test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

PvP: Keep or remove? Discussion- SUPPORT! SHARE! MAKE IT KNOWN!!!

123468

Comments

  • kiralynkiralyn Member Posts: 1,570 Arc User
    You can remove pvp yourself by never flying to kerrat.

    Since that's true, what's the issue?

    Even if one doesn't want to participate in the PvP in a game, it can still effect their game experience. A game has only so much dev budget/staff/etc. Everything they work on, means they're not working on something else. Also, trying to balance equipment/skills/whatever for one side, can effect the other. Thirdly, you can still end up interacting with players from the other side (whether that takes the form of hardcore raiders fighting with pvpers in chat; jerk pvpers/griefers killing all your PvE quest NPCs in hopes that it makes someone come fight them; the pvp metagame causing prices of particular equipment to spike on the auction house; or other ways. And vice versa, if you're a pvper being annoyed by the PvE side of a game - pvpers being "forced" to raid because the gear that drops there happens to be BiS for their pvping, for ex.)

    So yeah, even if you don't actively participate in one side of a game, it still has an effect on you. Which is why my view is to separate them completely into their own, focused games. So both sides can get their "best" experience.
  • jaguarskxjaguarskx Member Posts: 5,945 Arc User
    I'd say keep PvP.

    I do not play PvP, but generally speaking, people do like to play MMOs for the PvP aspect of those types of games. Removing PvP means that those last few remaining PvP players would be bereft of an aspect of STO that they enjoy. Perhaps, they will permanently leave the game.

    PvP needs balancing. Perhaps the console versions will provide Cryptic ideas as to how balance PvP in the future for STO on the PC. Regardless, if PvP was removed, then there is 100% certainty that it will never be improved upon.
  • brian334brian334 Member Posts: 2,186 Arc User
    edited May 2016
    kiralyn wrote: »
    You can remove pvp yourself by never flying to kerrat.

    Since that's true, what's the issue?

    Even if one doesn't want to participate in the PvP in a game, it can still effect their game experience. A game has only so much dev budget/staff/etc. Everything they work on, means they're not working on something else. Also, trying to balance equipment/skills/whatever for one side, can effect the other. Thirdly, you can still end up interacting with players from the other side (whether that takes the form of hardcore raiders fighting with pvpers in chat; jerk pvpers/griefers killing all your PvE quest NPCs in hopes that it makes someone come fight them; the pvp metagame causing prices of particular equipment to spike on the auction house; or other ways. And vice versa, if you're a pvper being annoyed by the PvE side of a game - pvpers being "forced" to raid because the gear that drops there happens to be BiS for their pvping, for ex.)

    So yeah, even if you don't actively participate in one side of a game, it still has an effect on you. Which is why my view is to separate them completely into their own, focused games. So both sides can get their "best" experience.

    Here is the thing you don't seem to get:

    It's already in the game! Fixing it will take nothing away from existing players, and the development time required to fix it is minimal because all the tools required to do so are already in the game!

    One developer with a week to devote to it could create viable PvP for STO by doing nothing but creating a peer-matching algorithm based on experience point total. This would allow players to queue with other players of their experience, and thus anyone who queues for PvP will be able to fairly compete without fear that a player with all the gear, traits, and specializations will come along and make a joke of them. Of course, the existing 'open' arenas could remain unchanged to allow mass mayhem if the players desire it.

    The other thing would be to limit what abilities can be used, (in PvP only,) when flying a lower tier ship. A Tier 2 ship can cause the captain's abilities that are beyond what a player of the appropriate level of that ship can use to be greyed out, (as is done with the level matching function already in game, but extended to traits, reputation, and specialization, which were never incorporated into the Level Matching function.) This would allow any captain to 'drop down' and play on an equal footing with players of vastly less time in game without changing anything at all when the player joins the PvE queues.

    So little actually needs to be done to make PvP viable, and the return on the investment would be by comparison huge. It is 'common knowledge' that nobody plays PvP in this game. Back in the day it was 'common knowledge' that very few players played. But PvP has always atracted players who are willing to spend money to get the gear and who are willing to play the PvE queues, and missions, and everything else. Even if PvP remains a marginal community within STO, it can be a source of revenue that is higher per player involved than any other facet of the game, which means more budget for PvE content.

    PvP takes nothing from the existing players or PvE. It offers a huge return for minimal investment. It creates end-game content to keep players involved in STO after they have leveled to 60 and gotten all the cool clothing options for their captain.

    Any objection to developer time spent on PvP is based on the belief that we can only have one or the other. This is zero sum thinking. We don't live in a zero sum world. PvP has the potential to grow STO so there is more for everyone: even for those who never play, and never want to play, PvP.
  • risingwolfshadowrisingwolfshadow Member Posts: 619 Arc User
    @coldnapalm I agree that major Dmg or ability nerds should apply only to PvP. It'd make sense to separate PvP stats from PvE wether it's gear, traits or abilities.

    However you highlighted another problem with STO.

    Sci ships will be useless in PvE if they get a damage nerf.
    And why is that?
    Because in a game, who's lead developer focuses on 1 faction, the federation, a faction who's primary ideal is that of peaceful cooperation, with players that are solely concerned with 'their' DPS, 'their' performance and what 'they' can get from their effort.

    Used to be a sci ship was invaluable in PvE especially in ISA and the old elite queues. Good sci players used to control and set up enemies for others to obliterate them (this of course was rare but it made an undeniable difference). Teamwork is OP, who would've thought it.

    But everything now is designed to lead the player to believe he is the "be all and end all" of STO.

    That damages MMOs. It damages the playerbase, mechanics of the game, makes playing STO dull, meaningless and boring. So much so that even the PvE community is now crying for a challenge. A challenge they'll inevitably complain about if/when it arrives.
  • kiralynkiralyn Member Posts: 1,570 Arc User
    Yeah, I was just speaking in general terms there, guys, about games as a whole. In response to a general comment. I know that STO's pvp, right now, isn't really attracting much/any dev effort.
  • koraheaglecrykoraheaglecry Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    In my opinion it needs to be removed. They got away with the horrible state of PvP on PC because the vast majority are hardcore Star Trek fans that were going to stick with this game out of fear of never having another shot at an MMO. Fast forward 5 years from then and we're talking about releasing the game on console where theres an entire playerbase that has more than likely never heard of this game. Theyre going to jump in it expecting the PvP to be relatively polished if they realize how old the game actually is. When they find that its a mess and that the vast majority of PC players have abandoned it. Cryptic could be looking at a repeat here.

    Just remove it. And be done with it.
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
    edited May 2016
    Well @koraheaglecry
    We have no idea what will be what when it comes to consoles.
    We don't even know what ships will be available, in other words we don't know what traits will be available to ps4 and XBone.
    It very well could be a stripped down version of what we have here. Further to this, there will be no cross platform play, so everyone there will start from scratch.
    They won't have the same issues with casuals and elite player power divide that we have here today.
    At least not for a year or so until most of them have fully leveled and SPEC/rep'd out.

    Anyway, pvp is almost mandatory these days with console releases.
    Even a game like "Last of Us" (a notoriously single player game) has a pvp mode.
    Its just something that is expected in this day and age. And I wouldn't count on the devs leaving it out on console. But stranger things have happened.

    And @kiralyn
    Even if pvp was removed here, you do realize that new items and abilities would still be scrutinized by the player base, right ?
    Just because pvp would cease to exist, doesn't mean that power creep could go on its merry way without a second glance, right ?

    I mean, lets get things straight here.
    Kemo and Plasma Doping were nerfed because the PvE side brought these items to the attention of the devs. It was not the pvp crowd who caused those nerfs.

    The high end DPS'ers are "just as concerned" with power creep as the pvp guys, if not more.

    If they were to let broken items go without a second look, their leagues would have major trouble brewing on their hands.
    The tables would become convoluted with questionable parses.
    People would argue. It would create hostility.
    It would also eventually force them to "wipe" the boards.
    Then you gotta parse all over again.

    And actually, that's part of the reason we have 2 dps leagues now days. Because the founders of the original had a fundamental difference of opinion on what techniques and practices were morally acceptable, and what parses should be considered fair and equitable for upload.
    So, basically, one group ended up staging a coup in the middle of the night, while the server was down....And all hell broke loose.
    And now we have 2 dps leagues.
    (And people say pvp is full of drama lol)

    Anyway, point is the pve guys are the new sweethearts and liasons to the Devs.
    I'm conviced they don't even care what the PvP'ers say anymore.
    I would bet the ionic/neutronic fix was the last favour they do for the pvp community.
    The PvE uproar over that was just incredible. The moaning and belly aching that went on here was staggering. Just awful.
    I'm sure after that the Devs said pvp is on its own.

    Especially since pvp is no longer the big money maker it once was.

    So nerfs will ALWAYS come. If not from the pvp crowd, then from the pve crowd.

    Maybe the pve crowd is a bit more lenient on new power...I'm sure they like setting new records and all, but if something is performing way to good, you can bet every ec you have, that it will attract the attention of many inquisitive eyes.
    And will be called out. And reported.

    The only way nerfs would disappear is if every new item was released perfectly balanced.
    But that almost never happens. Company's don't invest a lot of time in QA these days. So...



    #nerfshappen

    Getting rid of pvp at this point is just rubbing salt in old wounds. And solves nothing. Unless people enjoy causing sensless pain.
    Put on your Vulcan ears people and be logical.

    Let pvp have the dignified death it deserves.
    Like an old Klingon warrior, let us die honourably, in glorious battle, and the hands of our foes.
    Do not rob us of entry into Sto-Vo-Kor.

    Qapla'
    [img][/img]OD5urLn.jpg
  • quantumquantonum#7698 quantumquantonum Member Posts: 169 Arc User
    Remember, you can discuss PvP here, and when you want to make your decision about PvP's fate, vote here: http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline/#/discussion/1215631/pvp-improve-or-remove

    By the way, how many of you have done some form of a debate (other than maybe in this forum). I'm wondering why people prefer to type long paragraphs to explain themselves.
  • quantumquantonum#7698 quantumquantonum Member Posts: 169 Arc User
    patrickngo wrote: »
    null
    null
    because two-word soundbites communicate NOTHING, and the problem is a lot more detailed than a simple yes/no bracket you can fit into one pithy sentence, Andy.

    Yes, but I'm knowing out of curiosity. People could say a few sentences in the equivelant of full paragraphs (not saying your info isnt good)
  • cavewarkcavewark Member Posts: 131 Arc User
    i think they should pick a range of ships give them specific fit outs but try and make them reasonably balanced (maybe even iconic in terms of ship choice) then pick 1vs1 2v2 3v3 4v4 5v5 capture the flag / defence etc. Bring back XP gain in pvp and i mean Proper XP gain not a little bit of xp. Also mix faction so anyone can join any side so if you have a klingon in a cruiser with FAW they may be on a fed team in a cruiser with FAW (but its a fed ship)
  • goodscotchgoodscotch Member Posts: 1,680 Arc User
    I don't like the film! I don't like the film...so...play it all back! Play it all back! (Gary Numan - Films)
    klingon-bridge.jpg




  • spaceeagle20spaceeagle20 Member Posts: 971 Arc User
    Is this pvp in its current state going to land on consoles ?
    P58WJe7.jpg


  • koraheaglecrykoraheaglecry Member Posts: 250 Arc User
    Well @koraheaglecry
    We have no idea what will be what when it comes to consoles.
    We don't even know what ships will be available, in other words we don't know what traits will be available to ps4 and XBone.
    It very well could be a stripped down version of what we have here. Further to this, there will be no cross platform play, so everyone there will start from scratch.
    They won't have the same issues with casuals and elite player power divide that we have here today.
    At least not for a year or so until most of them have fully leveled and SPEC/rep'd out.

    Anyway, pvp is almost mandatory these days with console releases.
    Even a game like "Last of Us" (a notoriously single player game) has a pvp mode.
    Its just something that is expected in this day and age. And I wouldn't count on the devs leaving it out on console. But stranger things have happened.

    And @kiralyn
    Even if pvp was removed here, you do realize that new items and abilities would still be scrutinized by the player base, right ?
    Just because pvp would cease to exist, doesn't mean that power creep could go on its merry way without a second glance, right ?

    I mean, lets get things straight here.
    Kemo and Plasma Doping were nerfed because the PvE side brought these items to the attention of the devs. It was not the pvp crowd who caused those nerfs.

    The high end DPS'ers are "just as concerned" with power creep as the pvp guys, if not more.

    If they were to let broken items go without a second look, their leagues would have major trouble brewing on their hands.
    The tables would become convoluted with questionable parses.
    People would argue. It would create hostility.
    It would also eventually force them to "wipe" the boards.
    Then you gotta parse all over again.

    And actually, that's part of the reason we have 2 dps leagues now days. Because the founders of the original had a fundamental difference of opinion on what techniques and practices were morally acceptable, and what parses should be considered fair and equitable for upload.
    So, basically, one group ended up staging a coup in the middle of the night, while the server was down....And all hell broke loose.
    And now we have 2 dps leagues.
    (And people say pvp is full of drama lol)

    Anyway, point is the pve guys are the new sweethearts and liasons to the Devs.
    I'm conviced they don't even care what the PvP'ers say anymore.
    I would bet the ionic/neutronic fix was the last favour they do for the pvp community.
    The PvE uproar over that was just incredible. The moaning and belly aching that went on here was staggering. Just awful.
    I'm sure after that the Devs said pvp is on its own.

    Especially since pvp is no longer the big money maker it once was.

    So nerfs will ALWAYS come. If not from the pvp crowd, then from the pve crowd.

    Maybe the pve crowd is a bit more lenient on new power...I'm sure they like setting new records and all, but if something is performing way to good, you can bet every ec you have, that it will attract the attention of many inquisitive eyes.
    And will be called out. And reported.

    The only way nerfs would disappear is if every new item was released perfectly balanced.
    But that almost never happens. Company's don't invest a lot of time in QA these days. So...



    #nerfshappen

    Getting rid of pvp at this point is just rubbing salt in old wounds. And solves nothing. Unless people enjoy causing sensless pain.
    Put on your Vulcan ears people and be logical.

    Let pvp have the dignified death it deserves.
    Like an old Klingon warrior, let us die honourably, in glorious battle, and the hands of our foes.
    Do not rob us of entry into Sto-Vo-Kor.

    Qapla'

    We know plenty. If they were actually rolling out massive changes to PvP we'd be getting some sort of hints or brief mentions of it by now. PvP fixes would be huge news here in STO considering its sorry state. But we havent heard anything.
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
    edited May 2016
    Well like I said, they should have 6-12 months before things turn ugly on console.

    And I agree, I don't think its current form on pc can be fixed at this point.
    You start denying people their traits and gear, or getting rid of pvp altogether and there's going to be some nasty consequences.

    Rather then nerf the PvP whales, devs need to add a couple new game modes (Stock Ship mode + No Traits mode).
    Those of us who want a more fair encounter can try the new modes. Whales can continue to pvp against themselves.
    Everyone wins.
    Even Cryptic.
    They could sell a ship pack for the Stock Ship mode. Something trivial like 500 Zen (can't be expensive or it won't work).
    4 ships per faction, canon archetypes.
    Sci vessel, escort, carrier, crusier.

    In this way Cryptic could make a few bucks to justify the Dev time.
    They've got all the assets at their disposal anyway, ships, maps etc.

    I really believe something like this is the only hope for PvP.
    [img][/img]OD5urLn.jpg
  • rezkingrezking Member Posts: 1,107 Arc User
    rattler2 wrote: »
    So... get a couple cruisers with mk XII blue/purple gear, Fleet damage consoles... might have a decent bout.

    Just...no.

    OP:
    The problem is there is no more Red vs Blue.
    There was, but not anymore.
    There has to be an OpFor.
    They have to be distinct enough that you will have to actually use strategy and team tactics to capitalize on your Faction's strengths.
    Otherwise you'll have a digital version of Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots, not totally unlike what the quoted post entails.

    -long rant removed-

    TL;dr - PvP is already dead imo, so Cryptic can remove it and I feel genuinely sad for the new players that will never know what it feels like to stalk a big Fed cruiser and melt it's hull with a true Alpha.
    NO to ARC
    RIP KDF and PvP 2014-07-17 Season 9.5 - Death by Dev
  • dareaudareau Member Posts: 2,389 Arc User
    andycman wrote: »
    patrickngo wrote: »
    null
    null
    because two-word soundbites communicate NOTHING, and the problem is a lot more detailed than a simple yes/no bracket you can fit into one pithy sentence, Andy.

    Yes, but I'm knowing out of curiosity. People could say a few sentences in the equivelant of full paragraphs (not saying your info isnt good)

    And a few sentences, especially if extremely related on a specific topic, are the definition of a paragraph. At least how I remember it from high school...

    Topic sentence, then your 2-3 more sentences expanding upon the first. Maybe a summary sentence.

    And since forums function best when expansion is pre-provided, walls of text are the norm... :)

    Speaking of walls of text... ;)
    patrickngo wrote: »
    except for Borticus, who, as soon as Hawk was gone, repudiated that prior relationship on the flimsiest grounds and has not been seen interacting with the PvP community since.

    Way I remember it is that Bort was "caught" between the demands of the PvP community who actually at the time lived in a "trinity" world and the PvE "majority" that lived in a trinity-less world.

    Yep. In PvP, especially "elite" PvP (read: Premades), a team was 2-3 escorts, cruiser, 1-2 sciences. Period. Your premade doesn't fly unless the trinity is covered via having the desired squad makeup. And if your squad went against a well-scienced squad without competent science of your own? 15-2... And people wonder where the term "PuG stomping group" came from. PuGs are notorious for almost never having a trinity-build, and the ones that do usually don't have that competent Science. If a PuG had basic teamwork and competent science, legends say that the PuG stompers would have "connection issues"...

    And the PvP Sci brought healing of the critical ally, balance-turning through the well timed use of confusion effects, and denial (subnuke) - many a PvP came down to who got their subnuke on the right guy first...

    But, in the "trinity-less" world of PvE, these things that Science brings to the PvP table did not make up for their inability to do the one thing that is necessary for a PvE mission completion - kill target(s). Preferably as fast as humanly possible.
    Granted, "well trained" teams of the day could... appreciate... the value of a competent Sci - I actually wound up being "the guy who saved" more ISE optionals before DPS truly ruled the day than my lack of DPS cost - and I know the "then borderline DPS lords" loved it when I CCed nanite trains for them into a silver platter.
    But they still insisted that if I brought "their" levels of DPS, nobody would have "needed" my CC. I think they quietly fumed every time they saw me set up a GW and they were off on their own little world...

    So, the answer to PvE was "give Science back their AoE damage". Which obviously skewed the PvP "Trinity". Trinity-seekers would broach no compromise - vitriol escalated - PvP began to die.

    Because it's still way too built around "Trinity" aspects like "pressure / zombie cruisers" that take forever to kill but can't kill someone except in forever vs. "glass cannons" that essentially need to win on their alpha strike or die vs. Sciences that end alpha strikes and send pressure right back at the enemy - now with enough DPS to out-alpha an escort (FPB) or out-pressure the cruiser (Grav Well / TBR)...

    Thusly, the way I figure it - to "save" PvP it needs to evolve - no more trinity basis and "rock paper scissors" of cruisers -> sci -> escorts -> cruisers. PvP will only function when the amounts of damage done over an engagement is equal to the amounts of survival being brought to the engagement - with just enough of an "offensive" tilt to cause deaths... No matter who's doing the surviving or damaging...

    Which then runs into another issue - PvP is not 1 on 1 where you can balance it by statements like "it takes 20 seconds for an escort to kill a cruiser, so how does the escort survive for 20 seconds?, but later be able to die to a Science in the 10 seconds it takes an escort to kill said science" - because while it's in "anti-cruiser mode", the science comes along and applies it's 10 second kill...
    Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...

    To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
  • wast33wast33 Member Posts: 1,855 Arc User
    edited May 2016
    only for the record some threads i quickly could found on that issue with ionic and the quality of feedback they received on the matter from "the old" pvp-community, that still stuck around after dr hit in the first place:

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1173977/ionic-turbulence-bugged/p1
    directly related the discussion thread:
    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1173581/ionic-turbulence-diasable-and-pvp-implications/p1

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1172923/ionic-turbulence-disable

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1171741/ionic-turbulence

    http://www.arcgames.com/en/forums/startrekonline#/discussion/1176903/ionic-turbulence-can-chain-disable


    crypricfrost on the matter in the 1st linked thread (not the answer patrckngo is reffering on and not from bort directly btw ;)):

    "Having talked with Borticus, Ionic Turbulence is Working as Designed.

    That means this issue is not a bug, and so any further discussion needs to be taken to an appropriate section such as the PvP or General forums."


    some time after that geko admitted like "woat, thatz da way it worxx?!?! not wai...." (lmao so hard, each time i recall that reaction lol...)

    really could get interesting with a bunch of online console-kidz. they won't learn anything for sure though, i rather would take that as given :(...

    this company not even is worth a sad lol imho, rather would see the licence at ea (yep, said that)!!!
  • kerygankerygan Member Posts: 254 Arc User
    The aswer is simple , add pvp resiliance, or lower dmg in pvp , lower the effects of defence , lower all counters effects in pvp , reduce imunity time and most important , some good rewards , perhaps even a reputation system , with pvp related skills and gear.
  • sirsitsalotsirsitsalot Member Posts: 2,747 Arc User
    I am not a PvPer. In fact, I hate PvP with a passion. Having said that, I do not believe that PvP should be removed. It is a vital aspect of MMO gameplay which feeds the need of a subset of a player-base to compete with each other. However, the way STO's core game is going, the existing form of PvP makes less and less sense.

    I believe that PvP should have a dedicated development path and be broken off from the core game. The main menu currently gives us the option to play the game or create content. why not add a third tab for compete with others? Under this, one could create a character with access to all skill points and build him/her out as desired. Gear and ships and other such would be earned theough victory. The entire galaxy would be the stage for on-going conflict, ideally complete with territory control and resource distribution.

    In relation to the core game, the PvP aspect would be an alternat universe in which the end of the Iconian War did not bring about an end to the hostilities between the UFP and KDF, and now both powers are locked in a struggle, ultimately manipulated by a power that has had more than a century to bide its time and become even more insidious than ever:

    The Violence Entity from the TOS episode "Day of the Dove." If there were ever a Star Trek precedence for MMO-style PvP, it is that episode.
    There can be no meeting of the minds between two parties
    if both parties are not willing to meet in the middle...
  • bitemepwebitemepwe Member Posts: 6,760 Arc User
    Words escape me at the point.
    Leonard Nimoy, Spock.....:(

    R.I.P
  • taylor1701dtaylor1701d Member Posts: 3,099 Arc User
Sign In or Register to comment.