Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 PvP Map Suggestions
02-05-2010, 08:49 AM
*Salvage Operation*
Increase the size of the map for both (Large) and (Small) versions. Seeing as how those sizes only account for players in the map. The map is way too small, travel times are way too fast and allow "balls" to dominate the map. As it is I just saw a fed ball completely roll around the Klingons on my side. We knew that unless we too grouped up we would get owned.

Next best thing? "ninja-cap" points. Except it doesn't work. Apparently capture rate is based on the amount of ships nearby which is why the fedball works so well. (if it's NOT based on number of ships, please someone correct me.) But from what I saw they would cap it extremely quick and move on to the next one. Even if I knew they were heading to the opposite side of the map, ninja capping a point from them takes so long to just go to neutral, then forever to actually become fully captured (red, not orange) that It was pointless. By the time it actually turned red, the fedball came to reclaim it.

*Assimilated Cruiser/Ghost Ship*
Allow interactive consoles that put up impassible force fields that way you can tactically cut off certain advances. Obviously there would have to be a console on "both sides" of the force field in order to be fair, but to be fair it should have a cooldown of 30 seconds. That way you could either unblock a path in order to get behind someone, or cut off a team's advance on your team for a short moment while your team regroups (etc etc).

*Cracked Planet*
Fix geometry, tired of people flying next to the planet and unable to be shot even though there is nothing between me and them. Make a tad bit bigger since respawn times are usually pretty much negated by the short trip back.

*Solar Wind*
Make bigger...alot.

*All PvP maps*

Main concern is that every game boils down to cross-healing and focus firing. Which isn't to say it's bad, but the entire game gets bland really fast. There needs to be travel times, and other methods of seperating groups. I hate to use this analogy but look at WoW's Arathi Basin. Perfect example of capture point style pvp. There are travel times, but they are just long enough that people can get isolated, and small skirmishes (1v1, 2v2) can break out. There are not many times when I played PvP in that map that I would get a full team versus a full team (Unless they were camping our spawn but that is an entirely different scenario).

Maps need to have purpose, travel times, and objectives that are based on time, not amount of people. Therefore it would require "balls" to stay and defend points, rather then roll into one, capture, move on to the next. In Arathi basin, if you did that, you would find your team losing real fast. But with the maps way too small, it condones the playstyle instead of rebuking it.

Just my thoughts for the last 26 levels.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-05-2010, 08:55 AM
I think the problem is that the match types are fundamentally flawed, fixing map problems is like putting a bandaid on someone with 2 cracked ribs that's having a heart attack.

See my thread here for thoughts on changing the way pvp matches are fought:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=104247
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-05-2010, 09:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rabbit
I think the problem is that the match types are fundamentally flawed, fixing map problems is like putting a bandaid on someone with 2 cracked ribs that's having a heart attack.

See my thread here for thoughts on changing the way pvp matches are fought:
http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...d.php?t=104247
Uh actually no. What you are referring to is commonly called "Assault/Defend" mission archtypes. Where a team has a certain advantage that the enemy must overcome. I read your thread and do not agree with it at all.

Fixing the maps is not "putting a band-aid" on it. Fixing the maps would balance it out. The biggest issue with both styles is that killing someone (when faced against opponents who communicate and support each other) doesn't do enough. Respawn timers are too short, and travel times are ridiculously short. Maps need to have risk vs reward.

Risk is: If i go to this spot, I can capture it. But I'm spending time travelling there, and I might get ganked, and therefore I might not recieve help from allies because I'm not easily reachable.
Reward is: If I suceed in getting to this spot and holding it for X amount of time. I've captured a spot that the enemy has to make a risk for (See above risk).

There currently is no RISK involved in any of the maps because they are too small. There's no "travel time" there's no "wait until we get more people because if we go i now, we will get slaughtered, fail, and then end up losing alot of points".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-05-2010, 09:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sykomyke View Post
Uh actually no. What you are referring to is commonly called "Assault/Defend" mission archtypes. Where a team has a certain advantage that the enemy must overcome. I read your thread and do not agree with it at all.

Fixing the maps is not "putting a band-aid" on it. Fixing the maps would balance it out. The biggest issue with both styles is that killing someone (when faced against opponents who communicate and support each other) doesn't do enough. Respawn timers are too short, and travel times are ridiculously short. Maps need to have risk vs reward.

Risk is: If i go to this spot, I can capture it. But I'm spending time travelling there, and I might get ganked, and therefore I might not recieve help from allies because I'm not easily reachable.
Reward is: If I suceed in getting to this spot and holding it for X amount of time. I've captured a spot that the enemy has to make a risk for (See above risk).

There currently is no RISK involved in any of the maps because they are too small. There's no "travel time" there's no "wait until we get more people because if we go i now, we will get slaughtered, fail, and then end up losing alot of points".
I agree partially. I think a lot of problems stem from basic design choices, like having battles start before the teams are full, and not having spawn points NPC defended on some maps. Making travel times longer would *possibly* improve this, causing people to wait for reinforcements before rushing off somewhere. However, it would instead likely just cause one side to wipe out the other, and then the opposing losing side would much more slowly trickle in, and die one by one, due to reinforcements not being able to arrive quickly enough. Whereas now, you can pop in quickly, eat a battery or use an emergency power skill, and be right back in the fight.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:01 PM.