Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 PVE Territory Control Proposal
07-18-2010, 07:12 AM
==PVE Territory Control Proposal=======================


There was a thread started by Darren_Kitlor (at: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showpost.php?p=2550184) which is the inspiration for this post. While many of Darren's ideas are quite good, I'd put this into a PVE setting, like so:


==============================================
Faction vs. Faction Territory Control
==============================================


PVE, or the Player Versus the Environment, is the aspect of Star Trek Online where the player fights computer controlled enemies, also called AI (Artificial Intelligence) or NPC's (Non-Player Characters). This proposal would allow enemy faction ships be npc's. The manner in which the "score" for daily battles would be kept is to take the net results from all the battles fought on one day and to then run those numbers against a faction's resource score.

What's a resource score? Yes I knew you would ask. It's a measure of how many ships and other sundries each faction possesses. Ships should not be an infinite resource. One of the main strategies of any war is beating down your opponent's ability to wage war in the first place, so you either cut off his raw materials so he can't build war machine's, you destroy his war machines, or you do both.

The resource score is a number (between 1 and 100, for example) and the number of battles won/lost becomes a percentage to take away from that number thus giving how many "squares" the enemy faction owns.

For example, on one day there are 30 battles won by the player's faction. If the Klingons (only an example) have a resource score of 100, then the players have eaten away 30% of their resouces and so then the Klingon's own 70% of the contested territory between these two factions.

That is a rather crude example but by the nature of it, other numbers could be factored in such as a build score, which would help offset the attrition rate as a way to show new ships being built to replace the destroyed ones. This formula could be expaned to include any and/or all types of resources.

On the dev's side, the actual equation to arrive at the answer could be modified to suit "special" encounters. A particularly hard battle could equal 5 "regular" battles, in other words, and so too then the rewards could be adjusted accordingly.


=============================================
Rewards (Other than Territory Won)
=============================================


Now here is where you can also contribute. There are many threads on how player controlled starbases can be used and many other wonderful ideas that spring from seizing enemy territory and/or technology and/or other sundries gained in battle. How can these be used and measured? This is another chance to expound.

As quoted by tarjan:
Quote:
*(1)yes and when you blow something up players could band together and pool energy credits and ingame resources to build it up again to help stall the other side thus making a money sink in the game wich in turn will help making a better market economy on the marketplace and such...

=============================================
Why Not Make This PVP?
=============================================


*(2)The hardest issues for PvP-only Territory Control would be:

* Balance (population numbers would never be equal, i.e there will never be more KDF than FED and certainly never more Cardassian than FED - sad but true).
* Appeal (PvP is a niche within the MMO genre - most people chose not to participate, even if compelling).
* Risk v. Reward (there needs to be some sense of accomplishment - and loss)


==Sources======================================

*1 (source: tarjan @ http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...6&postcount=86)

*2: (source: Darren_Kitlor @ http://forums.startrekonline.com/sho...5&postcount=90)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2 wow
07-18-2010, 07:26 AM
Dam I do like these ideas, it would be very refreshing for the game and for the players!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
07-18-2010, 08:17 AM
I've got this running over on my new blog I created at: http://rookbytes.com/theta9/
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
07-18-2010, 08:25 AM
I do like the idea of player control of some things. I do not want to see this game become EvE'esque however. I'm not saying that your idea is, but let's try to be as different as possible.

Edit:

The first problem I'm seeing is the PvE side. Personally, I think PvE should be player influenced. Sadly, every type of NPC reacts the same way it always does in a given situation.

Attack Pattern X, Emergency Power Engines, Feedback Pulse (if so equipped), Emergency Power Shields, Random Beam Skill, and finally some form of increased torpedo yield...... rinse.....repeat

Some form of randomness has to be given to the AI or this will be like an STF or even an elite B'Tran run.

Perhaps allow controlling players or faction to individually set the BO powers on each ship. Like for like, this might allow a few combinations of powers initially and give a better and/or more random fight.

Edit:

I think the reward system should be scalable down to individuals. Perhaps have a signup sheet at each starbase and allow players or fleets to be "assigned" to a starbase. Allow access to show a roster board for both categories perhaps on a forums spot as well. Daily, Weekly, and All-times spots perhaps with standings assessed in points values. Daily contribution points could be used to assign merits, credits, or some other form of currency.

Hopefully a future'esque currency which could be used in the micro-upgrading of ships. (another idea I support). -OR- simply give X credits for each mission and have the roster as a form of bragging rights. At least that way, player X doesn;t always get good prize over Player Y simply because Player X has no real life.

[still reading original post, more thoughts to come]
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
07-18-2010, 08:29 AM
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
07-18-2010, 08:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoganWilliams
I do like the idea of player control of some things. I do not want to see this game become EvE'esque however. I'm not saying that your idea is, but let's try to be as different as possible.

[still reading original post, more thoughts to come]
I apologize if this seems similar to Eve, as I have only very briefly, and some years ago, played that game. I was giving a free trial pass ~6 years ago; I didn't like it due to the resource mining aspect.

At any rate I look forward to your other ideas.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
07-18-2010, 08:30 AM
I have read and supported Darren's idea on this.

your version isnt taht bad either. If cryptic were to do this, and do it right, they would have to follow a track close to how you and Darren have laid it out.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
07-18-2010, 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormstryke
I hear you. Many people, many ideas. However, in Darren's own words:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren_Kitlor
Again, I hear you. This thread is quite old (in Internet Forum Board years). I think I went toward the PvE route with limited territory control and a few open PvP sectors - the majority of the hexes from the voyage home thread are PvE content (which seems like the only way to account for various populations).

This thread was actually less complex and unintuitive. It's a strange amalgamation of Risk meets Onslaught mode from Unreal Tournament.

Not sure where to go from this. I kind of feel like this thread was started back when I had a less solid grasps of the game &/or less mature ideas.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
07-18-2010, 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sithterror View Post
I have read and supported Darren's idea on this.

your version isnt taht bad either. If cryptic were to do this, and do it right, they would have to follow a track close to how you and Darren have laid it out.
Understandable. The main thought I think we all (a lot of us at least) have is that "we want something like this" because it just makes sense.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
07-18-2010, 10:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThetaNine
I hear you. Many people, many ideas. However, in Darren's own words:
I may have some pretty pictures but, ultimately, a better idea is a better idea.

I think ships being finite might be realistic (but certainly not very fun for many players).

I am certainly an advocate of higher stakes in the game (and supported the game's Death Penalty being universal as originally intended).

Anyways, I think you ideas have a great deal of merit (as I'm leaning toward territory control via PvE with the Voyage Home Proposal thread).

Let's see you ideas get polished up a bit and fleshed out.

My thread has the benefit of the community working together to problem solve for weeks (if not months).

More ideas out there can't be a bad thing. A thriving marketplace of ideas will only benefit everyone as the developers have more to work from (and possible more to inspire them to come up with something better).

So, while I feel the OP is underdeveloped at the moment, I support it - if only to bring more diversity to the game and the ideas available to developers.

Flesh this thread out ThetaNine. Competition of ideas is paramount: whether it improves one side or the other or leads to something new altogether.
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 10:40 PM.