test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Fixes for PvP - The Key Problems

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited March 2010 in PvP Gameplay
The key problems with PvP have nothing to do with the win/loss ratio. They have to do with the VARIETY of encounter types available to players. In short, there isn't any. Not currently, at least. This owes to several key game design problems--PvE mechanics that did not transfer well into PvP.

The wrong solution to the problem can make it far worse, so instead let's turn our eyes to the RIGHT solutions.
_____________________________

Problem 1: PvP encounters, by and large, go the same way every time. It feels like a "rinse/repeat," when the fight starts the same way, you see the same combination of abilities every time, and the ending is usually within a certain ballpark.

Problem 2: Same skills, every time. Same combos, every time. On BOTH sides.

_____________________________

PROBLEM 1: Lack of Variety

WHY IT'S A PROBLEM: When combat starts the same way everytime, and uses all the same combos every time, it leads it to be very dull. But even more than that, it's a symptom of a system that only has one or two "right answers"--which is why they happen so often. They work, and they work better than anything else.

CAUSES: There are two.

1) Combat starts the same way every time--the same group initiates action, deciding the terms of engagement. Consider chess as an example:

Chess is a game of strategy, and it is favored by a lot of pretty bright folks. White moves first, black reacts, and the game continues until one side wins (or a draw). Statistically speaking, when players are evenly matched, white wins more often than black. This is because white decides the terms of engagement, forcing black to REACT. Those games that end differently are because black is able to (after a series of turns) take the initiative from white, and is no longer stuck REACTING.

Currently, this game allows cloaked players to "move first." This means they get to determine how and when combat begins. And, smartly, they will only do so when it is best for themselves--no one can blame them for that. Unfortunately, this leads to the "white wins more" problem from chess.

2) Combat ends too quickly to permit variety.

This is compounded by the fact that combat is over too quickly for other strategies (which SHOULD be possible, but were accidentally overshadowed by poor design) to take initiative unless the other team is disorganized. With skill equal, the initiator is going to win before the reactor can turn the tide.

SOLUTIONS:

a) Share "initiative." Don't give both sides cloak--that just reduces variety even more. But alter cloak and detection so that there are more situations in which EITHER side can initiate combat--this alone will lead to more outcomes. Perhaps give more trade-offs to cloak, so that it isn't used quite as often (every fight).

b) Lengthen combat a bit. Don't slow the PACE of combat. Don't just add more HP to everything. But find ways for combat to last just a bit longer. This will allow some of the slower-boiling strategies a chance to see the light of day, instead of constantly playing in the "All Burst, All the Time" channel.

______________________

PROBLEM 2: Same skills in every fight, on both sides.

WHY IT'S A PROBLEM: For one, it makes things stale. But beyond that, it's a sign that other combinations of skills are being shoved out the door because of clear outliers.

CAUSES: There are two.

1) Stacking of multiple copies of abilities in a system that was clearly not designed to balance that. It's exactly why I stack Reverse Shield Polarity. Now I'm either super powered, or YOU have to focus all your energy (and your skill set) on countering that. I just limited variety for BOTH of us.

When you know your opponent will be stacking (or chaining, as many call it), you have to plan a build that can defeat the chain. Once again, it's about initiative--even going back to your SKILLS, the opponent gets to decide the rules of engagement, since each chain-combo really only has one dependable counter. Everyone's skill choice is, at least indirectly, controlled by the overpowered stacks.

2) Universal slots allowing for combinations not originally intended by the design of the game. Why were science ships given less overall DPS than escorts? They were given the best crowd-control abilities, with the idea being they could make up for the missing DPS by controlling the fight better. But when you can combine the best science abilities with the DPS of an escort.... well, now we get into an "all of the strengths, none of the weaknesses" scenario that causes problems. Combinations that should only be possible in TEAMS can be accomplished by solo players.

An escort's weakness is supposed to be lower defense. The idea is that a savvy player can dish out enough damage to outrun their own death. When you add higher-tier Science skills to the mix, that escort can deal all that damage without having to take any in return. It has the strengths of Escorts AND Science vessels... but now it has the weaknesses of NEITHER, since it can entirely avoid damage.

These overpowered combos can unfortunately lead to the ABILITIES being nerfed, rather than the ability to COMBINE them being adjusted. This only serves to punish the players who CAN'T get those combos, but were using some of the abilities.

SOLUTIONS:

a) All instances of an ability share the same cooldown, regardless of tier. It would be pointless to have TWO copies of the SAME level.... however, it can still be useful to have a different levels of an ability if the cooldowns are different--uses the shorter cooldown skill first, and then the longer cooldown once that's up. This still gives you a strong combination, but it can happen a bit less often.

b) Universal slots need re-thinking. Not removal, just re-thinking. One idea is to add another BO station, but all stations are Lieutenant except for one. Still universal, but now you can't combine high-tier abilities from DIFFERENT professions at the same time. You can change from fight to fight, so it is still INCREDIBLY useful and versatile. Just doesn't allow the "impossible combos" anymore.


OVERALL EFFECT:


1) Cloak is still very useful, but no longer such a deciding factor on the terms of each engagement--initiative can be shared a bit more often.

2) Stacking different levels of the same ability still has a use, just not as powerful a use. There is no longer any reason to stack the same level of the same ability.

3) Universal slots are still useful, but brought back into balance with the original design of the BO Power set--without nerfing ANY abilities.

4) The pace of combat remains the same, but the length is increased. This means that more strategies can be used in combat, rather than burst damage always deciding the winner.

5) A wider range of ability combinations become viable, since the outlying combos no longer force everyone to have either the combo OR its counter to have a shot against an equally-skilled group.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    edit for formatting.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I wonder what effect droping both weapon and shield energy to 0 when cloaking would have on the balance of cloaking devices.

    This seems to make sence to me as the two restrictions on a cloaked ship were always "no shields" and "no weapons". Even the one bird of prey that could fire while cloaked used torpedos to do it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    how about addressing the fact that there are only two skills in the game that heal another persons hull? (engineering team and hazard emitters) If you want to heal you must take two copies of each to be effective.


    also: I bring TSS because its the most effective at removing a layer of the opponents defence, the fact that it also drops RSP is gravy
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    This is the kind of reasonable and intelligent post that has no place on these forums. You can expect the correct and necessary changes you've outlined to get the nerdrage and emo QQing they deserve.

    Speaking of nerdrage and emo QQing, where are the Klingons?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    PSIRockin wrote:
    This is the kind of reasonable and intelligent post that has no place on these forums. You can expect the correct and necessary changes you've outlined to get the nerdrage and emo QQing they deserve.

    Speaking of nerdrage and emo QQing, where are the Klingons?

    springbreak for the most part is over, people have returned to their everyday life, in addition its the early morning-midday portion when not many people are on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If people weren't stacking offensive skills, there would be less call to double-stack defensive skills. We don't want a bajillion hull heals--that just makes combat LONGER without making it more INTERESTING.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I agree with the approach to addressing these issues, but I'd point out that you missed a real Occam's Razor cause of the "same skills, every time" situation: some skills literally trump all others. As in, prevent you from using your skills... nearly uncounterable CC skills like SNB and VM+trashdebuff.

    Since SNB pre-emptively AND reactively beats EVERYTHING, there's really no reason for people NOT to abuse it early and often. The reason there isn't a richer interplay of skills right now is simply that it's impossible: SNB is the first and last word in the encounter. For any ship that can't get APO, VM+trashdebuff is equally game-ending.

    I do agree that once this showstopping tier of ability issues is addressed, the focus will definitely shift to some of the issues you discussed in the OP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    But we all know they're going to lower the duration on SNB, and probably VM, too (even though THAT can be countered with Sci Team). I didn't feel there was any need to discuss that here. Fixing those two skills won't fix the underpinning issues that are plaguing PvP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010

    SOLUTIONS:

    a) Share "initiative." Don't give both sides cloak--that just reduces variety even more. But alter cloak and detection so that there are more situations in which EITHER side can initiate combat--this alone will lead to more outcomes. Perhaps give more trade-offs to cloak, so that it isn't used quite as often (every fight).
    I think Cloak is mostly okay as is, though you are correct that it compounds other issues.

    I could see perhaps giving a 2-3 second delay between the cloak turning off and shields going up, but that's about it. Cloak is supposed to be powerful, and it's supposed to be hard to detect.
    b) Lengthen combat a bit. Don't slow the PACE of combat. Don't just add more HP to everything. But find ways for combat to last just a bit longer. This will allow some of the slower-boiling strategies a chance to see the light of day, instead of constantly playing in the "All Burst, All the Time" channel.
    Greatly increasing hull strength could go a long way towards this. The issue is really that with a fully buffed attack out of cloak or with CC, no one can last more than 5-10 seconds. Once your shields are down you are in trouble, but just increasing hull strength could at least give you time to fight your way out.

    As things are, once shields are down the fight is pretty much over.

    Another thing that could help is lengthening CDs on some of the more ridiculous powers enough that they couldn't be used in every fight.

    a) All instances of an ability share the same cooldown, regardless of tier. It would be pointless to have TWO copies of the SAME level.... however, it can still be useful to have a different levels of an ability if the cooldowns are different--uses the shorter cooldown skill first, and then the longer cooldown once that's up. This still gives you a strong combination, but it can happen a bit less often.
    Completely agree.

    Also along the lines of allowing more diverse skills, all of the "Teams" should remove all types of debuffs. So Engineering or Tactical Teams could remove VM, instead of just Science Team (they share a CD anyway).

    The practical reason for this is that it would allow greater flexibility on ships with limited Science slots but plenty of Engineering or Tactical slots. Engineering and Tactical Team currently pale in comparison to Science Team because there really aren't any Engineering or Tactical debuffs of comparable power to Science debuffs.

    The Role-play explanation is simple. Take VM for example, while the Science team fights the virus directly, a Tactical Team dispatches crewmen throughout the ship to take manual control of various systems, while an Engineering Team bypasses infected systems and uses auxiliaries.
    b) Universal slots need re-thinking. Not removal, just re-thinking. One idea is to add another BO station, but all stations are Lieutenant except for one. Still universal, but now you can't combine high-tier abilities from DIFFERENT professions at the same time. You can change from fight to fight, so it is still INCREDIBLY useful and versatile. Just doesn't allow the "impossible combos" anymore.
    Some of the other proposed changes might go a long way to mitigate the effectiveness of universal BO stations. If victims were better able to survive the alpha strike or CC, then it doesn't matter so much that certain officer types can be stacked.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Mostly agreed. There were really only three things I'm not sure about:
    inktomi19d wrote: »
    Another thing that could help is lengthening CDs on some of the more ridiculous powers enough that they couldn't be used in every fight.

    I'm a fan of shorter cooldowns. All that really needs to happen is an adjustment of some of the skills, so that they are balanced enough to use each fight. Nothing is "un-fun" quite like being unable to use the fun toys you worked so hard for, due to some cooldown.
    Also along the lines of allowing more diverse skills, all of the "Teams" should remove all types of debuffs. So Engineering or Tactical Teams could remove VM, instead of just Science Team (they share a CD anyway).

    Instead, I think each ability should have different counters, instead of always coming back to the Teams. Those should be important, but not always ESSENTIAL. For instance, I think that VM should have a chance to break every 5 seconds based on a target's Auxiliary power. Give your aux a boost, and you can break it without Sci Team--maybe.

    That would be better than just allowing every "Team" to be an automatic counter. Leave it to Science, or try your luck with Aux. Similar methods can work for nearly every debuff that needs a counter.
    Some of the other proposed changes might go a long way to mitigate the effectiveness of universal BO stations. If victims were better able to survive the alpha strike or CC, then it doesn't matter so much that certain officer types can be stacked.

    I don't want to see the ABILITIES nerfed, when it's the COMBINATIONS that are overpowered. It's fine if there are some decent combos that require coordinated teamwork, as long as it requries TEAMWORK--meaning no one should be able to have the entire combo on a single ship. Especially not if they can cloak, and thus start combat at their own discretion.

    Basically, combos are generally good... they are only bad when:

    1) They can be accomplished by a single ship.
    2) They are far more powerful than other combos that SHOULD be comparable.
    3) There is only one counter for them.

    I'd say any 2 of those 3, and you have a broken combo.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Some interesting ideas here from the OP.

    I am for anything that will but the meaning of Tactical back to tactical combat, soften up on abilities and their use and make ship board weaponry shields and maneuvers the primary combat means and elements.

    Spamming VM, SNB etc...is not tactics for Ship to ship combat.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    If you are worried about shields dropping, you can stack resistances even tho there is a HEAVY diminishing return.
    By that I mean an item that says it gives 15% will only give you 13%....rofl
    You just lost 2% before you even reached 20%
    Anyway it can still be very helpful, and I don't worry too much about my shields dropping unless there are 3 or more ships attacking me
    As I can reliably keep all my resistances at around 30% with kinetic(torpedo's mines and I assume ram) at around 48%
    This is opposed to the 45% and 100% via tooltips, so yea the return is rather severe but as I said even 30% of all damage mitigated is rather useful
    And easy to attain, 1 15% console from pvp vendor and 1 level of hazard emitter or engineering team; both of which are ensign level skills! HE from science and ET from engineering, so it is easy to have 1 of each.
    There are problems of course:
    You might need the science slot for science team since everyone and their mom uses multiple VM now.
    Having used said science team or tactical team prevents you from using any team again for what 30 seconds?
    And there are people who will follow you around and wait for you to blow a team then use vm on you, so that even without snb you are still dead in the water with no way to counter unless someone is actually supporting their team.
    If people played a science officer/ship as a support role instead of an LOLOLOL I DISABLED YOU and an engineer/cruiser as a healer instead of the uss almost invincible it might go a long way toward making pvp a bit more enjoyable as well.

    I am not sure there is any way to fix the pvp tho.
    I mean even if you made the only ship to have weapons an escort and gave them no way to heal or buff/debuff everyone would fly a escort.
    Yes even tho there are clearly broken mechanics in this game, but it takes people to abuse those mechanics.
    I am thinking this is much like warhammer was, big hype big sales big dropoff.


    My sub runs out in a few days and trust me I know nobody will miss me, about like how I will not miss sitting in line for 30+ minutes for a less than 2 minute disable-fest. But then I should QQ more and l2p. It is somewhat gratifying to roll over people who rely solely on hit and run stay cloaked spam snb/vm tactics but even then they still cry out QQ more and l2p.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Team only oriented players won't like this. Everything is a linedance. 1 vs 1 encounters between starships NEVER happened, Wrath of Khan is a propaganda lie. There has to be the one best build that renders all others obsolete. Crowd Control has to be the deciding factor of the game, otherwise real fighting might break out and that takes longer to resolve then CC + focus fire.

    KIRK was NOT a team player, he almost never rolled with a fleet. He was a noob and has no business here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I think the bigger issue at hand is this:

    1) Many accept that certain ships (ie, BoP) are "supposed to win in 1-on-1 combat."
    2) Certain combos allow these ships to do MORE than just win, but rather win UNSCATHED (ie, lockdown combos)
    3) The supposition is that, while they win 1v1, these combos do nothing against teams.

    These 3 facts bring us to a very unfortunate conclusion. When you get into a 5-on-5 battle, if the opposing team has 5 of the "1v1 ownage" ships and combos, AND they have cloak, which allows them to decide where and when the battle actually begins, they can easily turn the encounter in to five separate 1-on-1 battles by each locking down one target and melting face.

    Don't misunderstand me--it is 100% okay to have certain ships that are FAVORED to win 1-on-1. But not GUARANTEED. Similarly, it is okay to have ships that can defeat more than one player in certain situations--as long as it's not the same ship as the 1-on-1 favorite.

    The problem is NOT that different ships have different strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that the game currently favors ONE strength (lock down and apply burst damage) with combat that is too fast, and that it favors that strength by too wide a margin.

    Unfortunately, once the effectiveness of two combatants differs by more than maybe 20%, you're basically equipping one of those combatants to beat the other 100% of the time.

    WARNING, PSEUDO-MATH TO FOLLOW:

    Cruisers and Escorts, for example. Escorts are all about heavy up-front damage to "beat the clock." Cruisers are all about survivability to "outlast the clock." I'm oversimplifying a bit, but in principle this is true. For sake of example, I will only use these two extremes. Science Vessels are discussed later.

    This means Cruiser effectiveness is DIRECTLY proportional to the length of the encounter. The longer the fight, the more effective the Cruiser. We could say that Cruisers tend to do best in fights that are 2 minutes or more.

    This also means Escort effectiveness is INVERSELY proportional to the length of the encounter. Get it done fast, or risk losing the burst advantage. We could say that Escorts tend to do best in fights that are shorter than 1 minute.

    With the current damage scale, available combos, and unbalanced skills, the average length of a ship-to-ship encounter is 45 seconds. Note well: AVERAGE. There is a spread, and there are outliers.

    This means that current game mechanics HEAVILY favor the Escort over the Cruiser. Fights already tend to be short, so the Escort doesn't have to do much to push that advantage... whereas the Cruiser has to work impossibly hard to make the fight last into its own territory. This is like starting a Tug-Of-War with one team already standing on the center line.

    The ideal thing to do would aim for most encounters being around the 90 second (1.5 minute) "mid-range" mark. This means that NEITHER side has the clear advantage, and it's their job to either:

    a) Pull the fight up/down into their ideal territory.
    b) Bolster themselves to fight better in the "mid-range" and just keep the fight from bleeding into the opponent's territory.
    c) Have a way out if things are getting out of hand.

    Special Consideration: Cloak/Battle Cloak - This combination of skills currently allows the BoP to decide to start combat when best for the BoP, and ALSO to end combat and run as soon as the situation becomes disadvantageous. Conversely, the Cruiser (or any non-cloak ship) cannot do EITHER of these. Steps need to be taken to allow the Cruiser to choose to begin combat in a more advantageous position, AND/OR to escape a disadvantageous situation.

    This comes back to the idea of sharing INITIATIVE. Think back to chess--white moves first, and white wins more often. This is statistical fact, and most tournament chess players will tell you that "black plays for the DRAW more than the WIN" because of it. If one side always gets to decide how the fight starts (and they also get a "reset" button for when it doesn't go right), they are too heavily favored to be considered balanced.

    SCIENCE VESSELS: As support ships, Science vessels can fit easily into one of two roles. As a Debuff ship, they can be used to decrease the length of the fight--assisting an Escort with gaining the advantage, or bolstering a Cruiser's ability to compete in the mid-range. As a healing ship, they can increase the length of the fight--assisting a Cruiser with gaining the advantage, or helping an Escort last longer in the mid-range.

    Currently, several Science Abilities seem overpowered (particularly VM and SNB). While balance is a concern, there are other things that lead to the APPEARANCE of overpower:

    1) They are being used most often in Escort-type ships, coupling CC with high damage. This is a COMBINATION that is rarely ever balanced. The problem isn't specifically the abilities, but rather the combination of the two in one ship.

    2) The current state of the game is such that combat only lasts about 30 seconds.... so a 20-second hold of ANY kind seems extremely unfair. The problem, however, isn't the length of the hold. It's clearly the length of combat. If the ideal length of combat shifts closer to 90 seconds, a 20-second hold (breakable by Sci Team) is reasonable.

    In short, don't nerf Sci abilities. They were designed well for a combat system in which fights lasted longer, as was most of the stuff in this game, so we should instead strive to make combat a more appropriate length (on average).
Sign In or Register to comment.