I have to agree with combadge, chances are that your team will win 1/3 of the matches you're in, even if you sit AFK. Monitor time on capture points or kills scored for some better reward systems.
This means once you've accept a mission, you have 24 hours to complete the mission goals. All the other daily objectives work on a similar mechanic (though slightly less than 24 hours).
You can complete any of the dailies in as much time as you want to, there's no 24 hours "omg have to finish it today!!!" thing. If you complete a daily more than 24 hours after you are given it, you are eligible to be given it again right away
This means once you've accept a mission, you have 24 hours to complete the mission goals. All the other daily objectives work on a similar mechanic (though slightly less than 24 hours).
That is incorrect.
You can take as long as you want to complete the mission after taking it.
The next daily however won't start till 20+- hours have passed.
So if you take the mission, wait 20 hours and play it, you can immediately take the next.
Or if you wait even longer you start to skip missions in between.
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
I understand a lot of this is still TBD, but 15 PvP battles seems a lot for a daily mission -- say a typical arena is 5 minute queue (however, this can be longer depending on time of day) and 10 minute playtime, that's nearly 4 hours! Ground arenas and capture and hold maps can be quite a bit longer.
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
I'm sorry but this isn't going to solve anything. Those of us that still hate PvP but want the emblems are still going to go afk or try to get killed as fast as possible in these matches.
A much better solution would be to take Daily missions out of the PvP queue altogether and instead add more PvP systems like Ker'Rat and Otha. That will remove the annoying behavior from the PvP queue and the people that want to get extra emblems for PvP daily's can go to the open PvP combat systems to earn emblems.
I'm sorry but this isn't going to solve anything. Those of us that still hate PvP but want the emblems are still going to go afk or try to get killed as fast as possible in these matches.
Sadly, I agree. These folks seem intent on ruining the game for others until you take out the dailies. They come out and say they won't stop until the mission is removed. That's basically bullying. Cryptic should grow a pair and do something about it.:mad:
Sometimes stuff happens, things come up. I was in a PVP today, and the phone rang, it was my father, i had to take the call. These things happen and should not be condemned. Life has to take precedent over the game.
However, those that intentionally come in, and just sit there, waiting for everyone else to do the dirty work for them so they can get their emblems or whatnot, those people *should* get a temp ban from PVP. Problem is finding them, finding a pattern, finding out if they are doing it repeatedly (once is not enough IMO). It would require a massive moderation undertaking that I doubt Cryptic wants to get into. It isn't a big enough problem at this point.
All I can do is encourage everyone who PVP's to fight the good fight.
Also, people need to relax if someone isn't fighting, or goes AFK for a little bit, its just a game.
Sounds like players who are trying to figure out how to play. It's not like there's a lot of opportunity for prep and planning. You're off doing trekkie things while listed in a que then you get a pop-up, transported to the instance, and in combat range within a few moments. For the experienced PvPer, this is expected. For the novice, it is something to figure out.
That is well and fine for new guys... but I hardly doubt Captains and Rear Admirals are so unable to play they just sit there at PvP start. RA is when I first began seriously trying PvP, and seeing this occur 4 out of 9 or maybe even 3 out of 5 games.
I can't remember but are you automatically thrown into a pvp match if you are queued? There should be an except button to prevent an unintentional AFK'er.
Nope. If I am at the warp sector map I always get a second popup that requires I click it within ~12 or something seconds. One time I didn't click it and I wasn't allowed into the PvP.
We are actually working on a solution very similar to BigRedJedi's suggestion of providing rewards for participation, with bonus rewards for victory, for PvP Daily missions.
The key issue is providing the correct ratio of participation to reward, so that it is more time efficient to try for a win rather than just go AFK to grind out the 'participation' rewards.
I'm hoping this will go in soon after the Season 3 launch.
-snix
I am very glad to hear something is finally being done about this. Not to come across as rude as that isn't my intention, but when I picked up STO and began playing during Sept/Oct I was amazed at how prolific this problem was and that for an almost 1 year old game that nothing appeared to have been done about it.
This by far was the single largest reason I never renewed my subscription after the first month. Because if PvP is the only real option for RAs/VAs, then having almost half of the PvP games result in uneven teams (because of AFKs or people warping out at PvP start) and knowing future games would result in more of the same made sticking around pointless and quite frustrating.
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
I like this quite a bit, but I was wondering, could you consider adding a few separate rewards for Feds to win vs Klingons? Due to the overall mis-perception of Klingons are OP!1!, oh noes!! I fear this system, which I otherwise love, will result in less FvK matches than we have now, unless we add specific rewards for it.
In addition, if it's possible, could you value the C&H matches a bit more than the Arenas, rewards wise? A good C&H can last quite a bit longer than a good Arena, and the averages are also much longer. It'd be kind of nice to get an extra emblem or two out of C&H.
What if AFK players were flagged for open PVP by both factions (as traitor to their own and as a target for the other)? And you get bonus emblems each time you gank them?
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
I really hope you're gonna fix the pvp balance issues first. Especially Fed vs Klink.
I like this quite a bit, but I was wondering, could you consider adding a few separate rewards for Feds to win vs Klingons? Due to the overall mis-perception of Klingons are OP!1!, oh noes!! I fear this system, which I otherwise love, will result in less FvK matches than we have now, unless we add specific rewards for it.
In addition, if it's possible, could you value the C&H matches a bit more than the Arenas, rewards wise? A good C&H can last quite a bit longer than a good Arena, and the averages are also much longer. It'd be kind of nice to get an extra emblem or two out of C&H.
I really like what snix is proposing (with the understanding that the final numbers may need to be looked at, to ensure that time spent is rewarded proportionally).
Warem brings up 2 very good points. First, there could (potentially) be additional, daily rewards for FvK Wins (on both sides, but separate and in addition to the rewards for simply 'winning' a certain # of Matches of any kind), as this would incentivize some of those players that fall into the gray area between casual and hardcore PvP-er to put some additional effort into learning and understanding how to effectively play in the PvP environment.
Second, C&H Matches require a disproportionally long amount of time to complete (assuming that both teams are 'actually' trying to Capture and Hold) in comparison to Arena Missions or Ker'rat. As it has been mentioned that ensuring that rewards are proportional to time spent to complete a Mission, perhaps the rewards for C&H Missions should be proportionally larger (again, assuming that an adequate 'participation' monitoring system can be effectively developed and implemented).
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
I honestly DO NOT like this system, Snix.
This system obviously favors the Hardcore PvPers and not the Parttime PvPers who do actually participate. And such a system would discourage players who have a limited timeframe to pariticpate. And like said previously, it's not going to discourage AFKers at all. It possibily could have them throw even more of a monkey wrench in trying to end the matches sooner.
In fact, if such a system is put into place, I honestly can expect a drop in PvP numbers.
Best way to solve this is to get rid of that carrot (emblems) for PvP missions. Have people PvP for the love of it, not because they felt they had to.
The plan is for participation and wins to be tracked as seperate daily missions.
So the mission list might look like this:
"Play 15 PvP battles" that earns a small amount of Emblems.
"Win 3 PvP battles" that earns a decent amount of Emblems.
"Win 4 PvP battles" (including the original 3 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a few Emblems
"Win 5 PvP battles" (including the original 4 wins from the mission above, so 1 more win) that earns a final Emblem
So from the example above, a player that enjoys PvP but fails to win any games will earn some Emblems just for being in 15 games. While playing those 15 games or continuing to play after the 15, if they should win 3 battles they'll earn more Emblems, win 4 and earn more, win 5 and earn the most.
The goal being that you'll earn more Emblems for your devoted time if you work together to win, but you'll still earn something even if you can't pull off a victory.
-snix
Don't tie daily rewards mostly with the need to win the fight. This will hurt public groups and would focus PvP entirely around premade groups. Also balancing issues would become much more punishing and problematic as they are now.
Daily missions for participation in PvP should be something like:
[exact numbers and reward tbd]
C&H:
- Capture x points
- Deal x damage while on/around capture-able point
- Heal x damage while on/around capture-able point
Arena:
- (contribute to) x kills
- Deal x damage
- Heal x damage
Kerrat:
- Scan x nodes
- Destroy x hubs
This way you reward people for contributing to the mission objectives without excluding the losing side from most rewards.
This system obviously favors the Hardcore PvPers and not the Parttime PvPers who do actually participate. And such a system would discourage players who have a limited timeframe to pariticpate. And like said previously, it's not going to discourage AFKers at all. It possibily could have them throw even more of a monkey wrench in trying to end the matches sooner.
In fact, if such a system is put into place, I honestly can expect a drop in PvP numbers.
Best way to solve this is to get rid of that carrot (emblems) for PvP missions. Have people PvP for the love of it, not because they felt they had to.
Removing the incentive for playing in PvP (Emblems) will make PvP numbers drop far more swiftly and precipitously. By taking away a reason to participate in PvP, the only people that will remain playing in PvP will be the hardcore PvP-ers; thus, your solution of removing the current reward for playing in PvP, will, instead, create the very 'system' that you believe snix's solution will engender.
As it stands now, part-time PvP-ers (or 'Casual' PvP-ers), which actively participate in PvP, are rewarded each day for their participation in 3 Matches of varying types, regardless of the outcome of those Matches. Under the newly-proposed system, Casual PvP-ers will still be rewarded for participating in a set number of Matches, but they will also be able to accrue additional rewards if they contribute to their team's efforts to Win in Matches.
Not only will this encourage some of those Casual PvP-ers to spend a little time learning the ins and outs of their builds and how to work alongside various, other builds, thanks to the added incentive of the Bonus Emblems; but it also provides the potential for greater reward for time invested, so that players with "limited timeframes to participate" will have the opportunity to maximize the use of their time. Offering incentive to productively participate will only be a good thing for the PvP community, as players that may not have devoted the little bit of extra effort to become dedicated PvP-ers will find that the time which they spend becoming better PvP-ers will be suitably rewarded.
Will it discourage the AFK-ers? Probably not, as there will always be a subset of any MMO community that wants something for nothing. Although you may entirely solve the AFK-er problem by "removing the carrot", you will be crippling the PvP community-at-large by limiting or eliminating the influx of new players, who will spend their time earning Emblems elsewhere, rather than delve into PvP, until the only PvP community that remains is the hardcore, premade Fleets, and the occasional, psychotic loner (you all know who you are LOL).
If we, the PvP community, want people to come join us in PvP and learn how to both have fun and be effective in that environment, we should be standing behind all ideas that reward participation; so that more and more players can come and see how exciting that STO PvP can be.
Don't tie daily rewards mostly with the need to win the fight. This will hurt public groups and would focus PvP entirely around premade groups. Also balancing issues would become much more punishing and problematic as they are now.
Daily missions for participation in PvP should be something like:
[exact numbers and reward tbd]
C&H:
- Capture x points
- Deal x damage while on/around capture-able point
- Heal x damage while on/around capture-able point
Arena:
- (contribute to) x kills
- Deal x damage
- Heal x damage
Kerrat:
- Scan x nodes
- Destroy x hubs
This way you reward people for contributing to the mission objectives without excluding the losing side from most rewards.
THIS ^^^^^ /signed
I'll go a step further.
There are what, five areas in Cap and Hold? Every 5'th capture credit results in gaining an additional emblem.
"Deal X damage" Yes, but it's Cap and Hold. Change to "X damage within X kilometers of cap point.". Then it' actually like you're being rewarded for defending rather than spiraling upwards in an endless and useless pvp ball. 25k-50k, 50k-125k, 125k-250k, 250k-> could be used as initial damage numbers when calculating extra emblems.
"Heal X damage" Same idea as doing damage except maybe 25k-100k, 100k-250k, 250k-> being the ranges for healing. As I've stated before "heal other" deserves perhaps a bit more.
"Contribute to destruction of X vessels" Spot on
"Scan x hubs" and "Destroy X nodes" are both good as they are.....
Using my numbers from above would probably result in FAR too many emblems being handed out so you might want to shift the numbers and base them around the three matches within the "daily mission" as opposed to each of three single missions.
in any case it's doubtful that anyone will listen. When a Dev says 'we're working on' it usually means that time and money are already invested in code. They will bust their asses to come out with a bad system instead of 'waste money' and scrap their system in favor of one thats far more beneficial to solving the problem.
For a game that almost has to override their own profanity filters just to name a system, you would think they would contribute more to 'wholesome logic'. Case in point...... "It's not if you win or loose, but how you play the game."
Removing the incentive for playing in PvP (Emblems) will make PvP numbers drop far more swiftly and precipitously. By taking away a reason to participate in PvP, the only people that will remain playing in PvP will be the hardcore PvP-ers; thus, your solution of removing the current reward for playing in PvP, will, instead, create the very 'system' that you believe snix's solution will engender.
Re-read what they said. They don't WANT to 'fix it'. They WANT it scrapped. Of course you would see a drop in PvP.
This system obviously favors the Hardcore PvPers and not the Parttime PvPers who do actually participate. And such a system would discourage players who have a limited timeframe to pariticpate. And like said previously, it's not going to discourage AFKers at all. It possibily could have them throw even more of a monkey wrench in trying to end the matches sooner.
In fact, if such a system is put into place, I honestly can expect a drop in PvP numbers.
Best way to solve this is to get rid of that carrot (emblems) for PvP missions. Have people PvP for the love of it, not because they felt they had to.
To you I say..... I go do your drab assed PvE missions for emblems. You can spend some time where I like to be in order to earn some of yours too.
I first started PvP'ing to supplement my exploration points in gearing up my ships by each tier. Sadly, K-7 does not offer Mk XI green or blue gear so that aspect of it is gone for me. I can understand and appreciate your purist view of 'people should do this for the love of it', but yeah, my initial reply states my overall feelings about it.
Read the posts that I, and another person have made (Sorry, but I initially said the same thing 3 pages ago) regarding participation as opposed to winning. I think you'll find those 'do-able' and much more easy to stomach.
I think that sinx proposal is a good one. We do have to understand that both the casual and the hardcore have to be rewarded. And a positive way to do this is the best way.
As I understand it if I win three matches I will get more rewards than just playing in 15 matches. I then would probably not worry about getting all 15 matches in. I could call it good at three wins and then take my emblems and go home if I had a limited time to play that day.
My only concern is the long Q waits you can get if one has a limited time to play. Or being given 15 matches in Ker'rat for your daily. (Ker'rat should be taken out of the rotation if this will be the system used) And I would like a better rotation setup anyway. I mean cap and hold for a WEEK at 15 matches a day would drive me nuts.
And I am one of those guys, causal player though I maybe, that would still PvP even if there were no rewards given.
So even removing the daily wouldn't stop me from doing PvP. I think it would, however, punish those who are the hardcore or in a dedicated PvP fleet as they should be getting something for the time and effort they put into the game.
I don't really like the idea for similar reasons to some of the people above.
I love PVP in STO, and think the factions are actually pretty balanced - the large disparity in wins I feel is due more to differences in skill in teamwork, not the stuff on Cryptic's end.
But having also played stuff like say...WoW, where you had to win your PVP daily in order for it to count, having to spend some times literally hours of extra time each day because all your pugs were bad was extremely discouraging, and I really liked how in STO, I found that you didn't actually have to win. I could PVP, have fun, but even if we lost, my time spent counted just as much as those who won.
I do admit it infuriates me when I see someone AFK on my side (not quite as much when it's the other side take every advantage you can get in war!) and would like to see something done about it, but I don't really like the proposed solution here. Perhaps something like a shorter AFK timer inside a PVP area like 3 or 5 minutes that automatically removes you from the arena if you are AFK might work.
Or, if you want to go by wins, I would suggest something like having the PVP daily be 'play 3 games of <gametype> OR win 1 game of <gametype>', whichever comes first. Those casual players who just want to get it over would be more inclined to try for a win if it gets them done it sooner, and the people who like PVP can just keep playing, as long as they have time. (Or don't have a bunch of other alts they want to do their PVP daily on, like me.)
I really hope you're gonna fix the pvp balance issues first. Especially Fed vs Klink.
They did, the finally boosted Klingons so that the matches between Feds and Klinks are now balanced. Oh wait, you wanted them to nerf Klingons so they were even weaker than before? Hahaha - no.
I don't really like the idea for similar reasons to some of the people above.
I love PVP in STO, and think the factions are actually pretty balanced - the large disparity in wins I feel is due more to differences in skill in teamwork, not the stuff on Cryptic's end.
But having also played stuff like say...WoW, where you had to win your PVP daily in order for it to count, having to spend some times literally hours of extra time each day because all your pugs were bad was extremely discouraging, and I really liked how in STO, I found that you didn't actually have to win. I could PVP, have fun, but even if we lost, my time spent counted just as much as those who won.
I do admit it infuriates me when I see someone AFK on my side (not quite as much when it's the other side take every advantage you can get in war!) and would like to see something done about it, but I don't really like the proposed solution here. Perhaps something like a shorter AFK timer inside a PVP area like 3 or 5 minutes that automatically removes you from the arena if you are AFK might work.
Or, if you want to go by wins, I would suggest something like having the PVP daily be 'play 3 games of <gametype> OR win 1 game of <gametype>', whichever comes first. Those casual players who just want to get it over would be more inclined to try for a win if it gets them done it sooner, and the people who like PVP can just keep playing, as long as they have time. (Or don't have a bunch of other alts they want to do their PVP daily on, like me.)
The problem is that the AFKers don't just AFK. We have all seen them remove their shields and full impulse to the enemy, ignore capturing in capture and hold, and just go get a few points of damage and healing so they couldn't be reported, etc.
As long as you can earn 3 emblems in 15 minutes from purposely loosing a pvp match, they'll be there, ruining PvP for up to 20 other people. Heck there are people here in the forums who vocally and proudly professed that they do it.
An alternative would be to remove emblems completely, but I feel that would impact my enjoyment of PvP quite a bit. I like getting rewards :-/ .
Now, I understand the thing about the bad pugs, but you should realize that if we eliminate the people who are not interested in pvp at all, and just see it as a fast way to get emblems, most of the bad pugs will be gone. Most Klingon pugs are really pretty damn good - they work together well, heal each other, focus fire, adapt to the tactics they see others using (if I use shockwave vs 1 enemy, then others will wait 4 second and toss another one to finish him off, f.ex) - and all of this without even a need for voice chat or instructions.
A small reward just for trying IS still present, and sooner or later you will win 3 matches, specially with the quality of fed pugs increasing, a lot.
To you I say..... I go do your drab assed PvE missions for emblems. You can spend some time where I like to be in order to earn some of yours too.
I first started PvP'ing to supplement my exploration points in gearing up my ships by each tier. Sadly, K-7 does not offer Mk XI green or blue gear so that aspect of it is gone for me. I can understand and appreciate your purist view of 'people should do this for the love of it', but yeah, my initial reply states my overall feelings about it.
Read the posts that I, and another person have made (Sorry, but I initially said the same thing 3 pages ago) regarding participation as opposed to winning. I think you'll find those 'do-able' and much more easy to stomach.
If you don't like PvE that's your business, but some people who actually like to do both.
Removing the incentive for playing in PvP (Emblems) will make PvP numbers drop far more swiftly and precipitously. By taking away a reason to participate in PvP, the only people that will remain playing in PvP will be the hardcore PvP-ers; thus, your solution of removing the current reward for playing in PvP, will, instead, create the very 'system' that you believe snix's solution will engender.
As it stands now, part-time PvP-ers (or 'Casual' PvP-ers), which actively participate in PvP, are rewarded each day for their participation in 3 Matches of varying types, regardless of the outcome of those Matches. Under the newly-proposed system, Casual PvP-ers will still be rewarded for participating in a set number of Matches, but they will also be able to accrue additional rewards if they contribute to their team's efforts to Win in Matches.
Not only will this encourage some of those Casual PvP-ers to spend a little time learning the ins and outs of their builds and how to work alongside various, other builds, thanks to the added incentive of the Bonus Emblems; but it also provides the potential for greater reward for time invested, so that players with "limited timeframes to participate" will have the opportunity to maximize the use of their time. Offering incentive to productively participate will only be a good thing for the PvP community, as players that may not have devoted the little bit of extra effort to become dedicated PvP-ers will find that the time which they spend becoming better PvP-ers will be suitably rewarded.
Will it discourage the AFK-ers? Probably not, as there will always be a subset of any MMO community that wants something for nothing. Although you may entirely solve the AFK-er problem by "removing the carrot", you will be crippling the PvP community-at-large by limiting or eliminating the influx of new players, who will spend their time earning Emblems elsewhere, rather than delve into PvP, until the only PvP community that remains is the hardcore, premade Fleets, and the occasional, psychotic loner (you all know who you are LOL).
If we, the PvP community, want people to come join us in PvP and learn how to both have fun and be effective in that environment, we should be standing behind all ideas that reward participation; so that more and more players can come and see how exciting that STO PvP can be.
-Big Red
And dangling more carrots is going to solve your AFK problem? I guarantee you Snix's idea is going to bomb in a way I think it actually might encourage more AFKers.
What needs to be done is either player's police themselves or deal with them. For instance, a pre-Queue system where you see who is in the match ahead of time. You see a known AFKer, you have the option to play with them or wait for the next queue. It's up to you.
If you don't like PvE that's your business, but some people who actually like to do both.
And dangling more carrots is going to solve your AFK problem? I guarantee you Snix's idea is going to bomb in a way I think it actually might encourage more AFKers.
What needs to be done is either player's police themselves or deal with them. For instance, a pre-Queue system where you see who is in the match ahead of time. You see a known AFKer, you have the option to play with them or wait for the next queue. It's up to you.
I don't mind both. It's the endless complaining of "Why should I have to PvP?" that drives me nuts. There are at least what, five ways PvE to one way PvP to earn emblems? (by "ways" I also mean amounts earned)
I've given my idea and supported a similar idea, in this very thread, regarding an equitable way to reward for participation. Sadly, your "hard core" (of which I challenge any to 1v1 me) PvP'ers support a system based on wins rather than participation.
Sadly, your "hard core" (of which I challenge any to 1v1 me) PvP'ers support a system based on wins rather than participation.
I'm not very fond of this either. 15 matches? I got a lot of toons. Getting emblems is already a job. Plus I think emblems based of wins is kind of discouraging. Sadly these folks are ruining the game by exploiting it.:mad:
I can't see any casual pvp'ers doing a daily that required 15 pvp matches when the old method has only 3. Perhaps snix didn't mean 15 at all, but that wouldn't work very well for pvp as a whole. Snix also made it sound as if the winning rewards would be a lot better than the participation ones. I'm for some additional rewards for victory or perhaps scaling rewards for damage/healing/etc. But if it is perceived that only a minimal reward is available for participation and all other rewards are contingent on victory it will hurt pvp participation as a whole. I think in particular FvK would be hurt most.
Whether Klingon ships are overpowered or not (I happen to think the BoP that is the only KDF ship I've played to any high level is the most powerful ship I've ever flown) there is no doubt that Klingons are king of pvp. The reasoning is fairly incontrovertible: Klingons were the pvp faction from launch, the players there did nothing but pvp for months while the Feds were doing storylines and scanning rocks. The Klingon faction self selected for pvp enthusiasts and are far more experienced at it. They tend to be more organized and able to adapt even to PUGs, though they are more often going to be premades anyway. Premade beats PUG most of the time. Voice chat beats the heck out of typing. Cryptic has resolutely declined to include voice chat which would enable all players to easily join a voice channel, whereas right now you have to get ip addresses and have the right chat program that this team is using, and pugs probably don't have anyone hosting a server. So the organized premade with voice will almost certainly beat any pug.
So FvK is going to be all premades vs premades eventually if victory rewards are significant. Maybe that's what you want, but I think it will mean longer queues and fewer matches.
The problem is how do you incentivize more participation in matches, both entering the queue and helping fight once you get there. Right now waits for a queue are far too long, especially at any rank not at the top and at any time not primetime. Ladders and all the other good stuff you could do down the line depend on getting active turnover on queues first. We need less segregation, not more because too few pvp at all. How to get that and keep afk'ers from afk'ing is the rub. I didn't see the one answer anywhere in this long thread.
I don't know why Cryptic won't grow a pair and do something about this. This is intentional ill will towards others. It's griefing.
At least my suggestion to remove emblems from the PvP queue and keep it in the open PvP warzones would help resolve the afk problem. Daily's would no longer be an excuse for going afk in a PvP queue match.
At least my suggestion to remove emblems from the PvP queue and keep it in the open PvP warzones would help resolve the afk problem. Daily's would no longer be an excuse for going afk in a PvP queue match.
If STO followed YOUR idea PvP would consist of an "old time classic" ..... "Saucers and BoPs (Tic Tac Toe)"
I'm not very fond of this either. 15 matches? I got a lot of toons. Getting emblems is already a job. Plus I think emblems based of wins is kind of discouraging. Sadly these folks are ruining the game by exploiting it.:mad:
You pretty much nailed it. Snix's ideas would really hurt those with multiple characters as well.
After thinking about it, I think right now we should just ignore them than implementing complicated changes like Snix's idea.
I think it would be best to get rid of PvP rewards altogether when Open PvP is implemented. And put in old-school MMO dungeons within these worlds and have players fight (PvP) for control of these dunegeons, which will drop nice stuff (on rare occasion).
Now there is no AFKers mooching off the system, and PvPers get what they want in fighting which results in rewards. And at the same time, there is actual wins and losses.
IMHO, this is probably the best course for Cryptic to take.
Goal: You want more participating players in public queues.
Problems:
- Certain pvp dailys can be completed far more faster in a private queue.
- Experienced players can game the system to choose which daily they get.
Possible solutions:
Make sure the ability to complete ANY pvp daily via private queues is removed. And you need to spin off the war zones daily from the other two ones. I can complete the later in less than twenty minutes. That competes even with the fastest private queue solution. Both of this needs to be done though or people will gravitate towards the other easier way to achieve their emblems instead of choosing to participate in public queues again.
Comments
You can complete any of the dailies in as much time as you want to, there's no 24 hours "omg have to finish it today!!!" thing. If you complete a daily more than 24 hours after you are given it, you are eligible to be given it again right away
That is incorrect.
You can take as long as you want to complete the mission after taking it.
The next daily however won't start till 20+- hours have passed.
So if you take the mission, wait 20 hours and play it, you can immediately take the next.
Or if you wait even longer you start to skip missions in between.
I understand a lot of this is still TBD, but 15 PvP battles seems a lot for a daily mission -- say a typical arena is 5 minute queue (however, this can be longer depending on time of day) and 10 minute playtime, that's nearly 4 hours! Ground arenas and capture and hold maps can be quite a bit longer.
I'm sorry but this isn't going to solve anything. Those of us that still hate PvP but want the emblems are still going to go afk or try to get killed as fast as possible in these matches.
A much better solution would be to take Daily missions out of the PvP queue altogether and instead add more PvP systems like Ker'Rat and Otha. That will remove the annoying behavior from the PvP queue and the people that want to get extra emblems for PvP daily's can go to the open PvP combat systems to earn emblems.
Sadly, I agree. These folks seem intent on ruining the game for others until you take out the dailies. They come out and say they won't stop until the mission is removed. That's basically bullying. Cryptic should grow a pair and do something about it.:mad:
However, those that intentionally come in, and just sit there, waiting for everyone else to do the dirty work for them so they can get their emblems or whatnot, those people *should* get a temp ban from PVP. Problem is finding them, finding a pattern, finding out if they are doing it repeatedly (once is not enough IMO). It would require a massive moderation undertaking that I doubt Cryptic wants to get into. It isn't a big enough problem at this point.
All I can do is encourage everyone who PVP's to fight the good fight.
Also, people need to relax if someone isn't fighting, or goes AFK for a little bit, its just a game.
That is well and fine for new guys... but I hardly doubt Captains and Rear Admirals are so unable to play they just sit there at PvP start. RA is when I first began seriously trying PvP, and seeing this occur 4 out of 9 or maybe even 3 out of 5 games.
Nope. If I am at the warp sector map I always get a second popup that requires I click it within ~12 or something seconds. One time I didn't click it and I wasn't allowed into the PvP.
I am very glad to hear something is finally being done about this. Not to come across as rude as that isn't my intention, but when I picked up STO and began playing during Sept/Oct I was amazed at how prolific this problem was and that for an almost 1 year old game that nothing appeared to have been done about it.
This by far was the single largest reason I never renewed my subscription after the first month. Because if PvP is the only real option for RAs/VAs, then having almost half of the PvP games result in uneven teams (because of AFKs or people warping out at PvP start) and knowing future games would result in more of the same made sticking around pointless and quite frustrating.
I like this quite a bit, but I was wondering, could you consider adding a few separate rewards for Feds to win vs Klingons? Due to the overall mis-perception of Klingons are OP!1!, oh noes!! I fear this system, which I otherwise love, will result in less FvK matches than we have now, unless we add specific rewards for it.
In addition, if it's possible, could you value the C&H matches a bit more than the Arenas, rewards wise? A good C&H can last quite a bit longer than a good Arena, and the averages are also much longer. It'd be kind of nice to get an extra emblem or two out of C&H.
I know, I know - it's pretty evil.
I really hope you're gonna fix the pvp balance issues first. Especially Fed vs Klink.
I really like what snix is proposing (with the understanding that the final numbers may need to be looked at, to ensure that time spent is rewarded proportionally).
Warem brings up 2 very good points. First, there could (potentially) be additional, daily rewards for FvK Wins (on both sides, but separate and in addition to the rewards for simply 'winning' a certain # of Matches of any kind), as this would incentivize some of those players that fall into the gray area between casual and hardcore PvP-er to put some additional effort into learning and understanding how to effectively play in the PvP environment.
Second, C&H Matches require a disproportionally long amount of time to complete (assuming that both teams are 'actually' trying to Capture and Hold) in comparison to Arena Missions or Ker'rat. As it has been mentioned that ensuring that rewards are proportional to time spent to complete a Mission, perhaps the rewards for C&H Missions should be proportionally larger (again, assuming that an adequate 'participation' monitoring system can be effectively developed and implemented).
Looking forward to this!
-Big Red
I honestly DO NOT like this system, Snix.
This system obviously favors the Hardcore PvPers and not the Parttime PvPers who do actually participate. And such a system would discourage players who have a limited timeframe to pariticpate. And like said previously, it's not going to discourage AFKers at all. It possibily could have them throw even more of a monkey wrench in trying to end the matches sooner.
In fact, if such a system is put into place, I honestly can expect a drop in PvP numbers.
Best way to solve this is to get rid of that carrot (emblems) for PvP missions. Have people PvP for the love of it, not because they felt they had to.
Daily missions for participation in PvP should be something like:
[exact numbers and reward tbd]
C&H:
- Capture x points
- Deal x damage while on/around capture-able point
- Heal x damage while on/around capture-able point
Arena:
- (contribute to) x kills
- Deal x damage
- Heal x damage
Kerrat:
- Scan x nodes
- Destroy x hubs
This way you reward people for contributing to the mission objectives without excluding the losing side from most rewards.
Removing the incentive for playing in PvP (Emblems) will make PvP numbers drop far more swiftly and precipitously. By taking away a reason to participate in PvP, the only people that will remain playing in PvP will be the hardcore PvP-ers; thus, your solution of removing the current reward for playing in PvP, will, instead, create the very 'system' that you believe snix's solution will engender.
As it stands now, part-time PvP-ers (or 'Casual' PvP-ers), which actively participate in PvP, are rewarded each day for their participation in 3 Matches of varying types, regardless of the outcome of those Matches. Under the newly-proposed system, Casual PvP-ers will still be rewarded for participating in a set number of Matches, but they will also be able to accrue additional rewards if they contribute to their team's efforts to Win in Matches.
Not only will this encourage some of those Casual PvP-ers to spend a little time learning the ins and outs of their builds and how to work alongside various, other builds, thanks to the added incentive of the Bonus Emblems; but it also provides the potential for greater reward for time invested, so that players with "limited timeframes to participate" will have the opportunity to maximize the use of their time. Offering incentive to productively participate will only be a good thing for the PvP community, as players that may not have devoted the little bit of extra effort to become dedicated PvP-ers will find that the time which they spend becoming better PvP-ers will be suitably rewarded.
Will it discourage the AFK-ers? Probably not, as there will always be a subset of any MMO community that wants something for nothing. Although you may entirely solve the AFK-er problem by "removing the carrot", you will be crippling the PvP community-at-large by limiting or eliminating the influx of new players, who will spend their time earning Emblems elsewhere, rather than delve into PvP, until the only PvP community that remains is the hardcore, premade Fleets, and the occasional, psychotic loner (you all know who you are
If we, the PvP community, want people to come join us in PvP and learn how to both have fun and be effective in that environment, we should be standing behind all ideas that reward participation; so that more and more players can come and see how exciting that STO PvP can be.
-Big Red
THIS ^^^^^ /signed
I'll go a step further.
There are what, five areas in Cap and Hold? Every 5'th capture credit results in gaining an additional emblem.
"Deal X damage" Yes, but it's Cap and Hold. Change to "X damage within X kilometers of cap point.". Then it' actually like you're being rewarded for defending rather than spiraling upwards in an endless and useless pvp ball. 25k-50k, 50k-125k, 125k-250k, 250k-> could be used as initial damage numbers when calculating extra emblems.
"Heal X damage" Same idea as doing damage except maybe 25k-100k, 100k-250k, 250k-> being the ranges for healing. As I've stated before "heal other" deserves perhaps a bit more.
"Contribute to destruction of X vessels" Spot on
"Scan x hubs" and "Destroy X nodes" are both good as they are.....
Using my numbers from above would probably result in FAR too many emblems being handed out so you might want to shift the numbers and base them around the three matches within the "daily mission" as opposed to each of three single missions.
in any case it's doubtful that anyone will listen. When a Dev says 'we're working on' it usually means that time and money are already invested in code. They will bust their asses to come out with a bad system instead of 'waste money' and scrap their system in favor of one thats far more beneficial to solving the problem.
For a game that almost has to override their own profanity filters just to name a system, you would think they would contribute more to 'wholesome logic'. Case in point...... "It's not if you win or loose, but how you play the game."
Re-read what they said. They don't WANT to 'fix it'. They WANT it scrapped. Of course you would see a drop in PvP.
To you I say..... I go do your drab assed PvE missions for emblems. You can spend some time where I like to be in order to earn some of yours too.
I first started PvP'ing to supplement my exploration points in gearing up my ships by each tier. Sadly, K-7 does not offer Mk XI green or blue gear so that aspect of it is gone for me. I can understand and appreciate your purist view of 'people should do this for the love of it', but yeah, my initial reply states my overall feelings about it.
Read the posts that I, and another person have made (Sorry, but I initially said the same thing 3 pages ago) regarding participation as opposed to winning. I think you'll find those 'do-able' and much more easy to stomach.
As I understand it if I win three matches I will get more rewards than just playing in 15 matches. I then would probably not worry about getting all 15 matches in. I could call it good at three wins and then take my emblems and go home if I had a limited time to play that day.
My only concern is the long Q waits you can get if one has a limited time to play. Or being given 15 matches in Ker'rat for your daily. (Ker'rat should be taken out of the rotation if this will be the system used) And I would like a better rotation setup anyway. I mean cap and hold for a WEEK at 15 matches a day would drive me nuts.
And I am one of those guys, causal player though I maybe, that would still PvP even if there were no rewards given.
So even removing the daily wouldn't stop me from doing PvP. I think it would, however, punish those who are the hardcore or in a dedicated PvP fleet as they should be getting something for the time and effort they put into the game.
I love PVP in STO, and think the factions are actually pretty balanced - the large disparity in wins I feel is due more to differences in skill in teamwork, not the stuff on Cryptic's end.
But having also played stuff like say...WoW, where you had to win your PVP daily in order for it to count, having to spend some times literally hours of extra time each day because all your pugs were bad was extremely discouraging, and I really liked how in STO, I found that you didn't actually have to win. I could PVP, have fun, but even if we lost, my time spent counted just as much as those who won.
I do admit it infuriates me when I see someone AFK on my side (not quite as much when it's the other side
Or, if you want to go by wins, I would suggest something like having the PVP daily be 'play 3 games of <gametype> OR win 1 game of <gametype>', whichever comes first. Those casual players who just want to get it over would be more inclined to try for a win if it gets them done it sooner, and the people who like PVP can just keep playing, as long as they have time. (Or don't have a bunch of other alts they want to do their PVP daily on, like me.)
They did, the finally boosted Klingons so that the matches between Feds and Klinks are now balanced. Oh wait, you wanted them to nerf Klingons so they were even weaker than before? Hahaha - no.
The problem is that the AFKers don't just AFK. We have all seen them remove their shields and full impulse to the enemy, ignore capturing in capture and hold, and just go get a few points of damage and healing so they couldn't be reported, etc.
As long as you can earn 3 emblems in 15 minutes from purposely loosing a pvp match, they'll be there, ruining PvP for up to 20 other people. Heck there are people here in the forums who vocally and proudly professed that they do it.
An alternative would be to remove emblems completely, but I feel that would impact my enjoyment of PvP quite a bit. I like getting rewards :-/ .
Now, I understand the thing about the bad pugs, but you should realize that if we eliminate the people who are not interested in pvp at all, and just see it as a fast way to get emblems, most of the bad pugs will be gone. Most Klingon pugs are really pretty damn good - they work together well, heal each other, focus fire, adapt to the tactics they see others using (if I use shockwave vs 1 enemy, then others will wait 4 second and toss another one to finish him off, f.ex) - and all of this without even a need for voice chat or instructions.
A small reward just for trying IS still present, and sooner or later you will win 3 matches, specially with the quality of fed pugs increasing, a lot.
If I have to be miserable doing something I don't want to do then I am going to make sure that you are miserable as well.
Or the devs can change things so we both are happy. What 's better for the game? Unhappy players or happy ones.
If you don't like PvE that's your business, but some people who actually like to do both.
And dangling more carrots is going to solve your AFK problem? I guarantee you Snix's idea is going to bomb in a way I think it actually might encourage more AFKers.
What needs to be done is either player's police themselves or deal with them. For instance, a pre-Queue system where you see who is in the match ahead of time. You see a known AFKer, you have the option to play with them or wait for the next queue. It's up to you.
This is what I mean. These folks are intentionally trying to ruin other peoples fun time. They are bullies and babies.
PvP offering emblems isn't hurting anyone. It just an extra way to earn them on top of the 7 PvE missions that already do this.
I don't know why Cryptic won't grow a pair and do something about this. This is intentional ill will towards others. It's griefing.
I don't mind both. It's the endless complaining of "Why should I have to PvP?" that drives me nuts. There are at least what, five ways PvE to one way PvP to earn emblems? (by "ways" I also mean amounts earned)
I've given my idea and supported a similar idea, in this very thread, regarding an equitable way to reward for participation. Sadly, your "hard core" (of which I challenge any to 1v1 me) PvP'ers support a system based on wins rather than participation.
I'm not very fond of this either. 15 matches? I got a lot of toons. Getting emblems is already a job. Plus I think emblems based of wins is kind of discouraging. Sadly these folks are ruining the game by exploiting it.:mad:
Whether Klingon ships are overpowered or not (I happen to think the BoP that is the only KDF ship I've played to any high level is the most powerful ship I've ever flown) there is no doubt that Klingons are king of pvp. The reasoning is fairly incontrovertible: Klingons were the pvp faction from launch, the players there did nothing but pvp for months while the Feds were doing storylines and scanning rocks. The Klingon faction self selected for pvp enthusiasts and are far more experienced at it. They tend to be more organized and able to adapt even to PUGs, though they are more often going to be premades anyway. Premade beats PUG most of the time. Voice chat beats the heck out of typing. Cryptic has resolutely declined to include voice chat which would enable all players to easily join a voice channel, whereas right now you have to get ip addresses and have the right chat program that this team is using, and pugs probably don't have anyone hosting a server. So the organized premade with voice will almost certainly beat any pug.
So FvK is going to be all premades vs premades eventually if victory rewards are significant. Maybe that's what you want, but I think it will mean longer queues and fewer matches.
The problem is how do you incentivize more participation in matches, both entering the queue and helping fight once you get there. Right now waits for a queue are far too long, especially at any rank not at the top and at any time not primetime. Ladders and all the other good stuff you could do down the line depend on getting active turnover on queues first. We need less segregation, not more because too few pvp at all. How to get that and keep afk'ers from afk'ing is the rub. I didn't see the one answer anywhere in this long thread.
At least my suggestion to remove emblems from the PvP queue and keep it in the open PvP warzones would help resolve the afk problem. Daily's would no longer be an excuse for going afk in a PvP queue match.
If STO followed YOUR idea PvP would consist of an "old time classic" ..... "Saucers and BoPs (Tic Tac Toe)"
You pretty much nailed it. Snix's ideas would really hurt those with multiple characters as well.
After thinking about it, I think right now we should just ignore them than implementing complicated changes like Snix's idea.
I think it would be best to get rid of PvP rewards altogether when Open PvP is implemented. And put in old-school MMO dungeons within these worlds and have players fight (PvP) for control of these dunegeons, which will drop nice stuff (on rare occasion).
Now there is no AFKers mooching off the system, and PvPers get what they want in fighting which results in rewards. And at the same time, there is actual wins and losses.
IMHO, this is probably the best course for Cryptic to take.
Problems:
- Certain pvp dailys can be completed far more faster in a private queue.
- Experienced players can game the system to choose which daily they get.
Possible solutions:
Make sure the ability to complete ANY pvp daily via private queues is removed. And you need to spin off the war zones daily from the other two ones. I can complete the later in less than twenty minutes. That competes even with the fastest private queue solution. Both of this needs to be done though or people will gravitate towards the other easier way to achieve their emblems instead of choosing to participate in public queues again.