Valid points but who wants to sit there and get smashed because you happened to join a map already in progress where there are 2 on your team including you against 10 on the other side?
If they want to see how the ships compare to each other in pvp balance the teams or implement 1v1 or 2v2 pvp maps.
Important point here is the game is live now. This imbalance problem should have been analyzed and addressed during testing. I did not buy the game to be a tester, I bought it to play it and have fun and sorry getting ganked on a map because the broken queue system has my team outnumbered 2-1 and the other guys are 10+ levels higher than me is not fun it is a waste of time.
Some valid points as well, specially the technical ones, technically I agree with you that imbalances should have been identified during testing, yet was it really testing? I was not in Closed beta, and Open beta was anything but technical in terms of testing game play, it was there as a marketing event and a way to evaluate sales as well as stress testing the hardware.
Where I do not agree, is about the point made in relation to losing, albeit I'll also say that I understand your perspective. Without wanting to boast or anything personally I do not really care about who win or who loses what is important to me is to have a good fight, participate and have fun, it happens at times that I will join a match and we are ready being camped, so be it, i still open fire and enjoy it while it lasts and maybe sometimes a reversing of the situation happens.
But you see I have learned since a long time to not get upset when being defeated in PvP, since PvP was a way of life in the MMORPG that I played for 5 years so I am hardened in that regard. I actually laugh to see some people taking so much pleasure when they win thinking that they are "it" or that they somehow ruined the losing side's day, that is not why I pvp personally so I do not relate with that kind of view, it is their view good for them whatever makes em happy, I pvp for the fun of the fight and it is not true that I become unhappy if I lose, because to go in a game and be already camped is in my eyes the ultimate fighting challenge, it actually is fun too within that perspective.
What does make me upset is game mechanics when these are the reason for loses then yes it may upset me at times, then again the game is relatively an infant yet, and it has many years ahead of it, enough time to evolve and become better and be fixed, which brings us to my original points made, if we boycott we also potentially slow down that "healing" process.
So while upsetting at times it is a necessary evil of sorts, which requires some patience but that in the end will have positive outcome.
Some valid points as well, specially the technical ones, technically I agree with you that imbalances should have been identified during testing, yet was it really testing? I was not in Closed beta, and Open beta was anything but technical in terms of testing game play, it was there as a marketing event and a way to evaluate sales as well as stress testing the hardware.
Where I do not agree, is about the point made in relation to losing, albeit I'll also say that I understand your perspective. Without wanting to boast or anything personally I do not really care about who win or who loses what is important to me is to have a good fight, participate and have fun, it happens at times that I will join a match and we are ready being camped, so be it, i still open fire and enjoy it while it lasts and maybe sometimes a reversing of the situation happens.
But you see I have learned since a long time to not get upset when being defeated in PvP, since PvP was a way of life in the MMORPG that I played for 5 years so I am hardened in that regard. I actually laugh to see some people taking so much pleasure when they win thinking that they are "it" or that they somehow ruined the losing side's day, that is not why I pvp personally so I do not relate with that kind of view, it is their view good for them whatever makes em happy, I pvp for the fun of the fight and it is not true that I become unhappy if I lose, because to go in a game and be already camped is in my eyes the ultimate fighting challenge, it actually is fun too within that perspective.
What does make me upset is game mechanics when these are the reason for loses then yes it may upset me at times, then again the game is relatively an infant yet, and it has many years ahead of it, enough time to evolve and become better and be fixed, which brings us to my original points made, if we boycott we also potentially slow down that "healing" process.
So while upsetting at times it is a necessary evil of sorts, which requires some patience but that in the end will have positive outcome.
To each his own. I don't care about winning or losing either provided the fight was fair. When the system handicaps you from the start dropping you into a zone you will lose because it's just you up against 5 others camped at your spawn point or your team camping a one man spawn point, there is no point unless you want to sit there and watch your toon/ship die over and over or kill that one unlucky player that zoned in over and over.
Sure maybe it's a necessary evil but time is valuable, we only get a limited amount of it. If Cryptic needs me to spend time testing the pvp system for them they need to compensate me for having to participate in what people are beginning to see is a broken system. If you can make it fun for you hey that's great. Hopefully some others will see your point and help you test it for free. I'll pass though. Good luck to you and hopefully your time and sacrifice will make a difference. It would be great to be able to do some balanced pvp eventually and maybe we will have people like you to thank for it.
I would encourage all Federation Players to boycott PVP until they balance the 2 factions, it's already bad enough when you have 5 Klingons on 1 Federation, this is the skill the Klingon players talk about. It is just not worth at this time. If anyone says anything otherwise they would rather see the game die than ruin their advantage.
Oh yaa, yet another whine and nerf this that and nerf nerf nerf thread.
While I wait on the PVP q to pop I thought I would check the forum... so far out of 3 games its been 3 very close matches in T3 for me today, the last of which was won by the feds 10-15... I did have one shut out game but that was mainly due to the feds not working as one. T5 seems to go much the same in my experience... which is probably more than yours. I think I will start keeping a tally on scores just to see how "unbalanced things really are.
as for the q issues and joining games in progress or the 10 vs 1.. I shall note them but keep them out of the win/loss data
ok I know this is only 2 games but its a start but hey its gota begin somewhere.
Game one started out 5feds on 3 klinks and the score was 7-0 feds, couple of klinks show up and we win 15-7. Now when the other 2 showed up we started working as a team and called tartgets, Feds started racing in one at a time at Full impulse and dieing 1 or 2 at a time... they did not work together, or so it seemed.
Game two stared 5v5 and ended 15-0 feds. Klingons I was forced with failed to understand group tatics. They either chose their own targets, rushed in after full impulse or was just otherwise really bad PVPers (maybe they were fed spys?)
So there is a start of it, so far supports my theory that most feds fail to realize its a group game... more data needed to be sure however.
Latest match I ran in T3 ended 15-7 Klingons. As we got to the 13th kill I started paying attention to the feds and why they are losing so badly. Each fed was on his/her own target, no group play at all... I think the Ktinga might have had 2 on him and a raptor (was shocked to see one of those flying in T3!) and one guy was targeting nothing at all for the 10-15 seconds I watched him lol. So uhm well... still going to teamplay so far.
Oh yaa, yet another whine and nerf this that and nerf nerf nerf thread.
While I wait on the PVP q to pop I thought I would check the forum... so far out of 3 games its been 3 very close matches in T3 for me today, the last of which was won by the feds 10-15... I did have one shut out game but that was mainly due to the feds not working as one. T5 seems to go much the same in my experience... which is probably more than yours. I think I will start keeping a tally on scores just to see how "unbalanced things really are.
as for the q issues and joining games in progress or the 10 vs 1.. I shall note them but keep them out of the win/loss data
Please, read the posts above you that are in obvious agreement with my point of view the game needs some balancing. I have a valid point, if you don't agree that is you perrogative, I don't need your approveal to have an opinion, pvp is unbalanced it is plain to see, try using glasses. :eek:
Please, read the posts above you that are in obvious agreement with my point of view the game needs some balancing. I have a valid point, if you don't agree that is you perrogative, I don't need your approveal to have an opinion, pvp is unbalanced it is plain to see, try using glasses. :eek:
I still believe anyone that doesnt have a top character on both sides knows nothing about pvp balance.
So your opinion, in my opinion is worthless.
There wasnt anything wrong game balance wise unless you count the carrier ship spamming of fighters.
Played on both sides all the way to the top, multiple times and no balance issues what so ever. Played my ra5 today and killed tons of klingons just fine.
So wether you like it or not. Im playing the learn to play card twards you.
I do believe some skills should be removed or nerfed but its not a game balance issue as much as I think they suck. FBP, SNB, VM and reverse shield polarity to me, make no sense in a game like this. But I deal with them. I dont like it but I dont think its a deal breaker.
The more they tinker with ship balance the more things will get unbalanced.
Please, read the posts above you that are in obvious agreement with my point of view the game needs some balancing. I have a valid point, if you don't agree that is you perrogative, I don't need your approveal to have an opinion, pvp is unbalanced it is plain to see, try using glasses. :eek:
oddly I was supporting my "opinion" with game data as it went along... I got bored with it I admit since it was more and more obvious that its a solo/group mentality issue more than a balance issue. There are some issues with game mechanics, just no where near as bad as most make it out to be.
last 2 T3 games of capture and hold, Klingons won since there was more of us, Q issue. Feds won the second match due to them out classing us way bad. Could hardly even put a dent in 3 or 4 of them... they also seemed to work well, attack one while trying to capture and 4 more show up... Nice team work.
it's more true as much as in spite of me there pvp when one see 1 klingon, have saw them all because having all of the same shape of skill for the majority and is the case for the federation also
another important problem concerns the skill feedback pulse which aventage klingon very too much has reason that cruiser and scientific vessels of the federation can be efficient only with beam
certain cruiser and scientific vessels begins has use turret of to counter problem but it's a big loss of dps for them has reason that skill cannon is skill level LT and for beam is only eisign
a balancing of skill is therefore for me very important to prevent that every player is alike (who belongs almost case in instant) and to give again a more strategical aspect in game
it's more true as much as in spite of me there pvp when one see 1 klingon, have saw them all because having all of the same shape of skill for the majority and is the case for the federation also
another important problem concerns the skill feedback pulse which aventage klingon very too much has reason that cruiser and scientific vessels of the federation can be efficient only with beam
certain cruiser and scientific vessels begins has use turret of to counter problem but it's a big loss of dps for them has reason that skill cannon is skill level LT and for beam is only eisign
a balancing of skill is therefore for me very important to prevent that every player is alike (who belongs almost case in instant) and to give again a more strategical aspect in game
I think one "fix" to most issues would be to make RSP I though III all share the same timer, same with all skills. If doing this however you have to make all the upgrades be more upgradish, (the difference in RSP I and III is nothing as near as I can tell) and add more useful skills in the first 2 ranks, make that all the ranks.
Honestly, I would rather prefer NOT seeing people like this queue up for pvp. They tend to type more about how the match sucks rather than try to work to win. Look, there are fundamental flaws with the pvp queue system, sure, but if you enter a match and get blown away by 5 or 6 klings, pull up the report and see there's only 2 feds, just wait to respawn till there are enough people! I for one refuse to boycott pvp, it's too fun.
If you are not happy with PvP, don't queue. Rather than clogging up the system and making those of us who want to actually take PvP seriously, just refrain from queuing up altogether.
I've had plenty of matches where it's 5 of us camping the Klingon spawn gate, waiting for one of them to join the game. It's not what I'd call an imbalance, but rather a flaw in the system. Hopefully something that will be remedied soon. If you want to talk about imbalances, let's toss aside faction and talk about science captains and their power, subnucleonic beam.
I have queued with my friends on several occasions, with a couple PuGs and won all our matches. The Klingons put up a good fight. They had plenty of damage and healing done. You want to know why we won? Unlike other Federation groups, we actually supported each other. We picked up abilities that are good for PvP and made sure we had a mix of self saves and helpful abilities. We stuck together and made sure we focused vulnerable targets.
The question I have for all the Federation complaining about PvP, what bridge officer powers are you picking up? What equipment do you have on your ship? What's your skill point allocation like? Are you using any key binds?
So called boycotts will do nothing as long as the Federation faction remains a care bear haven and doesn't L2P.
Let's avoid the poorly-formulated strongarm tactics, and focus on proposing solutions to core issues in PvP. One of them is the queue system, which is unfortunately not going to get much better until the populations themselves balance out.
Beyond that, if we work to make PvP more fun, by increasing variety and balance, we'll go a long way toward keeping people in there. Fed v Fed pvp will also let Feds practice with pre-made groups before entering against Klingon pre-made groups.
Check out my signature for another thread on balancing PvP, and we can work on the root issues CAUSING the imbalance and dislike.
1. Birds of Prey, properly configured, are better Science Vessels than Science Vessels. They can run VM, multiple copies of RSP, etc. They have Battle Cloak. The universal BOff stations is a neat idea, but I don't think it's a working paradigm when a handful of especially powerful abilities can make or break your configuration completely.
2. Cloak is an imbalance that you cannot work around. The ball is the only reasonable counter, and even then you're guaranteed to yield the opening strike and therefore the tactical advantage to the Klingons.
That said, the bigger problem is simply that Feds don't PvP very well. It helps to understand that Klingons are almost required to level via PvP, except for the really heroic few who can stomach killing NPC ships in a nebula for dozens of hours instead. That means that the higher rank you are, the better the Klingons are at PvP on average relative to the Feds, strictly because they do more of it.
Klingon PvP queues are shorter than yours, and Klingons have fewer other choices of activity. We are (on average) better at PvP than the Feds, and arguing against that point is impossible. That's not the same thing as saying 'PvP is perfectly balanced and Klingons only win b/c of Cloak / BoPs / whatever' - but it is important to remember that the skill component is real, it exists, and it heavily favors Klingons right now. That is also why there exist very good Fed groups that wipe the floor with Klingons of every shape and description. If they can do it and you cannot, there's more to the problem than the absolute differences between the factions and ships themselves.
Don't like it? Don't play it. It's as simple as that. If I say that I don't eat at pizza hut because I don't like their food... well I'm not boycotting it. I'm just not going where I don't enjoy the service.
People discounting information just because it's coming from the Klingons is stupid. We aren't protecting anything. We just know that we've put in the time to be good, so you should as well. It's like having war games between a group of rookies and a group of veterans. Nearly every game will be won by the vets. Why? Is it because they have better gear? Nope. It's all because of the experience that they have that the rookies don't.
Experience in any game system is mandatory in order to understand how to win at it. By BG5 I've had several hundreds of PvP matches to figure it out. By now, close to 1000. Have you? If you haven't, then you really don't know what is balanced and what is not. Wanting to be just as good as someone who's played hundreds of matches without actually doing the work is not only ridiculous, but it's insulting to those of us (on either side) who have put in the time and effort.
This is important when asking for statistics. Of course the feds are going to lose more often, but that's only because more often than not they don't have team oriented players. The only REAL way to look at balance issues is to pit two equally skilled teams together. Attempting to balance based on anything less is to do so with misinformation.
1. Birds of Prey, properly configured, are better Science Vessels than Science Vessels. They can run VM, multiple copies of RSP, etc. They have Battle Cloak. The universal BOff stations is a neat idea, but I don't think it's a working paradigm when a handful of especially powerful abilities can make or break your configuration completely.
2. Cloak is an imbalance that you cannot work around. The ball is the only reasonable counter, and even then you're guaranteed to yield the opening strike and therefore the tactical advantage to the Klingons.
That said, the bigger problem is simply that Feds don't PvP very well. It helps to understand that Klingons are almost required to level via PvP, except for the really heroic few who can stomach killing NPC ships in a nebula for dozens of hours instead. That means that the higher rank you are, the better the Klingons are at PvP on average relative to the Feds, strictly because they do more of it.
Klingon PvP queues are shorter than yours, and Klingons have fewer other choices of activity. We are (on average) better at PvP than the Feds, and arguing against that point is impossible. That's not the same thing as saying 'PvP is perfectly balanced and Klingons only win b/c of Cloak / BoPs / whatever' - but it is important to remember that the skill component is real, it exists, and it heavily favors Klingons right now. That is also why there exist very good Fed groups that wipe the floor with Klingons of every shape and description. If they can do it and you cannot, there's more to the problem than the absolute differences between the factions and ships themselves.
Make a Kling and work your way up to get battlecloak. Every Feddie you play will still have no problems killing you off. Battlecloak is nothing except a strategic starting point.
My Klingon is currently piloting a Negh'var, but I spent all of T2 using a BoP with Battle Cloak.
Battle Cloak specifically isn't that strong. Usually what it does is let you escape at 20% hull instead of dying. The way the die/res system works right now, there are many cases where your team would be better served by you dying and coming back at full hull instead of limping away to regen for 2 minutes.
It's annoying as hell for the Feds, I'm sure, and it probably contributes to arena battle wins, but it's honestly not a gamechanger. Cloaking immediately removes your shields on all facings; if you're being fired on by even a handful of competent players, you'll eat a salvo of torps and be blown sky-high as soon as you try it.
Cloak, more generally, is an issue because it forces the Feds to always have their entire fleet together at close range or risk the outlier(s) being jumped by ALL of the Klingons, who immediately have both the element of surprise and a numerical advantage. Fixing this issue without nerfing the heck out of Cloak is tricky, but I honestly think it has to be fixed in some manner. The problem is that Klingons (unless they really, really suck) are guaranteed to get the first shot, and because Cloak gives you virtually unlimited time to plan your attack they not only shoot first but have ample time to shoot in a coordinated fashion, even sometimes picking out three or four targets in advance to destroy in turn.
Feds have literally seconds after the shooting starts to pick a target and focus it. If they fail to do so, the Klingons have such an advantage that the entire engagement is hopelessly lopsided from that point forward. That's the real problem with cloak, and that's what has to be fixed.
I would encourage all Federation Players to boycott PVP until they balance the 2 factions, it's already bad enough when you have 5 Klingons on 1 Federation, this is the skill the Klingon players talk about. It is just not worth at this time. If anyone says anything otherwise they would rather see the game die than ruin their advantage.
You clearly have no idea how boycotting works. The only thing boycotting will accomplish is hurt the player base, Feds and Klinks alike, not Cryptic. All you are doing is potentially hurting the community. How about you make a proper list of exactly what you think is broken and come up with some reasonable ideas as to what to do about it.
I've already discussed the 5 on 1 issue, so I won't even bother discussing it again.
My Klingon is currently piloting a Negh'var, but I spent all of T2 using a BoP with Battle Cloak.
Battle Cloak specifically isn't that strong. Usually what it does is let you escape at 20% hull instead of dying. The way the die/res system works right now, there are many cases where your team would be better served by you dying and coming back at full hull instead of limping away to regen for 2 minutes.
It's annoying as hell for the Feds, I'm sure, and it probably contributes to arena battle wins, but it's honestly not a gamechanger. Cloaking immediately removes your shields on all facings; if you're being fired on by even a handful of competent players, you'll eat a salvo of torps and be blown sky-high as soon as you try it.
Cloak, more generally, is an issue because it forces the Feds to always have their entire fleet together at close range or risk the outlier(s) being jumped by ALL of the Klingons, who immediately have both the element of surprise and a numerical advantage. Fixing this issue without nerfing the heck out of Cloak is tricky, but I honestly think it has to be fixed in some manner. The problem is that Klingons (unless they really, really suck) are guaranteed to get the first shot, and because Cloak gives you virtually unlimited time to plan your attack they not only shoot first but have ample time to shoot in a coordinated fashion, even sometimes picking out three or four targets in advance to destroy in turn.
Feds have literally seconds after the shooting starts to pick a target and focus it. If they fail to do so, the Klingons have such an advantage that the entire engagement is hopelessly lopsided from that point forward. That's the real problem with cloak, and that's what has to be fixed.
The way cloaking in the game has been implemented isn't just a balance issue (and it is), it's a variety issue. The vast majority of fights in a space PvP arena go almost exactly the same way - Fedball vs Klink ambush. It gets extremely boring in rapid fashion.
I don't think I've ever seen a game that gave stealth capabilities to an entire faction, while the other faction had absolutely none. It's one of the worst game design concepts I think I've ever seen, and the problems with it were clearly predictable.
Eliminating cloaking on non-BoP ships, while making adjustments to compensate for the loss, would go a long way to making the PvP a lot more interesting.
The way cloaking in the game has been implemented isn't just a balance issue (and it is), it's a variety issue. The vast majority of fights in a space PvP arena go almost exactly the same way - Fedball vs Klink ambush. It gets extremely boring in rapid fashion.
I don't think I've ever seen a game that gave stealth capabilities to an entire faction, while the other faction had absolutely none. It's one of the worst game design concepts I think I've ever seen, and the problems with it were clearly predictable.
Eliminating cloaking on non-BoP ships, while making adjustments to compensate for the loss, would go a long way to making the PvP a lot more interesting.
So you essentially want to re-write cannon just so you have a better chance in pvp?
I have stopped playing PvP because in T5 it always ends up in one of three ways:
1. One team horribly outnumbers the other, the game is no fun.
2. The teams are even, cloaking makes it boring and stupid.
3. The Klingons are using carriers, you lose by default.
I have stopped playing PvP because in T5 it always ends up in one of three ways:
1. One team horribly outnumbers the other, the game is no fun.
2. The teams are even, cloaking makes it boring and stupid.
3. The Klingons are using carriers, you lose by default.
or 4. One side spawncamps the other and the game never really gets going (or gets going at a 7-12 point difference handicap)
So you essentially want to re-write cannon just so you have a better chance in pvp?
First things first, I play both sides. I'm just being honest in recognizing a flaw that's so brutally obvious it's ridiculous. I'd like a better balanced game. Sorry if that idea threatens your advantage. It's my advantage too, and I don't want it.
Secondly, this is a game set in the "future". The Star Trek franchise itself has been adept at the sci-fi psuedo-tech handwave - why not this game too if CBS would allow it? Advancements in sensor tech, lack of KDF finances to fund R&D for an expensive system, etc. could easily "explain" it.
Of course, the alternative is keeping two sides so disparate in capability as to make balance a virtual impossibility, and PvP as tactically repetitive as it is, with the net result being the continued downward spiral of the game, where adherence to canon (and it is canon, not cannon) will be a cold consolation.
First things first, I play both sides. I'm just being honest in recognizing a flaw that's so brutally obvious it's ridiculous. I'd like a better balanced game. Sorry if that idea threatens your advantage. It's my advantage too, and I don't want it.
Secondly, this is a game set in the "future". The Star Trek franchise itself has been adept at the sci-fi psuedo-tech handwave - why not this game too if CBS would allow it? Advancements in sensor tech, lack of KDF finances to fund R&D for an expensive system, etc. could easily "explain" it.
Of course, the alternative is keeping two sides so disparate in capability as to make balance a virtual impossibility, and PvP as tactically repetitive as it is, with the net result being the continued downward spiral of the game, where adherence to canon (and it is canon, not cannon) will be a cold consolation.
The Cloak as is is fine. Even the BC is fine as it has some pretty hefty draw backs. If you know how to, you can see and fire on cloaked ships just fine, I see it happen all the time through multiple tiers of play. Some careless Klingon gets to close and gets shot at by someone geared to spot him/her. Sometimes the klingon gets lucky and that person is ill-equiped to force him/her out of cloak and manages to get away, other times not so lucky and they go up in a ball of flame.
If only some would stop playing only arena and jump into the other game types they might find more fun in PVP.
If cryptic doesn't balance it there will be no pvp, that simple. The proof will be the lack of pvp till it is completely dead. Oh yeah it already is.
And for the same token trying to balance it may make the queues take even longer. On my RA5 ship, I get in to maybe 1 of three space pvp's every 7 minutes on Fed side. On my Commander Klingon I get in every 30 seconds for nearly a win every time. On my Fed Captain I get in every 2 minutes. Seems less when you are higher up. I want to see a balanced run regardless of which side I am playing on.
There is also a F v K issue where I feel while I play my Klingon we rake the Fed's over the coals and when i am on my Fed I feel the pain.
It's because Klingons are in so many ways better than Feds.
They have cloak, which is just an absurd advantage to give an entire faction without it having any viable counter. Let alone the fact that you can go full impulse while cloaked is just utter and total BS. How can you have a cloak which according to Star Trek lore draws so much energy that you can't run shields & weapons while it's up active at the same time as you're routing all available power to the engines? That doesn't even make any sense!
They have carriers, which are just ridiculously overpowered in their present state, don't even need to elaborate on this, everyone who has fought one knows what I'm talking about.
Federation gets F'ed in the A by Feedback Pulse because it renders beam weapons completely useless while leaving Klingons free to rely on their cannon carrying cruisers with huge turn rates and stealth without any equivalent power that makes it equally impossible for them to even knock the enemies shields down without going boom.
The Devs completely ignored the fact that in Startrek Federation ships are supposed to be faster than Klingon ships. (In fact faster than just about every other ship of technologically similar species) Klingon ships are more maneuverable, but they are using very simple easy to maintain components while federation ships are precission tuned. Higher maneuverability should not equal higher speed.
Not to mention, from a game design standpoint it makes absolutely not a shred of sense to give one faction the capability to hide & ambush as well as run & chase - if anything one faction should hide & ambush and the other should run & chase - that way both factions have a way to avoid combat and force combat, right now one faction has ALL the ways to both avoid and force combat, which leaves the other completely useless from a tactical standpoint.
The #1 reason why STO space PvP absolutely sucks is because the devs for some reason were too bone headed to realize that making a game where one faction picks all the fights is just idiotic. Federation can never force Klingons into an uneven fight and they can never run away from an uneven fight themselves, so the best they can ever hope for is an even match against cloaking Klingon ships. And when the Klingons don't go with cloaks they get a ship that is so absurdly more powerful than any other ship in the game that you can only shake your head and wonder just how far a designer can have their head up their rear...
It's because Klingons are in so many ways better than Feds.
They have cloak, which is just an absurd advantage to give an entire faction without it having any viable counter.
If Feds actually USED the counters we were given, this wouldn't be nearly a problem! You can't blame a FACTION for a skill that developers gave them, when they gave us the tools to counter it but you refuse to implement them.
Let alone the fact that you can go full impulse while cloaked is just utter and total BS. How can you have a cloak which according to Star Trek lore draws so much energy that you can't run shields & weapons while it's up active at the same time as you're routing all available power to the engines? That doesn't even make any sense!
Shields yes, weapons? I don't remember hearing anywhere that ALL POWER needs to be rerouted to the cloaking field in any of the shows. And once engine power is at 100, that IS all the power you can generally use without enhancements; you have additional power to make sure other systems also work so that the ship can still function.
They have carriers, which are just ridiculously overpowered in their present state, don't even need to elaborate on this, everyone who has fought one knows what I'm talking about.
Complaining about this when nerfs are already being implemented in the upcoming patch is excessive whining and just rather silly. What can be done about it IS being done about it, what more do you want?
Federation gets F'ed in the A by Feedback Pulse because it renders beam weapons completely useless while leaving Klingons free to rely on their cannon carrying cruisers with huge turn rates and stealth without any equivalent power that makes it equally impossible for them to even knock the enemies shields down without going boom.
I agree this sucks. But it's also being fixed in the upcoming patch. Also, have you ever noticed that those Klingon ships that happen to use beams (and there are quite a few) seem to hurt that much more if FBP is used on them (and properly -- with boosted AUX)? Nowhere is the reduced hull rating more apparent than here.
The Devs completely ignored the fact that in Startrek Federation ships are supposed to be faster than Klingon ships. (In fact faster than just about every other ship of technologically similar species) Klingon ships are more maneuverable, but they are using very simple easy to maintain components while federation ships are precission tuned. Higher maneuverability should not equal higher speed.
Since when? Klingon ships have generally been more manoeuvreable, true, but they are also fast as hell, pack a punch, and it's always the Federation that surivives because of their efficiencies and competent/diverse crew. The Enterprise never failed in its engagements not because it was faster than its opponents, but because of the ingenuity of its crew.
The Defiant flew side-by-side with Klingon Birds of Prey because it was one of the FEW Starfleet ships that could make those kinds of attacks during the Dominion war, due to speed. The BoP's were essentially among the fastest and most manoeuvreable ships out there; at least in the shows I never saw ANY evidence that indicated Starfleet ships were at all faster than their tech-similar counterparts, and certainly not as a general rule. The only rule was that Feds are quick-witted and SURVIVE.
Not to mention, from a game design standpoint it makes absolutely not a shred of sense to give one faction the capability to hide & ambush as well as run & chase - if anything one faction should hide & ambush and the other should run & chase - that way both factions have a way to avoid combat and force combat, right now one faction has ALL the ways to both avoid and force combat, which leaves the other completely useless from a tactical standpoint.
This calls for less nerfing of one side and more buffing of the other side; Klingons are well-designed for their roles. The problem isn't that their capabilities need to be reduced, it's that Starfleet could use a few buffs to have them better suited to their roles. And even so, organized Fed teams have very little problem with Klingon teams in my experience.
I have to disagree adimately with the OP. I have been on good Fed teams and bad Fed teams and in every case, a good Fed team against a good KDF team (assuming 5-5) is extremely balanced. Infact, I find I win more when I have a good team that sticks together and works together than I lose, and when I find good team PVP'ers, they go on my friends list!
The key is not any imbalance except experience. Most KDF are experienced team PVP'ers and most Feds are solo PVE'ers that try PVP and hate it because they percive it's harder and impalanced when its just their inexpereince and lack of team play that makes it hard.
The biggest complaint I've heard about this game is it's too easy and doesnt require good teams to overcome PVE challanges. That's is what makes PVP so fun! It is harder and requires expereince, good teams and team play to be good and fun.
It is never more evident than when my friends are one and we are on Skype and team up for some PVP and we are almost unbeatable because we work together, communicate and we are all experienced PVP'ers.
It's also never more evident when you get teammates that try to solo, never stick with the team and dont pay attention to group chat that the key to balanced PVP is working together and sticking together, not any other balance issue.
Notice the OP specifies space because feds are an easy win button on the ground all the way through their levels to the end. Oh and in space, klingons get slightly better ships till the end to compensate for feds getting showered with good mission reward gear. I'm playing both sides so don't even try to argue like I dont know. The que system is jacked both in space and on the ground. Other than that the OP needs to lrn2play and I'm boycotting your face.
Comments
Some valid points as well, specially the technical ones, technically I agree with you that imbalances should have been identified during testing, yet was it really testing? I was not in Closed beta, and Open beta was anything but technical in terms of testing game play, it was there as a marketing event and a way to evaluate sales as well as stress testing the hardware.
Where I do not agree, is about the point made in relation to losing, albeit I'll also say that I understand your perspective. Without wanting to boast or anything personally I do not really care about who win or who loses what is important to me is to have a good fight, participate and have fun, it happens at times that I will join a match and we are ready being camped, so be it, i still open fire and enjoy it while it lasts and maybe sometimes a reversing of the situation happens.
But you see I have learned since a long time to not get upset when being defeated in PvP, since PvP was a way of life in the MMORPG that I played for 5 years so I am hardened in that regard. I actually laugh to see some people taking so much pleasure when they win thinking that they are "it" or that they somehow ruined the losing side's day, that is not why I pvp personally so I do not relate with that kind of view, it is their view good for them whatever makes em happy, I pvp for the fun of the fight and it is not true that I become unhappy if I lose, because to go in a game and be already camped is in my eyes the ultimate fighting challenge, it actually is fun too within that perspective.
What does make me upset is game mechanics when these are the reason for loses then yes it may upset me at times, then again the game is relatively an infant yet, and it has many years ahead of it, enough time to evolve and become better and be fixed, which brings us to my original points made, if we boycott we also potentially slow down that "healing" process.
So while upsetting at times it is a necessary evil of sorts, which requires some patience but that in the end will have positive outcome.
To each his own. I don't care about winning or losing either provided the fight was fair. When the system handicaps you from the start dropping you into a zone you will lose because it's just you up against 5 others camped at your spawn point or your team camping a one man spawn point, there is no point unless you want to sit there and watch your toon/ship die over and over or kill that one unlucky player that zoned in over and over.
Sure maybe it's a necessary evil but time is valuable, we only get a limited amount of it. If Cryptic needs me to spend time testing the pvp system for them they need to compensate me for having to participate in what people are beginning to see is a broken system. If you can make it fun for you hey that's great. Hopefully some others will see your point and help you test it for free. I'll pass though. Good luck to you and hopefully your time and sacrifice will make a difference. It would be great to be able to do some balanced pvp eventually and maybe we will have people like you to thank for it.
Oh yaa, yet another whine and nerf this that and nerf nerf nerf thread.
While I wait on the PVP q to pop I thought I would check the forum... so far out of 3 games its been 3 very close matches in T3 for me today, the last of which was won by the feds 10-15... I did have one shut out game but that was mainly due to the feds not working as one. T5 seems to go much the same in my experience... which is probably more than yours. I think I will start keeping a tally on scores just to see how "unbalanced things really are.
as for the q issues and joining games in progress or the 10 vs 1.. I shall note them but keep them out of the win/loss data
Game one started out 5feds on 3 klinks and the score was 7-0 feds, couple of klinks show up and we win 15-7. Now when the other 2 showed up we started working as a team and called tartgets, Feds started racing in one at a time at Full impulse and dieing 1 or 2 at a time... they did not work together, or so it seemed.
Game two stared 5v5 and ended 15-0 feds. Klingons I was forced with failed to understand group tatics. They either chose their own targets, rushed in after full impulse or was just otherwise really bad PVPers (maybe they were fed spys?)
So there is a start of it, so far supports my theory that most feds fail to realize its a group game... more data needed to be sure however.
Please, read the posts above you that are in obvious agreement with my point of view the game needs some balancing. I have a valid point, if you don't agree that is you perrogative, I don't need your approveal to have an opinion, pvp is unbalanced it is plain to see, try using glasses. :eek:
I still believe anyone that doesnt have a top character on both sides knows nothing about pvp balance.
So your opinion, in my opinion is worthless.
There wasnt anything wrong game balance wise unless you count the carrier ship spamming of fighters.
Played on both sides all the way to the top, multiple times and no balance issues what so ever. Played my ra5 today and killed tons of klingons just fine.
So wether you like it or not. Im playing the learn to play card twards you.
I do believe some skills should be removed or nerfed but its not a game balance issue as much as I think they suck. FBP, SNB, VM and reverse shield polarity to me, make no sense in a game like this. But I deal with them. I dont like it but I dont think its a deal breaker.
The more they tinker with ship balance the more things will get unbalanced.
Funny how pvp sure worked fine in the beta.
oddly I was supporting my "opinion" with game data as it went along... I got bored with it I admit since it was more and more obvious that its a solo/group mentality issue more than a balance issue. There are some issues with game mechanics, just no where near as bad as most make it out to be.
last 2 T3 games of capture and hold, Klingons won since there was more of us, Q issue. Feds won the second match due to them out classing us way bad. Could hardly even put a dent in 3 or 4 of them... they also seemed to work well, attack one while trying to capture and 4 more show up... Nice team work.
I find that certain skill kills the strategy of the pvp by their too big importance in comparison with others
example: reversse shield polarity, viral matrix, feedback pulse...
it's more true as much as in spite of me there pvp when one see 1 klingon, have saw them all because having all of the same shape of skill for the majority and is the case for the federation also
another important problem concerns the skill feedback pulse which aventage klingon very too much has reason that cruiser and scientific vessels of the federation can be efficient only with beam
certain cruiser and scientific vessels begins has use turret of to counter problem but it's a big loss of dps for them has reason that skill cannon is skill level LT and for beam is only eisign
a balancing of skill is therefore for me very important to prevent that every player is alike (who belongs almost case in instant) and to give again a more strategical aspect in game
I think one "fix" to most issues would be to make RSP I though III all share the same timer, same with all skills. If doing this however you have to make all the upgrades be more upgradish, (the difference in RSP I and III is nothing as near as I can tell) and add more useful skills in the first 2 ranks, make that all the ranks.
I've had plenty of matches where it's 5 of us camping the Klingon spawn gate, waiting for one of them to join the game. It's not what I'd call an imbalance, but rather a flaw in the system. Hopefully something that will be remedied soon. If you want to talk about imbalances, let's toss aside faction and talk about science captains and their power, subnucleonic beam.
I have queued with my friends on several occasions, with a couple PuGs and won all our matches. The Klingons put up a good fight. They had plenty of damage and healing done. You want to know why we won? Unlike other Federation groups, we actually supported each other. We picked up abilities that are good for PvP and made sure we had a mix of self saves and helpful abilities. We stuck together and made sure we focused vulnerable targets.
The question I have for all the Federation complaining about PvP, what bridge officer powers are you picking up? What equipment do you have on your ship? What's your skill point allocation like? Are you using any key binds?
So called boycotts will do nothing as long as the Federation faction remains a care bear haven and doesn't L2P.
Beyond that, if we work to make PvP more fun, by increasing variety and balance, we'll go a long way toward keeping people in there. Fed v Fed pvp will also let Feds practice with pre-made groups before entering against Klingon pre-made groups.
Check out my signature for another thread on balancing PvP, and we can work on the root issues CAUSING the imbalance and dislike.
1. Birds of Prey, properly configured, are better Science Vessels than Science Vessels. They can run VM, multiple copies of RSP, etc. They have Battle Cloak. The universal BOff stations is a neat idea, but I don't think it's a working paradigm when a handful of especially powerful abilities can make or break your configuration completely.
2. Cloak is an imbalance that you cannot work around. The ball is the only reasonable counter, and even then you're guaranteed to yield the opening strike and therefore the tactical advantage to the Klingons.
That said, the bigger problem is simply that Feds don't PvP very well. It helps to understand that Klingons are almost required to level via PvP, except for the really heroic few who can stomach killing NPC ships in a nebula for dozens of hours instead. That means that the higher rank you are, the better the Klingons are at PvP on average relative to the Feds, strictly because they do more of it.
Klingon PvP queues are shorter than yours, and Klingons have fewer other choices of activity. We are (on average) better at PvP than the Feds, and arguing against that point is impossible. That's not the same thing as saying 'PvP is perfectly balanced and Klingons only win b/c of Cloak / BoPs / whatever' - but it is important to remember that the skill component is real, it exists, and it heavily favors Klingons right now. That is also why there exist very good Fed groups that wipe the floor with Klingons of every shape and description. If they can do it and you cannot, there's more to the problem than the absolute differences between the factions and ships themselves.
People discounting information just because it's coming from the Klingons is stupid. We aren't protecting anything. We just know that we've put in the time to be good, so you should as well. It's like having war games between a group of rookies and a group of veterans. Nearly every game will be won by the vets. Why? Is it because they have better gear? Nope. It's all because of the experience that they have that the rookies don't.
Experience in any game system is mandatory in order to understand how to win at it. By BG5 I've had several hundreds of PvP matches to figure it out. By now, close to 1000. Have you? If you haven't, then you really don't know what is balanced and what is not. Wanting to be just as good as someone who's played hundreds of matches without actually doing the work is not only ridiculous, but it's insulting to those of us (on either side) who have put in the time and effort.
This is important when asking for statistics. Of course the feds are going to lose more often, but that's only because more often than not they don't have team oriented players. The only REAL way to look at balance issues is to pit two equally skilled teams together. Attempting to balance based on anything less is to do so with misinformation.
Make a Kling and work your way up to get battlecloak. Every Feddie you play will still have no problems killing you off. Battlecloak is nothing except a strategic starting point.
Battle Cloak specifically isn't that strong. Usually what it does is let you escape at 20% hull instead of dying. The way the die/res system works right now, there are many cases where your team would be better served by you dying and coming back at full hull instead of limping away to regen for 2 minutes.
It's annoying as hell for the Feds, I'm sure, and it probably contributes to arena battle wins, but it's honestly not a gamechanger. Cloaking immediately removes your shields on all facings; if you're being fired on by even a handful of competent players, you'll eat a salvo of torps and be blown sky-high as soon as you try it.
Cloak, more generally, is an issue because it forces the Feds to always have their entire fleet together at close range or risk the outlier(s) being jumped by ALL of the Klingons, who immediately have both the element of surprise and a numerical advantage. Fixing this issue without nerfing the heck out of Cloak is tricky, but I honestly think it has to be fixed in some manner. The problem is that Klingons (unless they really, really suck) are guaranteed to get the first shot, and because Cloak gives you virtually unlimited time to plan your attack they not only shoot first but have ample time to shoot in a coordinated fashion, even sometimes picking out three or four targets in advance to destroy in turn.
Feds have literally seconds after the shooting starts to pick a target and focus it. If they fail to do so, the Klingons have such an advantage that the entire engagement is hopelessly lopsided from that point forward. That's the real problem with cloak, and that's what has to be fixed.
You clearly have no idea how boycotting works. The only thing boycotting will accomplish is hurt the player base, Feds and Klinks alike, not Cryptic. All you are doing is potentially hurting the community. How about you make a proper list of exactly what you think is broken and come up with some reasonable ideas as to what to do about it.
I've already discussed the 5 on 1 issue, so I won't even bother discussing it again.
The way cloaking in the game has been implemented isn't just a balance issue (and it is), it's a variety issue. The vast majority of fights in a space PvP arena go almost exactly the same way - Fedball vs Klink ambush. It gets extremely boring in rapid fashion.
I don't think I've ever seen a game that gave stealth capabilities to an entire faction, while the other faction had absolutely none. It's one of the worst game design concepts I think I've ever seen, and the problems with it were clearly predictable.
Eliminating cloaking on non-BoP ships, while making adjustments to compensate for the loss, would go a long way to making the PvP a lot more interesting.
So you essentially want to re-write cannon just so you have a better chance in pvp?
1. One team horribly outnumbers the other, the game is no fun.
2. The teams are even, cloaking makes it boring and stupid.
3. The Klingons are using carriers, you lose by default.
or 4. One side spawncamps the other and the game never really gets going (or gets going at a 7-12 point difference handicap)
First things first, I play both sides. I'm just being honest in recognizing a flaw that's so brutally obvious it's ridiculous. I'd like a better balanced game. Sorry if that idea threatens your advantage. It's my advantage too, and I don't want it.
Secondly, this is a game set in the "future". The Star Trek franchise itself has been adept at the sci-fi psuedo-tech handwave - why not this game too if CBS would allow it? Advancements in sensor tech, lack of KDF finances to fund R&D for an expensive system, etc. could easily "explain" it.
Of course, the alternative is keeping two sides so disparate in capability as to make balance a virtual impossibility, and PvP as tactically repetitive as it is, with the net result being the continued downward spiral of the game, where adherence to canon (and it is canon, not cannon) will be a cold consolation.
The Cloak as is is fine. Even the BC is fine as it has some pretty hefty draw backs. If you know how to, you can see and fire on cloaked ships just fine, I see it happen all the time through multiple tiers of play. Some careless Klingon gets to close and gets shot at by someone geared to spot him/her. Sometimes the klingon gets lucky and that person is ill-equiped to force him/her out of cloak and manages to get away, other times not so lucky and they go up in a ball of flame.
If only some would stop playing only arena and jump into the other game types they might find more fun in PVP.
at t5 the other arenas take too long to be called pvp.
There is also a F v K issue where I feel while I play my Klingon we rake the Fed's over the coals and when i am on my Fed I feel the pain.
It will be interesting on how this all turns out.
They have cloak, which is just an absurd advantage to give an entire faction without it having any viable counter. Let alone the fact that you can go full impulse while cloaked is just utter and total BS. How can you have a cloak which according to Star Trek lore draws so much energy that you can't run shields & weapons while it's up active at the same time as you're routing all available power to the engines? That doesn't even make any sense!
They have carriers, which are just ridiculously overpowered in their present state, don't even need to elaborate on this, everyone who has fought one knows what I'm talking about.
Federation gets F'ed in the A by Feedback Pulse because it renders beam weapons completely useless while leaving Klingons free to rely on their cannon carrying cruisers with huge turn rates and stealth without any equivalent power that makes it equally impossible for them to even knock the enemies shields down without going boom.
The Devs completely ignored the fact that in Startrek Federation ships are supposed to be faster than Klingon ships. (In fact faster than just about every other ship of technologically similar species) Klingon ships are more maneuverable, but they are using very simple easy to maintain components while federation ships are precission tuned. Higher maneuverability should not equal higher speed.
Not to mention, from a game design standpoint it makes absolutely not a shred of sense to give one faction the capability to hide & ambush as well as run & chase - if anything one faction should hide & ambush and the other should run & chase - that way both factions have a way to avoid combat and force combat, right now one faction has ALL the ways to both avoid and force combat, which leaves the other completely useless from a tactical standpoint.
The #1 reason why STO space PvP absolutely sucks is because the devs for some reason were too bone headed to realize that making a game where one faction picks all the fights is just idiotic. Federation can never force Klingons into an uneven fight and they can never run away from an uneven fight themselves, so the best they can ever hope for is an even match against cloaking Klingon ships. And when the Klingons don't go with cloaks they get a ship that is so absurdly more powerful than any other ship in the game that you can only shake your head and wonder just how far a designer can have their head up their rear...
If Feds actually USED the counters we were given, this wouldn't be nearly a problem! You can't blame a FACTION for a skill that developers gave them, when they gave us the tools to counter it but you refuse to implement them.
Shields yes, weapons? I don't remember hearing anywhere that ALL POWER needs to be rerouted to the cloaking field in any of the shows. And once engine power is at 100, that IS all the power you can generally use without enhancements; you have additional power to make sure other systems also work so that the ship can still function.
Complaining about this when nerfs are already being implemented in the upcoming patch is excessive whining and just rather silly. What can be done about it IS being done about it, what more do you want?
I agree this sucks. But it's also being fixed in the upcoming patch. Also, have you ever noticed that those Klingon ships that happen to use beams (and there are quite a few) seem to hurt that much more if FBP is used on them (and properly -- with boosted AUX)? Nowhere is the reduced hull rating more apparent than here.
Since when? Klingon ships have generally been more manoeuvreable, true, but they are also fast as hell, pack a punch, and it's always the Federation that surivives because of their efficiencies and competent/diverse crew. The Enterprise never failed in its engagements not because it was faster than its opponents, but because of the ingenuity of its crew.
The Defiant flew side-by-side with Klingon Birds of Prey because it was one of the FEW Starfleet ships that could make those kinds of attacks during the Dominion war, due to speed. The BoP's were essentially among the fastest and most manoeuvreable ships out there; at least in the shows I never saw ANY evidence that indicated Starfleet ships were at all faster than their tech-similar counterparts, and certainly not as a general rule. The only rule was that Feds are quick-witted and SURVIVE.
This calls for less nerfing of one side and more buffing of the other side; Klingons are well-designed for their roles. The problem isn't that their capabilities need to be reduced, it's that Starfleet could use a few buffs to have them better suited to their roles. And even so, organized Fed teams have very little problem with Klingon teams in my experience.
The key is not any imbalance except experience. Most KDF are experienced team PVP'ers and most Feds are solo PVE'ers that try PVP and hate it because they percive it's harder and impalanced when its just their inexpereince and lack of team play that makes it hard.
The biggest complaint I've heard about this game is it's too easy and doesnt require good teams to overcome PVE challanges. That's is what makes PVP so fun! It is harder and requires expereince, good teams and team play to be good and fun.
It is never more evident than when my friends are one and we are on Skype and team up for some PVP and we are almost unbeatable because we work together, communicate and we are all experienced PVP'ers.
It's also never more evident when you get teammates that try to solo, never stick with the team and dont pay attention to group chat that the key to balanced PVP is working together and sticking together, not any other balance issue.