Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
03-20-2011, 04:44 AM
Regarding Timers - they are probably a good way. Let's say the territory control map has 24 objectives. Every hour, 2 of them get "attackable" for 30 minutes to 1 hour. 2 at the same time forces the factions to decide which one to defend/attack.

30 minutes might not seem that much, but we have to keep in mind that players have limited amount of time each day, and a time slot longer than 30 minutes might make it difficult to allow attacks.

A more refined way to enable targets for attack and give a more "ongoing war" feeling would be to attach certain prerequsites before a location can even possibly be "open" to attack -e.g. that the attacker has to perform other (repeatable) PvP and PvE Objectives to earn enough control points to allow an attack. Every hour, the current state might get evaluated, and if the attacker has enough points, he can mount a raid or a conquest attack. Once a location has been conquered, it could be safe for a few hours.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
03-20-2011, 05:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roach View Post
If territory control is to be effective it must be large enough to be accomidating to the player by giving as sense of grand scale.
Meaning it will need nuetral control areas to be fought over as well as possibly predetermined Base zones for factions. Not mention enough of these NZ SB that are open to combat and short time control by faction for possibly a reward of sorts. ( I think just a short timed Faction buff in the local area )

Question: Do the largest Instances ( I assume SB's) have to have a visual map representation or can they exist as just the data somewhere on the server?
(keep in mind my RL pc experience is little)

If yes, then:
Can you stack several layers of data SB's open to combat on iether a "mine & defend" Base SB and NZ SB that have some configured value other than as choke point to stall invasion of one Fleets home SB.

If its a matter of just memory storage and processing. please build the server for it. Make a huge cube of said data SB and give the fleets the option to build base and fight for control of all teh ones that are empty inbetween.
Give brief timed buffs for faction control of not just individual SB's but even quadrants within the stacking of the laters of SB's upon another. We just need a reason for why we fight over these Sb's. ( I have an idea as to that)Since they are all SB's stacked upon each other there would be load screens between entering and leaving.
I have no idea how to balance that against spawning camping.
Sure it would suck to have to load screen into each SB, but its far better than what we have now.
Pipe dream though it may be of mine.

Roach
My personal idea is a transwarp that gives access to the open/territory control PVP area (away from the PVE’ers so it doesn’t affect their game). I think it should be in Borg Space and should have lots of sectors to it, giving us NPC’s to fight (with NPC Star bases, lots of room for added factions later) until the opposing sides run into each other. I would love to see buildable Fleet star bases there as well. I see the mechanic something like kill Star base to go to ground to attempt to capture planet. Planet captured and can be claimed by a fleet, if the planet is claimed, a fleet can build a Star base at the Planet.

I agree it maybe a pipe dream, not sure how this would or could work without knowing more of the mechanic. I hope they would incorporate some of the other good PVP ideas in this, personally I would like to the Warhammer Alliance system (Up to 10 Fleets in an alliance with alliance Chat, helps to get fleets working together.) Depending on the cost of building a Fleet Star base, there should be a fleet tax function as well to keep from having just a few people paying for everything.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
03-20-2011, 06:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
Regarding Timers - they are probably a good way. Let's say the territory control map has 24 objectives. Every hour, 2 of them get "attackable" for 30 minutes to 1 hour. 2 at the same time forces the factions to decide which one to defend/attack.

30 minutes might not seem that much, but we have to keep in mind that players have limited amount of time each day, and a time slot longer than 30 minutes might make it difficult to allow attacks.

A more refined way to enable targets for attack and give a more "ongoing war" feeling would be to attach certain prerequsites before a location can even possibly be "open" to attack -e.g. that the attacker has to perform other (repeatable) PvP and PvE Objectives to earn enough control points to allow an attack. Every hour, the current state might get evaluated, and if the attacker has enough points, he can mount a raid or a conquest attack. Once a location has been conquered, it could be safe for a few hours.
Like most of it, like to see more than 2 open to attack at a time and more than 24 objectives, (Yes I realize that was just the numbers you were thowing out) I agree 2 forces the faction to decide which one to defend, but I feel the Feds would be able to place players at each area, where Klinks may have to pick and choose more due to numbers. More open at a time, I think should spread things out more. (also more factions)

I understand where you’re coming from on the prerequisites, I like the concept but in practice I again think with the Feds higher player base, it would cause issues. The Feds would always hit their mark while Klinks may not be able to do so as well. (again more factions would help i think) Yes, I see a Klink Pop increase if something like this would roll out, but then again I see a return of PVPers, increase of PVPers overall if this happens.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
03-20-2011, 06:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
IMHO, 30 Minutes seems too fast and it doesn't scream territoral control. You need something like 24/48 hours. But in a random way that it could accomodate the various player times (Europe, EC, WC, Australia / Japan). .
Agreed, was just stating what Warhammer does, times may have to be changed, but 30 plus the 2 at a time open idea from MustrumRidcully, sounds intresting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Thats the prime reason why I said players should get booted from the area when they die, not only to prevent zerging issues, but also giving players a chance to enter a map. Becuase with an non-instanced map, there is going to be population limit of around 70 players. And if it does go instanced, its not really territoral control. So if a person dies, someone waiting in line can have a chance..
Please advise where on a non instanced Map how they would limit the population, can you post a link to some game that has this ability. I just have never heard of a game being able to do control numbers with out instancing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
But I do agree with the focus firing and quick deaths. But lets not forget how easy it is to resurrect players at the same time.
Maybe I am wrong, is there a Resurrection ability in this game, I have missed? You get killed and the respawn button comes up, personally I don't want a resurrection ability


Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
With this they really should talk to us before they begin actual work. Because I think this could be something that could change STO altogether and not boost the PvP numbers.
Agreed, taking that as boost the PVP numbers. :p I will be posting in the next Ask Cryptic, I just hope the conversation bridge isn't still feeling a heavy sunburn at that time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
That's what I'm figuring as well.

There being 5 seperate zones (6 when Romulans are added). Players beam down to their respective HQs, being able to get submissions (which could add greatly to the mission, such as diplomacy with the native).

Between the HQ zones and the Fortress or NPC Town, you have zones as large as the Nopadan Desert, where you could encounter NPCs or other players that are trying to ambush you. And there various local spots that could be dangerous as well (like wild animals).

In the Middle you have a Fortress (or Town), which is the main objective.

And perhaps a bonus where whoever controls the Fortress, is able to raid a secret base or ruins (dungeon) for a chance to get something unique for individuals.
Ohhhhh, I like, but I don't think Cryptic can do all of this in a workable time frame. Isn't that mixing PVEer's into our open PVP Zone?? I like the idea, but they are not going to like getting attacked, attempting to get to this PVE STF type thing.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
03-20-2011, 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracosblood View Post
Agreed, was just stating what Warhammer does, times may have to be changed, but 30 plus the 2 at a time open idea from MustrumRidcully, sounds intresting.
Well the idea of multiple objectives at different times sounds interesting. But just thinking if you are on the battlefield, fighting for one objective, and you realized another objective timer just ended, you likely to rush to that new one. Either splitting your forces or abanding one objective to quickly capture the next.

Which againt makes like an overgrown C&H than war, because you wouldn't abandon one objective for another at a drop of a hat.

Quote:
Please advise where on a non instanced Map how they would limit the population, can you post a link to some game that has this ability. I just have never heard of a game being able to do control numbers with out instancing.
Everquest and **** are a few.

Really map sizes were unlimited, but the more people in the zone, the greater the lag. So it was more player regulated.


Quote:
Maybe I am wrong, is there a Resurrection ability in this game, I have missed? You get killed and the respawn button comes up, personally I don't want a resurrection ability
No offense, but are you kidding me? Everyone from the very beginning has a CPR ability. Heck, you can even use it on Friendly NPCs and bring them to life, as long as they don't disappear.

Quote:
Ohhhhh, I like, but I don't think Cryptic can do all of this in a workable time frame. Isn't that mixing PVEer's into our open PVP Zone?? I like the idea, but they are not going to like getting attacked, attempting to get to this PVE STF type thing.
The classic MMO "Risk vs Reward".

Like they say in Ker'rat, you enter a PvP zone, you should expect PvP. However, since this is a "war zone", I wouldn't see why not there being friendly groups of NPCs that PvErs could run to for protection. But it would definitely get your blood pumping.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
03-20-2011, 03:27 PM
I've been following this, and other similar discussions, for a while now on the forums. I don't post extremely often, but now and then I will.

I haven't done a huge amount of PVP in this game yet. I do play a few other MMORPGs, and have done a fair amount of PVP in them. I'm by no means an "elite" PVPer by any means, but I play to enjoy the game, including the PVP. I could really care less if I can kick so and so's cyber butt or not more than he or she can kick mine. I like to have fun playing the game, because at the end of it all, its a game and games are meant to be enjoyed and have fun playing them.

Though I know a lot of people here personally hate World of ********, the fact remains that WoW is one of the largest MMORPGs out there, and has quite a lot of PVP content to it, and even Star Trek Online has developed many, many mechanics that are quite similar to WoW's mechanics. Am I saying they necessarily ripped WoW off? No, not at all. I'm simply saying there are many very similar mechanics, as you'd expect for a game with a similar goal for player interaction and enjoyment.

If STO were to adopt some of the PVP conventions in use by WoW, since the base mechanics are very similar, PVP might be well served for everyone's purposes and hopefully, to a degree of some satisfaction. Given the similarities between the two engine models, I wonder if implementing similar PVP functions would be reasonably easy to execute. I would think they probably would, but whether or not that's the case would be up to the guys actually writing the code for the game.

Anyway, to get to the point, WoW handles contested territory and various stages/types of PVP in several manners. Contested Territory in WoW are areas that are being actively fought over by the two major factions. Open PVP (I define Open PVP as areas where players can see a player from the other faction, and engage them in combat, without having to queue into a PVP arena or go to a particular instance) happens in these areas rather frequently at times, depending on where you are, and how many players of opposing factions are actually roaming around, doing PVE quests/missions, or grinding for gear, or experience, or whatever. You pretty much run a risk of being drawn into a PVP conflict at any time by entering an area clearly designated as being contested. Many of these conflicts are pure chance, and some are planned, with one faction or the other moving through the areas in teams with the intent of going after the opposing faction.

Characters can also enter areas completely controlled by the opposite faction. Open PVP happens there as well, often with the same sort of circumstances and possibilities. Its often more hazardous to venture completely into opposing faction controlled areas, because they usually find themselves outnumbered by at least five or six to one, and often many, many more to one.

For STO, such areas could theoretically be implemented in both space and ground circumstances. WoW uses PVP "flags" on characters that are often automatically triggered when they reach a contested territory, if I recall the mechanic correctly. If a Federation character decides one evening to hop over to Qo'noS, in an attempt to gank a couple of Klingons, he'd run a good chance of getting mobbed by Klingons and accruing quite a bit of damaged gear and equipment (assuming that injuries and gear damage worked on a system similar to what's in place in STO now, or for that matter, a damage system fairly similar to the one WoW uses). The same could be true for the bold KDF character that ventures too far into Federation territory with the same idea.

In addition, WoW also uses Battlegrounds, which are basically instanced battlefields with a finite number of players allowed into it. There are multiple instances of each battleground, and a team must have a certain percentage of the allowed players on each side before it will allow combat to begin. Battlegrounds are scaled in several different sizes. Some allow ten players on each side, some fifteen on each side, and some more in a couple of different incremental sizes. PVE players are not present at all in such instances, as they may be in the above examples of contested territory. You queue up for Battlegrounds, very similar to the PVP queues we have in place here at STO, and once enough players are filled in for each side, they teleport you to the battleground. Once enough players are on both sides to begin, you're allowed to leave your starter area and head for the opposition.

In battlegounds, you accrue various types of points, experience, and can get many achievements (or accolades, to use the STO term), and so on. You also have different battlegrounds with different objectives. You've got a Capture the Flag style battleground, capture and hold battlegrounds, and so on. Any number of conceivable objectives can be placed in such an instanced PVP encounter. Gear doesn't really drop during them, but you can get marks and other means to purchase special gear especially for PVP as rewards for participating in battlegrounds. Something similar to this could theoretically be inserted into the game mechanics with reasonable time of execution, I think.

It may be more involved than what I'm hoping, depending on just how similar the mechanics between WoW and STO are, but it is a possibility that it wouldn't be too troublesome. These could theoretically be implemented with a managable amount of work and effort. In battlegrounds as well, they are scaled to level ranges, usually about ten levels' span. In STO terms, this means you'd have a bracket for Lieutenants versus Lieutenants, Captains versus Captains, etc. Open PVP would not necessarily depend upon what level/rank you were. Of course, if Open PVP doesn't follow some sort of convention, such as no reward whatsoever for incapacitating someone of significant lower level than you, then you're going to run into problems with rampant ganking for the pure sake of ganking, and that wouldn't be very Star Trek like. Open PVP should be fine, but it should follow some common sense, fairness and some degree of compliance with the spirit of the setting, namely Star Trek. Other forms of PVP can be set up and structured in ways to best please the majority of players interested in PVP, and it would probably draw a considerable amount of strictly PVE players into PVP, and encourage them to learn how to PVP within STO. Who knows, it might even generate a whole new life to the game as a whole, from both a PVE and a PVP standpoint.

Further, WoW has an arena system, where you fight in two versus two, three versus three, five versus five, etc teams against an opposing team. These are usually set up somewhere in contested territory. Doing these earns you some sort of reward where you can either instantly pick it up, or some form of obtaining gear for the rewards of doing the arena style PVP. Something like this could work well within STO, especially in a setting like Coliseum. I've never done arena PVP in WoW, so while I'm understanding of the general principle of it, I don't know many of the specifics, such as the particular rules that govern it, but they wouldn't be hard to develop, I wouldn't think, if such a system could be implemented into STO with a reasonable effort in a reasonable timeframe.

These examples could further be tailored to better suit the Star Trek and STO mindset and game framework, I believe. I'm a huge Star Trek fan and while I realize that STO having so much combat is against the main idea behind the vision of Star Trek, which envisions a brighter future where man has learned to work together for common goals and stand united as a species and with their allies, having an MMO that follows that vision to the letter would be rather boring. While its true some conflict would probably come up somewhere in the ideal Star Trek universe, it would most likely be fairly limited. The main thrust of an MMORPG often deals primarily with conflict and combat of some sort. While scanning mineral deposits, investigating strange beings, and following diplomatic and scientific protocols would probably be great for Star Trek fans, most traditional MMO gamers would find it immensely boring. So, to open the fanbase and audience up to STO, it has to appeal to both Star Trek fans, and MMORPG fans.

Thankfully, I'm a fan of both. I truly love and enjoy this game, and I would love nothing better than to see the game blossom into something truly great, greater than what it already is. The above suggestions could also be tied in with mission in some way, like in WoW you often get battleground missions that require you to fight in a battleground or perform some other sort of PVP. However, those quests in WoW are optional. You don't have to engage in PVP if you don't want to. The same should be true here. But they could use maps already in game, and could also generate some new content, at least in the form of missions, for the underdeveloped KDF faction, and make the two existing factions, and any later added, more complete and robust as a result.

Mind you that this is all speaking very theoretically, because it ultimately comes down to what's possible and what's not possible in terms of how the game engine is coded. But with the major similarities between STO and WoW, it should be reasonably easy to implement in some fashion. Also bear in mind that even if it is reasonable easy to code in, it would require a significant amount of time to actually do the work necessary to make it a reality, and it would require extensive QA testing. The point of my post is its a possibility to satisfy the thirst the community at large, especially the PVP community, has for more PVP and more overlapping content to swell the playability of the game for everyone.

Sorry this was so long, but hopefully, its a few ideas that can be thought about and acted upon in some manner.

Thank you for your time.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
03-21-2011, 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Well the idea of multiple objectives at different times sounds interesting. But just thinking if you are on the battlefield, fighting for one objective, and you realized another objective timer just ended, you likely to rush to that new one. Either splitting your forces or abanding one objective to quickly capture the next.
Well there would have to be more than one timer going off at a time, to make it work correctly, but again this may cause issues with the FED's larger population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Which againt makes like an overgrown C&H than war, because you wouldn't abandon one objective for another at a drop of a hat.
Agreed, hoping they could add more to something like this for Space and Ground, Starbases and Ground facilities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
Everquest and **** are a few.

Really map sizes were unlimited, but the more people in the zone, the greater the lag. So it was more player regulated.
Ah, I understand now, from what I understand from friends that played ****, how do I put this, most of the players were more adult in their game play. You could get away with player regulated numbers there, I don't think that would work today, unfortunately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
No offense, but are you kidding me? Everyone from the very beginning has a CPR ability. Heck, you can even use it on Friendly NPCs and bring them to life, as long as they don't disappear.
LOL, My mistake, you where thinking ground and I was thinking space, you are correct on the ground. Sorry, for the confusion, I see where you’re coming from and agree the ability to Rez on the ground may cause some issues. Not sure how much though as with 10 on 10 I would think that anyone attempting to Rez or having just been Rezed would be killed quickly. They may have to put a timer on the Rez ability, but not sure that would help, what do you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurian View Post
The classic MMO "Risk vs Reward".
Like they say in Ker'rat, you enter a PvP zone, you should expect PvP. However, since this is a "war zone", I wouldn't see why not there being friendly groups of NPCs that PvErs could run to for protection. But it would definitely get your blood pumping.
Well personally I wouldn't want to see friendly NPC's anywhere in space between systems. At Systems where defenses, space and ground have been purchased, yes, but not out like DSE's are now. In my opinion if you see ships in space they should be players. While I like the idea, I can see where PVEer's would complain, I have run into this in **** as well if you have one side that is dominate and they have most of these type of instances, the underdogs can't catch up in gear or whatever the reward would be.

If there was a way that both sides could access the instances, maybe the hostile side would have to fight though some NPC's and PC's if they were at the planet and wanted to stop them.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
03-21-2011, 11:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dracosblood View Post
Well there would have to be more than one timer going off at a time, to make it work correctly, but again this may cause issues with the FED's larger population.
Exactly the reason for a longer timer, because of the larger Fed population. Cryptic gave out numbers that the population is like 10:1, and that is why there needs to be population limits, else Federation would win simply by numbers alone.

Quote:
Ah, I understand now, from what I understand from friends that played ****, how do I put this, most of the players were more adult in their game play. You could get away with player regulated numbers there, I don't think that would work today, unfortunately.
Thats why there needs to be certain balances to encourage adult play.

Quote:
LOL, My mistake, you where thinking ground and I was thinking space, you are correct on the ground. Sorry, for the confusion, I see where you’re coming from and agree the ability to Rez on the ground may cause some issues. Not sure how much though as with 10 on 10 I would think that anyone attempting to Rez or having just been Rezed would be killed quickly. They may have to put a timer on the Rez ability, but not sure that would help, what do you think?
Well in space, it can be pure Open PvP with dampening fields that cross large areas to prevent cloaking and full impulse. And can include nebulas to aid non-cloaking vessels in hiding from player's sensors.

As for Space Objectives themselves, players should beam down to station or outposts that are in orbit which adds to the planet's territorial control aspect. For instance, whoever controls space can control the ground. Like a blockade in preventing new players from easily beaming down.

Quote:
Well personally I wouldn't want to see friendly NPC's anywhere in space between systems. At Systems where defenses, space and ground have been purchased, yes, but not out like DSE's are now. In my opinion if you see ships in space they should be players. While I like the idea, I can see where PVEer's would complain, I have run into this in **** as well if you have one side that is dominate and they have most of these type of instances, the underdogs can't catch up in gear or whatever the reward would be.

If there was a way that both sides could access the instances, maybe the hostile side would have to fight though some NPC's and PC's if they were at the planet and wanted to stop them.
Never said that NPCs would be everywhere, but on the ground it would surely add to the feeling of being in a warzone. In space, I would say it would be limited to NPC Defensive Turrets.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
03-29-2011, 05:15 PM
Well placed, a question on Ask Cryptic for April, prob too far back to get an answer though.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
03-30-2011, 07:07 AM
Don't give up. Keep on asking. We need to get as many people asking the same two questions all the time in these Q&As.

Territory Control
New PvP maps / gameplay.

Doesn't matter if we ask why it's on such a lower priority, or if they got an idea what to do with these things. The most important thing is that there's enough of us asking.
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 08:56 PM.