test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Humorous take on real life PVP

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2010 in PvP Gameplay
When gamers go to war...

"Sir, the enemy is using the roadside bomb exploit!"
"The Army is too OP, they need to be nerfed!!"
"NATO has been called in to the enemies side because they feel that the war needs to be balanced"
"ZOMG!! That sniper shot me through the wall!! This is not working as intended, NERF THEM!!"
"The developers of the War on Terror are idiots! That's it! I am canceling my sub to the war!!"

What I half expect to hear with new recruits

"Where do the enemies spawn so we can camp them"
"Can I get power leveled to general?"
"I just tea-bagged the enemy, why am I getting court marshaled?"


I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?

Discuss, respectfully.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I guess the simple answer is that real wars are not meant to be fun; while games are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Manx wrote: »
    I guess the simple answer is that real wars are not meant to be fun; while games are.

    I do not like even battles. I like challenges. Two teams, perfectly even, will be 50/50, almost every time. What fun is that? I want to have to fight and work for my victories, not have someone dictate what "fair" is. RL is not fair, war is not fair.

    I have been in wars...no, they are not fun, but you learn a lot about life from them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I do not like even battles. I like challenges. Two teams, perfectly even, will be 50/50, almost every time. What fun is that? I want to have to fight and work for my victories, not have someone dictate what "fair" is. RL is not fair, war is not fair.

    I have been in wars...no, they are not fun, but you learn a lot about life from them.

    mirror matches, in a nutshell, show that the better player will win 90% of the time, because once all the variables have been flattened out only skill matters. That is my ideal PvP, the better player/team winning without having to resort to gimmicks, bugged/op skills, etc.

    "and I heard there are no respawns in RL... what if I get lag?"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I do not like even battles. I like challenges. Two teams, perfectly even, will be 50/50, almost every time. What fun is that? I want to have to fight and work for my victories, not have someone dictate what "fair" is. RL is not fair, war is not fair.

    I have been in wars...no, they are not fun, but you learn a lot about life from them.

    But that is the challenge; overcoming other players without exploiting any ludicrously unfair advantages.

    Besides, if proper balance is ever achieved it can only make things more interesting; as a greater variety of different approaches to the game will be equally valid.

    Having said that, I doubt that 'proper balance' can ever really be achieved in any game; but the closer we can get to it, the better.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Manx wrote: »
    But that is the challenge; overcoming other players without exploiting any ludicrously unfair advantages.

    Besides, if proper balance is ever achieved it can only make things more interesting; as a greater variety of different approaches to the game will be equally valid.

    Having said that, I doubt that 'proper balance' can ever really be achieved in any game; but the closer we can get to it, the better.

    guild wars would like to say hi (it's kind of drifted away in the past year though)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    You dont see much skill in pvp nowadays. Maybe in CaH but cracked planetoid its horrible thanks to queues. Klingon team just rushes to fed spawn location and annihilaties anyone entering, thus spliting the feds and giving them no chance to fight back.

    The most sad thing about it is, that many klingons know how it work and dont look for challenge, just grief the feds. Only occassionaly i have seen klingons really waiting up for whole fed team before start and telling that in zone chat and i truly respect those players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Manx wrote: »
    But that is the challenge; overcoming other players without exploiting any ludicrously unfair advantages.

    Besides, if proper balance is ever achieved it can only make things more interesting; as a greater variety of different approaches to the game will be equally valid.

    Having said that, I doubt that 'proper balance' can ever really be achieved in any game; but the closer we can get to it, the better.

    Follow simple naturallaws in your modeling and it balances it out fr you...why? because everything has a cost(not financial, but energy, waste, heat, wear and tear, etc) and as long as no side as a "economic/resource" or tech advanatge over the other, you cant build out the checks and balances imposed by nature.

    Once you start making things almsot "magically" you lose sight of balance because you ineviatbly fixate on the advanatage/bonus...frequently forgetting to consider its costs. Thats why so many of STO skills are just all boost, no trade off.

    It creates run away uber, because it was designd with the foresight of a 7 year old. If you let them, a kid will eat nothing but cookies all day, every day....with experience, insight, wisdom and maturity does one(generally older) impose the proper balances in a child's diet. Because unchecked, you'll eventually have to nerf their fat asses!

    No honestly, Im not trying to necessarily say the devs or the community are immature...what Im saying is that both are being led or playing into the less critical, less thoughtful side of us, basically appealing to a more primal and short-sighted drive in us all. But just like cookies are always great in the now...you have to be able to sustain smething worthwhile with something much more substantial or you evetually seed your own demise from the inside.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I have been in wars...no, they are not fun, but you learn a lot about life from them.


    You learn alot more about life from going on a Walkabout.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Follow simple naturallaws in your modeling and it balances it out fr you...why? because everything has a cost(not financial, but energy, waste, heat, wear and tear, etc) and as long as no side as a "economic/resource" or tech advanatge over the other, you cant build out the checks and balances imposed by nature.

    Once you start making things almsot "magically" you lose sight of balance because you ineviatbly fixate on the advanatage/bonus...frequently forgetting to consider its costs. Thats why so many of STO skills are just all boost, no trade off.

    It creates run away uber, because it was designd with the foresight of a 7 year old. If you let them, a kid will eat nothing but cookies all day, every day....with experience, insight, wisdom and maturity does one(generally older) impose the proper balances in a child's diet. Because unchecked, you'll eventually have to nerf their fat asses!

    No honestly, Im not trying to necessarily say the devs or the community are immature...what Im saying is that both are being led or playing into the less critical, less thoughtful side of us, basically appealing to a more primal and short-sighted drive in us all. But just like cookies are always great in the now...you have to be able to sustain smething worthwhile with something much more substantial or you evetually seed your own demise from the inside.

    If you are saying that every advantage needs an equally large disadvantage, then I suppose I agree. If you aren't, then... I really have no idea what you are trying to say :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?
    As military personnel, you should already know the answer:

    It depends on the game.

    EDIT: More accurately, it depends on the rules of the game.

    War games, as exercised by most militaries, are meant to be accurate simulations of real-world warfare, both symmetric ('balanced') and asymmetric, conventional and unconventional.

    Most consumer (public) games are not meant to be as accurate or realistic as war games because of the consumer demographics. Most paying customers (who are paying for entertainment, rather than life-or-death) would rather have a taste of simulated war while still being rewarded for participating. Whereas in real, the consequences for losing are far harsher.

    So your question should really be, what is PVP in Star Trek Online meant to be: a war game simulator, or something else?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »


    "I just tea-bagged the enemy, why am I getting court marshaled?"


    I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?

    Discuss, respectfully.

    i lolled IRL

    but as many others have stated games are for the purpose entertainment and some level of immersion

    wars although immersive are not fun. and i really dont think there is any more to say about that, so allow me to be so arrogant as to do this

    [/discussion]
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?

    Because games are meant to be fun for all players, not just the ones who have all the advantages. :rolleyes:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    And...RL sucks, which is exactly why we play other games.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    LordTareq wrote: »
    You learn alot more about life from going on a Walkabout.

    You can wander all you like, but only when faced with your own mortality and have to make a choice between self-preservation and the preservation of another life, will you ever find out who you really are.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I agree with you, RL is not always fair, we play games to escape real life, but I still agree, games shouldn't be easy. Even though it is sometimes long and boring or hard, I'd rather have a tough time and beat it than the easy way out.
    Unfortunately, our society is becoming too fair...everyone gets a trophy,, gee isn't that nice...our team sucked, we didn't care we still got a trophy, teaching us life is fair and the whole world should cater to my needs....sigh...
    End rant.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    You can wander all you like, but only when faced with your own mortality and have to make a choice between self-preservation and the preservation of another life, will you ever find out who you really are.
    It sounds like you want consequences for actions/decisions, which is a separate but related issue.

    If/when we have death penalties for PVP, then balance becomes a larger concern. And again, the reason why balance becomes a concern in this game is that both sides pay equally for entertainment, so both sides' customers expect an equal potential or chance to succeed.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Rothnang wrote:
    Because games are meant to be fun for all players, not just the ones who have all the advantages. :rolleyes:

    Anyone who knows me will tell you that I do not look for the most OP combo in the game. I started with a BoP because I was in love with them from the shows and movies. I quickly tired of this because I do feel that they have distinct advantage, when in the right hands and with the right loadout. However, they became the norm, so I switched to Cruiser.

    Everyone was crying that Beams were worthless, and that Battle Cloak was OP. So I made a beam boat cruiser. I have been fairly successful. Not as much DPS as I was getting in a BoP, but that was an easy trade for sheer hull...which is still less than a fed Cruiser.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »

    I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?

    Discuss, respectfully.

    Personally, I don’t like balance. When everyone is the same its boring. I much rather play when a class is OP and ( here’s the trick) they have a counter class. That is, if there are 4 classes in a game, you are OP to 2 of them and prey to the other.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It sounds like you want consequences for actions/decisions, which is a separate but related issue.

    If/when we have death penalties for PVP, then balance becomes a larger concern. And again, the reason why balance becomes a concern in this game is that both sides pay equally for entertainment, so both sides' customers expect an equal potential or chance to succeed.

    I disagree. The only things that I feel that should be changed are the no-skill skills. The biggest I can think of is SNB and VM spamming.

    I wouldn't care if they were a once per battle thing, but getting nailed with them 3 times in a row because the other side has 3 science guys, is just ridiculous. I used my 2 sci teams to counter the first 2 vm's, but got hit with a 3rd snb and vm right after that. Nobody can tank that long. All I ask for is a 3 min immunity following getting nailed with them. Spread the love around a bit.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Also, I think many gamers lack any provided definition of 'balance'.

    What does 'balance' mean to the developers of a game? What does 'balance' mean to the developers of -this- game?

    From observation, I would posit that 'game balance' generally means 'equal potential for success'. I would also suggest that 'equal potential' does not mean 'equal means', nor does it necessarily mean a simple relationship between measures and counter-measures. It does mean access to different advantages, and different abilities to exploit different weaknesses.

    Using this definition of balance, I would point to the previous answers to the question of why a game like this needs balance when real life does not:

    -consequences/penalties are far different between real life and this game

    -this game is marketed to a certain demographic of customers paying for entertainment; not having an equal chance of success is not entertaining to the majority of this game's customers (although it is still entertaining to some of us)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Games should only be imbalanced if it's intended, like a handicap. If you're not trying to take a handicap then you don't want one through some accident of game design.

    That said,
    a) "mirror games" are a lazy design solution to the balance problem
    b) a lot of people are quick to leap on the "unbalanced!" claim long before all options have been tried.


    Sometimes, things in a game truly are unbalanced. This can be especially visible in an RTS, where some build order gets developed that is simply "the best" as in it literally cannot be beaten with anything other than that same build order. (Or it can be beaten but only if the player using a different build order is an order of magnitude more skilled than the player using the "overpowered" build order.)

    In cases like that, you simply have to fix the balance issue.


    The time to QQ is after you have tried all possibilities, discussed it with other people and come to the indisputable conclusion that some design element is overpowered.

    e.g., Viral Matrix was definitely overpowered. It was getting to the point that everyone had multiple copies of it because it was just so much better than any other ability that could take the same position. It had to be nerfed. After the nerf it's still really good but it's not quite the doom-ball it used to be.

    Similarly, the split beam rifle was overpowered in ground combat in the sense that the weapon's stats were so good, no other weapon really made sense to carry. So the devs reduced the stats on it and buffed the stats on some other weapons and now the choice is a lot more interesting (on the test server).


    The problem of QQ vs Sun Tzu is when someone cries to the devs too soon, without having considered and seriously tried other solutions.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Slamz wrote:
    Games should only be imbalanced if it's intended, like a handicap. If you're not trying to take a handicap then you don't want one through some accident of game design.

    The problem of QQ vs Sun Tzu is when someone cries to the devs too soon, without having considered and seriously tried other solutions.

    I hear what you all are saying, and I do agree with you. Matt and Slamz are two of my favorite posters because of the well thought out and unique aspects that both of them contribute. Both speak from a wide base of experience and neither take things personally.

    There will always be a combo that is better than the average bear and when it gets discovered, people will either flock to it, or build to counter it. That is the same with any MMO. One side will always have numbers on the other, and one side will attract more hardcore pvpers than the other. Generally, the Naughty side will be full of the PVPers, and the Sparkly Pony side will get the numbers. Another factor is that the Naughty side does more damage and the sparkly side gets the defenses. This has been a game design theme for quite a while...and it is really annoying.

    I have always been against consensual pvp. I have always like the grief factor. I like the danger and excitement level from knowing that you CAN die at any moment, and that you are never safe. Some day, I hope to have enough money to have the game of my dreams created...so i can play it. Until then, I have to deal with the carebears of the world and play what I can.

    I am rambling...

    What I am saying is that one side will have advantages the other side doesn't, and vice versa. You see the advantages from the other side of the fence, and a poor gamer will cry nerf. The skilled player will see them for what they are and learn to adapt.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It boils down to a society that values the individuals ego and feelings . Devs use this as a means to exploit for profit the concept of fair and balnced . So long as everyone tastes victory , in whatever manner , their ego's are satisfied enough to continue paying and playing . An MMO that doesn't offer this potential is really a non-viable entity, at least as a profit generator. Hence no serious death penalty , leveling systems , ease of content progression . Failure and frustration are not good for business. They make for good life lessons , but people want an escape so they come to games to feeling good about themselves.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    I

    I have always been against consensual pvp. I have always like the grief factor. I like the danger and excitement level from knowing that you CAN die at any moment, and that you are never safe. Some day, I hope to have enough money to have the game of my dreams created...so i can play it. Until then, I have to deal with the carebears of the world and play what I can.

    .

    You should have tried the Vanguard pvp server then . The only bad thing about it was a teleportation hack that allowed people to transport around the world.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Lunatec, thanks for your service to our country (I mean that very sincerely).

    Weren't you on the "overpowered side" if you fought for our country? I don't think your metaphor works at all.

    Balance is CRITICAL in a game (not real life). The entire point in a game is sport. Sport is founded on the idea that personal skill and teamwork are the deciding factors for victory.

    You wouldnt put 5 guys against 3 in basketball, or field 14 players on the football field against a standard team...

    The queue system in this game needs attention. Balancing the number of players would go a long way towards making the game more fun.

    There should be a consequence for leaving a match before its over.

    As far as cloak - its fine EXCEPT for the fact that it is infinite. I would like to see a limitation to cloak that removes the wait time for the fighting to start. Feds need to have a legitimate chance of finding klingon ships, or they will continue to sit around and wait for the klings to attack. It's nearly impossible given the current abilities to find a cloaked ship when they can anywhere in the entire arena and your sensor scan reveals less than 1% of the battlefield. Current cloak revealing abilities are only good for responding to battle cloak. A little bit of cloaked cat and mouse could be a fun change to the game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I have never known how to respond people thanking me for my service...but I guess I will say you're welcome.

    As for balance, sure, it should be something to strive for, but never to be expected.

    As for the cloak thing, I ain't touching that subject in this thread.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    lunatec wrote: »
    When gamers go to war...

    "Sir, the enemy is using the roadside bomb exploit!"
    "The Army is too OP, they need to be nerfed!!"
    "NATO has been called in to the enemies side because they feel that the war needs to be balanced"
    "ZOMG!! That sniper shot me through the wall!! This is not working as intended, NERF THEM!!"
    "The developers of the War on Terror are idiots! That's it! I am canceling my sub to the war!!"

    What I half expect to hear with new recruits

    "Where do the enemies spawn so we can camp them"
    "Can I get power leveled to general?"
    "I just tea-bagged the enemy, why am I getting court marshaled?"


    I guess what I am trying to say is this: Real life war doesn't have balance. Why should a game?

    Discuss, respectfully.

    RL does not have Magical Healing Spells, magical Fire balls, mesmerizing abilities, Stun Locks, Entangling Roots, Fears, HOTs and DOTs and all the Fantasy based unrealistic imaginary Powers and abilities.

    That is why.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Suraknar wrote: »
    RL does not have Magical Healing Spells, magical Fire balls, mesmerizing abilities, Stun Locks, Entangling Roots, Fears, HOTs and DOTs and all the Fantasy based unrealistic imaginary Powers and abilities.

    That is why.
    Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are also different forms of some techniques that produce similar results.

    (Giving a nod to PSYOPS, among other things.)

    Besides which, if real life did have some wildly powerful ability -- let's name one 'nuclear weapons' -- would there be some balance imposed by some greater external authority?

    Real world 'balance' comes from self-moderation, due to the fact that there are harsh consequences for actions in real.

    So the question still remains, should there be imposed balance in a game, where there are far fewer consequences? Again, it depends on the game, the rules of that game, and who the target audience (player base) is.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Manx wrote: »
    If you are saying that every advantage needs an equally large disadvantage, then I suppose I agree. If you aren't, then... I really have no idea what you are trying to say :o

    What did I say again?:confused: Yeah, thats what Im saying....was it that badly written?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    mirror matches, in a nutshell, show that the better player will win 90% of the time, because once all the variables have been flattened out only skill matters. That is my ideal PvP, the better player/team winning without having to resort to gimmicks, bugged/op skills, etc.

    "and I heard there are no respawns in RL... what if I get lag?"


    agreed 100%
Sign In or Register to comment.