Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 41
04-27-2010, 09:22 PM
ugh that sounds so tedious and boaring

i hate to say this...but open pvp of that type would change the game into ganking low levels....and constant attacks for no reason.....and thats all there is to it...look at games like lineage for examples of this...in fact look at any open pvp rpg game.

And when i say tedious and boaring i mean the game would take on a flavor of people trying to go do a mission and on their way...they get attacked....and attacked again and again....and again......and for what reason? No reason...just becasue...

i had a klingon player do this to me in a fleet action a month or so ago....they just attacked and attacked and attacked.....over and over...it was very annoying and boaring...as i would get shot...i would then turn around and destroy them...over and over and over.....i was unable to have fun....as i was constalty being attacked for no reason......i asked him to stop and he wouldnt do it....no he would tel lme things like i almost got you...i will get you next time.....over and over....

And this proposed idea would make that happen on a global level......just sounds too lame and too tedious to deal with.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 42
04-27-2010, 11:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
ugh that sounds so tedious and boaring

i hate to say this...but open pvp of that type would change the game into ganking low levels....and constant attacks for no reason.....and thats all there is to it...look at games like lineage for examples of this...in fact look at any open pvp rpg game.

And when i say tedious and boaring i mean the game would take on a flavor of people trying to go do a mission and on their way...they get attacked....and attacked again and again....and again......and for what reason? No reason...just becasue...

i had a klingon player do this to me in a fleet action a month or so ago....they just attacked and attacked and attacked.....over and over...it was very annoying and boaring...as i would get shot...i would then turn around and destroy them...over and over and over.....i was unable to have fun....as i was constalty being attacked for no reason......i asked him to stop and he wouldnt do it....no he would tel lme things like i almost got you...i will get you next time.....over and over....

And this proposed idea would make that happen on a global level......just sounds too lame and too tedious to deal with.
Open world PvP does not mean "Forced PvP"! Please read the OPs post. You can fly circles around a Klingon player and they can't do anything to you in this system if you aren't "Flagged for PvP combat"

You might as well ask for them to get rid of the PvP Q because you don't want to be forced into combat. PvP players simply don't want a Q. If this doesn't change the way PvErs play why should you object to more game content?

For "Non-Flagged" players, the game play and danger element won't change at all. There's no forced PvP in this system in any way. Is this concept that hard to understand?

So, now that we know you can't be forced into unwanted combat based on this PvP system, what are the negatives to having open world PvP?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 43
04-28-2010, 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychicKitty
ugh that sounds so tedious and boaring

i hate to say this...but open pvp of that type would change the game into ganking low levels....and constant attacks for no reason.....and thats all there is to it...look at games like lineage for examples of this...in fact look at any open pvp rpg game.

And when i say tedious and boaring i mean the game would take on a flavor of people trying to go do a mission and on their way...they get attacked....and attacked again and again....and again......and for what reason? No reason...just becasue...

i had a klingon player do this to me in a fleet action a month or so ago....they just attacked and attacked and attacked.....over and over...it was very annoying and boaring...as i would get shot...i would then turn around and destroy them...over and over and over.....i was unable to have fun....as i was constalty being attacked for no reason......i asked him to stop and he wouldnt do it....no he would tel lme things like i almost got you...i will get you next time.....over and over....

And this proposed idea would make that happen on a global level......just sounds too lame and too tedious to deal with.
Guess thats another person who has commented on the original post without actually reading it
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 44
04-28-2010, 09:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GlobalTaxi View Post
Open world PvP does not mean "Forced PvP"! Please read the OPs post. You can fly circles around a Klingon player and they can't do anything to you in this system if you aren't "Flagged for PvP combat"

You might as well ask for them to get rid of the PvP Q because you don't want to be forced into combat. PvP players simply don't want a Q. If this doesn't change the way PvErs play why should you object to more game content?

For "Non-Flagged" players, the game play and danger element won't change at all. There's no forced PvP in this system in any way. Is this concept that hard to understand?

So, now that we know you can't be forced into unwanted combat based on this PvP system, what are the negatives to having open world PvP?
The system you describe wouldn't really have any positive impact on the game. Seeing Klingons roaming around Fed space, being able to attack some players but not others, would ruin immersion and just look silly. Not to mention, with the game being so casual and PVE-centric, very few people would actually do this. PVPers would be better off signing up for the queue than wandering around, hoping that one of the thirty ships they see is also flagged for PVP. It makes no sense. I'm a PVPer and I'm not in the least bit interested in this sort of system. The only thing this system will accomplish is to **** off PVEers, even with the flagged/unflagged stuff. I like open world PVP games, but STO will never be one of them. The end.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 45
04-28-2010, 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
The system you describe wouldn't really have any positive impact on the game. Seeing Klingons roaming around Fed space, being able to attack some players but not others, would ruin immersion and just look silly. Not to mention, with the game being so casual and PVE-centric, very few people would actually do this. PVPers would be better off signing up for the queue than wandering around, hoping that one of the thirty ships they see is also flagged for PVP. It makes no sense. I'm a PVPer and I'm not in the least bit interested in this sort of system. The only thing this system will accomplish is to **** off PVEers, even with the flagged/unflagged stuff. I like open world PVP games, but STO will never be one of them. The end.
Still not one person saying this will affect PvEers have yet to say why? or even how.

And, seeing klingons roaming around fed space and not being able to attack any of them doesn't look silly?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 46
04-28-2010, 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
The system you describe wouldn't really have any positive impact on the game. Seeing Klingons roaming around Fed space, being able to attack some players but not others, would ruin immersion and just look silly. Not to mention, with the game being so casual and PVE-centric, very few people would actually do this. PVPers would be better off signing up for the queue than wandering around, hoping that one of the thirty ships they see is also flagged for PVP. It makes no sense. I'm a PVPer and I'm not in the least bit interested in this sort of system. The only thing this system will accomplish is to **** off PVEers, even with the flagged/unflagged stuff. I like open world PVP games, but STO will never be one of them. The end.
So your argument against an open world PvP is based of the fact you don't want to see enemy ships in Fed territory? How do you feel about all the "Enemy Signals" in Fed space that suck you into "forced" combat? Your so called immersion is already destroyed if that's the case.

Having to join a Q to enter into a hostile engagement with another player, when we're at war with them, is what I call immersion breaking. Is that how they do it on Star Trek? They call up the Klingons on the space phone and set up a weekend space skirmish?

This is in a time of war right? Wouldn't the Klingons try to capture more space and venture outside their own borders? I seem to recall ships constantly venturing into neutral zones and restricted zones which ended in battles. Hell, half the battles came from one side or the other being in the wrong area at the wrong time.

I would think that any "Player" Klingons that enter Fed space will get encountered by FED PVPers. The Fed engage the Klingons and they enter into an instance and are gone in the same way we enter hostile engagements now. I really see no difference in how the game is now and if the borders were open.

Not only that, seeing a bunch of Klingons in fed space would encourage Feds to group and handle the situation. This is a choice for a player to have, not a forced play style.

So again, if there's no danger to non flagged players, we already have enemy ships cruising around Fed space, non flagged players can continue their playing without fear of interruption, whats the problem?

Still waiting for a good reason not to have it and the only reason you really gave was it'd break immersion and it'd "**** of the PVEers (but you didn't say why)".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 47
04-28-2010, 05:01 PM
You folks can be as irrationally combative as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that nothing will ever come of your proposal. Consider this: PVP is my favorite part of this game. I am a PVPer. And yet, I think your idea is as laughable as it is impractical. If I, a PVPer, have no interest in your idea, how much support do you think it will garner from the over 90% of STO players who are not PVP-centric? That 90% is the part of the userbase that gets listened to the most, and they'd never allow your idea to see the light of day. So keep arguing and insulting others if that makes your day better, but your proposal is dead on arrival and rightly so.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 48
04-28-2010, 05:34 PM
Well then, maybe a post in support of this PvP option by a NON-PvP player, one who has ( and sometimes still does ) play/ed Lineage II and who knows all too well the evils of unregulated open PvP can counteract the supposed undisputable fact that YOUR one post by a PvP'er in oppostion to this proposal must mean that ALL PvE players like myself will hate the mere fact that a mode of PvP play that doesn't affect their gameplay in any way, either playstyle, mechanics, or immersively.

If so, then I so post this in FAVOR of the proposal. I even go so far as to suggest that a flag could be introduced in the options menu right under the "covert/overt" flag that would be " overt players visible to player if covert yes/no ". That way those squemish, vocal, PvE players don't even have to see those EVIL PvP players enjoying their game without them. Come on people, make this a REAL challenge. Claiming that this proposal is "not viable because YOU say so, and that's how it is." is bullcrap. Give us a legitamate reason why this should not be, I assure you we will listen.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 49
04-29-2010, 06:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemajELF View Post
And you wont hear a good reason as they either did not read or did not understand the Op.As for me i think the OP has hit on a BRILLIANT idea.
Now for a little advice for the OPer,go ingame and file a ticket,after filing the ticket keep the ticket number,tie another post just like the OP you made to the ticket number you have.Get in touch with other players who agree with your idea,have them post on the new link thats tied to your ticket number.
The Devs,believe it or not will not implement or even discuss anything written on the forums without a ticket,there is too much content on forum for them to dig around in it,sad to say but it is true.Cryptic Falkoren is the one who has advised myself and several others that this is pretty much the ONLY way your opinion will be heard.
If you post a new post please contact me and let me know about it and I will get some others that feel your idea is valid to also reply.
Good luck to us all and Q"Plah!
I've submitted a ticket, I chose not to create a second post and have opted to provide a link to this one, I know there are comments on here against what I propose but I think the support for the idea out-weighs those against it.
Thanks for the suggestion.

PS. I sent the idea to the podcast STOked and it was read out in their latest podcast. lol im now famous, hello mum!!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 50
04-29-2010, 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PSIRockin
You folks can be as irrationally combative as you wish, it doesn't change the fact that nothing will ever come of your proposal. Consider this: PVP is my favorite part of this game. I am a PVPer. And yet, I think your idea is as laughable as it is impractical. If I, a PVPer, have no interest in your idea, how much support do you think it will garner from the over 90% of STO players who are not PVP-centric? That 90% is the part of the userbase that gets listened to the most, and they'd never allow your idea to see the light of day. So keep arguing and insulting others if that makes your day better, but your proposal is dead on arrival and rightly so.
There's nothing irrational or combative about asking people to plead their case or point, other than "I don't like it".

Should we get rid of crafting because most people don't like crafting? Maybe the ground part of the game should be taken out because most people find it odd and glitchy?

Also, if PvP were done correctly, there'd be a lot more than 10% of the player base doing it (if 10% is an accurate number). I'd love to read up on this statistic if you have the link.

This link suggests that Cryptic would like to add open PvP regions.
http://www.massively.com/2010/04/12/...r-trek-online/

Also from a Q&A
Q: shikamaru317 - Do you guys have any current plan for Open PvP, perhaps in the form of Neutral Zones? I know that Jack Emmert made a post on the forums saying he and the CEO wanted to add Open PvP, but that it may take a while.

A: It is something we have been planning. We would like to have open and persistent PvP ground and space maps - a front line if you will. Currently, our priority is to focus on new instanced games. So at this point, we have no ETA on when you can expect this.
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 08:10 AM.