If you have purchased a Legacy or Starter Pack, please see this thread for instructions on how to claim your items in-game. (Please see the yellow text in the linked thread for instructions on creating a Reman.)
If you have additional questions about the Legacy or Starter pack, please read this FAQ.
Thanks SO MUCH for all your support, and we'll see you in-game!
- The Star Trek Online Team
"Login failed for unknown reason" error
Missing additional character slot for current/ lapsed Gold Members
I'm "Meh" about the whole idea, if it's added I hope it is slightly more unobtrusive than say, how GW did it. Still don't want to see any form of PvP limiting or controlling content in a PvE game I choose to play.
Never the less I will play your mission, my pre-conceived dislike for the concept will not affect my play, thinking outside the box is always something I enjoy when playing a foundry mission. I look forward to it really.
I was sitting around thinking about what mechanics a territory control system could add to the game, and how it might look in gameplay.
Decided why not try and create something in the foundry to talk about the potential a player driven territory control game could bring to the table.
I created a mock foundry tutorial mission, playable by any level Federation character.
The tutorial takes the player through mechanics and a mock PVP invasion of a conflict system (pvp), and a PVE daily mission in a strategic system (pve) .
It then examines some ideas for fleet starbases.
I apologize in advance for any grammar errors or quirks, please leave comments in the review so I can hunt them down and nuke them.
I'd love to have a discussion with anyone that has further ideas and concepts, I hope you have fun!
the mission is called : Territory Control Concept
I just played it. From a purely mechanical aspect it was pretty good. One minor problem with the first instance as ships were gettting stuck in the Transwarp Gate. Might want to move the gate a little further out from the spawn locations of the ships to avoid that.
As to the idea, I like it. I think you should make it clear what you expect should be PvP and what is PvE within the tutorial. Frankly, I see no reason that both sections could not support a seperate PvP and then another PvE component. In fact, based upon the comment just above mine, I think it would make the whole system much more palletable.
Thanks for the clarification here. I guess then what I am saying it that you have made PvP a fairly comprehensive space combat sequence and PvE ground oriented. It is just my opinion but I think that you could have the best of both worlds so that PvP get good comprehensive ground mission and space missioins AND that PvE players get good comprehensive ground and space missions. I think if you think about it and expand what you have just a little bit you still could get the best of both.
One thing that just came to me as an example. On your first zone, you denoted 4 hours as essentially "PvP time" as the instance would only then be vunerable to real player attack. Why not make another set time period vunerable to PvE attack of similar proportion but limited objectives (for the AI attackers). Also, there could be similar zones that could be captured from AI defenders by groups of real players. Perhaps they could be zones used by those more shadowy factions you mention. Anyway, just some thoughts.
ah I see. perhaps the final stage of a pvp invasion could be a ground base raid.
the pve raider idea was basically if you want to invade and not do it during the 4 hour window, you need to spend enough rescources to have pve raiders kill the flagship thus flipping the system to vulnerable.
the ground in the pve portion was a part of it, I think in there I mentioned the same pve ship raid mechanic.
I still feel the pve side needs some more non combat stuff, but its hard to come up with.