test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

PvP Revamp 1.3 / Season 2

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited June 2010 in PvP Gameplay
This thread is for all the issues in PvP that players request needing changed for the 1.3 / Season 2 Update:


Queue Balance: Where Matches Start and End with the same amount of players.
  • Restore Leaving Matches, so players are not trapped in empty queues
  • Possible punishment system for those who leave a Match while in play

PvP Queue Window Improvement:
  • Locate certain matches: FvF / KvK / FvK Space or Ground
  • Promote the Assault Maps More
  • Remove Unused Queues
  • Player listing of those in a current match prior to committing (Not everyone likes fighitng PvP Fleets).
  • Player PvP Experience Selector? (Novice against Novice, than Novice being pitted against Experts?)

Ground PvP Enhancement: To make Ground Play a viable alternative
  • Minimum Height Requirement? (Players abusing the Character Customization to make tiny avatars to use in Ground PvP and take advantage of the terrain).
  • Expose System Revision (For PvP only)
  • Rifle Butt Spamming
  • Long-Term Stuns (Temporary Invulernability while stunned?)
  • Reduced Kills from 40 to lesser value (some suggest 20).
  • Fed vs Klingon Ground PvP Imbalance?
  • New Maps that doesn't feel like a FPS Arena

Space PvP:
  • Scatter Cannon Volley
  • Ramming:
    1. Timer reverted back to 4 - 5 Minute timer than the Current 3 Minutes?
    2. Add In Negative Effects like a Temporary Stun?
    3. Size Matters? (Ex: An Escort or BoP ramming into Large Ships be minor damage?)
  • Hull Heal Chaining
  • Beam Weapon Improvement
  • BoP (Hybrid) Re-evaluation
  • New Maps?

Ability / Powers Adjustment:

Engineering Team / Miracle Worker: Improved, where returns are greater than that of Hazzard Emitters, which has greater Healing ability with less skill points invested.

Reverse Polarized Shields

Hazard Emitters: Reduced Capability

Polarized Hull: Restore Tractor Beam immunity for single and group Tractor Beams.

Science Abilities in General: Inprovement for VoQuv and Federation Science Ships



Any other Issues, feel free to add.

And please, let's keep discussion civil.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I disagree with everything in this post with the exception of cleaning up the PvP queue window.

    The solution to the queue problem is not allowing people to leave and then punishing them, it's populating games correctly in the first place.

    The proposal to further segregate PvP queues by skill level would worsen the fragmentation problem and reduce the number of games popping in an environment which is already dropping below critical mass.

    Both your ground and space tweak suggestions read like a list of pet nerfs and buffs, with the occasional factual error (ramming speed DOES hurt the smaller ship more) and bug (polarize not breaking tractor).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Edgecase, this list are suggestions made by everyone in the various threads on the STO forum as well as online in matches. So I thought I consolidate them all into a single thread for the devs and the testers to put everything under one roof.

    I myself don't agree with some things on that list. Like some people wanting Reverse Shield Polarity and Ramming to be Nerfed. Because Ramming wasn't a problem when it was on the 5 minute timer, and RSP was only a pain when people were stacking it, but even now, people still keep using it to counter cannon assaults by Escorts.

    So please, don't point the finger directly at me. This is what the community wants.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Please keep your posts on topic and constructive. Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~GM Tiyshen"

    Alrighty then... people get reported for the smallest things these days, 'w00t' for my first warning.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    So please, don't point the finger directly at me. This is what the community wants.

    Sorry, but this is not what the community wants. It's what you want.

    Has there been any thread NOT started by you complaining about the desperate imbalance between HE and ET healing? For that matter, in the threads that you DID start, where's the support indicate it's what the "players" want? A grand total of one guy agreed with you. Many more than that disagreed.

    Ditto for the BoP one. The list goes on.

    I'm all in favor of gathering feedback in one place so it's easy for devs to read. But if you're going to perform that service, you need to do it based on discussions that are actually active and conclusions that are popularly supported. Otherwise it's nothing more than a thinly disguised Pimp My Thread.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Edgecase wrote: »
    I'm all in favor of gathering feedback in one place so it's easy for devs to read. But if you're going to perform that service, you need to do it based on discussions that are actually active and conclusions that are popularly supported. Otherwise it's nothing more than a thinly disguised Pimp My Thread.

    Ayupan once wondered why no one supported him, without giving a second thought to the possibility that he could be wrong. I see alot of parallels between you (Azurian) and him, except that your a much nicer person that he is. When the community started chasing him off the forums it didn't start with a bunch of hatemail, it started with people disagreeing with him and Ayupan not listening.

    As to the list, I would say that about 90% of it is bad recommendations. Edgecase has already shot quite an opposing viewpoint against your proposals, so I'll leave it at that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    How can Engineering team be any better, when tactical team is still TEH TRIBBLE?

    Why nerf HE ? to nerf escorts and science ships ?

    Size matters for ramming ? it already does...if you tried ramming with other ships you would already know, the reason some people surivve ramming with smaller ships, its because they use kinetic resistance. On top of that, cruiser can have the LARGEST kinetic resistance.

    Whats wrong with beam weapons ? Havent been hit by DEM 1-3 and 6+ beams from those "underpowered" assault cruisers lately ?

    Last i checked polarized hull works for tractors, maybe you need more aux to break stronger tractors (you know, micromanagement). Hello, aux does help? If you dont like repulsors, equip aux to dampeners.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Add "Tactical Team sucks and needs to be buffed somehow" to the list.
    Azurian wrote: »
    Hazard Emitters: Reduced Capability

    You are wrong.
    Here's why:

    HE3 x2: 25534 healing / 30s CD = 851HPS (50% uptime of 48% resistance) (available to a science officer)

    ET2 x2 + AtSIF3: (9234 ET2 healing + 6847 AtSIF3 healing) / 15s CD = 1072HPS (66% uptime of 52% resistance) (available to a science officer)

    ET3 x2 + AtSIF3: (11610 ET3 healing + 6833 AtSIF3 healing) / 15s CD = 1229HPS (66% uptime of 51% resistance) (not available to a science officer, this shows the advantage of being a pure eng/cru over a sci/cru)

    Buff Hazard Emitters 3 by 378 HPS (1229 - 851) and 16% resistance uptime (66% - 50%) to equal a Cruiser's healing and resist potential.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    You have to remember when you calculating resists it's actually +25 or +35 etc. not 25% or 35% as the tooltip indicates.

    Here is how you calculate resists -

    Something that seems to be coming up a lot on the boards at the moment is the way that resistance bonuses are calculated and the belief that this leads to diminishing returns.

    This isn’t actually the case.

    The misunderstanding stems from the fact that your final resistance is calculated with this formula:

    Resistance = 1 – (1 / (1 + Total Resist Bonus)

    For example, if you have a total +50% phaser resist bonus, your phaser resistance will be 33.3% (1 – (1 / 1.5)). If you have a total +100% phaser resist bonus, your phaser resistance will be 50% (1 – (1 / 2)).

    Certainly seems like diminishing returns, right?

    But percentage resistances aren’t linear, they’re exponential:

    * If you have 0% resist and you add 1%, you reduce incoming damage by 1%
    * If you have 90% resist and you add 1%, you reduce incoming damage by 10%
    * If you have 99% resist and you add 1%, you reduce incoming damage by 100%

    So, if a ‘+X% resist’ bonus just increased your resistance by X%, you’d be getting exponential returns. The formula doesn’t give diminishing returns, it converts that exponential return into a linear one.

    For example, with a 50% bonus, you get 33.3% resist, which means it’ll take 50% more damage to destroy your hull. With a 100% bonus, you get 50% resist, which means it’ll take 100% more damage to destroy your hull.

    The thing to remember is that the resist bonuses listed on items like certain engineering consoles isn’t the percentage of resist the item will give you, it’s the percentage of additional damage the item will let you take.

    source: http://theenginescannaetakeit.wordpress.com/?s=resistance
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Though this only applies to hull resistance. Shield resistance works differently.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I find no problems with CSV and do not feel it needs any revamping at all/
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Ground PvP Enhancement: To make Ground Play a viable alternative
    • Minimum Height Requirement? (Players abusing the Character Customization to make tiny avatars to use in Ground PvP and take advantage of the terrain).
    • Expose System Revision (For PvP only)
    • Rifle Butt Spamming
    • Long-Term Stuns (Temporary Invulernability while stunned?)
    • Reduced Kills from 40 to lesser value (some suggest 20).
    • Fed vs Klingon Ground PvP Imbalance?
    • New Maps that doesn't feel like a FPS Arena

    Hello,

    First, I will report everyone for discrimination against short characters. Us taller folk have to stick up for the Ferengi and Tellarites.

    Second, please elaborate how FvK is imbalanced... that's a fresh complaint to my ears.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    [*]Remove Unused Queues

    I disagree with your entire post except this - and it should be done sparingly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I would like to see the Assault Maps finally getting used, too, but...
    too many things I don't agree with and too many suggested solutions that are not good either. :mad:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Longasc wrote:
    I would like to see the Assault Maps finally getting used, too:

    Oh I should rephrase my previous statement. Assault maps aren't used but they should be promoted. I was somewhat referring to the multiple copies of certain queues.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I'll stay neutrall to all except beafing up beams. What is that silliness? Who wants that and why? My single beam array hits for 500 minimum(!!!!!!) at 10km at a completely not-debuffed target with assumed resistances, my average hit is 1000 and a BO1 crit goes as high as 20k. They have the WIDE angle advantage which is so incredibly huge, hit instantly and shoot all the time, what do people more want? If beams get beafed up all pvp will look like this:
    1. People orbiting eachother at 10 km and keeping the distance, no skill involved. It would be just like EvE. Retardation galore.
    2. Try to aproach me, I engage my evasives, pop a battery, put all energy into engines, fly away and shoot you with my rear beam banks while you are shooting me with your forward ones.

    TBH when I started playing I thought that beams are so overpowered because they actualy overlap! I still think so. I'm trying to stay serious but I have this image of a Raptor with cannons shooting teddy-bears, hello! kitties and hearts and smilies in my mind.

    LONG RULE THE KLINGON EMPIRE, NERF ALL FEDERATION BECAUSE THEY SUCK! QAPLA'!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    faithborn wrote:
    Ayupan once wondered why no one supported him, without giving a second thought to the possibility that he could be wrong. I see alot of parallels between you (Azurian) and him, except that your a much nicer person that he is.

    Funny you should mention Ayupan. I was just noticing the similarities between the nature of posts by Azurian, Keldor, and others mirroring the unsuccessful forum discussions of said player. Interesting how one goes away only to be replaced by several new versions of the same basic forum poster.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Let me take the time to once again state that this is not solely MY List, but everyone that has every single issue in the game regarding PvP balance on the forum and in-game.
    meeowww wrote: »
    Second, please elaborate how FvK is imbalanced... that's a fresh complaint to my ears.

    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    The Dev Team really doesn't know how to balance PvP, and I'm really giving up if they ever will.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    Weird...my fleetmates and I never had that problem. I'd venture to say other fleets like 182nd, Section 31, Coffee Crew, 12th Fleet, and 7th Core would probably refute that statement as well.
    Azurian wrote: »
    The Dev Team really doesn't know how to balance PvP, and I'm really giving up if they ever will.

    That's one point we agree on...;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    The Dev Team really doesn't know how to balance PvP, and I'm really giving up if they ever will.

    They might have a fighting chance if they didn't have to keep it consistently in balance with PvE - and please...are we getting into a Fed vs Kling balance discussion again?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    I can concede that a couple of things on that list are valid and/or warrant a closer look but then you say something like this and ... pfft. I'd be willing to be that if the Feds who were so sure of this switched roles with the Klinks that have been steamrolling them they'd still get their rear ends handed to them.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    [*]Fed vs Klingon Ground PvP Imbalance?
    Azurian wrote: »
    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    The Dev Team really doesn't know how to balance PvP, and I'm really giving up if they ever will.

    I bolded the part above that I disagree with, where you say there is an imbalance of Fed and Klingon in ground PvP.

    I think you're wrong and frankly this sounds like whining (no offense). You may be simply relaying the views of others but you will fail to justify the claim by any means because there is no evidence of FvK imbalance in ground PvP. Furthermore it's ridiculous to throw your hands in the air and bash Cryptic.

    I have both an RA and a BG and play PvP on both sides. When I play ground PvP, I always win, whether I'm a Klingon or Fed. The only time I have lost is in games when my fleetmates are playing on the opposite faction of my match, or I am outnumbered. I have won as many games playing ground Fed as I have won playing ground Klingon, both in premade teams and in pug teams. I have tons of vids on my Youtube page and many more that I haven't uploaded. Also when you watch my videos, you don't see "perma holds" or constant rifle butt spam.

    So much drama and complaining, I can't take it sometimes. I wouldn't even come out to defend anything but there is a real threat of Cryptic taking your advice to heart and implementing horrible changes, such as the awful queue system that was installed due to feedback and threads like this one. Without further adieu, Fraps links:


    FEDERATION GROUND PVP WINS:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtMGmgq0HXQ
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nE5GU3Lbux4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYH5djuu_Qk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoVLJIyHCSg <
    PUG TEAM VIDEO HERE

    KLINGON GROUND PVP WINS:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGDQ7Js57Kc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkcmMx_MOuM
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Kurt Vonnegut wrote a great response to many of the ideas in the OP.

    He titled it Harrison Bergeron. Enjoy!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    [*]BoP (Hybrid) Re-evaluation

    :rolleyes:

    Just stop Azurian! Nobody wants the BoP nerfed but you!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    Because feds rather QQ on forums about overpowered BoP instead L2P ? Because Feds rather play cpt. Kirks and dont support each other ? because majority of feds are outhealed by HE1 from escort ? Because klingons pvp to level up ? :o
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
    [just another self-serviing nerf list]
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Cedryk_ wrote:
    Nothing to see here. Move along.
    [just another self-serviing nerf list]

    You can say that again!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Let me take the time to once again state that this is not solely MY List, but everyone that has every single issue in the game regarding PvP balance on the forum and in-game.



    Do I need to make a list? Every PvPer here knows how easy it is for Federation is to lose against the Klingons. If you want to win, you go Klingon, if you just want to level up fast or get Marks, go Federation.

    The Dev Team really doesn't know how to balance PvP, and I'm really giving up if they ever will.

    I think the only real problem is that fact that they cannot balance the players. No system is going to be able to make up for player skill, reflexes, knowledge, and decision making ability.

    I PvP on both sides, and the main thing that I notice is that the better players and/or better teams tend to win more often. I think I have won and lost enough on both sides to support this argument. Players and Fleets that invest more time in learning the game, upgrading their builds, and practicing teaming together will clearly enjoy a significant advantage. I believe this is as it should be, otherwise why would anyone bother extending the effort to learn and practice.

    Strategy, tactics, builds, teamwork, and communication can lead either faction to victory.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Most premade players I know complain that matches are too long against other premades.

    I would assume this is because the system is balanced to the point that tipping points and "if I only hit that button" are rarer (and a huge factor in that is survivability being increased).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Most premade players I know complain that matches are too long against other premades.

    I would assume this is because the system is balanced to the point that tipping points and "if I only hit that button" are rarer (and a huge factor in that is survivability being increased).

    Well, I would like to think that premades are better able to support each other and keep ships functioning. Increased survivability will lengthen many matches...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    This entire thread is a 'buff my Fed Cruiser' post not-so-cleverly disguised as an 'improve PvP' post.

    Your suggestions, apart from improving the queue system, are clearly subjective. I do not agree with them, or with you.
Sign In or Register to comment.