test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options

The unpopular opinion about PvE queues

124»

Comments

  • Options
    e30erneste30ernest Member Posts: 1,794 Arc User
    The easy way to do gear scores is to simply add up the TP of all your gear.

    That won't work because people can do over 100k with Mk I weapons or even with no weapons equipped at all.

    Gear scores won't mean much if person A can do so much more than person B with the exact same gear setup.
  • Options
    mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    reyan01 wrote: »
    Was reminded of this thread a few times in recent days. I caved in and purchased the new Vesta/MMSV bundle and have been playing with the Sci variant for a few days now. Keeping in mind that these were all PuGs:

    Played ISA: Optional failed due to random player A flying off to the right whilst everyone was still firing on the generator etc on the left.

    Played CCA: This lasted all of 40 seconds - completely pointless.

    Swapped to my much newer AoY Char - played Borg Red Alert. For the first time in I don't know how long experienced a failed run. Don't get me wrong - I can (or at least could when it was possible to do so) solo this with my main char, but my AoY char isn't fully levelled and doesn't have particularly good gear. The team was utterly hopeless and the instance failed.

    And did ISA this morning; decent team, but the optional failed due to someone in the team dropping a fairly powerful Gravity Well on top of the second generator with the nanite spheres sufficently close that they were pulled in by it.

    Then did another Borg Red Alert which was a roflstomp, with cubes etc often dying before could get within weapons range.

    So it really is a mixed bag at the moment.
    If you say not fully leveled, do you mean he's not level 60?

    I had similar experiences. It seems as if at sub-Level 60 you get into a different set of instances for queues, with less well equipped and experienced players. But I also have the feeling that Level 50 or whtaever the instances might be at then has a scaling difference to level 60. As if at level 6 we've got more bonuses than we should have for Level 60.

    Once I got to Level 60, not only did the queues pop more often, they also completed much faster again, and it seemed the same build was more effective.
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • Options
    lordsteve1lordsteve1 Member Posts: 3,492 Arc User
    sophlogimo wrote: »
    lordsteve1 wrote: »
    Yeah a points system would really kill the game and be a huge resource drain.

    Boy. There is zero left to be killed when it comes to game balance. Even if there was, a point system would encourage experiments of much different kinds than now. Want to command a T1 in Hive Onslaught? No problem, the team will still have the required battle value.

    Your assertion is complete hogwash.

    I never mentioned balance did I? I merely suggested the resources involved in such a system would probably be too large to be of any interest to Cryptic. They'd not be able to make money off it and it wouldn't even be guaranteed to help.
    This ain't some tabletop war simulation with x points per player permitted.

    So you haven't even understood the point of a battle value system, and yet are full of strong opinion about it. Hilarious.


    Dude. The idea is not to give every player a number of points they are supposed to use, but the team. So weaker players can play alongside stronger players and the team will still be challenged appropriately.

    So where did anyone mention it was a team score? Because the majority of posts were talking about an individual score per player, which would be no different to a tabletop wargame where each side (or player+ship in STO) gets a set allocation of points to use for their build.

    If the suggestion is for the entire team to be given a points requirement then is that really any better? Sure the weaker players might be able to get by with lesser gear but all it does is highlight how undergeared they are, or how little gold/epic gear they can afford. It doesn't really address all the other issues that affect how well a team works.

    And with a means to actually quantify how good someone's build is before even flying it or parsing it will be really bad for the community.

    Now that is a magic hat wehre you pulled that iodea out of, right?

    What I mean is that with a gear score you are assessing someone's build quality without even seeing it in battle, without parsing it. So there is potential for the sort of epeen idiocy we already see where people consider anyone doing less than X DPS is useless. Only this system would allow for people to assume anyone with less that X gear score are useless instead.
    You think the DPS obsession now is bad?

    No. Do you? If so, why? People have fun. The problem isn't high DPS, the problem is that the player team becomes much too strong for the mission at hand, which results in a boring pest control run, instead of a battle.

    Umm...the initial post in the thread was complaining about queues/optionals failing because people didn't follow instructions or know what they were doing.
    The problem they were suggesting is that players are not too strong, they are just not organised/sensible/intelligent or whatever enough to play the higher content without it failing.

    Just wait till you see the mess a points system would create as everyone goes for cookie cutter epeen builds to get some magic number. It'll just result in people being berated or even bullied just because they don't have that magic number.

    As I said: You have no idea what you are talking about, and thus, "garbage in, garbage out" of your keyboard.

    No, you just disagree with my opinion, doesn't mean I don't know what i'm talking about. There's no need to resort to insults about me writing garbage or anything. This is a discussion we're having here, so there will be unpopular views.
    And besides, it couldn't take into account piloting anyway. [...]

    I'll explain again, even if you'll probably not understand it: The idea would have to have a performance-based rating, which means the game automatically determines the character's battle value from the results of his last N battles. Sure, you could game that by performing intentionally badly at those last 50 runs, but then you'd have tp play those 50 runs first.

    And voilá, no problem.

    Again, insulting my intelligence is not needed here,we're all just trying to discuss this sensibly. If you disagree with me fine, state your disagreement and move on but don't try to insult me or make out I have no idea what i;m on about as if I have no right to post an opinion

    What this game needs is content that caters to the players of different experience levels. Add in elite versions of queues and the uber players can go have their high level runs. If they don't want all the lower tier newbies ruining their fun there is the premade system to allow for private matches.
    And there are loads of channels in game for arranging matches to suit anyone's requirements.
    If players want to try elite content when they are not ready that's their choice, they must accept they will be held accountable for their failures if they mess up someone else's run.
    SulMatuul.png
  • Options
    markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,231 Arc User
    .
    e30ernest wrote: »
    The easy way to do gear scores is to simply add up the TP of all your gear.
    That won't work because people can do over 100k with Mk I weapons or even with no weapons equipped at all.

    Gear scores won't mean much if person A can do so much more than person B with the exact same gear setup.
    Yeah, I read that.... I have to wonder if this was the "Nanny Recluse" strategy or a variant thereof. Makes me wonder what the numbers would have been solo.

    But in part it feeds into something a lot of people don't know about the way space weapon damage is calculated. Buffs from skills are added to the buff you get from high-mk weapons. It's not multiplicative.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • Options
    pwstolemynamepwstolemyname Member Posts: 1,417 Arc User
    I dislike the notion of content locks. I am already dissatisfied that private matches have minimum player requirements.

    Personally I find bad pugs to be more fun then good ones. You reach a point in STO where the STFs are not challenging enough and there are only two ways to make them interesting. Way 1) Download a parser and try to beat your personal best DPS. 2) Run with bad pugs and do everything yourself.

    Please don't take my bad pugs away from me. If you don't like running with clueless people make some friends or join one of the DPS channels and run with them.
  • Options
    e30erneste30ernest Member Posts: 1,794 Arc User
    .
    e30ernest wrote: »
    The easy way to do gear scores is to simply add up the TP of all your gear.
    That won't work because people can do over 100k with Mk I weapons or even with no weapons equipped at all.

    Gear scores won't mean much if person A can do so much more than person B with the exact same gear setup.
    Yeah, I read that.... I have to wonder if this was the "Nanny Recluse" strategy or a variant thereof. Makes me wonder what the numbers would have been solo.

    But in part it feeds into something a lot of people don't know about the way space weapon damage is calculated. Buffs from skills are added to the buff you get from high-mk weapons. It's not multiplicative.

    I don't think it was a nanny run. All of those stacking bonuses and non-weapon damage sources can easily boost you past 100k. You can even hit 100k without weapons.
  • Options
    xblazex#7666 xblazex Member Posts: 130 Arc User
    wow..ROFL this tread is still going .... pretty much validating everything I said in my previous comments." random ques are random" seem to be a hard concept for some people who like blaming others for their choices.
  • Options
    varthelmvarthelm Member Posts: 265 Arc User
    My two cents....sometimes the advanced queue is the only version people are playing. Let's face it, most queues in STO are near impossible to get in without a premade. I have a simple solution (hopefully).

    Please remove the 5 man requirement for most STF. With power creep, it's hardy nesessary anyway and we can experience more content.

    To the point of this post, maybe new guys can get in a 3 or 4 man normal queue if they can't get in a 5. They can't be blamed for not learning the content at a lower level if that queue is so hard to get in.

    My two cents.
  • Options
    angrybobhangrybobh Member Posts: 420 Arc User
    varthelm wrote: »
    My two cents....sometimes the advanced queue is the only version people are playing. Let's face it, most queues in STO are near impossible to get in without a premade. I have a simple solution (hopefully).

    Please remove the 5 man requirement for most STF. With power creep, it's hardy nesessary anyway and we can experience more content.

    To the point of this post, maybe new guys can get in a 3 or 4 man normal queue if they can't get in a 5. They can't be blamed for not learning the content at a lower level if that queue is so hard to get in.

    My two cents.

    I agree with this. I would add a modification though. If the queue waits for more than a certain amount of time, give the current number of players (even if its 1) a go without maximum players button.
  • Options
    peterconnorfirstpeterconnorfirst Member Posts: 6,225 Arc User
    edited February 2017
    I dislike the notion of content locks. I am already dissatisfied that private matches have minimum player requirements.

    Personally I find bad pugs to be more fun then good ones. You reach a point in STO where the STFs are not challenging enough and there are only two ways to make them interesting. Way 1) Download a parser and try to beat your personal best DPS. 2) Run with bad pugs and do everything yourself.

    Please don't take my bad pugs away from me. If you don't like running with clueless people make some friends or join one of the DPS channels and run with them.

    I, sir, salute you! Players with your attitude make this game worth playing. B)
    animated.gif
    Looking for a fun PvE fleet? Join us at Omega Combat Division today.
    felisean wrote: »
    teamwork to reach a goal is awesome and highly appreciated
  • Options
    smokebaileysmokebailey Member Posts: 4,667 Arc User
    I dislike the notion of content locks. I am already dissatisfied that private matches have minimum player requirements.

    Personally I find bad pugs to be more fun then good ones. You reach a point in STO where the STFs are not challenging enough and there are only two ways to make them interesting. Way 1) Download a parser and try to beat your personal best DPS. 2) Run with bad pugs and do everything yourself.

    Please don't take my bad pugs away from me. If you don't like running with clueless people make some friends or join one of the DPS channels and run with them.

    I, sir, salute you! Players with your attitude make this game worth playing. B)

    Cookies for both of you! ^_^ V
    Wu1Ooju.jpg


    Bad pugs are great, you actually get something interesting. As I asked before, where's the fun if the thing lasts as long as a Mike Tyson match from the 1990's?
    dvZq2Aj.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.