test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Some collected statistics on T5 PVP.

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited April 2010 in PvP Gameplay
TL,DR
In T5 Space PVP, on average, Klingons deal 50% more damage and score 50% more points than Feds. Klingons won 24 out of 30 sampled rounds, or 75%.
There seems to be a problem here.

I've been doing some data mining lately. For the last few weeks, I've been taking screenshots of the end game report of every Space PVP match that I've been in.

Since I'm a Federation RA5 with a life, I don't play the game that often, so it's taken me a while to get a large enough sample to be useful.

I collected results from 30 PVP rounds. My first recorded match was on March 10, at 12:24. My last recorded match was April 5, at 19:25. 19 of the rounds were "Salvage" Capture & Hold rounds, the other 11 were "Cracked Planetoid" or "Solar Wind" Arena rounds.

These are the results of my analysis.
  • For a total of 30 rounds, the Federation team won 6 times, and the Klingon team won 24 times. The Klingons won 75% of their engagements.
  • The difference in damage between the top two players in each round, collected from all rounds and averaged, was 115,109 damage in favour of the Klingons.
  • Averaging the damage from all 30 sampled rounds, Federation players deal 76,798 damage per round, while Klingon players deal 146,366 damage per round, a difference of over 50%.
  • Averaging the points from all 30 sampled rounds, Federation players scored 3.98 points per round, whereas Klingon players scored 7.48 points per round, a difference of over 50%.
  • The highest recorded total damage by any player was a Klingon player who dealt 684,422 damage in one round. (Anecdotally, I have been told that this is not a high number.)
  • The highest-ranked Federation player in each round did more damage than the highest-ranked Klingon player in only 4 out of 30 rounds.
  • The total damage dealt by all Feds in a round exceeded the total damage dealt by all Klingons in a round in only 3 rounds. All 3 rounds were Salvage maps.
  • {Edit}The average Federation healing per round was 19,772.18, and the average Klingon healing per round was 24,288.24.
Please see the attached documents below for further information.

Apocrypha & Anecdotes (This is just IMO):
  • Klingons appear to favour a strategy of ambush or skirmish warfare, as Cryptic likely intended. They decloak at point blank range, open fire on a Federation player, and hope to kill him with an alpha strike before he has a chance to implement most of his bridge powers.
  • Typically, this strategy is implemented in such a way by Klingon teams as to provoke fragmentation of Federation teams. Different players will engage different targets. Each target will be too busy attempting to save themselves and return to try and assist other friendlies.
  • If it appears an engagement will end unfavourably, Klingons will immediately pop Evasive Maneuvers or Ramming Speed, move out of engagement range, and cloak to recuperate. This generally applies only to sub-Negh'var class vessels.
  • If Fed players engage in a similar action, it will likely end in death; without a cloak, and by themselves, they become easy targets.
  • The average Federation player's life expectancy, from notification that they are under fire to 0% hull, is typically less than fifteen seconds, and often less than ten seconds. I cannot prove this statistically, but casual observation supports this claim.
  • The exception to this life expectancy for Federation players is Reverse Shield Polarity. This ability will allow a Fed player to endure for the duration of the ability, plus approximately two to five seconds. After that, coordinated fire will destroy a Federation player quickly.
  • Conversely, Klingon life expectancy is considerably longer. I do not wish to speculate on exact numbers, but there is a significant difference.
  • Arena maps are deathtraps in PVP for Federation players. In one instance, even though Federation players outnumbered Klingon players 2:1, the Klingons were still victorious with a margin of 4 points. I have not won a single Arena map in 11 attempts.
  • In a stand up fight, Klingons are superior in damage dealing ability. Federation players are only able to win Salvage rounds because of Salvage rounds' reliance on alternate scoring mechanisms.
  • Conversations with other T5 Federation PVPers in Gamma Orionis have produced similar stories. I will not recall them here, as that would be hearsay; I'm sure they may speak for themselves, if they wish.
  • Critics would say that team coordination is of paramount importance, and I'm not disputing that. Teamwork is important. But I believe this data suggests that there are deciding factors beyond mere team coordination at work.

I do not wish to make normative statements about what should and should not be done to address this problem. I do wish to bring attention to the fact that there is, in fact, a significant issue with T5 PVP in its current incarnation, and suggest that steps be taken to address the problem. I enjoy this game, I'm a lifetime subscriber since the Open Beta. I have faith that these issues can be addressed.

You can download the XLS that I used to create this analysis from Google Docs at this link, if you wish to examine the data for yourself.

I realize the methodology here isn't perfect, nor do I claim it to be. This is the best analysis I could come up with given available data and time constraints, and I believe this data is of interest to PVPers in general. I will continue to collect data.

Graph #1: Total average points and total average damage, averaged from all rounds. Comparative, Fed vs. Klingon.
NB: Klingons' total average damage and points, from all rounds, were almost 50% greater than the Federation's total average damage and points, from all rounds.
Graph #2: Average points per round for 30 rounds, Feds versus Klingons.

Graph #3: Average damage per round for 30 rounds, Feds versus Klingons.
NB: On only three occasions, the Federation did more total damage than the Klingons. The second of those occasions has a margin of only 3,000 damage. Klingons do consistently more total damage per round, often by a considerable margin.

Graph #4: Average healing per round for 30 rounds, Feds versus Klingons.
{Edit} NB: I went back and added healing, as many of you suggested. However, there isn't much of a discernable pattern as there is with damage based on wins and losses. For the Federation wins, in 2 instances, the healing provided was greater than the Klingons. For the other four Federation wins, the amount of Klingon healing was superior.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    First ..nice work, im sure it was alot of effort. But sadly a bit misleading. Since you didnt specify if it was pug vs premade, didnt determine the skill factor of each member, you cant extrapolate the other variables, such is dmg or "overpoweredness" to clarify what is the cause of the results.

    In short, its like making of statistic of 30 soccer matches between lets say Barcelona to some 5th soccer league teams in some banana republic.

    Also you did combine both cracked planetoid and salvage operations, which both have complete different playstyle. Kinda comparing apples with pears.

    /critism off

    But as i said, impressive work. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    While your data gathering and lovely charts are impressive, I'm afraid you have a long way to go before convincing anyone.

    First of all, in a PvP scenario, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variables you have failed to consider. You have no control group. You have no baseline. You have a random sampling of 30 games you played. This is a poll, and a very minor sampling at best.

    You yourself are a variable. You admit that you "don't play that much." You could be badly skewing the results with poor play. You could have played several organized groups in a row. Damage numbers are a poor indicator to draw any conclusion in this game, and you didn't even include healing.

    The bottom line is all this data is meaningless. The only thing we can conclude from your data is that you were soundly beaten in a couple dozen games.

    Sorry, I've know you've done some work, and I hate to be critical, but it's hard to draw anything conclusive from your data.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I commend your effort in accumulating empirical data to come to a more scientific based conclusion.

    However I must point out several inaccuracies in your conclusions. Although some of your observations are correct, notably the Klingon ability to escape in case of unfavorable odds, and the Federation inability to do the same.

    Submitted for review are the following videos taken during FvK Cracked Planetoid Matches

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkzEuUsHME

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiaRB9HqyzI

    As these videos will show, in a 5v5 Cracked Planetoid match, Federation players can break the 100K damage mark. While it is true that Klingons have broken 100K damage and done more damage points than their federation opponents, notice the final score. Federation wins both encounters.

    While you could argue that such matches are not the standard, I will say that I could FRAPS every klingon match our fleet will play for a year, and there would be very few losses on our side.

    The sad, ugly truth is that while Klingons do deal more damage than Federation players on average, damage is not everything. A player could rake up 600K damage in a round, but yield 0 kills.

    Individual play is what is killing Federation, never mind the fact that many of them don't know their class. Just look at how much healing our cruisers are doing. If you use that as proof that klingons do more damage.... then yes, they do, why didn't they win?

    Our Science officer did below 100K damage, was he slacking off? God no, he played a vital role, it just doesn't reflect on the damage board.

    There is more to winning an encounter than damage done.

    Klingons are not OP, and I invite anyone to quote me on that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Dalnar wrote:
    First ..nice work, im sure it was alot of effort. But sadly a bit misleading. Since you didnt specify if it was pug vs premade, didnt determine the skill factor of each member, you cant extrapolate the other variables, such is dmg or "overpoweredness" to clarify what is the cause of the results.

    In short, its like making of statistic of 30 soccer matches between lets say Barcelona to some 5th soccer league teams in some banana republic.

    Also you did combine both cracked planetoid and salvage operations, which both have complete different playstyle. Kinda comparing apples with pears.

    1. They're all just PVP maps that I happened to queue up for.
    2. I'm not trying to extrapolate causes for the results. I'm just saying that there's something going wrong with PVP.
    3. I'm not disputing that the skill levels can vary widely. In fact, I'm certain that they do. But I don't think that there is a massive skill disparity for all 30 rounds.
    4. I only have 30 rounds to work with here, so far. Even straight up Salvage or straight up Arena, the results are still not promising.
    Otheym81 wrote: »
    While your data gathering and lovely charts are impressive, I'm afraid you have a long way to go before convincing anyone.

    First of all, in a PvP scenario, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of variables you have failed to consider. You have no control group. You have no baseline. You have a random sampling of 30 games you played. This is a poll, and a very minor sampling at best.

    You yourself are a variable. You admit that you "don't play that much." You could be badly skewing the results with poor play. You could have played several organized groups in a row. Damage numbers are a poor indicator to draw any conclusion in this game, and you didn't even include healing.

    The bottom line is all this data is meaningless. The only thing we can conclude from your data is that you were soundly beaten in a couple dozen games.

    Sorry, I've know you've done some work, and I hate to be critical, but it's hard to draw anything conclusive from your data.

    Most of these matches were spread over three weeks. The same names appear sometimes, but far from all the time. I can send you the screenshots if you'd like.
    I'm not that godawful a player, I tended to stay in the top two or three in damage dealt on most of the matches. Even if I'm terrible, am I truly the deciding factor in all 24 losses? That's a bit of a stretch.

    It's not 'meaningless'. That's a bit far to go. There's a problem, here. Even in an informal poll, I wouldn't expect the results to be so skewed.
    Ipigi wrote:
    I commend your effort in accumulating empirical data to come to a more scientific based conclusion.

    However I must point out several inaccuracies in your conclusions. Although some of your observations are correct, notably the Klingon ability to escape in case of unfavorable odds, and the Federation inability to do the same.

    Submitted for review are the following videos taken during FvK Cracked Planetoid Matches

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNkzEuUsHME

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiaRB9HqyzI

    As these videos will show, in a 5v5 Cracked Planetoid match, Federation players can break the 100K damage mark. While it is true that Klingons have broken 100K damage and done more damage points than their federation opponents, notice the final score. Federation wins both encounters.

    While you could argue that such matches are not the standard, I will say that I could FRAPS every klingon match our fleet will play for a year, and there would be very few losses on our side.

    The sad, ugly truth is that while Klingons do deal more damage than Federation players on average, damage is not everything. A player could rake up 600K damage in a round, but yield 0 kills.

    Individual play is what is killing Federation, never mind the fact that many of them don't know their class. Just look at how much healing our cruisers are doing. If you use that as proof that klingons do more damage.... then yes, they do, why didn't they win?

    Our Science officer did below 100K damage, was he slacking off? God no, he played a vital role, it just doesn't reflect on the damage board.

    There is more to winning an encounter than damage done.

    Klingons are not OP, and I invite anyone to quote me on that.

    I know that Feds can break 100k damage. In many of the rounds, particularly Salvage rounds, even I broke 100k damage. But in matches like Arena, the Feds never stayed alive long enough to do that kind of damage. It kind of messes up the average.

    Even when, in Arena matches, we formed up into teams immediately, it all went horribly wrong and we all died. A lot. Usually, fifteen times in a row without making a dent. You're absolutely right, your kinds of matches that you show in your videos are not the norm. I've never had a match like that, not once, not ever. If my team has a ventrilo server that they're all coordinating on, they don't tell me about it. Typically, there is zero communication on a fed team.

    I know it's possible for a fed team to rack up tons of damage, and no kills. But in maps like Arena, kills are the way to win, and the kills and points have to come from someone.

    Individual play is kind of the norm for the Feds. Like I say, I'm not sure how to deal with this problem. But there's a problem.

    The sentiment amongst Fed players that I talk to is that 'T5 PVP sux'. I'm at least trying to quantify why.

    I kind of expected to get flamed up one side and down the other. I'm just going to say that there's a problem, and leave it at that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I applaud ur efforts to examine why indeed Fed players get their butts kicked on a regular basis.

    One of the defining markers I totally miss in ur results is teamwork.
    - How did the Feds work together on all those trial maps? Why didn't u "casually obeserve" that?
    - How were the Klingons working together?
    - On Salvage, a Fedball moving from one point to another with mixed ships is near unbeatable, only way to stop the Fedball is to lure some away with BoP's. This does not happen automatically, orders need to be given to BoP captains, and they LISTEN. Why? TEAMWORK.

    Yes, Klingons win most of the time, because of it. BUT, I can garanty you, if a Pug Klingon group plays a premade group on ANY map, the Feds are most likely to win.

    This is not a case of doing more damage, or being overpowered, it is all a matter of skill and tactics.

    I'm not flaming you btw, I can understand ur reasons for wanting to research this, but in all fairness, the best PvP players on STO play Klingon, why? They love to win, and playing with experienced PvP players saves you the heartattack out of frustration when u see the "teamwork" of most Pug Feds groups on ANY given map.

    So;
    - pick ur team wisely, with a good mix of ships/classes
    - use Ventrillo or teamspeak
    - learn from ur mistakes, adapt ur BO skills accordingly
    - and lastly, what most top Fed PvP players do these days if u can't beat em, join em ^^
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    FurianNL wrote: »
    I applaud ur efforts to examine why indeed Fed players get their butts kicked on a regular basis.

    One of the defining markers I totally miss in ur results is teamwork.
    - How did the Feds work together on all those trial maps? Why didn't u "casually obeserve" that?
    - How were the Klingons working together?
    - On Salvage, a Fedball moving from one point to another with mixed ships is near unbeatable, only way to stop the Fedball is to lure some away with BoP's. This does not happen automatically, orders need to be given to BoP captains, and they LISTEN. Why? TEAMWORK.

    Yes, Klingons win most of the time, because of it. BUT, I can garanty you, if a Pug Klingon group plays a premade group on ANY map, the Feds are most likely to win.

    This is not a case of doing more damage, or being overpowered, it is all a matter of skill and tactics.

    I'm not flaming you btw, I can understand ur reasons for wanting to research this, but in all fairness, the best PvP players on STO play Klingon, why? They love to win, and playing with experienced PvP players saves you the heartattack out of frustration when u see the "teamwork" of most Pug Feds groups on ANY given map.

    So;
    - pick ur team wisely, with a good mix of ships/classes
    - use Ventrillo or teamspeak
    - learn from ur mistakes, adapt ur BO skills accordingly
    - and lastly, what most top Fed PvP players do these days if u can't beat em, join em ^^

    1. I did, they didn't. Like I said before, the teamwork was basically nonexistent. Even if we did form a team up, there wasn't much actual teamwork happening. Even if we stayed in a big group, they'd just pick us off.
    2. The klingons used pretty consistent strategies, which I talked about. Whether they were working as a group or lone wolfs was pretty hard to tell.
    3. The fedball happened pretty rarely, unfortunately. The six wins I had up there were courtesy of a so-called 'fedball' yes.

    I never get to pick a 'team', as such. It's just queue up randomly for an instance, and hope for the best. And I'm never rolling with people enough to get a vent server from anyone. This isn't about me getting my TRIBBLE handed to me, Cryptic wisely created a system whereby even the losers still get rewarded. But you know, I can't be the only person who's annoyed at getting ****trained by T5 Klingons. :P
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    PhoenixTril, we're not trying to flame you, just trying to point out that damage is not everything.

    If you noticed in one of my videos, Stingray rakes up over 200k damage in a 9 minute match but only gets 1 kill while I rake up 150K damage and almost 200k healing.

    You have 30 samples to look at, can you tell me how many times feds broke 100k healing in a cracked planetoid arena map? You dont have to be in a premade to break 100k healing.

    By the way, this is all hull healing, shields heals from Extend Shields, Transfer Shield Power and Science Teams are not counted towards that total.

    Salvage Operations Skew results. A salvage op can run for 10 minutes or it can run for half an hour. Inflated damage values are expected, especially if Klingons are not particularly in a hurry to capture points.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I've been playing some fvf and fvk and the teams that are randomly given to me are quite poor.. its sometimes 4escort and a cruser(who I suppose is only healing himself).

    Ppl who play crusers or sci ships should sometime consider trying to be a "healer" basicly your roll should be looking at the health bars and fire/weapon power should be less focused on.

    I've actually done this without speccing for it with my klingon engineer.

    And then alot of ppl need to really understand how extend shields and how long range hazard emitters have, because moving the healer to your /bop/escort is sometimes just aweful.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    And beside, cracked planetoid doesnt show anything. If your teams lacks science captain to sensor scan, you will all die to the pigeons of science. That will TRIBBLE up the results also.

    There is basically no way to statistically prove something, in enviroment with so many variables, and with no way to clarify skill-factor of each person in each mazch.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I still run into a lot of feds who use all beam arrays. I guess the beam any direction works well on pve maps, but it's sadly underpowered for most pvp situations.

    I seen some feds put the hurt on in a ship designed for pvp and a player spec'd for pvp.

    So, not discounting lots of effort. I read this as pretty much.. Nerf Klink dmg, cause I want to be able to do pve and pvp and treat each the same.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    How does any of this prove there is a problem?

    There are so many variables I dont know how this could be taken seriously.

    What type of players?

    Is it feds just wanting dailies done and running into groups of Klingons solo to end match faster or actual pvp groups?

    Are the Klingon groups random or set groups?

    What loadouts are people using? E.g. if your using the "free" shield that came with ship then your not gonna last long....What trype and level of weapons are they using (not all will have mark x equiped) and some maybe running obscure torpedo boat loadouts etc.

    Can you vouch for all the players that participated in these matches you took data from?

    as in what type of players pvp'rs or pve just doing dailies?

    Were they trying to win and all grouped up or all solo?


    If just joining random groups this is the risk you run and is same for both sides.

    A Fed or Klingon that knows how to set up there ship (any type) for damage will do alot more damage than the average player that has not set up ship. This is something that you can search forums for but tbh is down to experience and trying different consoles, abilities etc to suit your playstyle.

    I play both Fed and Klingon and the experience of players in different matches can vary greatly....from groups that stack target subsytems to groups where they think Klingons can shoot while still cloaked because they cant tell they have been jammed. (as in people that know the game, what abilities do and play as a team as opposed to those that dont)


    Try some fed v fed and i think you will find exactly the same. The winning side will do more damage. That would at least give you something to compare the fed v klingon against.

    If Klingons still do substantially more damage you may have a point. However, I think its more likely your just joining inexperienced or "just want to get the dailies done" groups.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    There's one conclusion you can draw from this data - WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SPECULATE ON A CAUSE - which is that Fed PUGs lose a lot more FvK than they win.

    Doubtless there are reasons for this; however, think for a second about the consequences rather than the causes. Fed PUGs lose a lot. What effect does this have on the popularity, sustainability, and entertainment value of PvP? What does it do to the future of the game? Of PvP within STO? Does it constitute a problem? Should something be done?

    When it comes down to it, players who lose games may deserve it, but perpetuating a system where people lose all the time... well, the "winners" may deserve what they get in the end as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bostish wrote:
    I still run into a lot of feds who use all beam arrays. I guess the beam any direction works well on pve maps, but it's sadly underpowered for most pvp situations.

    I seen some feds put the hurt on in a ship designed for pvp and a player spec'd for pvp.

    So, not discounting lots of effort. I read this as pretty much.. Nerf Klink dmg, cause I want to be able to do pve and pvp and treat each the same.

    There is absolutely no problem with beams in pvp, if you play to their strengths.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Edgecase wrote: »
    There's one conclusion you can draw from this data - WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SPECULATE ON A CAUSE - which is that Fed PUGs lose a lot more FvK than they win.

    Doubtless there are reasons for this; however, think for a second about the consequences rather than the causes. Fed PUGs lose a lot. What effect does this have on the popularity, sustainability, and entertainment value of PvP? What does it do to the future of the game? Of PvP within STO? Does it constitute a problem? Should something be done?

    When it comes down to it, players who lose games may deserve it, but perpetuating a system where people lose all the time... well, the "winners" may deserve what they get in the end as well.

    I understand what you are saying, Edgecase, but that can be a difficult problem to solve correctly. Perhaps one solution is having premade teams fight only other premade teams, and PUGs fight only other PUGs - that means separate queues for premade teams and individuals. Spreading the queues even thinner will probably be detrimental to the whole PvP experience.

    I certainly don't think one playstyle should have to be "dumbed down" to cater to the other. Maybe another solution is to just auto-buff the PUGs when they are facing premade teams. In my opinion, competitive matches, regardless of team makeup, should be the goal, but not at the expense of reducing the enjoyment of either side.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I didn't say they are not used in pvp or useless. I run with a lot of Dual Beam Banks. Certain abilities require beams..

    But if your loadout is all Beam Arrays, stress Arrays then your hoping to tickle everything around you without serious affect. Go on, talk about broadsiding etc.. It's not a typical load out for dps.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Kinja wrote:
    I understand what you are saying, Edgecase, but that can be a difficult problem to solve correctly. Perhaps one solution is having premade teams fight only other premade teams, and PUGs fight only other PUGs - that means separate queues for premade teams and individuals. Spreading the queues even thinner will probably be detrimental to the whole PvP experience.

    I certainly don't think one playstyle should have to be "dumbed down" to cater to the other. Maybe another solution is to just auto-buff the PUGs when they are facing premade teams. In my opinion, competitive matches, regardless of team makeup, should be the goal, but not at the expense of reducing the enjoyment of either side.

    I never run in a premade and my win ratio is about the same as listed. I agree with most others here, it's playstyle. I hung up my vent when I hung up wow/eq raiding.

    usually and this factor wasn't put in.. Feds get more wins in off peak hours. Can't seem to get a full klink group for nothing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    lol anyone trying to start some form of discussion is met with 'L2P', 'stfu noob' and 'TEAMWORK'.

    Yup, sounds very much like the community in that other game, called WoW.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I would like to see the responses be labeled with what side they represent in PvP.

    Not agreeing with the OP or disagreeing, but the theme seems to be, Klingons simply play better.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bostish wrote:
    I didn't say they are not used in pvp or useless. I run with a lot of Dual Beam Banks. Certain abilities require beams..

    But if your loadout is all Beam Arrays, stress Arrays then your hoping to tickle everything around you without serious affect. Go on, talk about broadsiding etc.. It's not a typical load out for dps.

    There are more things in life than DPS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Ipigi wrote:
    There are more things in life than DPS.

    I would have had a better reply.. But really what is the point. Almost every thread talks about how DPS is to OP now, and Shields/Hulls don't matter. Just glad a lot of feds think like you. Wait, no i don't. It's why these forums are plagued with DPS is OP and needs to be NERFED.

    Players ignore tanks, if you ever played a Klink, about the biggest thing we talk/type about is who is flying cruisers. After fed dps is dead, there is nothing stopping the win.

    it's why the score goes like this

    0/3 - Dead fed dps
    0/5 - Unorganized Fed responce
    0/7 - Buffalo Bill feds trying to make a point
    0/10 - fed regroup caught a few coming from spawn points
    0/15 - no morale fed just don't care anymore
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Here my statistic:
    In the last 30 games played we won 29, as FEDs.
    We outhealed our enemies by 500% and scored in average 11 more points then them
    T4 PvP in a cruiser

    This is true data, but it still doesn't say anything about faction balance or? I was simply lucky finding a team you could name as premade after we fought 5+ games together, switching only 1-2 guys over the course or the games. 2 cruisers with 2 extend shields each were the key, together with 2 escorts dealing the damage. It was not even close, we slaughtered everything and saved everyone on our side.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I really like the OP's idea of doing some research, how ever my dear OP (no flaming or what so ever):

    1: i have played against Premade Fed groups where PUG klingon's were bleeding and taking of as scared little puppies (Fleets with Ventrillo for instance) .
    2: Also, been in Klingon PUG's where we smashed Federation premade groups all around the field.
    3. Damage doesn't say much, winning the match does (eg federation wins, but Klingons does moest damage, i saw it)
    4: Where there is damage is also...healing. I didn't see that ? I have seen matches where some ships had insane high healing (yes, most of the time federation ships)

    So, the data is not coherent (?), there are a lott more factors in play then your data of 30 matches. i could do the same and, by accident, play against a PvP fleet with premade groups and the data would be totally different and i can suggest that federation is totally OP and need to be nerfed. (for instance !) not saying it is so.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bostish wrote:
    I would have had a better reply.. But really what is the point. Almost every thread talks about how DPS is to OP now, and Shields/Hulls don't matter. Just glad a lot of feds think like you. Wait, no i don't. It's why these forums are plagued with DPS is OP and needs to be NERFED.

    Players ignore tanks, if you ever played a Klink, about the biggest thing we talk/type about is who is flying cruisers. After fed dps is dead, there is nothing stopping the win.

    it's why the score goes like this

    0/3 - Dead fed dps
    0/5 - Unorganized Fed responce
    0/7 - Buffalo Bill feds trying to make a point
    0/10 - fed regroup caught a few coming from spawn points
    0/15 - no morale fed just don't care anymore

    DPS is not my main worry in matches. I leave that to the escorts. That doesn't mean I don't shoot at things, just that, as I cruiser, I don't fool myself into thinking I can out-dps an escort on the final score.

    Matches usually go like this for me :

    5/0 - Klinks cry foul and accuse us of using exploits
    10/0 - Massive Klink Rage quits
    15/0 - Fed Wins. I end the match with a respectable 150-200k DPS and 150K-200K Healing score, with our escorts at around 200-300K DPS.

    Various name calling from klinks ensue, usually something about how we are all science ships or something. Never understood why.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Excellent data collection and graphing. :)

    Unfortunately, as others have stated, there are simply too many variables that are not being controlled, which means that no definite conclusions about factions, maps, ship types, careers, abilities, PUGs, or premades can be drawn from these data.

    I would recommend you resume your efforts in a more controlled fashion, such as only one type of map and only PUGs vs. PUGs. Ensure that this is conducted over several days with different player names in the score reports for both sides.

    Then vary as appropriate for each data set.

    I look forward to seeing more controlled data compiled and presented. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    At least the OP is not whining. i give him alot of credit for that.

    since the sampling given in the OP is from tier 5 there is another factor to consider that after skimming through this thread i didnt see (probably is there but i am blind according to my GF...) -

    klingons level up primarily through PVP. if you are facing a tier 5 klingon, it is a very safe bet to say he has alot more STO pvp experience under his belt, unless you also have a tier 5 klingon alt.

    my klingon is only commander ranked, and i started him after i hit RAdm on my fed toon. just from getting to commader on my klink, my pvp skills on the fed side have greatly improved.

    many klingon players also have fed toons for pve play... they tend to be fairly knowledgeable about fed ships/classes. most of what i have learned about my fed toon i learned from klingon players explaining it to me, even when we were fighting...

    taking that into account, generally klingons are more skilled in pvp, especially when pugging. they have just been doing it longer. couple that with their tendency to be familiar with their enemy's ships, and the fact they tend to more freely communicate their knowledge (in my experience... highly subjective) and they have the skill/teamwork advantage.

    i have also hit organized fed groups that are just plain brutal.... and i mean brutal.

    i was in a large salvage map that lasted for almost an hour at commander level. i found out later the feds were on a vent, and most of the klinks were too... the klinks were team chatting with me on what was going on, even letting me take lead as far as action goes cause it was easier. we could easily pick out the feds that werent on the fed vent, but they soon fell into line like i did. we klinks ended up winning... by 5 influence points.

    i consider the salvage maps to be a netter measure of pvp balance simply because it isnt kill based, i.e. run in and who shoots first has an advantage. i have also been in salvage maps at tier 5 that went back and forth. balance id there. klingons specialize in war, fed specialize in science. klingons have no true science vessel (bop can fill the role, but doesnt get same bonuses and doest do as well), and in pvp sci abilities rule supreme...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I like your effort in collecting the data but you can't really reach any conclusions based up on it with out further detail.

    What most people fail to realize with STO is that it is a Team vs Team pvp game. It is designed to take the entire team into consideration. I find in STO the team that plays the best will always win despite the whining about Sci skills or Klingon BOPs.
    I will put to you that STO is one of the most balanced games because as a consistant PVPer I have been looking for that in every PVP game I have played. STO rewards the teams that play the best in any given match.
    The better team can over come every STO failing which is a good indication that balance is not that far off.

    For your data to show other wise or to validate your comments we need the following data.

    Did you play in only PUGs?
    How many Pre-mades did you play in?
    How often did you use Vent?
    Do you give Vent info out to Pug members?
    Did you play with the same fleet members in every fight?
    How many Klingon teams were Pre-mades?
    How many Klingons were Pugs?
    How many matches did your PUGs have under there belt when you played with them?
    How many matches did your Fleet members have under there belt when you played with them?
    How many matches did the Klingons have under there belts when you faced them?


    Are you starting to get the point?

    In STO the better team wins every PVP match. I have played to max on both sides and that has been true in every one of my cases. In two evenly match teams the ones that make the least amount of mistakes wins.

    If you want to find real data then put together two equivelant teams with the same skills from each side then fight 1000 matches just against each other. That is the only way to gather any data that is reliable.

    Even then it could be argued that once one team played against another enough that one may adapt more quickly giving a large advantage over another.


    My entire point is your data has no relevance to whether the game is balanced or not.


    Vllad
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Vllad wrote:
    I like your effort in collecting the data but you can't really reach any conclusions based up on it with out further detail.

    What most people fail to realize with STO is that it is a Team vs Team pvp game. It is designed to take the entire team into consideration. I find in STO the team that plays the best will always win despite the whining about Sci skills or Klingon BOPs.
    I will put to you that STO is one of the most balanced games because as a consistant PVPer I have been looking for that in every PVP game I have played. STO rewards the teams that play the best in any given match.
    The better team can over come every STO failing which is a good indication that balance is not that far off.

    For your data to show other wise or to validate your comments we need the following data.

    Did you play in only PUGs?
    How many Pre-mades did you play in?
    How often did you use Vent?
    Do you give Vent info out to Pug members?
    Did you play with the same fleet members in every fight?
    How many Klingon teams were Pre-mades?
    How many Klingons were Pugs?
    How many matches did your PUGs have under there belt when you played with them?
    How many matches did your Fleet members have under there belt when you played with them?
    How many matches did the Klingons have under there belts when you faced them?


    Are you starting to get the point?

    In STO the better team wins every PVP match. I have played to max on both sides and that has been true in every one of my cases. In two evenly match teams the ones that make the least amount of mistakes wins.

    If you want to find real data then put together two equivelant teams with the same skills from each side then fight 1000 matches just against each other. That is the only way to gather any data that is reliable.

    Even then it could be argued that once one team played against another enough that one may adapt more quickly giving a large advantage over another.


    My entire point is your data has no relevance to whether the game is balanced or not.


    Vllad

    but the OP data could very well be indicative of the over all skill in team combat of FvK teams, tho his sample is a bit small. could be an indication that would prompt further research to confirm or refute the original sampling.

    it would be nice if the DEVS would maintain a score chart on these maps that could be viewed via web page. weekly, and by map perhaps? include kills, deaths, healing, and overall map wins.

    also, u still get badges, energy merit/honor and skill points just for showing up. so you get around 5 badges less if you lose...(yes i know it adds up)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Ipigi wrote:
    The sad, ugly truth is that while Klingons do deal more damage than Federation players on average, damage is not everything. A player could rake up 600K damage in a round, but yield 0 kills.

    Individual play is what is killing Federation, never mind the fact that many of them don't know their class. Just look at how much healing our cruisers are doing. If you use that as proof that klingons do more damage.... then yes, they do, why didn't they win?

    Our Science officer did below 100K damage, was he slacking off? God no, he played a vital role, it just doesn't reflect on the damage board.

    There is more to winning an encounter than damage done.

    Klingons are not OP, and I invite anyone to quote me on that.

    Hello...
    what you have written here is exactly what i wanted to figure out in my thread.
    Ipigi wrote:
    DPS is not my main worry in matches. I leave that to the escorts. That doesn't mean I don't shoot at things, just that, as I cruiser, I don't fool myself into thinking I can out-dps an escort on the final score.

    I totally agree with what you write. It is unbelievable how many haven't recognized how important teamplay is, and how many think they are great player just because they do high damage in some random PVP matches.

    In my opinion, teamplay is even more important for Feds, because most of the time they have to react on the Klingon actions. In unorganized public matches, the Klingons are advanteged, of course, because of cloak (so important for gathering) + variable bridge officers (BoP) + better turn rates + cruisers can equip cannons and so on. Everyone who says these are no advantages doesn't know what he is talking about... how do you call that? But these advantages only reflect in unorganized PVP matches. In organized matches where the enemy is prepared to what's coming, these advantages won' t guarantee you a victory... So are Klingons OP? - No, but...

    teamplay is so absolutely very very important!

    Maybe too important beacause if you only want to play sometimes "1 or 2 fast rounds in PVP" you will not have much fun, especially on Fed side... If you start realizing you have to play for the team (healing / supporting / keep ypur deaths low / especially, support fed escorts / ...), not for the damage, the fun will come.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    1. They're all just PVP maps that I happened to queue up for.
    2. I'm not trying to extrapolate causes for the results. I'm just saying that there's something going wrong with PVP.
    3. I'm not disputing that the skill levels can vary widely. In fact, I'm certain that they do. But I don't think that there is a massive skill disparity for all 30 rounds.
    4. I only have 30 rounds to work with here, so far. Even straight up Salvage or straight up Arena, the results are still not promising.



    Most of these matches were spread over three weeks. The same names appear sometimes, but far from all the time. I can send you the screenshots if you'd like.
    I'm not that godawful a player, I tended to stay in the top two or three in damage dealt on most of the matches. Even if I'm terrible, am I truly the deciding factor in all 24 losses? That's a bit of a stretch.

    It's not 'meaningless'. That's a bit far to go. There's a problem, here. Even in an informal poll, I wouldn't expect the results to be so skewed.



    I know that Feds can break 100k damage. In many of the rounds, particularly Salvage rounds, even I broke 100k damage. But in matches like Arena, the Feds never stayed alive long enough to do that kind of damage. It kind of messes up the average.

    Even when, in Arena matches, we formed up into teams immediately, it all went horribly wrong and we all died. A lot. Usually, fifteen times in a row without making a dent. You're absolutely right, your kinds of matches that you show in your videos are not the norm. I've never had a match like that, not once, not ever. If my team has a ventrilo server that they're all coordinating on, they don't tell me about it. Typically, there is zero communication on a fed team.

    I know it's possible for a fed team to rack up tons of damage, and no kills. But in maps like Arena, kills are the way to win, and the kills and points have to come from someone.

    Individual play is kind of the norm for the Feds. Like I say, I'm not sure how to deal with this problem. But there's a problem.

    The sentiment amongst Fed players that I talk to is that 'T5 PVP sux'. I'm at least trying to quantify why.

    I kind of expected to get flamed up one side and down the other. I'm just going to say that there's a problem, and leave it at that.

    Dud you even watch the video's?? I was on the wrong side of one of those butt kickings LOL. Although it was hard of my ego it was refreshing to see a good Fed team. If you look at the end scores PLEASE take note of the feds HEALS! Damage means little when your team heals.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Firstly,
    Edgecase wrote: »
    There's one conclusion you can draw from this data - WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SPECULATE ON A CAUSE - which is that Fed PUGs lose a lot more FvK than they win.

    Doubtless there are reasons for this; however, think for a second about the consequences rather than the causes. Fed PUGs lose a lot. What effect does this have on the popularity, sustainability, and entertainment value of PvP? What does it do to the future of the game? Of PvP within STO? Does it constitute a problem? Should something be done?

    When it comes down to it, players who lose games may deserve it, but perpetuating a system where people lose all the time... well, the "winners" may deserve what they get in the end as well.
    Edgecase wins a cookie. He gets what I've been trying to say in one go. Feds in random PVP encounters generally lose more frequently than they succeed in FvK T5 PVP. I claim that this is a problem, as it has repercussions. Morale amongst admirals I've spoken to is low. I am not speculating on cause, or suggesting a solution. Thank you, Edgecase.

    Ipigi wrote:

    You have 30 samples to look at, can you tell me how many times feds broke 100k healing in a cracked planetoid arena map? You dont have to be in a premade to break 100k healing.

    Salvage Operations Skew results. A salvage op can run for 10 minutes or it can run for half an hour. Inflated damage values are expected, especially if Klingons are not particularly in a hurry to capture points.
    Ipigi: The data should be available to you now. When I plugged in "Healing", I couldn't find any sort of correlation between healing rates and victories. With damage, the team that did the most damage was often the winning team. With healing, there was no such readily apparent relationship, unfortunately. I don't believe I've had a Salvage map that lasted longer than five to ten minutes with one exception.

    Bostish wrote:
    I read this as pretty much.. Nerf Klink dmg, cause I want to be able to do pve and pvp and treat each the same.
    No. This is not what I am claiming. In fact, I am explicitly avoiding a normative stance. I said that there's a problem. I didn't say 'Nerf klink damage'.

    Bostish wrote:
    ...
    it's why the score goes like this

    0/3 - Dead fed dps
    0/5 - Unorganized Fed responce
    0/7 - Buffalo Bill feds trying to make a point
    0/10 - fed regroup caught a few coming from spawn points
    0/15 - no morale fed just don't care anymore
    This last stage of morale, graduating to apathy, is what I've personally been feeling this past little while. Something is awry, and I am attempting to quantify what that something is. I don't believe that it is normal to expect to lose 3 out of every 4 games.

    alphadelta wrote:
    ...
    If just joining random groups this is the risk you run and is same for both sides.

    I play both Fed and Klingon and the experience of players in different matches can vary greatly.

    Try some fed v fed and i think you will find exactly the same. The winning side will do more damage. That would at least give you something to compare the fed v klingon against.

    If Klingons still do substantially more damage you may have a point. However, I think its more likely your just joining inexperienced or "just want to get the dailies done" groups.
    "However, I think its more likely your just joining inexperienced or "just want to get the dailies done" groups": I don't doubt that this is the case. I am not part of any fleet, nor do I have anybody on my social list. Any teams that I have been a part of in PVP matches were formed on the fly. Mostly, no teams were formed at all. I don't know if this is a typical experience for others, because again, that would be hearsay on my part. But I doubt I'm the only one in this position. For me, joining random groups is the norm. For how many others is it the norm as well, and how are their playing experiences affected as a result? Are premade groups dominant in T5 PVP? I don't have access to that information.

    Kinja wrote:
    I certainly don't think one playstyle should have to be "dumbed down" to cater to the other. Maybe another solution is to just auto-buff the PUGs when they are facing premade teams. In my opinion, competitive matches, regardless of team makeup, should be the goal, but not at the expense of reducing the enjoyment of either side.
    I agree. Dumbing one playstyle down to meet another is a poor solution.

    klingons level up primarily through PVP
    ...
    taking that into account, generally klingons are more skilled in pvp, especially when pugging. they have just been doing it longer. couple that with their tendency to be familiar with their enemy's ships, and the fact they tend to more freely communicate their knowledge (in my experience... highly subjective) and they have the skill/teamwork advantage.
    but the OP data could very well be indicative of the over all skill in team combat of FvK teams, tho his sample is a bit small. could be an indication that would prompt further research to confirm or refute the original sampling. it would be nice if the DEVS would maintain a score chart on these maps that could be viewed via web page. weekly, and by map perhaps? include kills, deaths, healing, and overall map wins.

    also, u still get badges, energy merit/honor and skill points just for showing up. so you get around 5 badges less if you lose...(yes i know it adds up)
    Tribblerancher: I wouldn't be surprised if this experience is a contributing factor in the Klingon's ability to perform better at PVP. Constant PVP matches and an immersion in that environment would be an improvement. I'm not speculating on causative relationships, but this is as good a place to start as any. Cryptic wisely compensated for unforeseen consequences by building the game in such a way that even if you lose, you're still rewarded. I would welcome further research and data collection along these lines, to support or to refute my data.

    vontrox wrote: »
    So, the data is not coherent (?), there are a lott more factors in play then your data of 30 matches. i could do the same and, by accident, play against a PvP fleet with premade groups and the data would be totally different and i can suggest that federation is totally OP and need to be nerfed. (for instance !) not saying it is so.
    Healing data's up for you now. There's no consistent trend in my data correlating healing with wins or losses. I agree that you could play against a PvP fleet with premade groups, and you would achieve totally different results, because it would be a totally different experience.

    FXHell wrote:
    Hello...

    teamplay is so absolutely very very important!

    Maybe too important beacause if you only want to play sometimes "1 or 2 fast rounds in PVP" you will not have much fun, especially on Fed side... If you start realizing you have to play for the team (healing / supporting / keep ypur deaths low / especially, support fed escorts / ...), not for the damage, the fun will come.
    FXHell: You are quite correct in that Federation players are typically forced to react to Klingon actions. The problem I have personally experienced is that by the time I am implementing a response to a Klingon attack (Rotate shields, power to shields, EPS power transfer, etc.) my shields have already collapsed and I am dead. I barely have time enough to activate defensive systems, much less type out a call for help. In PUGs, I have never once been invited to or joined a Ventrilo server.

    I agree with you, and Ipigi, and others who have said that teamplay is very important. But should T5 PVP be functionally inaccessable to those who are not in premade, well-coordinated teams? This seems like it will enter a 'you need to be experienced, but in order to get that experience, you have to be experienced' cycle. However, for a random PUG group, these teamplay mechanics may be difficult or impossible to implement.

    Dalnar wrote:
    There is basically no way to statistically prove something, in enviroment with so many variables, and with no way to clarify skill-factor of each person in each match.
    Unfortunately, as others have stated, there are simply too many variables that are not being controlled, which means that no definite conclusions about factions, maps, ship types, careers, abilities, PUGs, or premades can be drawn from these data.

    I would recommend you resume your efforts in a more controlled fashion, such as only one type of map and only PUGs vs. PUGs. Ensure that this is conducted over several days with different player names in the score reports for both sides.
    Vllad wrote:
    ...
    Are you starting to get the point?
    ...
    If you want to find real data then put together two equivelant teams with the same skills from each side then fight 1000 matches just against each other. That is the only way to gather any data that is reliable.
    ...
    My entire point is your data has no relevance to whether the game is balanced or not.
    I would like to address all these general 'control the experiment variables plz' complaints in one go. I would like to ask you how you would implement the proposed collection mechanisms within the structure of the game. There is no way to pit only PUG or Premade teams against each other in each match.

    There is no way to determine conclusively if each side is PUG or Premade. If I was in a PUG group, there is currently no way to ensure that the opposing side is also PUG, or contrariwise, Premade versus Premade.
    I would challenge you to perform a better, more conclusive study by whatever means you see fit.

    There is no way to dial up the granularity of the PVP queue system to achieve perfectly sanitary, controllable results. Until Cryptic implements some sort of filtering and sorting function, at least. There is also no alternative method of data collection that I am aware of, as I am not a developer and do not have access to the raw statistics generated for each PVP round. The ability to create controlled, strictly experimental conditions that would satisfy these complaints is impossible.

    I admit now, as I admitted previously, that the methodology of my data collection is not perfect. However, to dismiss what data that is available as 'irrelevant' is shortsighted. I am providing data, collected by the only means available to me, and observing a trend, in an attempt to quantify unexpected behaviour and outcomes.

    I would challenge you to conduct and provide a more conclusive study of this subject by whatever means and methodology you see fit.
Sign In or Register to comment.