Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay

Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Currently all those systems out there for PVP are useless, you can access PVP via your HUD and have no need to travel to this or that system. My suggestion is along these lines, take the PVP-marked systems and make them PVP for scoring "territory control"

The sector blocks concerned would be Eta Eridani (FvK) and Qo'Nos (KvK)

Each sector in the sector block would have a "capital" system, these "capital" systems would be inassailable without control of other systems in the sector or block.

Eta Eridani Block

Archanis Sector
Capital - Archanis; accessible by controlling both Ajilon and Otha

Donatu Sector
Capital - Donatu; accessible by controlling Cursa and Zibal.

Aldebaran Sector
Capital - Aldebaran; accessible by controlling Traelus, Ba'aja, and Azha.

Qo'Nos Block

The Klingon internecine house battles for imperial power/influence would pit Klingon "fleets" or alliances of fleets ("houses") against each other.

Qo'Nos block would have 2 sector capitals and 1 block capital, accessible via control of the two sector capitals.

Qu'Vat Sector
Capital - Ghoma; accessible by controlling Nawlogh and Sawghom.

B'moth Sector
Capital - Gorath; accessible by No'mat and Ghuhwoq.

Qo'Nos Sector
Block Capital - Hedon; accessible by controlling sector capitals Gorath and Ghoma.

System control would be established by a series of four connected battles -

1) Space - Capture & Hold Engagement, if the attacker is successful he acquires a forward base in system which is utilized in the next step.

2) Space - Assault Engagement, the attacker and defender are delivering security teams to the main orbital base / core space defense structure(s) in system. If attacker is successful (per normal Assault PvP rules) he is allowed to continue with the Ground - Orbital Base Assault. However, the number of respawns allowed to both sides for the next engagement is limited by the number of security teams delivered (this does not include the starting spawn for defender, however it does include the start spawn for attacker) --- For "House" battles there would be a flat % chance based on % membership of the fleet in the house for any particular member fleet's starbase and it's defensive setup to be the central defensive structure. For Factional battles only the "ruling" House's fleet starbases would be selected from in a similar manner.

3) Ground (Interior) - Orbital Base Assault, both sides compete for control of the core base in the system. This is a capture and hold engagement, with Ops, Engineering, Life Support, etc. as required capture points. If the attacker holds all the capture points they control the station and move on to the Ground (Exterior) - Assault Planet. For "House" battles the interior of the fleet starbase from the previous engagement would be used.

4) Ground (Exterior) - Assault Planet. Capture and Hold to the final hold out command center on the planet surface. Random planetary bombardment can occur. Defenses arranged concentrically, control of each ring allowing the attackers new "beam in" (i.e. respawn point) locations as they move inward. The defenders loose their ability to point-to-point transport (i.e. respawn point) as their control is removed. (this is similar to something like Cracking the Planet, but in reverse -- outward to center)

Battles would also be open once committed. The whole four engagement battle would reset every hour (or two?) and the combined results for the entire day's worth of engagements (12 or 24 "units" of control battles) would be tallied with the number of successful "take overs" and "defenses" measured against one another.

Each stage of engagement depends on success in the previous engagement, likely some form of point scoring / area control as we see happening in current PvP determining engagement success.

Inside the PVP sector blocks having open PVP sensor contacts ("patrols" and "convoys") would not be unreasonable if you owned the sector...and if they were context based as "patrol" or "convoy" or whatnot, then you could make them have sensible war objectives (i.e., if it is a "convoy" owned by your faction you would be defending, otherwise raiding...etc.) and they would operate basically like the sensor contacts we have now, with the scenario resetting periodically.

The "scenario" in the "patrol" types being akin to the wandering sensor contacts scenarios (get n-of this dead)

The "convoy" would be more like the "escort" missions with players scoring points based on successful "deliveries" of supplies.

Edit- An additional possibility is that daily outcomes of patrol/convoys could determine the "supply level" (number of spawns) the attacker/defender in an engagement could get (i.e. there is a fixed total # of spawns for the First and Fourth engagements in a battle...the ratio of attacker/defender would start at 50/50 and adjust +/- up to 10% based on the previous days patrol/convoy success/fail tallies for that sector.)

Balancing / Instancing ->

Originally Posted by ThomasGideon
Here is hoping that the OP or someone else in this thread can resolve the instancing issues I mentioned here.
Basically you'd have to have a single instance at any one time. There would be no way around it. More than likely you would have to have a number of access restrictions, the simplest "concept" would be something akin to what Navy Field does for it's sessions.

The amount of a particular ship class and the "tier" of those particular ship classes would be set, starting from the highest tier dynamically altering the numbers "down stream" For example - Lets say you have three types of ships, CV, BC, DD...and at each stage you can be level 1, 2, or 3. Assume that the CV is twice as powerful as the BC and the BC is three times as powerful as the DD...and each level can be judged to be similar (2 is twice as powerful as 1, 3 is three times as powerful as 1, etc.)

Let's say then that during the "queue" the defender's numbers are used to scale the attackers and that you are the defender and have the following persons in your side -> 1 CV lvl 3; 2 BC, lvl 1, lvl 2; 5 DD (3 lvl 1, 2 lvl 2)

This would give your side the following values = CV 18; BC 9; DD 7 for a total of 34

Your opponents are scaled down, by not being able to exceed your "capital" numbers but having to match your overall sum (i.e., they cant have more than 1 CV and 2 BC...the remainder being made up of DD...giving them a max of 1 CV (lvl 1 to 3), 2 BC (not over lvl 2), and 5 to 22 DD depending on the levels of the CV & BC & DD) -- basically you could have a lvl 1 to level 3 CV, up to 2 level 2 BC, and the remainder in DD's as attackers.

Since the queue is up for about an hour between individual battles there should also be a view allowing players to see where there is room, allowing higher levels who can't bring their Tier N, to "step down" to something else at the shipyard, etc. to join in the fun. This kind of setup works just fine in Navy Field with vastly different capabilities between the ships, and to be frank I am surprised some sort of similar number/tier balancing setup does not exist within STO PVP (asides from limiting by levels)

The "balancing" would not apply to the "open" Patrol/Convoys

The "reward" for factional block control (i.e., same-side PvP) would be the final say in target selection.

Say only a single target per day could be selected for your faction to attack...this would mean that you would potentially have a single system to defend and a single system to attack per day per "front" sector block.

If your "House" / "Task Force" / "Legion" affiliation is triumphant in "wargames" or other internal fighting you get a vote in the days target selection.

Each target system's combat would be open for the whole day...a cumulative tally would be made at the end of the day to determine who "won/lost" control of that system. This would also prevent one side or another "steam rolling" a sector block in a single day or time zone.

The benefit of having "fixed" high level "House" / "Task Force" / "Legion" affiliations would be to keep the number of "vote buckets" to a manageable number *and* have the side effect of preventing silly names, like say "Goon Squad" for example from being immersion killers (it also would make it easier on the developers since they would have everything "canned" regarding these fixed affiliation groups.)

Let me give an example ->

Klingon Council / High Command -->
1 Leader
6 "House" Seats (Duras, Martok, Mogh, Kozak, K'mpec, M'Rel, Kravokh -- one of which would be "Leader", and of course the "Leader" --based on the far above system control schema -- would be the house holding control of the block capital @ Hedon.)

Each player Fleet would have the choice to affiliate itself with a particular fixed House, not being able to change this affiliation after some time period has elapsed.

Each "House" would have a daily vote on the next days target, each member of each player fleet of that house making their own selection...the "winner" of that selection would be that house's target choice vote for the next day.

Each house's final target choice would be their "choice" for the next day...if there were to be no majority "choice" then the Lead House's choice would be the pick (this would have the long term effect of encouraging players to distribute their fleets across the "Houses" instead of congregating in one or two -- on top of the % chance of their fleet starbase % chance of being "featured" in action.)

There would be a separate voting choice for each warzone sector block, the internal warzone sector blocks (House Battle / Wargame / etc.) would remain internal choices of each house only, simple majority vote.

This system would work exactly the same for Fed and Rom, the only difference being the names (and rationale)

Honorifics -
Fleets should have a tally of participation in successful "Attacks" and "Defenses" if a certain # of the fleet's players are present at the action involved. These "battle honors" would be part of the Fleet's spangle / prestige and individual player spangle / honorifics.

"stardate," Participated in the K'mpec defense of Gorath vs. the House of Martok, +/- damage heals
"stardate," Participated in the Klingon attack of Archanis vs. the Federation, +/- damage heals

etc. where the pvp results would be either personal or fleet depending on whose spangle you were looking at.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
02-18-2010, 05:48 PM
sounds like on hell of a good idea for end game fleet PvP
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
02-18-2010, 06:00 PM
Many of us have been suggesting this sort thing for a very long time (multiple threads in OB). No one is listening. Go to feds forums and plead with them, PvP is an afterthought in this game and I highly doubt we will ever seen any kind open RvR.

That being said I would love to be proven wrong, but I am not holding my breath.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
02-19-2010, 10:52 AM
Total PVP without context just makes it all so senseless.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
02-19-2010, 11:42 AM
Whilst it sounds good. I am pretty sure that the Klinong empire would get steam rolled by the ever growing number of Federation. Something like this would be difficult to do with the massive imbalance in faction numbers.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
02-19-2010, 02:37 PM
either way with the FvF PvP opening up as well as the possible addition of romulan playable faction. this is deffinatly something that needs discussed and evaluated
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
02-19-2010, 02:45 PM
been asking for this since beta, but i think finished the game is first before they start additional add-on's such as a purposeful PVP, even though they said in interviews it'd be in there..... lies!!!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
02-19-2010, 03:01 PM
if you want to increase retention amoungst PvP'rs as well as provide an end game purpose...this would be it
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
02-19-2010, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by Dekkameron View Post
Whilst it sounds good. I am pretty sure that the Klinong empire would get steam rolled by the ever growing number of Federation. Something like this would be difficult to do with the massive imbalance in faction numbers.
You could offset this in a number of ways.

The first is pointed to in the OP -- adding PVE reinforcements to the "weak side" which would be evaluated periodically during the battle.

The second is that eventually the Fed side would have these "war zones" on a couple different fronts.

Also if you incorporated PVE Borg assaults against war zone sectors would open up possibilities of factional cooperation and/or other action which would "balance" or "clean" the board and force both factions to sort it out.

Having a strong PvP(E) "War" in these "War" Blocks would give many player fleets (esp. Klingon) a focused purpose outside of storylines...and could be used to eventually supersede some of the many "Empire Defense" systems in Qo'nos.

The biggest question would be "reward" for block control...

Obviously the KvK would clearly allow a "house" a seat on the council...a "nice touch" perhaps being if "houses" had a leading PC their avatar would be present in the council chambers @ Qo'Nos.

Of course another K possibilities would be to form set "houses" which fleets could "align" to...(i.e. Duras, Martok, Mogh, Grunnil, Kozak, K'mpec, M'Rel, Kravokh, Panich, Limmrii, etc.) Allowing fixed alliances to exist which fleets could shift themselves from and to without alot of the political nonsense you find in Eve.

The Federation equivalent would be Task Forces...TF 73, TF 31, etc. Thus TF's could perform "wargames" against one another.

The Roms would likely be somewhat a fusion of F & K...with "Legions" (as TF's) and the Legions would correspond to Senate seats.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
02-19-2010, 07:34 PM
This is one idea that I keep advocating for Open PvP that is much needed. There needs to be a TRUE Neutral Zone, not some halfass graphic in Sector Space.

Within these Zones, you got Space zones, where PvP can happen at any time and anywhere. And there being places to hide / mask your signature. And the worlds within these zones is where Ground PvP occurs.

Ground PvP, there are 2 seperate (and secured) Beam in points. There are different zones within these worlds, where one direction takes you to the mountains, another to a city, and another where a dungeon to fight over spawns / loot.

This is the best kind of PvP, where you compete for control of dungeons and the world. While a single or a couple of players gets some nice loot, the faction gets a small bonus. Perhaps a faction-wide damage buff, or perhaps the availablity of a really nice PvE zone.

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 07:12 PM.