Star Trek is often diplomatic, MMO's are PvP oriented, which will you choose?

[Travis_1985]

We all know that with Star Trek violence and war are evident, but it's not first resort. Star Trek in general is diplomacy and the exploration of new civilizations, and battle just "happens" sometimes. MMO's are often times seen as PvP oriented, or having opposing factions that will inevitably fight one another just on sight, anytime and anywhere. Assuming there will be one server for STO, when you come across that Klingon ship, or if you're Klingon and you come across a Starfleet ship, will you attack or first try diplomacy, then weapons?

I, myself, being an avid PvPer will most likely attack any enemies that I see. If I know I'm outmatched, sure, I'll get out of there, but if I want to go somewhere and I see a Klingon ship or two just in the vicinity, I won't hesitate to blow em to bits. If this were really Star Trek and not a game, I'd of course not do that... Will you fellow Trekkies seek war, or go with the flow and feeling of the TV shows/movies?

[Evertras]

If an enemy ship is somewhere it's not supposed to be, I have an itchy trigger finger.

Maybe I should just go Klingon after all...

[Saladin_Class]

You may think that MMOs are PvP oriented,

the rest of us think they make them 50/50

or try to

[Alafarus]

Ask a question.....

no asnwer.....

blow off something important..

hail them again...

ask the question again...


they'll answer.


later,
Alaf

[Evertras]

Ask a question.....

no asnwer.....

blow off something important..

hail them again...

ask the question again...


they'll answer.


later,
Alaf

I'll do the same, but the thing I blow off will be their communications for irony. :D

[Boombadil]

Well being Kligon I will NOT be diplomatic in any way shape or form. I will be waiting cloaked for any Fed ship that comes my way . cheers good luck to all ...

[Travis_1985]

You may think that MMOs are PvP oriented,

the rest of us think they make them 50/50

or try to

Sorry for the misconception, I didn't mean they design MMO's for purely PvP reasons... it's just in my title for an attention getter, hah. What I mean by that is; in the deep reaches of space PvP is not demoted nor promoted in the game world, but it's available. If you have an option without as severe of concequences to deal with as opposed to the movies/TV series (imagine if Picard just went around blowing everything up in sight). That was my point, but the games are definitely designed with PvP in mind. Look at the trailer, it mentions Star Trek and "war" in the same opening, I believe in both a PvP and PvE sense, but they're giving you the option of diplomacy to keep true to Star Trek as a brand.

[Travis_1985]

Well being Kligon I will NOT be diplomatic in any way shape or form. I will be waiting cloaked for any Fed ship that comes my way . cheers good luck to all ...

I like that response, see you in the battlefield then! :D

[Niles]

I think it all depends on the situation. TO me I see the Klingons attacking enemy ships on sight. They are a warrior race they love to fight and they believe honor is both fighting and death. Now for the Federation I say it depends on the race as some races hold different values when it comes to combat and as this is suppose to be a time of war I can see people attacking each other blindly rather it be a game or real life.

[Boombadil]

I like that response, see you in the battlefield then! :D

Thanks man , and you probably wont see me at all , I mean not until your a floating piece of space junk. Here's to Epic Battles ... :)

[Neo4me]

We all know that with Star Trek violence and war are evident, but it's not first resort. Star Trek in general is diplomacy and the exploration of new civilizations, and battle just "happens" sometimes. MMO's are often times seen as PvP oriented, or having opposing factions that will inevitably fight one another just on sight, anytime and anywhere. Assuming there will be one server for STO, when you come across that Klingon ship, or if you're Klingon and you come across a Starfleet ship, will you attack or first try diplomacy, then weapons?

I, myself, being an avid PvPer will most likely attack any enemies that I see. If I know I'm outmatched, sure, I'll get out of there, but if I want to go somewhere and I see a Klingon ship or two just in the vicinity, I won't hesitate to blow em to bits. If this were really Star Trek and not a game, I'd of course not do that... Will you fellow Trekkies seek war, or go with the flow and feeling of the TV shows/movies?

Diplomacy will come from Fleets engaging in diplomacy.

Not much ship to ship diplomacy going on. If someone is bigger and tougher than you, you better run.

[seansean]

depends on the situation..might gain more by talking than fighting..that said..I can' t wait light some of you up:)

[Alafarus]

Shoot first, ask questions later.... thats the phrase that comes to mind when looking at this post...


lets just hope the ship your shooting at, is weaker then you... or you might not be asking questions later... lol


later,
Alaf.

[Hagon]

Again, "Star Trek Online", not "Starfleet Federation As I Think It Is Online".

[Arcturus]

I plan on having a macro for when I have to be near the neutral zone stating Starfleet regulations regarding hostile ships and give them a chance to disengage and head off, or we will be forced to defend ourselves.

Yes this makes me a nice target initially but... As it was said before of Starfleet, "Our morals require us to take that chance."

[Kahless_Ruv]

Klingons are not belligerent Neanderthals. They are an honorable and resourceful people. It is the jingoistic Federation attitude that paints them as pirates and other vulgar classes. Disgusting Fedrats.

[Arcturus]

I think Worf would tell you a different story. Ugh I can only cringe at the thought of all the pwners giving the Federation that kind of Image.

I hope the game is structured so that hopefully nowone, but maybe just Klingons can run sneak attacks and "spawn camp" and grief people, but the Federation can't.

that way our integrity can remain intact even if our ships aren't. It will probably promote equal fair play.

[Kahless_Ruv]

I think Worf would tell you a different story. Ugh I can only cringe at the thought of all the pwners giving the Federation that kind of Image.

I hope the game is structured so that hopefully nowone, but maybe just Klingons can run sneak attacks and "spawn camp" and grief people, but the Federation can't.

that way our integrity can remain intact even if our ships aren't. It will probably promote equal fair play.

Why can't you? Is the mighty Federation above such tactics?In all seriousness though, I don't think anyone will be able to decloak his ship and fire upon an enemy vessel without warning.

[Arcturus]

Yes we are, but I wouldn't call it mighty. :-p

Still curious as to how actual battles will play out. Hope It's kind of like Balance of Terror ;)

[ibby1kanobi]

I'm the type of guy that tries to stay as diplomatic and cordial as possible. But timidness is sometimes taken as weakness, and when your at war, preseved weakness emboldens the enemy.

If it's Klingon, and it's not emitting a distress signal or hailing me, its probably gonna die.

Be the best ally and the worst enemy, it makes you respected and feared.

[Arsinoe]

If a klingon comes straight at me i think its pretty clear what his intention will be. If he's not yet in firing range i would try a hail, if he is in firing range however i assume its him or me. :)

A diplomatic klingon, does that exist? :D

[Phunix]

Well diplomacy could definitely be useful for PvE use. For example when a common foe appears (could even be in PvP areas) such as a Borg cube, some form of diplomacy may come in handy such as an enforced temporal cease-fire towards eachother (could be as simple as mutual agreement to scrap accord or timed termination).

Also, some Klingon fleets may be more partial vs "friendlier" Federation fleets than others and visa versa, through accord or past shared experiences.

Another "form" of diplomacy is demanding and offering surrender. The stereotype is that Klingons never surrender but not every captain in the Klingon fleet will be Klingon either.

Lastly, not really diplomacy, not sure if I've seen word on interfaction trading.

[Flatfingers]

Depends on the character I'm playing.

If I'm playing a Starfleet character, I'm likely to prefer diplomacy. And that will be the case even if there aren't any hard-coded rules of play rewarding me for that approach (or not rewarding me -- or penalizing me -- if I shoot first and ask questions later).

If I'm playing a Klingon... depends on the situation. If the odds are even or somewhat against me, I'm likely to attack as a gesture of respect for my opponent's strength. If the opponent seems considerably more powerful than myself, I may open with diplomacy to give myself time to find a weakness... and to call some friends.

If my opponent is no match for me, then diplomacy, while boring, is possible. There is no honor in overcoming a much weaker foe, so one might as well talk with them if there is a reason to do so.

...

Naturally, the ideas given above assume that Star Trek Online has been designed so that diplomacy with NPCs is a viable -- as well as interesting and fun -- form of gameplay content.

I hope that's the case. But we'll see.

Good thread!

--Flatfingers

[jfolds1]

It was the great Mr. Scott who said "the best diplomacy is a charged phaser bank"

I tend to think that is still true, although i would hail you first just to see if you'd like to surrender


oh and i wouldnt go all out on a klingon to start with.. they have been known to fire just for being hailed.. as a warning shot

[Artamas34]

diplomatic at first then if the enemy becomes hostile then his A$$ is byebye

[Blackheart]

I'm going to be more diplomatic,and exploration. "PVE"

If he's in FED space,he'll probably be flagged,and I'll probably fire on him.....Then I'll hail him after i've disabled his engines."he knew he was in the wrong part of space".
But if I see one out among the stars in unknown space,I'll just wave and go about my buisniss.

[Seraphimunimatrix]

Being diplomatic will add a good role play function to the game, if they allow it. Some vessels may respond well, some many demand a tribute. If this is allow to open channels of communication it will add an excellent dynamic to the game. trading of technology, goods, and services. Or like I said demanding a tribute for safe passage. All these events happen on regular basis in the Star Trek universe, I say this would be a great experience for role-playing.

Cheers

[qoona]

to have strong diplomacy in player vs player confrontationm, you would need strongand harsh death penalty, so poeople wold try to negotiate instead of dying. in other case diplomacy will never even be tried, cos even if enemy has better ship you cantry ramming it, or die and come back with friends.the other way tro have diplomacy is having fully player conquested space. so they willl negotiate aliancs, counter aliances, and backstabs.

[AxxoxRob]

I'll most likely go down the diplomatic route. I'm quite excited about the making contact with new civilisations and trying to make them join the federation.

[Captain.Hunter]

I vote: both.

I would really like to see a balance of the two in the game. In some cases firing disruptors first and talking later would be appropriate. In others, an exchange of ideas first might serve a better purpose.

Heck, even the Klingons have ambassadors. They know the advatage of using diplomacy when it serves them well. ;)

[deerang]

I like to see some kind of benefit for using diplomatic measures, and i see no reason why dilpomacy cannot also be used in pvp situations ( if you dont kill me ill give you this ).

The attack phase should start with some kind of hailing process. I'd like to see at least 20% of situations can be accomplished by dilpomacy, or at least have the option.

[trebort5050]

Well Star Trek is not about violence so I'll be avoiding PVP as much as possible. I prefer RP and I'll be trying Diplomacy but I won't be scared to shoot at you if you fire first. hehe :D

[Collingham]

If my ship and the enemy's is on an equal footing i'll probably have a stab at diplomacy, but if i'm a Miranda running into a Negh'var battleship by accident, then rest assured i will be firing everything i've got...

[Meehile]

Thanks man , and you probably wont see me at all , I mean not until your a floating piece of space junk. Here's to Epic Battles ... :)

This is an example of why stealth needs to be available to both sides for pvp. You get guys like this chromosome challenged poster who obviously plays rogue in Warcraft, and will always flock to the stealth class because it has ALWAYS been overpowered in games with pvp.

[Ontas]

I like to think that, when playing a Starfleet captain, I will be representative of Starfleet and Federation ideals. Obviously, there are a number of players (Starfleet and Klingon alike) who have already stated their plan to follow a "shoot first and open hailing frequencies later" policy, so this may simply be impossible when it comes to the PvP side of the game. Only playing the game itself can really inform this decision.

However, if the option is open to me, my ship's primary mission (once again, while playing Starfleet), will be of peace, exploration, and diplomacy. Yes, all indications are that the Federation and Klingon Empire are at war, but I think that a number of situations would warrant different responses depending on the circumstances.

No, I would not fire on a ship unprovoked. If my vessel is "dispatched" into the Klingon-Federation Neutral Zone or other conflicted systems then, of course, being at war, the assignment would be a combat mission by nature, and my ship would not hesitate to fire upon enemy vessels in such a war zone.

On the other hand, if I encountered a lone Klingon vessel, they need only understand that my ship is prepared to defend itself, but that I mean no harm otherwise. This would depend largely on where they were spotted... if in Federation space, they would be warned to withdraw, and I would likely want to call for support from other Federation vessels (hoping that such an option is available to me in game). But I would never, ever attack a weaker Klingon vessel unprovoked, or initiate hostile intervention if I discovered an enemy vessel carrying out a diplomatic, humanitarian, or scientific mission. To me, that goes against the very definition of Starfleet. Still... I have a sinking feeling that my ship will be forced to defend itself more often than I'll be able to convince another player that there is no need for overt aggression outside of conflicted systems.

It seems to me like a lot of players will be using the Klingon faction to justify their violent, undiscriminating PvP tendencies. I suppose it seems inevitable, for most players, to do this, but if I have the opportunity to play a Klingon alt, it certainly won't be my M.O. It would be different from playing Starfleet, don't get me wrong, because yes, a Klingon ship would be seeking out battle. But whilst the Federation has high-minded ideals of peace and tolerance, the Klingons are defined by a strong sense of honor and a desire for glory.

Were I playing a Klingon, honor alone would dictate the level of my hostility toward an enemy craft. There is no honor in popping out of nowhere and destroying a defenseless or otherwise weaker enemy vessel. Such tactics would be (at least from a Klingon perspective) much too conniving and... well... Romulan. As a Klingon, I would not hesitate to engage in battle if I found a Federation ship in a place where it most certainly shouldn't be, there would be no mercy for those engaged in active war zones, and unlike my Federation counterpart, I would accept no surrenders and give no quarter.

But there must be honor in the battle, and to me, that means only engaging those threats who are "asking for it," if you will--as in when encountering vessels roughly as powerful as my own, under circumstances where combat is warranted, and where there will be equal challenge for both opponents.

As I said at the beginning of my post, all of these high-minded "Trekkian" ideals might go out the window the moment I start playing the actual game, especially if I find that the majority of players are only interested in blowing up as many enemy ships as they can (as these boards sometime seem to suggest). Still, I hold out some hope that players (or at least small groups and fleets of like-minded players) may discover that there's more to Star Trek for both major factions than just running-and-gunning every hostile ship you encounter. Ideally, players like me will find equal shares of diplomacy and honor in their respective factions... if they just know the right places to look.

And since so many of you Klingons seem to be hellbent on sneaking around like a bunch of Romulans, backstabbing any ship that crosses your path... I'm guessing that I'll be forced to run with shields up and at red alert 100% of the time. Thanks a lot guys.

[Veronw]

And since so many of you Klingons seem to be hellbent on sneaking around like a bunch of Romulans, backstabbing any ship that crosses your path... I'm guessing that I'll be forced to run with shields up and at red alert 100% of the time. Thanks a lot guys.[/QUOTE]

As a hopefully future Romulan, I resent being bunched together with the Klingons. They were still wearing primordial diapers while we were conquering the stars!

PvP ftw, I'll try diplomacy if it suits me, or if I am feeling particularly merciful that day, otherwise I'll just shoot at the blinking/red/flagged thing until either it dies, I die, or its friends arrive.

[Travis_1985]

I like to think that, when playing a Starfleet captain, I will be representative of Starfleet and Federation ideals. Obviously, there are a number of players (Starfleet and Klingon alike) who have already stated their plan to follow a "shoot first and open hailing frequencies later" policy, so this may simply be impossible when it comes to the PvP side of the game. Only playing the game itself can really inform this decision.

However, if the option is open to me, my ship's primary mission (once again, while playing Starfleet), will be of peace, exploration, and diplomacy. Yes, all indications are that the Federation and Klingon Empire are at war, but I think that a number of situations would warrant different responses depending on the circumstances.

No, I would not fire on a ship unprovoked. If my vessel is "dispatched" into the Klingon-Federation Neutral Zone or other conflicted systems then, of course, being at war, the assignment would be a combat mission by nature, and my ship would not hesitate to fire upon enemy vessels in such a war zone.

On the other hand, if I encountered a lone Klingon vessel, they need only understand that my ship is prepared to defend itself, but that I mean no harm otherwise. This would depend largely on where they were spotted... if in Federation space, they would be warned to withdraw, and I would likely want to call for support from other Federation vessels (hoping that such an option is available to me in game). But I would never, ever attack a weaker Klingon vessel unprovoked, or initiate hostile intervention if I discovered an enemy vessel carrying out a diplomatic, humanitarian, or scientific mission. To me, that goes against the very definition of Starfleet. Still... I have a sinking feeling that my ship will be forced to defend itself more often than I'll be able to convince another player that there is no need for overt aggression outside of conflicted systems.

It seems to me like a lot of players will be using the Klingon faction to justify their violent, undiscriminating PvP tendencies. I suppose it seems inevitable, for most players, to do this, but if I have the opportunity to play a Klingon alt, it certainly won't be my M.O. It would be different from playing Starfleet, don't get me wrong, because yes, a Klingon ship would be seeking out battle. But whilst the Federation has high-minded ideals of peace and tolerance, the Klingons are defined by a strong sense of honor and a desire for glory.

Were I playing a Klingon, honor alone would dictate the level of my hostility toward an enemy craft. There is no honor in popping out of nowhere and destroying a defenseless or otherwise weaker enemy vessel. Such tactics would be (at least from a Klingon perspective) much too conniving and... well... Romulan. As a Klingon, I would not hesitate to engage in battle if I found a Federation ship in a place where it most certainly shouldn't be, there would be no mercy for those engaged in active war zones, and unlike my Federation counterpart, I would accept no surrenders and give no quarter.

But there must be honor in the battle, and to me, that means only engaging those threats who are "asking for it," if you will--as in when encountering vessels roughly as powerful as my own, under circumstances where combat is warranted, and where there will be equal challenge for both opponents.

As I said at the beginning of my post, all of these high-minded "Trekkian" ideals might go out the window the moment I start playing the actual game, especially if I find that the majority of players are only interested in blowing up as many enemy ships as they can (as these boards sometime seem to suggest). Still, I hold out some hope that players (or at least small groups and fleets of like-minded players) may discover that there's more to Star Trek for both major factions than just running-and-gunning every hostile ship you encounter. Ideally, players like me will find equal shares of diplomacy and honor in their respective factions... if they just know the right places to look.

And since so many of you Klingons seem to be hellbent on sneaking around like a bunch of Romulans, backstabbing any ship that crosses your path... I'm guessing that I'll be forced to run with shields up and at red alert 100% of the time. Thanks a lot guys.

Excellent response, I hope a lot of other players feel this way (to an extent). I hope "honor" won't be mistaken for an excuse to be trigger-happy for the Klingons, and I hope Federation players will look at it from the traditional Federation perspective. Though I'll be PvP oriented, I still plan on playing the game with the same attitude overall.

[Rupedogg86]

I don't think pvp is going to be all encompassing in the universe. Therefore whoever is in the pvp zone wants to be there and thus will shoot on sight.

If the game has a lot of exploration with new races and such, maybe diplomacy or battle will be an option with newly encountered NPC races. I would probably go with diplomacy because perhaps the new race has access to a valuable resource or new technology.

[OddjobXL]

No one can say for certain what we'll find in a Star Trek MMO. Players can and do surprise me all the time. In general, though, PvP tends to be an alternate reality from the setting. There the sentiment is simply "if it's red it's dead." That's the point. It's all a competition.

In more complex, freeform, games with serious economics and death penalties there's a necessity for diplomacy that goes along with this but it tends to be a basic, Clausewitzian, formulation. You see it in Eve Online for example in 0.0 space. It's all very fascinating and sometimes Byzantine with complexity and treachery. However, there's nothing like the Federation out there. There are no good guys aside from uncommon individuals that don't always act in naked self interest.

In simpler realm vs. realm games the whole point is blowing the other guy up. Some RPers may make great fuss about honor and dignity but once you check off the box marked "PvP" you've essentially tossed whatever costume you were wearing before in for either shirts or skins and entered the football field. There's really no other way to frame this. It's simply a sporting match and that makes weightier diplomatic considerations moot. You don't often have quarterbacks calling a time out to negotiate where the ball should go.

My experience in PoTBS also shows that inter-faction negotiations can be problematic because there's no one person "in charge" of a faction. There are loads of separate guilds with separate command structures all lumped in to a basket. In SWG the PvP-RPers of both the Rebellion and the Empire tended to treat daily PvP as completely detached from the 'real' IC lives of their characters simply because it was so nakedly artificial and repetitive and unrealistic. It's hard to have the same battles over and over, with all the same people involved and in all the same places, and try to make any historical or contextual hay from it. What they would do, though, is set up occasional IC PvP battles that they kept track of and tried to use in a narrative way. "Diplomacy" didn't really enter in to military RP at this level though espionage or underworld related RP often had opposing characters that needed to deal with each other with words instead of blasters.

STO's diplomatic elements will be RP content in those places where factions can peaceably meet. Much like Pocket D in CoH I'd imagine. We know there will be mutual threats out there that both sides have to face as well. In City of Heroes, which I've been reexploring, you see hero and villain PvP maps but also outside threat scenarios and cooperative NPC organizations made up of heroes and villains.

However the bulk of real diplomacy will be likely found in the coded or scripted interactions with other NPC races you encounter in Episode or Duty missions. That will be in the realm of PvE entirely.

[trebort5050]

I'm going to be going out there in an Olympic class ship if they are available. With it being a Medical ship it's no match for anything in PVP or otherwise, so obviously I'll be peaceful and diplomacy will be my weapon. But, hopefully I will be part of a large fleet and if you pick on a medical ship on a mission of mercy, they will avenge me :)

[icepocket]

I really guess it has to do alot with what faction your going to play. Personally I'll be play a Klingon so i'm looking forward to more of a combat type of game...