test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

An idea to help PVP, the community can do this right now.

2»

Comments

  • horridpersonhorridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    edited August 2021
    The endeavour system is the great upset. You can't do anything to turn it off. You can have players voluntarily restrict themselves to a particular tier of ship, marks of equipment, number of active traits traits, specializations 0/1, and rep abilities on and off at will but that system alone will create significant imbalances.

    If you set up your own set of PvP rules for a group you need to actively control building up, but not out. People enjoy finding synergies, playing with stuff and tweaking their builds. Discouraging "lateral" building wrecks fun. You have very few people interested in PvP to begin with and discouraging creativity and pushing cookie cutters builds would disinterest a sizable segment of that player pool.

    PvP is often presented as 3 on 3. 2 on 2.... symmetrical scenarios. To keep things interesting you might consider asymmetric challenges. A convoy defence might involve one side moving a "freighter" from one side of the play zone to the other with the objective of the other side being to intercept and destroy that particular target to "win". Another might be a "Bismarck" where a single considerably superior ship with is pitted against a team with numerous weaker assets. Whatever you do you have to be able to keep things fresh beyong the standard fare and "winning".
    battlegroupad_zps8gon3ojt.jpg

  • xorvxorv Member Posts: 75 Arc User
    @xorv

    We don't have the same definition of interests. As far as PvP participation I have little, to no interest. It's an anemic portion of the game that has fallen by the wayside. To their credit the PvP community resurges occasionally with cries to rejuvenate it but it probably only exists as it does because it doesn't continually explode like the Foundry did.

    My interest is in the state of the larger game. I'm a realist in that I recognize limited resources need to be allocated where they will serve the whole better. Where that leads outside of prize incentivized events who can say. Past experience demonstrates new content when delivered takes the form of PvE content.

    "Do you PvP", polls were conducted repeatedly to a point where the percentages were so embarrassing the pollsters wouldn't wave them around if they were on fire. You don't build it if nobody will come, those who do are a a marked minority. You can care about a particular as much as you want to, but even imagining democracy all the passion in the world amounts to just one vote.

    My interests are in content developing with enough mass appeal that I can fly my little spaceships around for a couple more years before they pack it in.

    A fair bit to unpack here...

    I think our use of the word interest isn't all that divergent. You have an interest in not seeing more PvP content added to the game, because one you don't like it and two you feel (probably correctly) that there's very limited dev resources and you want a larger slice of that pie for the things you like. An honest account of why your here posting, that I appreciate.

    All this talk of Democracy and "serving the whole" is where I think you lost the plot. We don't vote for content development in STO and opinion on what serves "the whole" are going to vary a great deal. Cryptic is going to do what they think is good for their game and ultimately their profit margins. Those profit margins do not align with the player base on an equal basis, in terms of profit some types of players are worth way more than others. Among those higher profit value players are your niche groups of PvPers and DPS chasers. So just because they are small in number relative to the player base at large you can't discount them.

    As it happens I am not of the opinion that most of these PvP rejuvenation ideas are going to help. I don't think any idea is going to see the majority of STO players become regular PvPers (I'm not a regular PvPer in STO anymore). That doesn't mean that PvP couldn't use some attention from development, any content no matter how popular left so long neglected is going to suffer greatly reduced participation. Also on the issue of rewards, this is huge in MMOs, and there's little reward motivation for PvP in STO, aside from the occasional universal endeavor which actually does see a huge increase in participation for the duration. No, there's nothing wrong with having rewards behind PvP content, Endeavors aren't things you have to do, and most players don't want to do Gravity Kills either, and a whole bunch of other unpopular TFOs. Heck I didn't want to do Bodly They Rode THREE TIMES! to get some Dominion Polarons for a new character, but I chose to do it.. welcome to MMOs.
  • rattler2rattler2 Member Posts: 57,973 Community Moderator
    xorv wrote: »
    Heck I didn't want to do Bodly They Rode THREE TIMES! to get some Dominion Polarons for a new character...

    I'm guessing it was for the dual cannons.

    I did it 6 times for a full set of beam arrays. :s
    db80k0m-89201ed8-eadb-45d3-830f-bb2f0d4c0fe7.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiJcL2ZcL2ExOGQ4ZWM2LTUyZjQtNDdiMS05YTI1LTVlYmZkYmJkOGM3N1wvZGI4MGswbS04OTIwMWVkOC1lYWRiLTQ1ZDMtODMwZi1iYjJmMGQ0YzBmZTcucG5nIn1dXSwiYXVkIjpbInVybjpzZXJ2aWNlOmZpbGUuZG93bmxvYWQiXX0.8G-Pg35Qi8qxiKLjAofaKRH6fmNH3qAAEI628gW0eXc
    I can't take it anymore! Could everyone just chill out for two seconds before something CRAZY happens again?!
    The nut who actually ground out many packs. The resident forum voice of reason (I HAZ FORUM REP! YAY!)
  • horridpersonhorridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    @xorv

    I didn't miss the plot. You don't read carefully enough. Democracy wasn't assumed. If there was a democracy your expectations would be unrealistic.

    It's true that PvP interests aren't my own but I don't have to hide my self interest behind common good. It's irregular that I would speak beyond myself, but it's warranted. You may have missed the memo, the polls, or relative populations but PvP is insignificant. It wasn't what I wanted in lieu of that. It's simply what's on the menu and staying the course.

    I did make some suggestions you could implement to add some variety to your games. You did header this with, "What you can do for PvP now" or something along those lines. All suggestions are zero cost, and could be adopted or simply tried by participants today by players. Apparently I missing something and that would be impossible. You know best. That's why you are speaking for a thriving community.
    battlegroupad_zps8gon3ojt.jpg

  • darkbladejkdarkbladejk Member Posts: 3,698 Community Moderator
    While I'm not a AAA studio dev, I have a fair amount of experience creating content for older games, including pvp maps and the like. Although I no longer participate in any kind of major organized pvp, I've played my fair share of it to last a lifetime. I'll be examining this from the perspective of a content creator and a player.

    The first thing people need to understand with this stuff is that you can't force people to play in a way they don't want to play. All you're going to do is make them quit the game by trying to dictate to them how to play. If you want people to play a certain way you have to give them an incentive to do what you want to do. When I was creating maps for Timesplitters Future Perfect, one of the things I liked to see big free for all shooting matches towards the center of maps vs sitting back in a base. to incentivize people to leave their base I would place extra armor kits, health kits, and some of the more powerful weapons in areas closer to the center of the map. It worked very well for what I wanted to do.

    The second thing is that sometimes what you as the content developer think will do well doesn't always do well. Just because you like it doesn't mean the players will like it all the time. Sometimes the things you think will do well flop, and the things you think will flop end up doing well.

    The third thing is that Cryptic is a business that exists to make money. They have to balance what makes them money with what does well for players. If they invest a ton of cash and time into something but it flops, they're not going to do that again for awhile. They've said multiple times that pvp stuff is not very well received in this game. If 95% of your playerbase is saying "hey we want (thing)" but the other 5% is saying "we want (other thing)", which do you think they're more likely to go for?

    Fourth: if you're going to do pvp in a game you need to have it there from the start and you need to have it separated from PVE. this means modifiers on abilities and similar to behave differently in pvp and pve so you can balance one side or the other without effecting the opposite side. As a primarily pve player, I absolutely hate when a change made for pvp reasons in a game is allowed to effect the pve side of the game or vice versa. It's bad design that creates unnecessary animosity. What one person considers balance another may not. Far as I'm concerned, vape builds, builds that are almost always untargetable, cheese near infinite immunities or similar are not skill, but cheese mechanics that should never be allowed. Others may disagree. If something guarantees you the win or almost always guarantees you the win and is THE answer in almost all cases, that's cheese and overpowered, but that's a different can of worms.

    So far the problem I see is there is no incentive to play pvp or participate in it. In fact I can name more reasons to avoid it like the plague than I can for playing it in STO. I'm of the mindset that more often than not, super competitive pvp brings out the worst in people. Especially the "you only hate it because you always lose" and similar crowds. The worst enemy of the pvp community is itself. Any incentive to play pvp would have to be something that gets people in the door, but doesn't make the pve guys feel like they're being forced to pvp to get comparable rewards. Otherwise for me it's a hard pass on anything pvp related. If I want to pvp I'll go play CoD or something along those lines.
    "Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives. I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment, because it will never come again." - Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek Generations

    Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
  • leemwatsonleemwatson Member Posts: 5,331 Arc User
    While I'm not a AAA studio dev, I have a fair amount of experience creating content for older games, including pvp maps and the like. Although I no longer participate in any kind of major organized pvp, I've played my fair share of it to last a lifetime. I'll be examining this from the perspective of a content creator and a player.

    The first thing people need to understand with this stuff is that you can't force people to play in a way they don't want to play. All you're going to do is make them quit the game by trying to dictate to them how to play. If you want people to play a certain way you have to give them an incentive to do what you want to do. When I was creating maps for Timesplitters Future Perfect, one of the things I liked to see big free for all shooting matches towards the center of maps vs sitting back in a base. to incentivize people to leave their base I would place extra armor kits, health kits, and some of the more powerful weapons in areas closer to the center of the map. It worked very well for what I wanted to do.

    The second thing is that sometimes what you as the content developer think will do well doesn't always do well. Just because you like it doesn't mean the players will like it all the time. Sometimes the things you think will do well flop, and the things you think will flop end up doing well.

    The third thing is that Cryptic is a business that exists to make money. They have to balance what makes them money with what does well for players. If they invest a ton of cash and time into something but it flops, they're not going to do that again for awhile. They've said multiple times that pvp stuff is not very well received in this game. If 95% of your playerbase is saying "hey we want (thing)" but the other 5% is saying "we want (other thing)", which do you think they're more likely to go for?

    Fourth: if you're going to do pvp in a game you need to have it there from the start and you need to have it separated from PVE. this means modifiers on abilities and similar to behave differently in pvp and pve so you can balance one side or the other without effecting the opposite side. As a primarily pve player, I absolutely hate when a change made for pvp reasons in a game is allowed to effect the pve side of the game or vice versa. It's bad design that creates unnecessary animosity. What one person considers balance another may not. Far as I'm concerned, vape builds, builds that are almost always untargetable, cheese near infinite immunities or similar are not skill, but cheese mechanics that should never be allowed. Others may disagree. If something guarantees you the win or almost always guarantees you the win and is THE answer in almost all cases, that's cheese and overpowered, but that's a different can of worms.

    So far the problem I see is there is no incentive to play pvp or participate in it. In fact I can name more reasons to avoid it like the plague than I can for playing it in STO. I'm of the mindset that more often than not, super competitive pvp brings out the worst in people. Especially the "you only hate it because you always lose" and similar crowds. The worst enemy of the pvp community is itself. Any incentive to play pvp would have to be something that gets people in the door, but doesn't make the pve guys feel like they're being forced to pvp to get comparable rewards. Otherwise for me it's a hard pass on anything pvp related. If I want to pvp I'll go play CoD or something along those lines.

    I totally agree with everything you say here.

    As someone who's been gaming since the late 70's and played probably a couple of thousand different games by now, I can absolutely vouch for the fact that unless the game is built with PvP as a main core of the game, such as the Halo series, it's going to fail. Forcing PvP into games kills games that are PvE oriented...period. The main factor for STO is players are geared to kill 1 mill HP+ NPC's, so killing a 100K HP player ship, that's not geared as such is easy. However, as I already mentioned earlier, the endeavour system now makes it 'grossly unfair' with at least a dozen console's worth of extra stats that can't be undone.

    And as for 'skill'....it barely features in STO. What some folk refer to as skill is actually that they copied the latest 'meta'....it's that easy.

    The closest, and fairest way to play PvP is to grab a T1 ship, with hardly any powers, limited equipment....but even then, the game seriously lacks in 'consequences' that would affect you. What it needs is 'real-time' damage and sub-system damage and repairs to add some jeapordy. STO's 'arcade' feel just doesn't provide that.
    "You don't want to patrol!? You don't want to escort!? You don't want to defend the Federation's Starbases!? Then why are you flying my Starships!? If you were a Klingon you'd be killed on the spot, but lucky for you.....you WERE in Starfleet. Let's see how New Zealand Penal Colony suits you." Adm A. Necheyev.
  • meimeitoomeimeitoo Member Posts: 12,587 Arc User
    While I'm not a AAA studio dev, I have a fair amount of experience creating content for older games, including pvp maps and the like. Although I no longer participate in any kind of major organized pvp, I've played my fair share of it to last a lifetime. I'll be examining this from the perspective of a content creator and a player.

    The first thing people need to understand with this stuff is that you can't force people to play in a way they don't want to play. All you're going to do is make them quit the game by trying to dictate to them how to play. If you want people to play a certain way you have to give them an incentive to do what you want to do. When I was creating maps for Timesplitters Future Perfect, one of the things I liked to see big free for all shooting matches towards the center of maps vs sitting back in a base. to incentivize people to leave their base I would place extra armor kits, health kits, and some of the more powerful weapons in areas closer to the center of the map. It worked very well for what I wanted to do.

    The second thing is that sometimes what you as the content developer think will do well doesn't always do well. Just because you like it doesn't mean the players will like it all the time. Sometimes the things you think will do well flop, and the things you think will flop end up doing well.

    The third thing is that Cryptic is a business that exists to make money. They have to balance what makes them money with what does well for players. If they invest a ton of cash and time into something but it flops, they're not going to do that again for awhile. They've said multiple times that pvp stuff is not very well received in this game. If 95% of your playerbase is saying "hey we want (thing)" but the other 5% is saying "we want (other thing)", which do you think they're more likely to go for?

    Fourth: if you're going to do pvp in a game you need to have it there from the start and you need to have it separated from PVE. this means modifiers on abilities and similar to behave differently in pvp and pve so you can balance one side or the other without effecting the opposite side. As a primarily pve player, I absolutely hate when a change made for pvp reasons in a game is allowed to effect the pve side of the game or vice versa. It's bad design that creates unnecessary animosity. What one person considers balance another may not. Far as I'm concerned, vape builds, builds that are almost always untargetable, cheese near infinite immunities or similar are not skill, but cheese mechanics that should never be allowed. Others may disagree. If something guarantees you the win or almost always guarantees you the win and is THE answer in almost all cases, that's cheese and overpowered, but that's a different can of worms.

    So far the problem I see is there is no incentive to play pvp or participate in it. In fact I can name more reasons to avoid it like the plague than I can for playing it in STO. I'm of the mindset that more often than not, super competitive pvp brings out the worst in people. Especially the "you only hate it because you always lose" and similar crowds. The worst enemy of the pvp community is itself. Any incentive to play pvp would have to be something that gets people in the door, but doesn't make the pve guys feel like they're being forced to pvp to get comparable rewards. Otherwise for me it's a hard pass on anything pvp related. If I want to pvp I'll go play CoD or something along those lines.


    I totally agree with everything you say here. But you forgot my favorite "Go play EvE Online!" :p

    In all seriousness, they tried, with the Competitive rep. It was a complete and utter disaster (especially since, at its introduction, they started giving out comp marks 17x faster elsewhere, outside of PvP -- luckily for me). So, at this point, ppl should simply forget about PvP. This is, and always has been, a casual PvE game, and always will be. I reckon Cryptic burned their fingers on PvP more than enough times, by now (also, luckily for me).

    Is it possible to try and turn a PvE game into a PvP one? Perhaps, but (as a slight misuse of Occam's Razor), the simplest solution is usually best: just go play EvE Online!
    3lsZz0w.jpg
  • horridpersonhorridperson Member Posts: 665 Arc User
    > @kellmg96#5851 said:
    > this will never happen.
    > Expecting a community to just come together and do something.
    > With no systems to do it.
    > With no checks and balances for it.
    > For an already broken system.

    It's a matter of character and will. My gaming background is primarily tabletop rather than electronic so my perceptions likely aren't realistic. For the enjoyment of a game you engage in a, "gentleman's/woman's/person's" agreement" not to be a douchebag. When the existing rules don't cover an instance you design your own as required. If that means your play group is small that's a start.

    As people on the outside see that it works and are are willing to accept the rules they can join in. Unless you have controls/leverage over a player base (tournament in real world/are a game developer online) you don't get to make top down reforms/rule changes that affect all players. You have to accept you are starting small and go from there.
    battlegroupad_zps8gon3ojt.jpg

  • vanhyovanhyo Member Posts: 229 Arc User
    edited September 2021
    > @westmetals said:
    > 250s, but I'm not sure it would have mattered, since I was being killed so quickly that at best I would hit "fire all" and three weapons fired before I was dead.
    >
    > My total damage over the entire match was less than 25k. Because I literally could not shoot a single full load of weapons before dying. And six or seven of the times (out of ten deaths), I could not shoot at all.

    I ask because 250's can be tricky on a cruiser although it feel instinctively correct, this is because of combination of things like interface options, placates, and tricks, basically if you fight with your broad side someone can easily fly behind you, then placates you and you wouldnt be able to re target that person, with tap. If you allow your interface to target things behind you it get wild and the system will select all sorts of irrevelent targets across the entire map. For this reason you always want some kind of fore orientation on your cruiser and engage with your fore rather than with your broad.

    Now that you say it wouldnt have mattered anyway, the problem seems to me to be foundamental flaws in your ship building.
  • cesitar257cesitar257 Member Posts: 49 Arc User
    Hi :)

    For a change, I love the pvp of this game, I don't know if it will be because I love star trek or space games but it seems to me one of the best games in terms of pvp that I have played, I spend hours and hours in kerrat, I have a fed and a klingon toon to change sides and try to balance when one side is much superior to the other, honestly without pvp I would have stopped playing years ago
  • questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,301 Arc User
    nuketf wrote: »
    westmetals wrote: »
    An idea to help PVP that the community can do right now:

    Ignore PVP. It is a lost cause.


    Why do players not even want to try this? It does work, makes PVP more fair, and tacitcal

    There are a number of possible reasons:
    - bad experiences with toxic behavior in PVP
    - No confidence that said toxic players will abide by the restrictions thereby making the combat even more lopsided
    - The various ships/careers are not balanced and even stock gear will not prevent unbalanced warfare.

    As it is i feel PVP is better left as a thing of the past.

    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
This discussion has been closed.