Comments

• thegreebler Member Posts: 2

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  thegreebler wrote: »

  Overall the game needs an overhaul.
  
  They need to implement rules/rewards to get the pvp system working again. And balance it out so a freakin Tac shouldnt be the only or even "best" viable choice overall. While comparitively Science is third string... only needed in a VERY rare case.
  
  Thats 1/3 the classes??? FAIL!

  
  
  But I think the failboat, ont he sailboat... is having THE most badass space pvp system ever... and letting it go down the toilet so much that no one bothers to que anymore. That gets a fail in all lower case because it is just that sad.

  0
• thegreebler Member Posts: 2

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  westmetals wrote: »

  Science is not "third string".
  
  For new players, maybe, because it does have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, if well played and well set up, a Science captain is just as viable as any other type. Same for science ships (and no, you do not have to match captain profession and ship types)!
  
  You just have to look at the whole picture. Science is often used for things that weaken or immobilize enemies... which makes them easier to kill in ways that are not represented in most players' analysis because you're looking at raw DPS. In fact, it actually looks worse than useless because in many situations, the things that the Science guy is doing are actually causing the tac and engineer players to be able to deal extra damage.
  
  I would argue that in fact, in terms of both ground and space combat, there is currently one clear "best" profession, but that the other two are roughly equal to each other. In space, it's Tac, and on ground, Engineer.

  
  Maybe you are right. I have found in sci... its one where if you doin it wrong, you are dead ALOT.
  
  When you do it right.. you have to deserve dying to die.
  
  That being said.. it becomes a question of dps vs utility. Would a group rather have me healing them - or in a Tac/Cruiser just demolishing alongside the big boys? Yah, the tool that cant manage his shields or does consistent stupid ****... I should let die anyhow. In such a case, my contribution would be better paid by laser fire.

  0
• greebler1 Member Posts: 0 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  The word on the street is that pvp has been RIP since 2013... so you are a little late bud.

  0
• johnnymo1 Member Posts: 697 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  I wouldn't say that the science class is third string. Unfortunately science class ships are a little squishy and unless set up very well and built around a concentrated power set with a lot of high end gear the survivability goes down fast. Science as a class by far has the steepest learning curve, but once the class is learned by the player its very potent in higher end content.

  0
• bobbydazlers Member Posts: 4,534 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  I have been seeing this on wiki upcoming content for ages, sadly I have not heard of any changes in game since that time, may be I missed the announcements.

  Revamp of PvP system[edit]
  
  (To happen gradually after launch of Season 8 [19][10][20], main focus will be on space gameplay at first [21], has been given priority over Foundry improvements [6])
  STO will be first game to implement a new PvP engine developed by Cryptic [10] PvP-faction for the Reputation System [19][22][23], "PvP Marks" as rewards [24]
  Matchmaking, e.g. matching people of comparable gear level [25]
  Rewards based on participation more than completion [26]
  PvP ratings/leaderboard tech is now available [27][11][25][28]
  
  Either replacing current PvP maps or revamping the existing ones [29] Transferring existing PvE maps (Facility 4028 amongst others) to ground PvP maps, possibly with capture-the-flag mod [30][31]
  King of the Hill PvP map for space and/or ground [32][31]
  Ground combat may have Battleground-style development in long-term [27]
  
  Possible: Starbase PvP Challenges [16] Fleet vs Fleet (KDF vs FED) territory control game ("controlling and or harvesting a vast variety of resources") [33][34] [32][35] .

  When I think about everything we've been through together,

  maybe it's not the destination that matters, maybe it's the journey,

   and if that journey takes a little longer,

  so we can do something we all believe in,

   I can't think of any place I'd rather be or any people I'd rather be with.
  

  0
• markhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  greebler1 wrote: »

  The word on the street is that pvp has been RIP since 2013... so you are a little late bud.

  Impossible... I'm pretty sure it died in 2011. :P

  -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
  My character Tsin'xing
  

  0
• sarcasmdetector Member Posts: 1,176 Media Corps

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  you said something about PvP and then say that scie captains are 3rd string...
  
  
  i can tell you have never PvPed.

  0
• eulifdavis Member Posts: 0 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  bobbydazlers wrote: »

  I have been seeing this on wiki upcoming content for ages, sadly I have not heard of any changes in game since that time, may be I missed the announcements.

  
  http://sto-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=21691441#post21691441

  [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  0
• horridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  In my opinion the dev team should take an inventory of what STO does well and is unique to the game among MMOs and build on that. There are many MMOs out there that have carefully considered PvP systems that have benefited from ongoing balancing and evolution. Implementation, neglect and player migration have all contributed to the futility of it. If there were a major overhaul of the system the number of players who would be pleased with the development wouldn't justify the expenditure of team resources.
  
  The unique characteristic of a Star Trek MMO is the Star Trek IP. I don't have numbers to substantiate my assertion but I feel comfortable stating that a majority of long term players were attracted to STO specifically for it's utilization of the Star Trek universe.
  
  As a vanilla MMO STO would benefit from ongoing improvements to interface and balancing ingame systems; All games need this. In the circumstances unique to STO I would suggest more implementation of story driven content and game mechanics that develop and humanize the crews of our ships and create a sense of wonder. For me Spaceships and phasers were window dressing. My memories of Star Trek are about the characters and their qualities and deficiencies demonstrated in the face of challenges.

  

  
  

  0
• tk79 Member Posts: 1,020 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  STO is in such a sorry state that a complete shift of direction (hopefully for the better) seems quite appropriate.
  
  In other words, this is the time to deal with all those third rail situations.

  U.S.S. Eastgate Photo Wall
  STO Screenshot Archive
  
  

  0
• anazonda Member Posts: 8,399 Arc User

  January 2015 edited January 2015

  So you want more focus on PvP...
  
  hmm...

  Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...

  pwebranflakes wrote: »

  Let me put the rumors to rest: it's definitely still the C-Store (Cryptic Store) It just takes ZEN.

  Like Duty Officers? Support effords to gather ideas

  0