In regards to the "Moar DPS" complaints ... I've always wondered but never took the time to ask...

eyceaether · December 2015

Why doesn't the game make you stay dead until your entire team wipes in group content?

Honestly that would go so much more towards curbing the full DPS TRIBBLE game play that people complain so much about, at least in the lower end (I know the higher end people would still pull off their space wizardry), and would mean that if you weren't confident in what you and your group could do then you'd want to make sure that you had your own survivability covered.

Wouldn't that incentivize using much more balanced ships BOFF wise? Just a question coupled with a thought...

tempusmagus · December 2015

eyceaether wrote: »

Why doesn't the game make you stay dead until your entire team wipes in group content?

Honestly that would go so much more towards curbing the full DPS TRIBBLE game play that people complain so much about, at least in the lower end (I know the higher end people would still pull off their space wizardry), and would mean that if you weren't confident in what you and your group could do then you'd want to make sure that you had your own survivability covered.

Wouldn't that incentivize using much more balanced ships BOFF wise? Just a question coupled with a thought...

No it wouldn't. If you die in a dps run, your dps tanks anyways and the run is considered a waste, at least for record runs. You just need one awesome run to make a video, who cares if you fail 99/100.

lianthelia · December 2015

Wouldn't work in pugs where you could get a compliment of team mates who can't even break 10k dps or get lucky and one person who can do 70k dps may be all you need.

Then what happens if say A dies but B, C, D, and E don't? Is it fair that player A got a free ride even though he got killed easily? While you're still there killing people player A rolls need on everything?

eyceaether · December 2015

All true, but the counterpoint to that is that after a while of that happening people would be building in order to prevent their own death.

As it stands now people are already being carried while doing nothing... especially if they're doing no damage. Its like their not there because the AI won't even hit them...

rattler2 · December 2015

Something similar already exists in Hive Ground. If you die, you respawn in a jail and have to have another player get you out. Whole team wipes in the final room, EVERYONE dies including the living players in the jail cells, and you gotta do that fight all over again from scratch.

It is the source of lots of rage, especially for those who don't know what their doing. And sometimes... a full team wipe is unavoidable.

warmaker001b · December 2015

eyceaether wrote: »

Why doesn't the game make you stay dead until your entire team wipes in group content?

Honestly that would go so much more towards curbing the full DPS TRIBBLE game play that people complain so much about, at least in the lower end (I know the higher end people would still pull off their space wizardry), and would mean that if you weren't confident in what you and your group could do then you'd want to make sure that you had your own survivability covered.

Wouldn't that incentivize using much more balanced ships BOFF wise? Just a question coupled with a thought...

I would not want the instances to require a full team wipe before respawn. That means I'd usually be the only one playing or among the last ones left, and for certain content, that would be a failure because the higher content of the game has us face Damage Sponge NPCs with Objective Timers.

Do you understand what that means for the average player in STO? Most players PUG this game. Most can't break 3k. I've known players that had no idea that repair abilities existed in this game, one specifically I helped train afterwards from my old fleet. I've known players to slot "Beam Overload" but have no beam weaponry installed. I ask, "Why?" The answer? "Because it sounded cool!"

A full team wipe requirement before respawn will just TRIBBLE off every end of the player spectrum. The less proficient players will be upset that they can't get back into the action. The proficient players will be pissed off because they are frequently found alone or in very small surviving groups. If anything, this will promote a mentality of "Just die so we can respawn again."

ssbn655 · December 2015

Umm no bad idea as there are new players and this would definetly punish them for not being on the same level as the rest of the team and also prevent them from learning the whole fight either by watching or trying to take part.

eyceaether · December 2015

Welp, explains it then.

warmaker001b wrote: »

eyceaether wrote: »

Why doesn't the game make you stay dead until your entire team wipes in group content?

Honestly that would go so much more towards curbing the full DPS TRIBBLE game play that people complain so much about, at least in the lower end (I know the higher end people would still pull off their space wizardry), and would mean that if you weren't confident in what you and your group could do then you'd want to make sure that you had your own survivability covered.

Wouldn't that incentivize using much more balanced ships BOFF wise? Just a question coupled with a thought...

I would not want the instances to require a full team wipe before respawn. That means I'd usually be the only one playing or among the last ones left, and for certain content, that would be a failure because the higher content of the game has us face Damage Sponge NPCs with Objective Timers.

Do you understand what that means for the average player in STO? Most players PUG this game. Most can't break 3k. I've known players that had no idea that repair abilities existed in this game, one specifically I helped train afterwards from my old fleet. I've known players to slot "Beam Overload" but have no beam weaponry installed. I ask, "Why?" The answer? "Because it sounded cool!"

A full team wipe requirement before respawn will just TRIBBLE off every end of the player spectrum. The less proficient players will be upset that they can't get back into the action. The proficient players will be pissed off because they are frequently found alone or in very small surviving groups. If anything, this will promote a mentality of "Just die so we can respawn again."

That is exactly what happens in Neverwinter Online and its hell lol.

angrytarg · December 2015

Problem with that is a lot of those and similiar suggestions assume that STO is a game it just isn't. STO is not the space game you want, it's a casual arcade game. People in STO for the most part don't even want to play in groups but do everything on their own terms, they want a single player game and are stuck with STO because it's the recent Star Trek game available. Having to rely on a group in any way shape or form is - basically - completely out of the question for all gamedesign regarding STO. Aside from a few groups who grasp the concept, the large majority of people would be completely lost on the thought that your teammates would have anything to do with you. If they die they hammer "respawn" to get shootin' as qucikly as possible, completely disregarding you have a medic in the team or your respawn would not be helpful in that moment at all. If one or two teammates die they probably will ragequit before the team is wiped because they get faster shootin' just leaving and do something else instead of witing for the team.

I like the general idea OP, but Cryptic claims players got lost and confused in exploration clusters - literally empty, square shaped maps. You cannot implement anything in STO that requires more effort than "press button, win".

hunteralpha84 · December 2015

See I play lots of games where death is a genuine punishment and in general it forces better skill and more interesting gameplay.

However, one side of the STO community is so toxic that itll just create even more elitism and general TRIBBLE behaviour. The other side of the community would complain and complain and complain about how hard and unfair it is.

I was one of the few who liked the instant fail if your team couldn't secure the optional. And look what happened there. Constant whining until the devs caved in.

Just remember STO isn't a game of skill.

/rant

xapocalypseponyx · December 2015

eyceaether wrote: »

All true, but the counterpoint to that is that after a while of that happening people would be building in order to prevent their own death.

Delta Rising, with it's Buff to NPC hit points and mission fail conditions proved that this would not be the case. Many (most?) players will not adapt, hence the eventual removal of fail conditions.

The DPS crowd would, as always, continue without issue, pug queues would be in even worse shape than they already are. Save for the times when the DeePerS would come in and Vape everything.

thunderfoot · December 2015

Heck, let's get more radical than that, OP. When your character dies, it is permanently removed from the game. Along with all the gear and ships it has in its inventory. Or, alternatively, the other players can loot your corpse for whatever you are currently equipped with. Or, for the modest fee of say, 500 Zen, it can be restored to play just prior to the mission where it was eliminated? Further, for the first ten missions of the storyline a character is immune to this.

Wouldn't that just set the wolf amongst the fold?

I do one other suggestion, but it is radical as well. Most people won't like it either. How about we play the game we have right now? Instead of continuously publicly wishing for the game we think we want?

Unknown · December 2015

This content has been removed.

orangeitis · December 2015

I wouldn't so much mind a "stay dead" feature if there were BOFF/console abilities that were able to repair defeated ships. But as it is now, I don't think it would be reasonable to implement that as a feature.

Unknown · December 2015

This content has been removed.

kontarnus · December 2015

Staying dead, until party wipe is a nice idea. It weeds out all the less-than-solid DPS builds, that sacrifice survivability for attack.
It would lead to a reduction in the playerbase, I think. Only Cryptic/PWE has any idea by how much. I suppose they don't consider it financially worthwhile, even if it evens-out overall gameplay to some extent.

cidjack · December 2015

Lolz, this isn't eve online.

e30ernest · December 2015

A lot of the DPS builds incorporate a fair amount of survivability. Even those 100k+ builds. Especially those 100k+ builds that double as HSE setups. I don't see how this suggestion would help in its stated objective given that.

dragnock · December 2015

No and if anything it would make game play worse it would be allot easier to go afk and get rewarded for one (how would the system tell the difference between an active dead player or an afk one) and some high DPS people can solo so the team could effectively die and then 1 person gets to participate in the run. Also the other argument in the case of a team not having an elite player would be the last survivor would be obligated to suicide in the run cause he can tank but cant carry the run to victory alone and that's not even counting the time limit goals or say Infected conduit which needs at bare minimum 2 people

*oops not infected conduit but Khitomer Vortex! thats the one

darkbladejk · December 2015

eyceaether wrote: »

Why doesn't the game make you stay dead until your entire team wipes in group content?

Honestly that would go so much more towards curbing the full DPS TRIBBLE game play that people complain so much about, at least in the lower end (I know the higher end people would still pull off their space wizardry), and would mean that if you weren't confident in what you and your group could do then you'd want to make sure that you had your own survivability covered.

Wouldn't that incentivize using much more balanced ships BOFF wise? Just a question coupled with a thought...

I've played my fair share of games that utilize team based content in order to get stuff done. In every single game that does what you're suggesting it doesn't help the players by making people stay dead until you can respawn. All you do is punish the players that are left alive by forcing them to complete the run with man/men down. It in no way adds anything to the fights or encounters themselves. WoW is one such example of a game that does this. I understand why they do it, to incentivize people to play with their team and learn the encounter. It's a moot point as to how effective it is or not but I've never seen much good come of it. While I agree there is far too much focus on DPS lately the problem isn't the powers/abilities people are given, it's the people themselves.

No matter how much you dumb something down or how you change it, you're ALWAYS going to have people that cannot complete an encounter. There are just some people that no matter what you do who will refuse to adapt, play with the team, or learn and get better. At the end of the day, people are going to play the way they want to play and you can't force people into a specific style of playing. WoW and games like it can get away with it more than a game like STO can. If your team is down in this game, unless you do everything right, you're probably not going to be far behind them in some cases. Also that's not counting what happens to any objectives or anything.

While I agree there is too much focus on dps, you're going to have that with any game. There's always going to be that certain group of people who think that dps is everything and have an elitist mentality. Assuming that what you're proposing did work, it would have a very minimal effect if any at all.

sennahcherib · December 2015

interesting idea, but a little bit extreme. maybe if we have the same stuff than the npc ships, it would be already more interesting; I mean when you do a mission when npc's, they are disabled during a moment and must repare their damages "repairing". we should have a fail condition if all the ships in a team are disabled at the same time. the "fail condition" would give more things to do for the eng and sci captains.

but DR has introduced so much TRIBBLE in game (the f.... upgrade system, the new mods etc), than in my opinion, nothing will be changed. Because if they want to make the space fights interesting again, they should change everything. Not only the missions but also all the weapons mods (each of them should have the same efficiency), the MK XIV level (a very bad idea) etc. DR has killed the pleasure to create builds and doing stfs.

shadowwraith77 · December 2015

The idea is possible, but it need have some means to bring back player(s) to the fight as well, otherwise you might as well bring back insta-fails all over again!

gradii · December 2015

hunteralpha84 wrote: »

See I play lots of games where death is a genuine punishment and in general it forces better skill and more interesting gameplay.

However, one side of the STO community is so toxic that itll just create even more elitism and general TRIBBLE behaviour. The other side of the community would complain and complain and complain about how hard and unfair it is.

I was one of the few who liked the instant fail if your team couldn't secure the optional. And look what happened there. Constant whining until the devs caved in.

Just remember STO isn't a game of skill.

/rant

Play elite it still works that way.

ssbn655 · December 2015

To those of you who liked the insatnt fail if an OPTIONAL feature was not done really do not comprehend what the word OPTIONAL means. It means a thing not estentional to completing a task. Under your strange idea of what optional means then your car would not function unless you had an optional thing like rubber floor mats Now if it's a MANDATORY thing that needs to be done to complete the mission yes then by all means you fail that you lose. But an OPTIONAL task that is not done should never be the reason that the main mission failed!

e30ernest · December 2015

ssbn655 wrote: »

To those of you who liked the insatnt fail if an OPTIONAL feature was not done really do not comprehend what the word OPTIONAL means. It means a thing not estentional to completing a task. Under your strange idea of what optional means then your car would not function unless you had an optional thing like rubber floor mats Now if it's a MANDATORY thing that needs to be done to complete the mission yes then by all means you fail that you lose. But an OPTIONAL task that is not done should never be the reason that the main mission failed!

I agree. It should have simply been called "Objective" and the fail scenarios should have been left in Advanced and Elite.

gradii · December 2015

e30ernest wrote: »

ssbn655 wrote: »

To those of you who liked the insatnt fail if an OPTIONAL feature was not done really do not comprehend what the word OPTIONAL means. It means a thing not estentional to completing a task. Under your strange idea of what optional means then your car would not function unless you had an optional thing like rubber floor mats Now if it's a MANDATORY thing that needs to be done to complete the mission yes then by all means you fail that you lose. But an OPTIONAL task that is not done should never be the reason that the main mission failed!

I agree. It should have simply been called "Objective" and the fail scenarios should have been left in Advanced and Elite.

Instant fail scenarios belong on Elite. Theres a reason we have Advanced and Elite versions. If you fail the optionals on advanced you still get less marks.

e30ernest · December 2015

gradii wrote: »

e30ernest wrote: »

ssbn655 wrote: »

To those of you who liked the insatnt fail if an OPTIONAL feature was not done really do not comprehend what the word OPTIONAL means. It means a thing not estentional to completing a task. Under your strange idea of what optional means then your car would not function unless you had an optional thing like rubber floor mats Now if it's a MANDATORY thing that needs to be done to complete the mission yes then by all means you fail that you lose. But an OPTIONAL task that is not done should never be the reason that the main mission failed!

I agree. It should have simply been called "Objective" and the fail scenarios should have been left in Advanced and Elite.

Instant fail scenarios belong on Elite. Theres a reason we have Advanced and Elite versions. If you fail the optionals on advanced you still get less marks.

The way I see it, it should have been:

Normal: Optional A, B and C
Advanced: Mandatory A, B, Optional C
Elite: Mandatory A, B, C

Right now, Advanced is just the new Normal and Normal is just Easy mode. There is no point in doing Normals now since you can just push your way through an advanced without caring about objectives since failed or not, you will still get more out of it than a Normal run. Another example is that the removal of failures was one of the causes of the many problems we faced in MI.

I PUG a lot and I saw a huge decline in team quality when they removed the failures in advanced. It's somewhat better now (due to the powercreep no less) but there are still really really bad groups out there, more than there were before those failures were removed.

gradii · December 2015

e30ernest wrote: »

gradii wrote: »

e30ernest wrote: »

ssbn655 wrote: »

To those of you who liked the insatnt fail if an OPTIONAL feature was not done really do not comprehend what the word OPTIONAL means. It means a thing not estentional to completing a task. Under your strange idea of what optional means then your car would not function unless you had an optional thing like rubber floor mats Now if it's a MANDATORY thing that needs to be done to complete the mission yes then by all means you fail that you lose. But an OPTIONAL task that is not done should never be the reason that the main mission failed!

I agree. It should have simply been called "Objective" and the fail scenarios should have been left in Advanced and Elite.

Instant fail scenarios belong on Elite. Theres a reason we have Advanced and Elite versions. If you fail the optionals on advanced you still get less marks.

The way I see it, it should have been:
Normal: Optional A, B and C

Advanced: Mandatory A, B, Optional C

Elite: Mandatory A, B, C

Right now, Advanced is just the new Normal and Normal is just Easy mode. There is no point in doing Normals now since you can just push your way through an advanced without caring about objectives since failed or not, you will still get more out of it than a Normal run. Another example is that the removal of failures was one of the causes of the many problems we faced in MI.

I PUG a lot and I saw a huge decline in team quality when they removed the failures in advanced. It's somewhat better now (due to the powercreep no less) but there are still really really bad groups out there, more than there were before those failures were removed.

Hmm if you made advanced Optional A, B, Mandatory C, I could agree with you, it really depends how close to elite you want to place Advanced. Enemies on advanced are already much stronger making your job that much more difficult.

hunteralpha84 · December 2015

Enemies are weak.

Craptics answer to create challenge is to add more and more HP to enemies. It's the main reason that has driven STO into a constant DPS race!

Craptic doesn't even need to create more complex AI to increase difficulty. There are plenty of abilities that if touched up a little and given to enemies that would help immensely.

Imagine if Borg cubes were given a buffed feedback pulse. The DPS crowd would TRIBBLE their panties. Or if they were given a better version of scramble/jam sensors. Or if they had viral matrix. If people were forced to have counters to various skills then DPS would naturally drop.

Of course it would never happen. It would ruin craptics metrics and the player base would cry like when spheres had crazy emergency power to engines. Or when they had a mega tachyon beam.

STO is a ship collecting simulator not a real skill based game.

gradii · December 2015

hunteralpha84 wrote: »

Enemies are weak.

Craptics answer to create challenge is to add more and more HP to enemies. It's the main reason that has driven STO into a constant DPS race!

Craptic doesn't even need to create more complex AI to increase difficulty. There are plenty of abilities that if touched up a little and given to enemies that would help immensely.

Imagine if Borg cubes were given a buffed feedback pulse. The DPS crowd would TRIBBLE their panties. Or if they were given a better version of scramble/jam sensors. Or if they had viral matrix. If people were forced to have counters to various skills then DPS would naturally drop.

Of course it would never happen. It would ruin craptics metrics and the player base would cry like when spheres had crazy emergency power to engines. Or when they had a mega tachyon beam.

STO is a ship collecting simulator not a real skill based game.

yes,%2Bgood%2Blet%2Bthe%2Bbutthurt%2Bflow%2Bthrough%2Byou.jpg

jaymclaughlin · December 2015

It would help if cryptic added more elite content, rather than kept removing more and more of it

In regards to the "Moar DPS" complaints ... I've always wondered but never took the time to ask...

Comments