isn't it, and you've got a long, long way to go before you can prove making your changes are either necessary or good for the game as a whole.
You seem to be (again) mistaking your personal belief about what the game should be like for a sign that the game is actually broken. Again, my point is that you are looking at an established set of game rules and arguing that those rules should be discarded because you would rather your own personal set of rules be used instead. It doesn't matter how much you feel like escorts should do less damage than heavier ships, or that heavier ships should be the focus of the game, or whatever else is stuck in your craw. You have to realize that not everyone shares your view, not everyone wants to play that version of the game, and unless you can come up with a more compelling reason why anyone should listen to you than your self-centered belief in your own unerring "rightness", you're going to be disappointed.
Yes. Carefully. Several times. This is why my argument is well crafted, anticipates your likely responses, and uses rhetoric in a thoughtful, (not hypothetical) way. I still make some typos and am not always as precise as I would like in my word choice, but I feel like generally speaking I do a better job elucidating my point than most. Now that we cleared that up, did you actually have an objection to my argument, or were you hoping that by sarcastically implying what I wrote was nonsense that it would magically become so?
Again, if the only evidence you have in your favor is you believe you're super-smart and have special insight into the game, pointing out that other people who have actually demonstrated said insight disagree with you isn't "mob rule" so much as it is "damning counter evidence".
Well, evidently you'd be the expert on lack of experience and an inflated ego, so I'll defer to your expertise on that matter.
Note that I never said I was objectively an expert - I said that I would clearly believe myself to be an expert, just like you would, and that in the face of our mutual inability to verify or test those claims of expertise, we would either be at an impasse, or else we would have to find some other way to evaluating our competing claims (such as examining what possible assumptions they might proceed from).
Yeah, silly me, pointing out that if your only evidence was your claim to special expertise, the fact that other, established experts disagreed with you might be a reason for you to moderate your claims and actually listen to what others were saying to test if your perceptions actually bore out. I'm sure you think you're some kind of persecuted Galileo figure, heroically attempting to bring enlightenment to us dogmatic followers of... whatever agenda you imagine. The fact is, it's far, far more likely that you are less Galileo, and more Gene Ray.
Enjoy another set of typed words. This was a diverting, though I'm sure ultimately futile exercise. I don't think I can make my argument any more clear, so I'll leave it at that. Feel free to respond, or don't - I harbor no illusions that anything productive could come out of further discourse.
I have never seen such a long winded self congratulating responses that could be summed up as "I know more then you","I don't like your ideas"," I don't like dominion wars, and its not ok because that isn't the status quo, and I would rather hit my spacebar as fast as I can to prove my intellectual superiority", "because the biggest mouth forum personalities agree with me, that means they're smart, thus I am right, and smart", "You don't know me, and that should be important to you, because something".,"Because the technologically more advanced star ships lost due to an indirect plot device, I am still going to claim that they would win under all circumstances"and on and on...
The rest is selective reading,memory, and cognitive understanding. You might not understand this, but I do not envy you. The amount of times you misinterpret what I have said, and then twisted it into every kind of absurd observations, to the times you attempted to act as the intellectual superior through hyperbole, and a small sample of people on this forum whom think their opinions are the best 100% the time (seem familiar?) . You are so sure that most if not all of my data is an opinion, despite not actually being able to prove the contrary. You should put away your Crystal ball and stick to your day job.
Which speaks for the quality of the experience more then it speaks for the people imo.
Now, it's 1:15 am so I'm extremely tired.
I'm giving this as a chance before I come back tomorrow (around 9 hours from now) for quite a few that are flaming and/or trolling to edit their posts and be discussing why pvp should or should not have a reputation system instead of attacking each other or else moderation WILL occur.
Former Community Moderator, Former SSR DJ, Now Full time father to two kids, Husband, Retail Worker.
Tiktok: @Askray Facebook: Askray113
No what you SAID was, it should be as easy to hit a fast moving escort as a slow moving scimitar. I never said a thing about outmaneuvering.
Nice attempt at side stepping to make me look like a fool. I can go back and quote you on all of it if I must to re freshen your memory.
Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!
http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
I don't think pvp should have its own reputation system simply because of the fact, that this would bring even greater disparity between veterans and newcomers. This is of course factoring in the current state of pvp, having no matchmaking of any kind, no leaderboard and thus no way of seperating vets from newcomers.
If anything mentioned above would exist, a pvp centric reputation system can be implemented, because newcomers will only play other newcomers at the beginning and abilities like, +damage against players, might be viable. Sadly the introduction of these abilities would make them a staple in pvp and thus reducing the choices that can be made. Still it would be nice to see such a reputation system give players a chance to earn non zen-store related rare items, such as weapons with [acc]x3 mods on them.
No, a pvp reputation system really wouldn't be such a great incentive to play pvp (and that's what it should be for). I'd rather give out other incentives, like a mixed mark package, so that you can supplement or even completetly forgo doing pve.
Surely not making rambo teams like it happens now. Anyway, how would it break PvP or make people quit? "Undine ships are bad, I will quit if they do" and they'restill here. Wouldn't change anything.
And of course new items doesn't mean they should give epic bonuses. Omega set is seriously thought for escorts, adapted MACO sci friendly and so on.
"Players should be forced to play PvP and lose" doesn't stand. You need to go through a learning curve. It's the same for any other game. How do you unlock weapons in BF4 if you don't play PvP? lol you can't.
A PvP specific reputation is something different than shooting pointless NPCs. It's not fun anymore to do ESTF, Undine space BZ, New Romulus PVE events, at least for me.
Not to worry, I am done, these people will clearly knit pick, twist information, and have selective memory at anyone who isn't of the same bullying mentality or rough up a couple of pugs whilst giggling on team speak, I have to realize I am dealing with the "pvp" crowd, which is why the pvp ques are as dry as a bone vs virtually everything else. Their are people who talk and then there are those whom Talk. No ground to be gained when someone just wants to be disagreeable.
Not having a commander tac or 6 weapon slot doesn't denote absence of similarity, even a turn rate of 15 the fastest T5 science vessel in the fleet Including the .2 impulse modifier, universal slots which allows for several tactical combinations. The 1.45 shield mod? This ship is a tank. All of the strengths of the science and none of the weaknesses with a escort slant in maneuvering. I wouldn't take such an issue with that if the game wasn't slanted toward pure dps or drain builds as a whole in pvp.
I never belittled the effectiveness of a drain build, my point is that this seems to be the only build that science players seem to aspire to creating when it comes to pvp as an optimal playing route.
Firstly, I wouldn't even say the Pvp ques are dominated (literal, not figurative), people trickle into them because they are often empty, and second setting up private matches in no way reflects your average public match. third Its not how many ships of a type you have its how you use them. 4th because you or someone else happens to be on a channel or organize matches in a certain way, doesn't mean you have privatized pvp and are the official census bureau of pvp. Taking the organizers of Pvp in this game seriously is like saying wheel barrow racing should be an Olympic sport. As this game reflects more quick & the dead dog fighting, rather then classic submarine tactics. Without speed in pvp, you lose.
edit: maybe a kind of ingame league with pvp, like the hilbert leaderboard thing
Impulse mod .17 vs .2 ?
I agree on both counts, I also think rewards should be spread out equally, instead of benefiting the people who have the most friends with lock box ships, lobi consoles, and fleet gear.
Possible to have been done for a second, maybe for the third, unlikely for the fourth, impossible for the fifth.
We can have 3 ore 2 lines of progression space and ground ore somatic different.:cool:
Make it so we can inv man to visit ours achievement
I'm not so sure about another reputation, but I would LOVE to get accolades or trophies to go on my wall and floor. Something fun like that would be an interesting goal to strive towards, and wouldn't be game breaking.
or missions with given ships/builds that focus and several snyergies of builds/powers in a group?
in short: institutionalized and coded boot-camp.
just a guess