Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 11
04-13-2010, 07:00 PM
how do you prevent one faction from dominating the other completely though? Federation would probably overwhelm the klingons because there are so few in comparison, they won't be able to play 24/7 to hold off all the federation players.

I want to suggest a way for people to "pick which side they fight for" which could even it out... but I can't think of a story explaination to make it work.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 12
04-13-2010, 07:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabsau View Post
Great idea. Reminds me of the system used in World War 2 Online.
Except Star Trek: Online is 1000x less buggy that WW2 Online.

Quote:
It also uses the maps already in game which would hopefully make it easier to implement on the development end.

A really good idea so far.
It'd be very easy to implement, only requiring custom maps for Key Markers.

They could even keep developing a couple random PvP maps per month - just to keep the random PvP Queues fresh (and add variety).

Any other ideas from a fellow World War 2 Online survivor?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 13
04-13-2010, 07:03 PM
This... certainly has potential.

+1 for interest
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 14
04-13-2010, 07:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
how do you prevent one faction from dominating the other completely though? Federation would probably overwhelm the klingons because there are so few in comparison, they won't be able to play 24/7 to hold off all the federation players.

I want to suggest a way for people to "pick which side they fight for" which could even it out... but I can't think of a story explaination to make it work.

Great question and one that the community could answer.


For example, this is how I'd balance it:
  1. No map would load/begin until complete teams are formed. The criteria could be any of the following:
    • Like-ranked only
    • same average rank/grade (average grade for both teams needs to be x or average rank needs to be x)
    • symetrical ranks/grade ( RA on each, Cmdr. on each, etc.)

  2. Have overflow, standard PvP queue (essentially, you'd play regular PvP queue before getting tossed into the grid of your choice - to keep things fair).
  3. Send me to next available Grid Option (easiest and ensures ever distribution as much as possible).

From here, Fleet Admirals could actually order their squads or ship groups to specific coordinates, i.e. [J, 3].
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 15
04-13-2010, 07:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
- Territory Control Proposal -
(Faction vs. Faction Territory Control Maps)

Take the poll:

http://surveys.polldaddy.com/s/78A80D8A607EE2EE/


Discussion: Good idea? Bad Idea? Have a better one? Discuss

Introduction:
A number of players would love to see PvP get expanded - either to full, open PvP or a form of territory control. However, won't more PvP options fragment the PvP queues more?

This proposal, with community feedback and design, could help create persistent, PvP territory control without drastically changing the PvP Queues themselves.

Sound exciting? Read on...

Table of Contents:
1. Synopsis
a. Territory Control Interface
b. Territory Control Map
i. Grids
ii. Gaining Control
iii. Key Markers ("Assault Maps")
iv. Nodes (grids protecting key markers)
c. Leaderboards
d. Rewards
2. Benefits to Developers / Players
3. Balance Issue Discussion

ImageShack Map Downloads:
1. View starting map
2. View active map
3. View full-color map
4. View in-game interface

===========================================

Synopsis:
a. Territory Control Interface
A new tab would be added to the PvP menu. It would be called "Territory Control." A sub-tab would read "Federation vs. KDF."
b. Territory Control Map
The "Federation vs. KDF" sub-tab would present a territory control sensitive map of the Eta Eridani Sector Block, presented in grid format. Players could then select a grid to join PvP in that area.

i. Grids
Each grid is a capturable space (like a chess-board). There's no limit to what grids a faction can attack. Existing PvP maps would be randomly cycled on each grid space - players could still do their PvP matches while opting to contribute to Territory Control.

ii. Gaining Control
When a faction wins a round in a grid's random PvP map, they gain control of that grid on a cool-down timer. It cannot then be attacked for (x) number of seconds.
iii. Key Markers ("Assault Maps")
Larger, more unique maps with more PvP objectives than deathmatch/capture the flag are available. These would occur where key locations are listed on the Eta Eridani Sector Block. For example, Deepspace K7 is a "Key Marker" location. These Key Markers (or "assault maps") would be suited for 10 v 10 or larger.

iv. Nodes (protected key markers)
Grid spaces overlapped by a key marker would need to be siezed before the Key Marker itself could be contested.

In battle, surrounding (or even flanking) the enemy can cut off their supply line - allowing an assault on their prized territories (for example, Deepspace K7 cannot be assaulted unless surrounding grids are captured).

c. Leaderboards
Players can see a running total any time they wish.

Federation and Klingon grid totals would be tallied periodically for daily and weekly status. These numbers would be averaged over the course of a play week to determine which side "won" for the day and week.

Scoring (while up to developers) could work like this:
  • 1 point for contested territory
  • 2 points for controlled territory
  • 3 points for protected key markers
d. Territory Control/PvP Rewards:
The faction to win a healthy majority gets a small bonus (be it PvP badges, small stat bonuses, all of the above, etc.)
===========================================

2. Benefits to Developers / Players:
On the development end, this system could easily be carried over for each faction (or even multi-faction territory control). It would use existing PvP queues to funnel players into Territory Control (they could opt out).

On the player end, we'd have territory control presented as a strategic conquest of systems.
3. Balance Issue Discussion
Players have already responded that balancing can be tricky. With this in mind, feel free to come up with ways in which to balance the queues or maps.

For example, this is how I'd balance it:
  1. No map would begin until complete teams are formed. The criteria could be any of the following:
    • Like-ranked only
    • same average rank/grade (average grade for both teams needs to be x or average rank needs to be x)
    • symetrical ranks/grade ( RA on each, Cmdr. on each, etc.)

  2. Have overflow, standard PvP queue (essentially, you'd play regular PvP queue before getting tossed into the grid of your choice - to keep things fair).
  3. Send me to next available Grid Option (easiest and ensures ever distribution as much as possible).
Looks Good and something I think should have been added from the Start...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Hopefully, they have better ideas in the pipeline.

That said, what did you think of the various mechanisms at work? (i.e. Nodes, Key Markers, etc.)
Hopefully you have given Cryptic ideas
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 16
04-14-2010, 07:36 PM
Some controversial ideas that could affect territory control:
  • Co-operative PvE Sector Block(essentially, factions could go head-to-head in PvP or compete indirectly for control in PvE).
    • [needs community feedback]

  • PvP Rewards for Fleets, Individuals
    • [needs community feedback]

  • Fleet vs. Fleet Territory Control
    • Allow Fed Fleet vs. KDF Fleet challenges (i.e. My Fed Fleet loads into queues to fight your KDF fleet - just fleet on fleet action, fight for control over the course of a week)


Many great ideas for PvP rely on Klingon population numbers going up - no way around it.

Some questions:
  1. Would this PvP mode encourage more Klingon character creation?

  2. Would this PvP mode facilitate more socialization and team coordination in-game? (i.e. Instead of Raid Calendars, Fleets would have Calendars to fight other Fleets)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 17
04-14-2010, 10:09 PM
Why wouldnt you start with a more traditional "open pvp" with objectives in a persistent planetary system?

Start this as a build-on to your "Explore the System Proposal " - In that exploration idea, you had a sort of sector map, larger than a planetary area, but not quite as large as the in-game sectors but large enough to give groups space to hide and seek.

If the idea works at one large planetary system then it could be extrapolated across multiple systems in a PVP sector. Thus controlling multiple systems could change the feel of sector space, changing the DSE, maybe adding trade/cargo ships friendly to the faction that controlled a majority of systems, etc...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 18
04-14-2010, 10:11 PM
Anyone in favor of creating random PvP maps that have objectives, similar to WoW's battlegrounds or UT's Assault Maps?

As of right now, the PvP maps are somewhat simple.

How about borrowing multiplayer game modes/types from established games and concerting those objectives into something that can be randomly placed on maps?

For example, a grid space might have "Shanty Town" map but be in the following alternate configurations:
  • bombing run: deliver bomb to enemy base
  • last man standing: players don't respawn on map - fight to the finish or timer
  • capture the flag: capture enemy's objects and return them to your base; return your own
instead of just "team deathmatch."

More complex maps, in the vein of domination (hold certain points) or "assault" maps (PvE style objectives, player controlled sides).

All in favor say "aye"
All against say "nay"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nack
Why wouldnt you start with a more traditional "open pvp" with objectives in a persistent planetary system?

Start this as a build-on to your "Explore the System Proposal " - In that exploration idea, you had a sort of sector map, larger than a planetary area, but not quite as large as the in-game sectors but large enough to give groups space to hide and seek.

If the idea works at one large planetary system then it could be extrapolated across multiple systems in a PVP sector. Thus controlling multiple systems could change the feel of sector space, changing the DSE, maybe adding trade/cargo ships friendly to the faction that controlled a majority of systems, etc...
first, population numbers.
second, larger, longer maps means klingons level exponentially slower (though it could be fixed by increasing their XP rewards).

I'd love open PvP but until we define "open" better, I think we're at a standstill.

By open, does the community favor:
  • Server-wide go anywhere, PvP anytime (like WoW PvP servers - but have an honor system or other mechanic to curb high level ganking)?
  • Larger PvP maps within neutral zone areas (i.e. like the map I made but each grid is literally an entire system with objectives to hold, like the Explore the System - or one grid many systems)?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 19
04-14-2010, 11:15 PM
In all honesty, I have been impressed with your idea's. They are very well thought out and indeed something this community likes. I certainly hope these idea's make it into the game. Hell, I think you should be a content design manager for the company.

Your hard work deserves more than I can post. You truely have my support and look forward to further idea's for gameplay improvements. I employ you to please continue your hardwork in helping make STO all that it can be.

Darren_Kitlor if I could, I would make a statue of you my friend.

Dev's please take note, someone like this could possible put one of you guys out of a job! :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 20
04-14-2010, 11:21 PM
Nice work, interesting.

As long as it is sector based and there is no PVE done or needed in those zones I can see this working without upsetting to many folks.


I support the Idea of PVP sectors but not open PVP server wide even with flags.
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 05:25 PM.