ships with fixed loadouts coming from cryptic is a TERRIBLE idea...
It's been a while, so you might have to refresh my memory on why those examples are terrible. But it's something that can be fixed by having the relevant persons get - and apply - a clue or several.
it's also not a PROFITABLE idea with the way this game and it's audience are set up, so not only is it a bad idea from an end-user/player side, it's also a bad idea in terms of business case.
I suspect we might actually agree on the core problem: for worse, Cryptic has gotten into the habit of allowing players to buy power; and most players will avoid any PvP environment wherein that is possible.
ships with fixed loadouts coming from cryptic is a TERRIBLE idea...
It's been a while, so you might have to refresh my memory on why those examples are terrible. But it's something that can be fixed by having the relevant persons get - and apply - a clue or several.
it's also not a PROFITABLE idea with the way this game and it's audience are set up, so not only is it a bad idea from an end-user/player side, it's also a bad idea in terms of business case.
I suspect we might actually agree on the core problem: for worse, Cryptic has gotten into the habit of allowing players to buy power; and most players will avoid any PvP environment wherein that is possible.
Go play Step between the Stars... GO NOW!
At least I think that's the one where you get stuffed into a DSD... worst loadout ever! It needed the OP boff powers to work at all
The one problem I see with it is that it would be dependent on people's willingness to PvP, meaning at least 2 teams, one from each faction, in order to progress. And unlike the PvE reps, would basically be locked behind a wall that is built by players, IE gear and skill. As it stands, PvP is unbalanced and unfavorable for the majority of players because of a number of factors.
General lack of interest
Previously mentioned imbalance
average player getting nuked by the hardcore player before they can even react
In theory it MIGHT generate some interest, but the bottom line is that it would be like Call of Duty, with no way to actually match players against others of equivalent skill and gear, so we would have PvP Rookies going up against Veterans. And there are builds out there capable of nuking everything short of a Zombie Cruiser in a single pass.
Until they can address the inherent issues with PvP as it stands, I don't see a rep track as viable.
I hear ya, I suggest the PVP Q's be set up in way where you basically worked your way up through the ranks. Rank could be based on number of kills, as you reach a certain rank you cannot play against lower ranked players.
It would be a blood bath at 1st of course but once players get a certain number of wins/kills they would be matched up against similar ranked players. If you are a noob, or just not a good pvp player then you would always be in the lower ranks and playing against lower ranked players equal to your skill level.. Just a thought..
Check out the LOTRO PVMP system (Monster Play). Some people shed their good side equipment, etc. and take the role of the minions of Sauron. The people that continue to play as the Free Peoples, get equipment with different stats on them that are only relevant in the PVP zone (Ettenmoors).
There are Commendations, Rank, Renoun/Infamy, equipment, traits, skills, and audacity that you earn and purchase just for that Zone. All Characters are scaled up to max level when entering the Zone.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I could say the same for PvE @repetitiveepic, after 12 seasons and 3 expansions it's still the same old boring sponge shooting fest that it's always been. With the exception of season 8 sphere where the Voth's science voodoo required a little more thought and tactics before they were nerfed (I guess DPS builds like sci spam builds as much as FAWtards).
that's not what it says, Huijian. Competitive PvE.
"a new reputation that features class specific space and ground sets, and the Player Potential system which match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill."
Quite frankly I find this potential system rather bold from cryptic and I don’t even mean the reasoning AI behind it… just take a look at the general participation. I abandoned all hopes to be in a fitting team two years ago. Nowadays I’m already happy to get a team together to get the respective queue to pop at all. With 6 players willing to PvE and 2 to PvP the system could lack a bit the pool to choose from for the new maps.
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
How is he misreading something that plainly says PvP?
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
I suspect we'll know about on...release day. the concerning bit, is that it doesn't seem likely they'd be able to apply different weights and values based on activity type without using some kind of BV system. (and those are extremely maintenance intensive. Geko wasn't lying about that.)
it kind of raises the question of what criteria are going to be used for this-my own bet is that it'll work either for PvE, or PvP, but not particularly well for both. reason being the two modes are different on a fundamental level-one is timed shooting at static targets, the other is head-to-head combat with other players whom are NOT flying a pre-scripted path that the PvE'er has done a thousand times and memorized.
Oh I agree, and it would depend on how much they suspect the console crowd that enjoys pvp much more than pve is going to stay around. If they view that the console crowd is going to stay around a,d the demand for pvp from that side is large enough, than I can see them investing the time an manpower to develop it, but in the end even that is hard to determine. The fact that pvp has been pretty much on the back back burner for so long, and is now getting more attention could mean they are seeing putting some investment into pvp is good for business with the added demand of the console side.
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
I suspect we'll know about on...release day. the concerning bit, is that it doesn't seem likely they'd be able to apply different weights and values based on activity type without using some kind of BV system. (and those are extremely maintenance intensive. Geko wasn't lying about that.)
it kind of raises the question of what criteria are going to be used for this-my own bet is that it'll work either for PvE, or PvP, but not particularly well for both. reason being the two modes are different on a fundamental level-one is timed shooting at static targets, the other is head-to-head combat with other players whom are NOT flying a pre-scripted path that the PvE'er has done a thousand times and memorized.
Oh I agree, and it would depend on how much they suspect the console crowd that enjoys pvp much more than pve is going to stay around. If they view that the console crowd is going to stay around a,d the demand for pvp from that side is large enough, than I can see them investing the time an manpower to develop it, but in the end even that is hard to determine. The fact that pvp has been pretty much on the back back burner for so long, and is now getting more attention could mean they are seeing putting some investment into pvp is good for business with the added demand of the console side.
well, I suspect the executives who cut the cheques are forcing that because they see a Console market out there and the feedback hasn't been 100% positive FROM that market.
but cryptic hasn't had a PVP "Expert" since Branflakes left, much less a PvP'er as a dev since Gozer left.
(by "Expert" I mean someone willing to lower themselves to playing it, and pollute their minds with understanding it)
so there's a huge experience-gap and understanding-gap on the studio's side of things. Makes me think this 'matching' system might be a little...rough? riddled with problems?? the best case, I suspect, is a matching system that prevents unintentional AFK penalties in PvE by not lining up newbies with 40 hour a week grinders.
which is still going to be a massive improvement for some folks in PvE land.
but for PvP, I jsut don't see the pattern shifting that much-the majority of the devs look down on PvP players, t he Lead dev despises them-that doesn't lead to well designed systems when addressing the activity.
Very true, though there is also the fact that if even with a sub-par matchmaking system in place, which might be created by devs that are not as well versed in pvp as a more pvp-focused dev can bring in/retain a large population of the pvp-minded crowd of console gamers. Than I could see them putting the money in to hire a more knowledgeable pvp dev, which could lead into more pvp minded changes down the road.
I would prefer seeing them take it slow an build up things, than try jumping into the deep end with absolutely no idea of what is in that end. This at least shows there could have been a shift in mindset from previous periods in the past, even if that change was forced by the fact of either losing a huge swath of players/money an the console release being seen as completely wasted dev time an money that is going to set them back a lot of time an effort.
"a new reputation that features class specific space and ground sets, and the Player Potential system which match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill."
"I give a treat to every dog and every cat"
"therefore, dogs are cats"
You're not making any sense here. I feel like you're making a false comparison. I know what you're trying to say, I just don't see where it actually applies here.
"The War Game system will also have a new reputation tied to it, including, for the first time ever, class specific-ship and captain gear. "
Where is this quoted from? Because it doesn't say this at all in the Season 13 announcement blog.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
This game was sold early on to have PVP. I am glad they devoting some resources finally back into it. If you dont like pvp just wait for next expansion.
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
I suspect we'll know about on...release day. the concerning bit, is that it doesn't seem likely they'd be able to apply different weights and values based on activity type without using some kind of BV system. (and those are extremely maintenance intensive. Geko wasn't lying about that.)
it kind of raises the question of what criteria are going to be used for this-my own bet is that it'll work either for PvE, or PvP, but not particularly well for both. reason being the two modes are different on a fundamental level-one is timed shooting at static targets, the other is head-to-head combat with other players whom are NOT flying a pre-scripted path that the PvE'er has done a thousand times and memorized.
with the Lead Dev stating it's not on t he options menu, it's going to be outright fascinating to see what they do come up with.
They can't even come up with a fair or even consistent system to measure participation in BattleZones. I don't have much faith in the new Player Potential System.
"a new reputation that features class specific space and ground sets, and the Player Potential system which match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill."
"I give a treat to every dog and every cat"
"therefore, dogs are cats"
You're not making any sense here. I feel like you're making a false comparison. I know what you're trying to say, I just don't see where it actually applies here.
"The War Game system will also have a new reputation tied to it, including, for the first time ever, class specific-ship and captain gear. "
Where is this quoted from? Because it doesn't say this at all in the Season 13 announcement blog.
startrek.com
But it does on the startrek.com website, as @repetitiveepic has kindly pointed out.
Now, all of that aside, it doesn't mean that there isn't any actual PvP involved with this update, as PvP is mentioned alongside the War Games competitive PvE.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
I suspect we'll know about on...release day. the concerning bit, is that it doesn't seem likely they'd be able to apply different weights and values based on activity type without using some kind of BV system. (and those are extremely maintenance intensive. Geko wasn't lying about that.)
it kind of raises the question of what criteria are going to be used for this-my own bet is that it'll work either for PvE, or PvP, but not particularly well for both. reason being the two modes are different on a fundamental level-one is timed shooting at static targets, the other is head-to-head combat with other players whom are NOT flying a pre-scripted path that the PvE'er has done a thousand times and memorized.
Question...what's BV stand for in this context?
Battle Value, a system in common use in tabletop wargaming to provide an objective comparison of non-identical forces based mostly on the gear, listed abilities, and levels of the units in question.
What most Battle Values don't attempt to deal with, are:
1: subjective conditions like the individual skill of the player
2: Terrain and other subjective conditions.
It doesn't generally address those because they're subjective conditions.
the intent of a BV based matchmaking system, is to set up the scenario where either force h as, within a 10% margin, an equal chance of success.
that 10-20% margin being 'up in the air' and the result of dumb luck, smart play, tactics-those things you can't put number values on.
Geko actually stated it was too much work in the P1 interview this year. (January) But, so far as I know, it's the most common method of actually making balanced matchmaking that could be applied effectively (or with rough effectiveness) in both PvE, and PvP, since it's an algorithm that can be automated once values for the myriad powers and multipliers are assigned.
but...
it does require maintenance, and it doesn't account for the actual skill or luck of the player *(such things as knowing WHEN to activate an ability, for example, for best advantage, or voice-comms that multiply your effectiveness in a team environment to real-life teamwork) nor is it likely to account for anything that Cryptic doesn't have control over (lag issues, disconnects, and Server Not Responding problems.)
with the Lead Dev stating it's not on t he options menu, it's going to be outright fascinating to see what they do come up with.
I don't usually like clinging to semantics, but the blog specifically says the system will "match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill," so I wouldn't be quick to assume the exact opposite.
It could well be some kind of score counter (kills/deaths, wins/losses, whatever). That would be simpler to implement, zero maintenance, account for basically everything that affects player performance and allow for easy separation between domains like PvP vs CPvE without doubling the workload.
Yeah it is saying that the system is used for both a war game set of ques that are competitive pve content, and then also for pvp que as well. So both sides are right there is both a competitive pve set of ques in the form of the war games, and also the pvp ques which might be new ones added or just the old pvp ones that had been redesigned. Now whether that reputation is going to be an actual pvp rep, or not is a better question since i do not see where it says that explicitly the new rep is a pvp reputation.
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
I suspect we'll know about on...release day. the concerning bit, is that it doesn't seem likely they'd be able to apply different weights and values based on activity type without using some kind of BV system. (and those are extremely maintenance intensive. Geko wasn't lying about that.)
it kind of raises the question of what criteria are going to be used for this-my own bet is that it'll work either for PvE, or PvP, but not particularly well for both. reason being the two modes are different on a fundamental level-one is timed shooting at static targets, the other is head-to-head combat with other players whom are NOT flying a pre-scripted path that the PvE'er has done a thousand times and memorized.
Question...what's BV stand for in this context?
Battle Value, a system in common use in tabletop wargaming to provide an objective comparison of non-identical forces based mostly on the gear, listed abilities, and levels of the units in question.
What most Battle Values don't attempt to deal with, are:
1: subjective conditions like the individual skill of the player
2: Terrain and other subjective conditions.
It doesn't generally address those because they're subjective conditions.
the intent of a BV based matchmaking system, is to set up the scenario where either force h as, within a 10% margin, an equal chance of success.
that 10-20% margin being 'up in the air' and the result of dumb luck, smart play, tactics-those things you can't put number values on.
Geko actually stated it was too much work in the P1 interview this year. (January) But, so far as I know, it's the most common method of actually making balanced matchmaking that could be applied effectively (or with rough effectiveness) in both PvE, and PvP, since it's an algorithm that can be automated once values for the myriad powers and multipliers are assigned.
but...
it does require maintenance, and it doesn't account for the actual skill or luck of the player *(such things as knowing WHEN to activate an ability, for example, for best advantage, or voice-comms that multiply your effectiveness in a team environment to real-life teamwork) nor is it likely to account for anything that Cryptic doesn't have control over (lag issues, disconnects, and Server Not Responding problems.)
with the Lead Dev stating it's not on t he options menu, it's going to be outright fascinating to see what they do come up with.
I don't usually like clinging to semantics, but the blog specifically says the system will "match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill," so I wouldn't be quick to assume the exact opposite.
It could well be some kind of score counter (kills/deaths, wins/losses, whatever). That would be simpler to implement, zero maintenance, account for basically everything that affects player performance and allow for easy separation between domains like PvP vs CPvE without doubling the workload.
problem is, such a system is really, really really easy to cheat...
want to get into the really high-end but you're a wuss? get a few friends to throw a string of PvP matches-suddenly your 'score' is through the roof.
And then you try to play a real game, get matched against people who are actually high-end, and lose every time. The point of the system is not to have a high score but to match players of similar performance range. There's no reason to even show the score to the players at all.
Also, your friends would get their scores lowered and no properly designed system would continue to give points for beating up massively inferior opponents.
Measuring actual player skill is also something really hard to actually do=at least, without running a keylogger in the background linked to a really clever analysis program. (not sure how comfortable people might be with having their computer security suborned to that extent...)
No, it really doesn't. I can't see such overelaborate setup actually accomplishing anything of value. Certainly not more than simply noting players' success or failure in the game itself. Like people have been ranked in their skills in various athletic and other activities throughout time.
finally, Kill/deaths listings are also impacted by scenario conditions, unit types, equipment on those units, and how well the team is working together. Example: a Bird of Prey is more likely to die than a Dreadnought Cruiser in a Mob/swarm scenario (think: CCA after t he entity bites it), does this make the BoP driver more or less skilled than a Newbie in an Enterprise J?
If the mission is to kill the enemy and avoid dying (as in Arena), yes that makes the BoP driver less skilled. Appropriate scoring parameters to be applied to match mission objectives.
Like I said, it'll be fascinating to see what they've come up with, and whether it actually works.
Well the player potential system sounds quite interesting, and sounds quite a bit like a Battle-value system. It will be interesting to see how it turns out, though it does also sound like they are going to be committing some resources (both time, and money) to the system to keep it functioning effectively. Also the fact that this system will be used for both sides of the population from pve competitive ques, and also pvp ques could mean that even with a drop in the pvp side the system woud be maintained for the pve side, though if this system has any effect on the pve ques (non-competitive ones I mean like those from before the upcoming expansion) is something that would be nice to know.
In a game where you get skills, gear, consoles, trats, weps and ships every few months PvP is doomed. Nobody is gonna bother to balance it. Hell it's impossible to balance it. What we gonna have are teams full auto-firing afkers who will keep loosing their rating on purpose so they can steamroll through newbies in next round. It's gonna be APB:R in space. I may be too pessimistic but this is gonna be the biggest flop since DR.
Even if such ppl won't be too common we still have an issue of balancing tons and tons of gear and ships and other stuff. Well as you said we'll have to see.
Even if such ppl won't be too common we still have an issue of balancing tons and tons of gear and ships and other stuff. Well as you said we'll have to see.
difficulty IS acknowledged here. it's kind of like looking at balance pass attempts-because cryptic went for seven years without doing it, the job is titanic now-which makes what they're doing for Season 13 impressive in that they're willing to take that level of risk, even if it doesn't pan out 100%.
people WILL likely be looking for routes to cheat or troll the system-that's in the nature of gamers, and of online games. (before that it was in the nature of pen&paper type miniatures wargaming, tabletop RPG's, and so on).
I never expected Cryptic to be willing to take that risk. their prior behaviours didn't indicate any such...direction.
The fact that they have acknowledged it doesnt mean they can do something about it. A balance patch is not going to be enough. It's gonna take years to properly balance what we have atm and considering how often we get new stuff they simply gonna drown in balancing process...or they will drop the ball on it as soon and new season is released like they always do. So in my opinion Cryptic is not up to the task and this is the risk they shouldn't take.
Comments
Like First contact day minigame for some strange reward?
KDF: 2 tacs, 2 engs, 3 scis
KDF Roms: 3 tacs, 1 eng, 1 scis
FED: 2 tacs, 1 eng, 2 scis
TOS: 1 tac
all on T5 rep (up to temporal)
all have mastered Intel tree (and some more specs Points)
highest DPS: 60.982
I suspect we might actually agree on the core problem: for worse, Cryptic has gotten into the habit of allowing players to buy power; and most players will avoid any PvP environment wherein that is possible.
At least I think that's the one where you get stuffed into a DSD... worst loadout ever! It needed the OP boff powers to work at all
My character Tsin'xing
I hear ya, I suggest the PVP Q's be set up in way where you basically worked your way up through the ranks. Rank could be based on number of kills, as you reach a certain rank you cannot play against lower ranked players.
It would be a blood bath at 1st of course but once players get a certain number of wins/kills they would be matched up against similar ranked players. If you are a noob, or just not a good pvp player then you would always be in the lower ranks and playing against lower ranked players equal to your skill level.. Just a thought..
There are Commendations, Rank, Renoun/Infamy, equipment, traits, skills, and audacity that you earn and purchase just for that Zone. All Characters are scaled up to max level when entering the Zone.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10451743-season-13:-escalation-coming-april-25th
This can only have one explanation.... I CAN SEE THE FUTURE!!!!
Enough Biff!, give me back the Almanac!
"a new reputation that features class specific space and ground sets, and the Player Potential system which match players in War Games and PvP queues based on relative player skill."
bruh.... read much?
stay tuned for next weeks powerball numbers
Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
I am hoping that the matchmaking system uses different values, and parameters for determining how to match players based on if the map qued for is pve or pvp.
Oh I agree, and it would depend on how much they suspect the console crowd that enjoys pvp much more than pve is going to stay around. If they view that the console crowd is going to stay around a,d the demand for pvp from that side is large enough, than I can see them investing the time an manpower to develop it, but in the end even that is hard to determine. The fact that pvp has been pretty much on the back back burner for so long, and is now getting more attention could mean they are seeing putting some investment into pvp is good for business with the added demand of the console side.
Very true, though there is also the fact that if even with a sub-par matchmaking system in place, which might be created by devs that are not as well versed in pvp as a more pvp-focused dev can bring in/retain a large population of the pvp-minded crowd of console gamers. Than I could see them putting the money in to hire a more knowledgeable pvp dev, which could lead into more pvp minded changes down the road.
I would prefer seeing them take it slow an build up things, than try jumping into the deep end with absolutely no idea of what is in that end. This at least shows there could have been a shift in mindset from previous periods in the past, even if that change was forced by the fact of either losing a huge swath of players/money an the console release being seen as completely wasted dev time an money that is going to set them back a lot of time an effort.
You're not making any sense here. I feel like you're making a false comparison. I know what you're trying to say, I just don't see where it actually applies here.
Where is this quoted from? Because it doesn't say this at all in the Season 13 announcement blog.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
It is right from the announcement news for the new expansion, but is listed at the very top in the first paragraph, before all of the listed features.
http://www.arcgames.com/en/games/star-trek-online/news/detail/10451743-season-13:-escalation-coming-april-25th
Question...what's BV stand for in this context?
Ummm, no. It does not say this at all in the dev blog.
But it does on the startrek.com website, as @repetitiveepic has kindly pointed out.
Now, all of that aside, it doesn't mean that there isn't any actual PvP involved with this update, as PvP is mentioned alongside the War Games competitive PvE.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
It could well be some kind of score counter (kills/deaths, wins/losses, whatever). That would be simpler to implement, zero maintenance, account for basically everything that affects player performance and allow for easy separation between domains like PvP vs CPvE without doubling the workload.
Also, your friends would get their scores lowered and no properly designed system would continue to give points for beating up massively inferior opponents.
No, it really doesn't. I can't see such overelaborate setup actually accomplishing anything of value. Certainly not more than simply noting players' success or failure in the game itself. Like people have been ranked in their skills in various athletic and other activities throughout time.
If the mission is to kill the enemy and avoid dying (as in Arena), yes that makes the BoP driver less skilled. Appropriate scoring parameters to be applied to match mission objectives.
Likewise.
LOL for all of those who said NAY....It is HERE now
The fact that they have acknowledged it doesnt mean they can do something about it. A balance patch is not going to be enough. It's gonna take years to properly balance what we have atm and considering how often we get new stuff they simply gonna drown in balancing process...or they will drop the ball on it as soon and new season is released like they always do. So in my opinion Cryptic is not up to the task and this is the risk they shouldn't take.