Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
04-14-2010, 10:24 PM
New Sector Block would probably work better especially since there is still some low PvE content in that sector block that is directly tied to both of the Stations.

Other than that it's almost exactly what I proposed 2 weeks ago in this thread, that no one seems to bother to read.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
04-14-2010, 10:35 PM
Before I respond to everyone, I'm going to advertise the poll for this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizman
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 truly have my support and look forward to further idea's for gameplay improvements. I employ you to please continue your hard work 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!
Thanks!

Those maps were made in Photoshop over the course of a day (took about 5 hours to get what I wanted - hooray for visual styles on layers!). I used the in-game one as a reference but found the stars and loops distracting - so I created my own layers that could align with the map and provide the flexibility to add content (like the yellow stripes for nodes, redone buttons, borrowing logos from the website, etc.) All three versions of the map are collections of layers toggled on/off in the layers visibility options.

I can upload the .PSD if anyone wants to tinker with all the elements.

That said, hard work on my end is worthless without community feedback and support from players like you

I want to make this collaborative and improve it. My next big goal (in the context of Territory Control/PvP) is to develop different map types (like bombing run, last man standing, domination, etc.) or make it so every existing map can support all those game types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtomicFB
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.
That was one of the considerations I had.

If we make it too big (or an entirely seperate entity from existing PvP), we'd stand the risk of fragmenting it more (longer PvP load times = fail in my book).

This territory map would exist separate of the actual PvE Sector Block (essentially, it's a meta-game with the PvP queues - though more complex). You can still do PvE missions and Co-op in Eta Eridani Sector Space - though it would be cool to have visual effects show what the PvP side of the house is doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_illustrious_q
New Sector Block would probably work better especially since there is still some low PvE content in that sector block that is directly tied to both of the Stations.

Other than that it's almost exactly what I proposed 2 weeks ago in this thread, that no one seems to bother to read.
You don't actually travel to the PvE sector block itself. It's more of a front-end for PvP queues but a game in itself (and another way to get more games running rather than wait in 14 v 2 queues).

Think of it like a board-game - where instead of physically traveling to each grid, you select a grid to load up to fight for control of it. Territory control would accessible through an interface - not "traveled" in the way you travel to PvE mission planets.

None of the PvE content would be erased or touched.

The current, in-game Sector Block Map (with its PvE, indirect PvP content) would exist separately from the Battle Map (which is its own thing).


As for your old thread, pictures can help visualize these abstract concepts.

Imagine describing a complex version of Risk (nodes, key markers, grids, cooldowns, etc.). Pictures help.

If you ever need any help making some pictures for your threads, let me know!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
04-14-2010, 11:45 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.
more factions could always lower the feds numbers

Rommie
Spoon heads
8472
Dominion
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
04-15-2010, 01:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by P_Sutherland
more factions could always lower the feds numbers

Rommie
Spoon heads
8472
Dominion
Or, limit factions that can enter territory control to be symmetrical.

i.e. If 100 klingons are online, only 100 Federation ships can be in territory control at a time.

Granted, Federation would lose a lot if Romulans, DOminion, or an independent faction were created.

I'd love a freelancing, privateering, ELITE group of independent traders, colonies, etc.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
04-15-2010, 08:58 AM
Quick Question:
  • Which sector block would best represent the Fed v. Romulan Neutral Zone: Alpha Centauri or Iota Pavonis?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
04-15-2010, 10:36 AM
Iota Pavonis. Romulus should be moved farther out with at least one, possibly two sector blocks put in between.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
04-15-2010, 11:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uxi View Post
Iota Pavonis. Romulus should be moved farther out with at least one, possibly two sector blocks put in between.
Well, if the territory control works like I describe, the PvE Sector Block (what's in game now) and the Territory Control Map will be separate (i.e. no need to actually travel to Iota Pavonis).

Next Question:
  • What game modes/types/objectives would you like to see in PvP/Grid Maps? (i.e. bombing run, last man standing)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
04-15-2010, 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
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)?
[*]Server-wide go anywhere, PvP anytime but OPT-IN ONLY . Opt-in means you turn on your PVP flag, or you attack a PVP flagged player (thus auto-flagging yourself).

Use of player-by-player PVP flags means you can have PVP anywhere, anytime effectively.
If you toggle your flag off, there is a 3-5 timer and you are done.

If you do this opt-in then your PVP "objectives" could be anywhere on your current map, not just in a PVP only zone.


But that isnt exclusive of having large PVP maps with varying objectives.


I would love to see you expand on the "exploration" maps you proposed to make an "Explore & Conquer" PVP map. Focus on the system level first instead of your grid idea, define your objectives and mission types, then expand to a sector view after you've nailed down what it means to PVP in-system, what it means to take and hold a target. Once you have 1 system proposal, you can extrapolate to multi-system sector. Maybe that wll be a grid maybe it will be something else.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
04-15-2010, 01:17 PM
It would be interesting to see the PVP aspect enlarged to encompass non-combat PVP.

Non-Combat PVP, what's that?
Remember the premise of ST:TOS Trouble with Tribbles?
  1. Enterprise sent on an important assignment regarding a disputed planet.
  2. Sherman's Planet, which is claimed by both Fed and Klingon sides.
  3. control of the planet will be granted to the party that can demonstrate it can develop the planet's resources most efficiently

So... for me that hints at non-combat PVP and circles back to other community proposals of diplomacy and head-to-head minigame puzzles.

So whatever PVP mission objectives you come up with, don't hesitate to think about some non-combat ideas or at least put in a placeholder for a non-combat objective. Negotiate a treaty, aid the planet, whatever.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
04-15-2010, 01:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nack
It would be interesting to see the PVP aspect enlarged to encompass non-combat PVP.

Non-Combat PVP, what's that?
Remember the premise of ST:TOS Trouble with Tribbles?
  1. Enterprise sent on an important assignment regarding a disputed planet.
  2. Sherman's Planet, which is claimed by both Fed and Klingon sides.
  3. control of the planet will be granted to the party that can demonstrate it can develop the planet's resources most efficiently

So... for me that hints at non-combat PVP and circles back to other community proposals of diplomacy and head-to-head minigame puzzles.

So whatever PVP mission objectives you come up with, don't hesitate to think about some non-combat ideas or at least put in a placeholder for a non-combat objective. Negotiate a treaty, aid the planet, whatever.
Non-combat or co-operative/indirect PvP are two viable options.

Essentially, the Diplomacy meta-game in the Explore the System proposal was a potentially non-combat PvP. (i.e. systems you completed all PvE content in granted you Diplomacy merits towards a larger Diplomatic Struggle between Federation and KDF forces - sort of like WAR's Realm v. Realm influence mechanic - with similar bonuses)
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 10:20 AM.