PvP is probably the most un-Star trek aspect of this game.
Federation ships vs Klingon ships. What could be more Star Trek than that you say.
Because the pace of the PvP battles bears no resemblance at all to Star Trek. Lots of players play this game to become immersed in the Star Trek universe. On a starship commands are issued by the captain and executed by the crew. Macro spamming and high speed dogfighting are NOT Star Trek and so they "break" the illusion.
Fine for X wing and Tie fighters but not for massive ships that way millions of tons. The game Starfleet Command was very Star Trek in this respect.
I've only been playing this game for two months but that is long enough to see that most of the Federation players I encounter aren't the slightest bit interested in PvP.
In the Ker'rat warzone most Fed players ignore the Klingons and keep scanning Borg nodes while battles take place at either spawn point and they leave if they get ganked.
If you want Star Trek PvP then make it turn based or institute a delay between attacks so the player can imagine him/herself giving commands on the bridge of a starship and seeing the results or integrate a voice chat system and allow players to team up and man stations on a team ship where one of the players can be the captain while another is tactical officer or engineer etc.. That won't make the console button mashing arcade players happy but oh well they can play HAWX.
If this is Star Trek online then "Make it so."
I can understand your possition very well. The STO community is splitted up somehow in quit different lobbies. Some are here because their are Star Trek fans in the first line and using STO as a kind of interactive Star Trek movie where they can be the hero. Others are totally focused on PvP, doing only their "high speed dogfighting" (nice discription) and of course people like me enjoing both. The problem is that Cryptic doesn't put much effort to integrate PvP into the whole gameplay in a propper way from the beginning. Now its difficult to change that and the Star Trek fans between us who also like the challange to have sometimes real players as opponents are suffering from that now.
The only way to get more people into pvp at this point is to have mission that are pvp related and only pvp related that require a win to complete. But then the uproar from the pve community would kill that idea, so it seems the only way to get more pvp is to get rid of pve (I jest....not really) you should read the feedback on the idea I posted on having more pvp sprinkled into pve.... talk about stirring a hornets nest :/
The only way to get more people interested in pvp, is that it is fun for everyone...as long as there are groups praying on others, (ab)using imbalances/weakness of STO system, you will never get much attention to pvp by the "casual" crowd.
As long as pvp is slow and boring leveling process on lower levels, noone will play it. You can force it as much as you will, but that want make people like it.
While I like the idea suggested earlier in the thread about letting people choose what rank they want to PvP at (so a VA/LG could choose to play a CMDR level match), it does exactly the opposite of what we need at present - splits the active players into more queues = less complete games.
So why not approach it from the other end and find some way to allow lower tier players to participate in higher level matches?
I'm sure its been suggested / discussed before but at least then the few that are / would like to PvP at lower levels can actually get a match. I'm sure half the problem is that people don't PvP until they reach VA level and run out of PvE to do, then find they suck at PvP (through lack of experience) and give up.
What if we change the scoring in arena matches so that it is not a straight 1 point per kill but base the points per kill on the difference between your ship tier and the tier of the ship you kill and then increase the win criteria from 15 points to say 100. So for instance:
Kill points Difference between your tier and your target's tier----------------
2...............Minus 1 (i.e. a T5 kills a T4)
1...............Minus 2 (i.e. a T5 kill a T3)
0...............Minus 3 or more (i.e. a T5 kills a T2)
10.............Plus 1 (i.e. a T4 kills a T5)
20.............Plus 2 (i.e. a T3 kills a T5)
25.............Plus 3 or more (i.e. T2 kills a T5)
The points above may need to be adjusted for good balance but they illustrate the point. Obviously, some work would be needed on how STO defines a "kill", the current method of anyone who fired on the target would not be good enough. Perhaps the kill should go to the ship that did the most damage to the destroyed ship.
If we had this, an LTC captain entering a match could make quite a difference if they get some kills, while being of a low enough point value that the guys in bigger ships would not gain much by killing them. They could almost spectate if in say a T2 ship, as there would be little point gain in killing them but they could see how the match plays out.
It would also have the benefit of making the battles more "realistic" in that a battle is very rarely all battleships, or all destroyers - its usually a mixed group with differing goals.