I think most of us can agree that PVPers do not have the market cornered on anti-social behavior but there has been some positive movement in this discussion, so I can hope only that we will not let it get derailed by the negative element of this community.
If something is not broken, don't fix it, if it is broken, don't leave it broken.
In between the nastiness, there's an actual discussion going on. If I close the thread, I end that discussion and the trolls on both sides of the argument win.
It's rare indeed to find a forum moderator who realizes this. Cheers. I have seen a lot of topics in other forums locked just because someone complained or because there was some fighting.
However, I am not sure I agree with some of the rules in this regard, like getting a warning out of the blue for "necro" when a post is older than a mere 30 days. Context should matter, not some automatic zero tolerance (zero thought) policy. If the content of the topic is so out of date that there is nothing at all that can be said (rare, actually) then I can understand not wanting more replies. Some topics are rarely discussed. Can we, at least, post a link to the prior topic and create a new one? It doesn't seem all that efficient, though, if a lot of what has been already said has to be said again.
I would prefer if we did not discus the attitudes of players and stick to ways to make pvp more enjoyable for the casual majority.
It's not a popular idea, but I'd like to see more open PvP areas like Ker'rat. A constant drop in/drop out battlezone with some PvE element attached to it to keep things spicy.
Another alternative would be more options for bigger battles. People could be more willing to try PvP if they were part of a huge armada or something. Safety in numbers after all.
It's not a popular idea, but I'd like to see more open PvP areas like Ker'rat. A constant drop in/drop out battlezone with some PvE element attached to it to keep things spicy.
Another alternative would be more options for bigger battles. People could be more willing to try PvP if they were part of a huge armada or something. Safety in numbers after all.
* Merge KDF and FED so that they can play on the same PVP teams.
* Split the queues into:
- - - PUG (Random people who queue solo) Queue
- - - Premade/Group Queue only
So FvK, KvK, FvF Cap and Hold and Arena queues would all vanish and turn into just this:
* PUG/Solo Queue Arena
* Premade/Group Queue Arena
* PUG/Solo Queue Cap & Hold
* Premade/Group Queue Cap & Hold
The elitist premades are raging hard against this idea because they realize they won't be able to steamroll unorganized people with their Team Speak + 3 chained SubNuc "wizardry" every night.
I was always against the "merge the queues" for KDF and Fed (RP reason) ... but it does need to happen. Pops are so unbalanced and KDF queues are almost always empty.
Call it battle simulation or exercise or whatever and just make it happen.
there are 2 things that would likely at least somewhat increase pvp numbers
lower the costs of fleet gear, so that your average casual player can get it without grinding forever OR make a separate easy to get pvp focused gear that would be equivalent to a blueish one in pve(kinda like WoW)
add the options to queue in pvp by yourself and ONLY face people who queued by themselves, rather than as a team, like dota 2 does, that would destroy the effect premades have in pvp.
add the options to queue in pvp by yourself and ONLY face people who queued by themselves, rather than as a team, like dota 2 does, that would destroy the effect premades have in pvp.
PVP should be broken down into some kind of skill level so equally equipped or matched people could fight each other. I have no interest in fighting someone flying a JHAS with
5 MKXII purple tactical consoles.
Changes that would make me play more PVP.
Separate the Q's.
1. Random solo.
2. Random premade teams.
3. stock ships solo.
4. stock ships premade teams.
5. Challenge/teams.
6. Chalenge/One on One.
Stock ships refer to any in the game available to all through general play.
And equiped Via items available through general play including PVP rep system items.
Rare XI limit.
Challenge matches would show who has put down an open challenge to be accepted.
Modes.
1. Arena Standard. Lots more maps all random.
2. capture standard. Lots more maps all random.
3. Scenario arenas. Protect the convoy/attack the space station examples.
5. Territory control under Holodeck simulation.
Allow foundry authors to make maps for private Q's
Those that are most popular get a place in general Q's.
This would take a lot of the work load of the devs.
Rewards.
PVP Rep system where all items sets and weapons are PVP oriented.
So in the end everyone will have the best gear for PVP.
Only usable in PVP.
I'm beginning to come round to the idea that whats required is for a large enough group of PvE players to decide they want PvP as well and for them to take the bull by the horns.
I do appreciate that there are a significent number of good hearted PvP players right now, but they all seem to be convinced that the way they've done things in the past is the way forward if only all the rest of us would listen.
There may well have been a tyler durden tournament a while back in which some people who never played PvP before took part.
where was the publicity? The match reports?
Was it down in the PvP fora where PvE players almost never go? If it was posted here at all?
Was there a novice competition?
If we really want to see PvP become something less niche, then we have to treat it as less niche.
Y'know, I saw this post and thought about it, and...y'know what, you bring up a good point.
But I would like to ask a question: If there had been things put up in say this section of the forum, would people have accepted it? I'm not trying to be elitist or anything about it, but just wondering if folks would have honestly been ok with it. Considering how heated this thread (on either side of the equation) has been on the subject of PvP, I'm really not sure.
So...I will try an experiment and find out.
In two weeks time, I will be hosting a tournament. There will be no premades, no 'fleet tags', none of what seems to be the most common (and understandable) issues people have had with PvP in the past.
I will make a thread in the PvP section when I start to get ready for it, but I will make a thread up here in the General section of the forum, to let more people know about it. If it goes well, I'll do it more in the future. If not, then I will not do so anymore.
What do you all think of that? No premades stomping people into the ground, no being griped at by anyone on either side, none of those things. Just an even, balanced PvP tournament for fun and enjoyment, perhaps even allowing folks a better and more fair chance at actually starting out in PvP.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
It's not a popular idea, but I'd like to see more open PvP areas like Ker'rat. A constant drop in/drop out battlezone with some PvE element attached to it to keep things spicy.
Another alternative would be more options for bigger battles. People could be more willing to try PvP if they were part of a huge armada or something. Safety in numbers after all.
This is one of my favourite ideas in this thread, I would however impose a limit on how many carriers each side can have, pvp shouldn't be pve with intelligent ship pilots.
People on the pvp forums have many times suggested a territory control system, if this system included a pvp tag system (see SWTOR), I think it would work well if Eta Eridani sector block was converted to such a system, this way pvp gets an expansion but it remains optional.
A PuGMade is a team that is picked up at random out of a channel if we're on the same page. Anyone who queues as a group is put into the group/premade queue, including this case. Private 3v3/4v4/5v5+ matches can also easily be arranged as they are now using OrganizedPVP channel or Tyler Durden channel.
The majority of people will queue alone, for the PUG/Solo Queue. These people will end up in 4v4s or 5v5s with a completely random team vs another completely random team. This will be the best option for 99% of STO who are casual players. This queue's size will grow by leaps and bounds as it is discovered.
Nope. Pugmade as in several players familiar with each other who are entering pvp solo to get together on the inside of a que.
It's not a popular idea, but I'd like to see more open PvP areas like Ker'rat. A constant drop in/drop out battlezone with some PvE element attached to it to keep things spicy.
Another alternative would be more options for bigger battles. People could be more willing to try PvP if they were part of a huge armada or something. Safety in numbers after all.
I think a good idea would be to figure a way to sort level 50 players. When it took longer to level up, it was easy to gain experience in PvP. PvP was done early on as part of your leveling experience. It doesn't take much time to level anymore so most people aren't exposed to it until level 50 with minimum gear vs. a veteran build.
Within level 50 there is a wide range of experience as there are noobs who just get there and starting reps and those who have their reps done, doffs done, bridge crew sorted out, etc. There needs to be a way to sort out level 50. The game has, through the reputation system, had a de facto level cap increase. Each reputation awards you passives and unique abilities and gear just like leveling up does. There should be a way to sort PvP based on those experiences, accolades, reps, # of PvP victories, etc.
I think a PvP reputation would go along way in solving this too as tier 5 PvP reps wouldn't be in matches with tier 1 etc. Those who don't like to PvP wont be missing anything then either as the PvP rep would award gear that isn't necessary in PvE but would benefit those min/max players. Just a thought.
Gold Sub since March 2010
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
I think a PvP reputation would go along way in solving this too as tier 5 PvP reps wouldn't be in matches with tier 1 etc. Those who don't like to PvP wont be missing anything then either as the PvP rep would award gear that isn't necessary in PvE but would benefit those min/max players. Just a thought.
It would be interesting to see how it would work. Perhaps wins could award rep and losses could take it away. Players could be sorted by their tier.
People on the pvp forums have many times suggested a territory control system, if this system included a pvp tag system (see SWTOR), I think it would work well if Eta Eridani sector block was converted to such a system, this way pvp gets an expansion but it remains optional.
I would recommend that before pushing for a territory control system that you try playing another of PWE's games by the name of Perfect World. They have a weekly "territory wars" system where guilds PvP each other to take and try to hold territory on a map. Makes sure you stay around for at least a month and just watch the colours/guild icons on that map. You will see VERY little change as the same 2 super guilds hang on to territory. Territory PvP doesn't work for the simple reason that those with an interest in this will all end up in a tiny number of fleets who will just basically own everything. At which point you'll see even more angry posts about how broken it all is. You most certainly can't suddenly switch an existing map to a territory PvP map.
The best form of PvP is simply ladder based lobby queue PvP, with no chat system, kept completely separate from PvE. This would be a totally new game though, you can't just tack it on to an existing game.
The second best form, and one I would be happy with, would mirror the Alliance Battles format from Guild Wars 1. BUT the problem here is you need a balanced number of players in each faction, which we don't have on STO where the majority are feds or fed alligned. I actually used to really enjoy Alliance Battles (back when there were enough players on the EU servers to get a match without rubber band lagasaurus of playing on US servers).
The simple truth is though, you can please PvE players, or you can please PvP players. I've yet to find a game that has successfully pleased both groups. Their needs and wants are just too different.
Me, I highly suspect that we may one day see a PvP sphere territory map. It's the best place to do it. It'll be a mess as I described, but it will at least be something.
My attitude is based on experience. There are too many malignant juvenile troll PvPers, too many snide, narrow-minded elitist uber-geeks offering unsolicited "advice," for the rest of them to receive the benefit of the doubt. I'm not accepting that level of aggravation from something that's supposed to be fun, so the only practical way for me to approach PvP is to assume nobody on my team has anything useful to say or do.
Don't look for them to call targets, because it's always some ***clown switching targets every 10 seconds and never waiting for anything to explode. :rolleyes:
Don't depend on them for heals, because you will die lonely and disappointed. This, incidentally, is why I find an engscort most viable. For the non-BO heals. Your dps e-peen is irrelevant if you're not alive to make any kills.
That said, I'm actually getting pretty good at observing and reacting to teamwork behavior when it happens. If they're concentrating fire, if an opponent is hit with gravity well/warp plasma/subnuke/etc, I'll jump on the dog pile. On the flip side, if I notice a teammate on the receiving end, I'll try to bail them out.
I've PvP'd and loved it all my online gaming life. Quake 1, 2 and 3, Counter Strike 1.6 and Source. The big difference with those games and games like STO is that unless all the ships involved are balanced against each other, there's zero skill involved. It's all about the gear. It doesn't matter that your opponent might be tactically superior to you. If his gank can't break your tank and he can't tank your gank, no matter what tactics he employs, he's done for. You're never going to produce a moment of tactical brilliance that turns the tide against overwhelming odds ala spock's modification to a photon torpedo when facing a bird of prey that can fire while cloaked. If you're outgunned, you're outgunned and it's game over. Competition, above all else, has to be on a level playing field or it's not a competition, it's shooting fish in a barrel. That's why PvP in this game doesn't interest me personally.
Tried PVP once, found out it was full of 'xploit a**hats and jerks, thus I said 'right, cya' and never gone near it since.
This was a couple of months after launch, but I see no reason to give it any more chances.
I would prefer if we did not discus the attitudes of players and stick to ways to make pvp more enjoyable for the casual majority.
That's like saying you want to cure World hunger, but can't talk about farming.
Or hunger, or food.
But yeah, sure- let's figure out how to make PvP more enjoyable without addressing the 800 pound polka-dot gorilla in the room. And do keep Einstein's definition of insanity in mind while waiting to see how that works out.
But yeah, sure- let's figure out how to make PvP more enjoyable without addressing the 800 pound polka-dot gorilla in the room. And do keep Einstein's definition of insanity in mind while waiting to see how that works out.
Einstein may or may not have realized that people are inherently insane. We are irrational creatures driven by instinctual behaviors that evolved in environments much different than most of those that we find ourselves in today.
But... Einstein was kinda smart. Maybe he might have come to the conclusion that the best way to instigate change is from within, rather than without. In this particular case, players who demonstrate, through their actions, the concepts of sportsmanship, showing grace in victory, and dignity in defeat may set the example for others to follow.
I remain empathetic to the concerns of my community, but do me a favor and lay off the god damn name calling and petty remarks. It will get you nowhere.
I must admit, respect points to Trendy for laying down the law like that.
Tried it, but I found it was not my thing really, I prefer the co-op based multiplayer side of things,end of the day it's personal preference what type of multiplayer you play.
"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
I would recommend that before pushing for a territory control system that you try playing another of PWE's games by the name of Perfect World. They have a weekly "territory wars" system where guilds PvP each other to take and try to hold territory on a map. Makes sure you stay around for at least a month and just watch the colours/guild icons on that map. You will see VERY little change as the same 2 super guilds hang on to territory. Territory PvP doesn't work for the simple reason that those with an interest in this will all end up in a tiny number of fleets who will just basically own everything. At which point you'll see even more angry posts about how broken it all is. You most certainly can't suddenly switch an existing map to a territory PvP map.
I see your point and it's a good one, though I think it might work if there was some sort of reset mechanism for example say "if <75% of the map is controlled by a faction by the end of 7 days reset map at 00:00, if 100% of the map controlled by a faction reset map at 00:00, return to start" making it a factionwide thing would play to the war story and it would entice players to start playing KDF because feds ruling the map 24/7 would get horribly boring sp Cryptic would make money out of the KDF giving them reason to develop it more
You could add NPC groups to it as well to add to the feel of it, I don't know if it would be good to make them engage-able, players on both sides would exploit the distraction though at the same time its another level of gameplay :P
Einstein may or may not have realized that people are inherently insane. We are irrational creatures driven by instinctual behaviors that evolved in environments much different than most of those that we find ourselves in today.
But... Einstein was kinda smart. Maybe he might have come to the conclusion that the best way to instigate change is from within, rather than without. In this particular case, players who demonstrate, through their actions, the concepts of sportsmanship, showing grace in victory, and dignity in defeat may set the example for others to follow.
At present, the problem of toxic behavior in the PVP community is undoing more than its weight of good behavior. What is more memorable: someone who isn't a jerk or someone who is?
Thing is, even with this in mind, the majority of PVP posters in this thread have been condescending and incredulous at best, as if they can't possibly imagine why us peasants (dontdrunk seems to love that word so I use it too) wouldn't love being around them.
Thing is, even with this in mind, the majority of PVP posters in this thread have been condescending and incredulous at best, as if they can't possibly imagine why us peasants (dontdrunk seems to love that word so I use it too) wouldn't love being around them.
Funny, from what I've read in this thread and from you in others I believe you used the word first and DDIS only used it to make a point. Which having read what you have to say in other threads on the subject I'm more inclined to believe than DDIS using it first.
Comments
However, I am not sure I agree with some of the rules in this regard, like getting a warning out of the blue for "necro" when a post is older than a mere 30 days. Context should matter, not some automatic zero tolerance (zero thought) policy. If the content of the topic is so out of date that there is nothing at all that can be said (rare, actually) then I can understand not wanting more replies. Some topics are rarely discussed. Can we, at least, post a link to the prior topic and create a new one? It doesn't seem all that efficient, though, if a lot of what has been already said has to be said again.
Visit my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Akurie369?feature=watch
Captain Bi Shonen's official Thread! http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=22866531#post22866531
That's like saying you want to cure World hunger, but can't talk about farming.
It's not a popular idea, but I'd like to see more open PvP areas like Ker'rat. A constant drop in/drop out battlezone with some PvE element attached to it to keep things spicy.
Another alternative would be more options for bigger battles. People could be more willing to try PvP if they were part of a huge armada or something. Safety in numbers after all.
I enjoy Otha and even made a video plea for its remodeling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU_qiBRYiDk
I moved zone chat into its own window and only look at it when I need to so I do not have to be subjected to zone trolls.
Visit my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Akurie369?feature=watch
Captain Bi Shonen's official Thread! http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=22866531#post22866531
Visit my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Akurie369?feature=watch
Captain Bi Shonen's official Thread! http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=22866531#post22866531
Y'know, I saw this post and thought about it, and...y'know what, you bring up a good point.
But I would like to ask a question: If there had been things put up in say this section of the forum, would people have accepted it? I'm not trying to be elitist or anything about it, but just wondering if folks would have honestly been ok with it. Considering how heated this thread (on either side of the equation) has been on the subject of PvP, I'm really not sure.
So...I will try an experiment and find out.
In two weeks time, I will be hosting a tournament. There will be no premades, no 'fleet tags', none of what seems to be the most common (and understandable) issues people have had with PvP in the past.
I will make a thread in the PvP section when I start to get ready for it, but I will make a thread up here in the General section of the forum, to let more people know about it. If it goes well, I'll do it more in the future. If not, then I will not do so anymore.
What do you all think of that? No premades stomping people into the ground, no being griped at by anyone on either side, none of those things. Just an even, balanced PvP tournament for fun and enjoyment, perhaps even allowing folks a better and more fair chance at actually starting out in PvP.
This is one of my favourite ideas in this thread, I would however impose a limit on how many carriers each side can have, pvp shouldn't be pve with intelligent ship pilots.
People on the pvp forums have many times suggested a territory control system, if this system included a pvp tag system (see SWTOR), I think it would work well if Eta Eridani sector block was converted to such a system, this way pvp gets an expansion but it remains optional.
I'll be looking out for it!
Nope. Pugmade as in several players familiar with each other who are entering pvp solo to get together on the inside of a que.
R.I.P
I like this idea alot.
R.I.P
Within level 50 there is a wide range of experience as there are noobs who just get there and starting reps and those who have their reps done, doffs done, bridge crew sorted out, etc. There needs to be a way to sort out level 50. The game has, through the reputation system, had a de facto level cap increase. Each reputation awards you passives and unique abilities and gear just like leveling up does. There should be a way to sort PvP based on those experiences, accolades, reps, # of PvP victories, etc.
I think a PvP reputation would go along way in solving this too as tier 5 PvP reps wouldn't be in matches with tier 1 etc. Those who don't like to PvP wont be missing anything then either as the PvP rep would award gear that isn't necessary in PvE but would benefit those min/max players. Just a thought.
Lifetime Sub since June 2010
It would be interesting to see how it would work. Perhaps wins could award rep and losses could take it away. Players could be sorted by their tier.
Visit my youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/Akurie369?feature=watch
Captain Bi Shonen's official Thread! http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=22866531#post22866531
I would recommend that before pushing for a territory control system that you try playing another of PWE's games by the name of Perfect World. They have a weekly "territory wars" system where guilds PvP each other to take and try to hold territory on a map. Makes sure you stay around for at least a month and just watch the colours/guild icons on that map. You will see VERY little change as the same 2 super guilds hang on to territory. Territory PvP doesn't work for the simple reason that those with an interest in this will all end up in a tiny number of fleets who will just basically own everything. At which point you'll see even more angry posts about how broken it all is. You most certainly can't suddenly switch an existing map to a territory PvP map.
The best form of PvP is simply ladder based lobby queue PvP, with no chat system, kept completely separate from PvE. This would be a totally new game though, you can't just tack it on to an existing game.
The second best form, and one I would be happy with, would mirror the Alliance Battles format from Guild Wars 1. BUT the problem here is you need a balanced number of players in each faction, which we don't have on STO where the majority are feds or fed alligned. I actually used to really enjoy Alliance Battles (back when there were enough players on the EU servers to get a match without rubber band lagasaurus of playing on US servers).
The simple truth is though, you can please PvE players, or you can please PvP players. I've yet to find a game that has successfully pleased both groups. Their needs and wants are just too different.
Me, I highly suspect that we may one day see a PvP sphere territory map. It's the best place to do it. It'll be a mess as I described, but it will at least be something.
My attitude is based on experience. There are too many malignant juvenile troll PvPers, too many snide, narrow-minded elitist uber-geeks offering unsolicited "advice," for the rest of them to receive the benefit of the doubt. I'm not accepting that level of aggravation from something that's supposed to be fun, so the only practical way for me to approach PvP is to assume nobody on my team has anything useful to say or do.
Don't look for them to call targets, because it's always some ***clown switching targets every 10 seconds and never waiting for anything to explode. :rolleyes:
Don't depend on them for heals, because you will die lonely and disappointed. This, incidentally, is why I find an engscort most viable. For the non-BO heals. Your dps e-peen is irrelevant if you're not alive to make any kills.
That said, I'm actually getting pretty good at observing and reacting to teamwork behavior when it happens. If they're concentrating fire, if an opponent is hit with gravity well/warp plasma/subnuke/etc, I'll jump on the dog pile. On the flip side, if I notice a teammate on the receiving end, I'll try to bail them out.
This was a couple of months after launch, but I see no reason to give it any more chances.
No strategy, no excitement.
Apples, why aren't you pears?
Not necessarily true. Hammering something like fire at will the whole match might net you the highest dps score, but not necessarily the most kills.
Or hunger, or food.
But yeah, sure- let's figure out how to make PvP more enjoyable without addressing the 800 pound polka-dot gorilla in the room. And do keep Einstein's definition of insanity in mind while waiting to see how that works out.
I know, right?
Einstein may or may not have realized that people are inherently insane. We are irrational creatures driven by instinctual behaviors that evolved in environments much different than most of those that we find ourselves in today.
But... Einstein was kinda smart. Maybe he might have come to the conclusion that the best way to instigate change is from within, rather than without. In this particular case, players who demonstrate, through their actions, the concepts of sportsmanship, showing grace in victory, and dignity in defeat may set the example for others to follow.
Thanks. I do hope it goes well when I do it.
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
I see your point and it's a good one, though I think it might work if there was some sort of reset mechanism for example say "if <75% of the map is controlled by a faction by the end of 7 days reset map at 00:00, if 100% of the map controlled by a faction reset map at 00:00, return to start" making it a factionwide thing would play to the war story and it would entice players to start playing KDF because feds ruling the map 24/7 would get horribly boring sp Cryptic would make money out of the KDF giving them reason to develop it more
You could add NPC groups to it as well to add to the feel of it, I don't know if it would be good to make them engage-able, players on both sides would exploit the distraction though at the same time its another level of gameplay :P
At present, the problem of toxic behavior in the PVP community is undoing more than its weight of good behavior. What is more memorable: someone who isn't a jerk or someone who is?
Thing is, even with this in mind, the majority of PVP posters in this thread have been condescending and incredulous at best, as if they can't possibly imagine why us peasants (dontdrunk seems to love that word so I use it too) wouldn't love being around them.
Funny, from what I've read in this thread and from you in others I believe you used the word first and DDIS only used it to make a point. Which having read what you have to say in other threads on the subject I'm more inclined to believe than DDIS using it first.