Outsider's perspective: PvP additions that Cryptic should consider
View Single Post
Join Date: Dec 2007
11-19-2011, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by
More warzones and open PvP: Plain and simple, they need more warzone type areas on the map where people can go mess around and have fun outside of arenas. Not that hard for the devs to do. They could also have people flag on or off for open PvP as well.
I'm so with you on pretty much all your points, but especially this one (as quoted above).
For me, the single most 'exciting' PvP experience I ever felt was back in the ole SWG days when they first implemented the TEF system. As a rebel in the Star Wars Galaxies universe, it was intensely more immersive and fun to have to 'sneak around' imperial cities. I think that the 'risk factor' is missing in STO, especially since PvE is so incredibly safe. So flying around space seems a bit more like a sunday drive in the suburbs, but if there were at least some disputed areas on the map where open PvP would be a bit more feasible, it would definitely make space travel at least a little bit more stressful.
Second, on the same subject of Open PvP/Warzones/TEFs, the entire STO universe is predicated on the war between the Federation and the Klingons. This is HUGE with regards to the lore of both the game and the Franchise, yet of all the things I would say about playing STO, the apparent "war" with the Klingons is hardly worth mentioning. In fact, since the Klingon story missions are at the very beginning of the PvE storyline, and since PvP with Klingons rarely happens, it doesn't feel at all like we're at war with the Klingons. The majority of the PvP matches are Fed vs Fed anyway. Yes, that is surely in part due to the fact that there are by far more Fed players, but that's understandable considering that rolling a Klingon a hardly different than rolling any other alt in the game. (play the same missions/STF's/fleet actions)
There would be more Klingon players is they had a territory to defend, or if the "war" was much more in your face (so that people would take sides).
Third, continuing on the point about territory...One of the classic trek games for the PC, a probably the only Trek game I've played where opposing factions (other than Fed)actually had some success was in the SFC series. Romulan clans, Klingon Clans...they were still outnumbered by feds, but since they were actually fighting for territory, and since PvP was accessible (much moreso than in STO) these factions OFTEN won maps.
Seriously...If I were on the dev team, I'd be taking a good hard look at PvP in STO, specifically with regards to how the existing PvP system impacts the lack of Klingon players and vice versa. If PvP and factional play were healthy in STO, we'd see endless posts about balancing factions. Instead, forum-user suggestions regarding PvP balance issues are almost 100% exclusive to federation class issues (Escort vs Science vs Cruisers). Outside of the relatively ridiculous Harpeng issue, nobody complains about balance between the Feds and Klingons because it's mostly fed vs fed.
IMO, Warzones/open-PvP/TEF's.....this could definitely help reinforce the story backdrop of STO, increase the Klingon player base, and also increase the immersion and fun-factor for the game.