PVP battleground ideas

[Reinkaos]

Heh, just an idea here, but I was thinking of PVP in STO, and on-foot PVP, what possible battlegrounds we might see? I'm hoping they're not just planetside. I'd like there to be ship or station-based PVP battlegrounds/arenas, with something important on them, (so the story might go - or they themselves might be strategiacally important), and both Feds and Klingons battle for control of it (or to capture a piece of information on it).

It would be, in my mind, a bit like a capture the flag or king of the hill type scenario - you'd have to "hold the hill" while you decrypt the computer's security system and find the information, and then a capture-the-flag affair, where you fight back to your beam-out point, marked by pattern enchancers.

It would make for a good on-foot PVP scenario (as opposed to ships battling it out), I think. It has to be on-foot because, lets say, the ship's structural integrity is absolutely beat and it's barely holding together and wouldn't be able to withstand being towed at warp velocities, so your objective is to beam over and retrieve info from its heavily damaged computer.

The ship would be in some volatile nebula, or damaged region of space, which weapons-fire would ignite, and which prohibits many of your ship's functions - enemy ships can't fire at eachother or remotely download this mysterious ship's computer, thus forcing them to have to battle it out on the ship. Radiation leaks or structural integrity would force you into having to beam in at location A or B (depending on whether you're Federation or Klingon), and these locations would also be spawn points, so to speak, if you're knocked out.

The ship could be one of your faction's, with something prototype on it that the enemy would love to get their hands on, or a neutral/mysterious ship with something cool on it.. anything, really :D

There could be other "versions" too, other derelict ships (even weapons platforms) in contested territories, where you have to hold the territory (like Warcraft's Wintergrasp, except instanced) for a set amount of time before your reinforcements arrive and the area is held, and you keep/gain control of that sector of space for a while; think of the DS9's importance in controlling the wormhole, and of the series episode The Ship (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Ship_(episode)), where Sisko and his crew have to defend themselves against a Dominion siege.

I mentioned weapons platforms above as they make sense as a Wintergrasp style area of importance which could and would directly influence the space around it, maybe this could be a non-instanced WG style PVP area? But I've begun to ramble now, so I shall digress :p


Any ideas for battlegrounds or features that you'd like to see, or improvements on these ideas and such? :)

[Arcticfrost]

Well if you want to create awesome alien world battle grounds why not copy from a game revered for it like Halo.

[MagnusTyrel]

Well if you want to create awesome alien world battle grounds why not copy from a game revered for it like Halo.

please no swearing in these forums...

[Arcticfrost]

please no swearing in these forums...

Umm, how is saying Halo swearing

[Tamgros]

Well if you want to create awesome alien world battle grounds why not copy from a game revered for it like Halo.

I really hope STO battlegrounds have more depth than a Halo arena.

Battlegrounds should be a little more vast with multiple points of interest and multiple ways to formulate attacks complete with flanking, divide and conquer tactics, etc. Strategy, teamwork, and skill should really matter.

The OP's idea sounds pretty good for an arena match though. I guess I've always just assumed the game would have something like it. My view is that the OP type mission would be a side mission that would give a buff/debuff in the main battle ground area(s).

[Arcticfrost]

I really hope STO battlegrounds have more depth than a Halo arena.

Battlegrounds should be a little more vast with multiple points of interest and multiple ways to formulate attacks complete with flanking, divide and conquer tactics, etc. Strategy, teamwork, and skill should really matter.

The OP's idea sounds pretty good for an arena match though. I guess I've always just assumed the game would have something like it. My view is that the OP type mission would be a side mission that would give a buff/debuff in the main battle ground area(s).

Well ya with regenerating shields, less powerful weapons and grinades all of which probably won’t be in STO ground combat strategies have to be rethought though I find Halo’s level design to be rather good, but agreeably small in comparison to what would be needed in STO, also I’m talking about campaign maps not multi-player maps.

[Phunix]

IIRC Cryptic stated somewhere that they plan on putting in some form of inside faction dueling or arena thingy.
Can't remember the source...

[Spocktacular]

Heh, just an idea here, but I was thinking of PVP in STO, and on-foot PVP, what possible battlegrounds we might see? I'm hoping they're not just planetside. I'd like there to be ship or station-based PVP battlegrounds/arenas

Empok Nor comes to mind. Station-based PvP provides a decent setting for evacuate/hold scenarios.

[Tamgros]

IIRC Cryptic stated somewhere that they plan on putting in some form of inside faction dueling or arena thingy.
Can't remember the source...

The Jack Emmert interview at Gencon talked about intra faction dueling, but his comments weren't really a confirmation that they were planning it, more like they were considering it. In any event, I doubt it will be as extensive a system as the FvF is. Or at least I hope not, I want the FvF system in STO to be pretty grand.

[Reinkaos]

IIRC Cryptic stated somewhere that they plan on putting in some form of inside faction dueling or arena thingy.
Can't remember the source...

This wouldn't be so much duelling, it would be faction vs faction, and depending on which battle you take part in, would affect the borders of the contested space in the winning side's favour. Imagine the pvp ground is an abandoned space station, and the winner gains a foothold into enemy territory and perhaps access to a planet with some special item or resources on it.. but then again I'm merely brainstorming ideas that come to mind here, that I feel would be cool settings for PVP.

I can't see how on-foot PVP (is there a better term for this?) aboard ships (where the ship is the battleground) could affect the space around it much... which is why I would prefer ship-based (as in on foot, running around the ship) PVP to be instanced and not a persisent world PVP area. I would just like to see some ship-based PVP ground in STO because it would be another popular area of Star Trek addressed; just think of all the times there have been ship and station boardings, DS9 and control of the wormhole, for example.

Weapons platform/stations would be persistent, like WoW's Wintergrasp... somehow. I can't figure out for the life of me how one could fight on these and have them be persistent, unless there's some sort of zoning/phasing going on, but I've really no clue. So maybe this would make more sense as a ship-based PVP grounds..

Come on, who doesn't agree this (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/File:Empok_Nor,_The_Magnificent_Ferengi.jpg) wouldn't make for a great point of PVP interest to fight over, floating there in the middle of contested territory, a massive advantage to the side that holds it? :D Ye gads, I want to run around empok nor and shoot the bad guys.

[TavisMacRaith]

Come on, who doesn't agree this (http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/startrek/startrek/images/8/87/Empok_Nor%2C_The_Magnificent_Ferengi.jpg) wouldn't make for a great point of PVP interest to fight over? :D Ye gads, I want to run around empok nor and shoot the bad guys.

Um, your link is coming up Error 404 for me :(

[Reinkaos]

The Jack Emmert interview at Gencon talked about intra faction dueling, but his comments weren't really a confirmation that they were planning it, more like they were considering it. In any event, I doubt it will be as extensive a system as the FvF is. Or at least I hope not, I want the FvF system in STO to be pretty grand.

Ah, sweet. It's good to know they're at least considering things like this, they're hopefully keeping an open mind to all the cool possibilities for PVP that have been presented in star trek.

[Reinkaos]

Um, your link is coming up Error 404 for me :(

Argh. I works when I try it :( it's Empok Nor (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Empok_Nor), floating there and looking awesome and imposing. :)

[loyaltrekie]

Um, your link is coming up Error 404 for me :(

wikia prevents hot linking or something, so it always 404's when trying to link outside of their domain.

[TavisMacRaith]

Argh. I works when I try it :( it's Empok Nor (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Empok_Nor), floating there and looking awesome and imposing. :)
Ah, sweet, that link works ^_^ Thanks ^_^

wikia prevents hot linking or something, so it always 404's when trying to link outside of their domain.
Ya, that's what I was figuring was happening.

[CaptainHanson]

I like the ideas of the OP. A starbase under Klingon attack sends out a system wide distress call, ships come racing to the rescue, hopefully before the klingons capture and take over the stations computers. If they succeed, the Station turns to a Klingon station, if they fail, they die....

[Reinkaos]

Thinking of PVP buffs, and how winning a round of PVP buffs you and your side, how about a PVP target that instead debuffs the enemy side?

Much like Martok dealt the Dominion's war efforts a huge blow at Monac IV (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Monac_IV), why not have a world PVP target/mission to strike deep into enemy territory and attack some installation, which if successful, would result in some debuff to them? Perhaps less reinforcements to call upon, or the possibility of full repair and restock is pushed back to the next station, or their repairs and resupplies aren't 100%?

Have a resupply station/shipyard type of place on the very borders of the contested zone that if disabled, would force you have a subpar repair/resupply, or to go to the next station for a full repair/resupply, which would give the other side that advtange, as your lines would be a little more vulnerable and stressed from being that much further from support.

[Leonidusroar]

Thinking of PVP buffs, and how winning a round of PVP buffs you and your side, how about a PVP target that instead debuffs the enemy side?


/agree... A debuff would call much more atention than a buff. Good thinking. I like this idead as a whole, keep it up.

[ransomwk]

The thread made me think of the arsenal of freedom from TNG for some reason. Though it got me thinking...it occurs to me that the neutral zone could be broken up into many small/mid sized sectors, each with build nodes. AI freighter convoys show up to build on these points, creating weapon platforms, small space stations, listening posts, etc. The players would have to maintain superiority in a given sector while the freighters build these things. Each object would provide some advantage.


Space station: in sector repair/resupply
Weapon platforms: covering fire
Listening posts: advanced warning of enemy ships and or effectively extending sensor range for all friendly ships
Communications node: scramble enemy communications, like replacing every 3rd character in a chat box with some gibberish
Asteroid mining complex: cheaper repair/resupply


It would also be interesting to have a limited number of these construction ships in the sector. Three maybe. That way they would need to be escorted while they are out building/repairing things.

If a given sector become fully developed by one faction, then the freighters move onto the next deepest sector. Leaving the previous one firmly under one side's control. The other side then needs to push back, to kick them out of the second sector in order to begin pushing back into the first. A player could always take themselves into the first, but the AI freighters would not. The grid of sectors can be made to allow flanking attacks on an otherwise secure sector, by being deep enough to have two sectors secured by opposing factions side by side.

They could also throw in a couple larger sectors featuring a solar system, with a few more construction ships involved, more build points, maybe a few more types of station available. As well as providing some benefit to all ships in the neutral zone. Perhaps from something inherent to one of the planets, or from a facility constructed there.

Personal combat can come into play on these stations/planets. Maybe instead of destroying the opposing faction's station in a given sector, board it and take over. Save yourselves the trouble of waiting for your own to be built. We could have folks boarding stations, landing on planets to assault a base, maybe board the other faction's construction ship, slow the enemy construction and accelerate their own.

Come to an enemy controlled planet, you can attack their station, board it and take over, or run past to land on the planet to knock out the remote power station either by shooting it with your ship or assaulting it on foot.

[Reinkaos]

The thread made me think of the arsenal of freedom from TNG for some reason. Though it got me thinking...it occurs to me that the neutral zone could be broken up into many small/mid sized sectors, each with build nodes. AI freighter convoys show up to build on these points, creating weapon platforms, small space stations, listening posts, etc. The players would have to maintain superiority in a given sector while the freighters build these things. Each object would provide some advantage.


Space station: in sector repair/resupply
Weapon platforms: covering fire
Listening posts: advanced warning of enemy ships and or effectively extending sensor range for all friendly ships
Communications node: scramble enemy communications, like replacing every 3rd character in a chat box with some gibberish
Asteroid mining complex: cheaper repair/resupply


It would also be interesting to have a limited number of these construction ships in the sector. Three maybe. That way they would need to be escorted while they are out building/repairing things.

If a given sector become fully developed by one faction, then the freighters move onto the next deepest sector. Leaving the previous one firmly under one side's control. The other side then needs to push back, to kick them out of the second sector in order to begin pushing back into the first. A player could always take themselves into the first, but the AI freighters would not. The grid of sectors can be made to allow flanking attacks on an otherwise secure sector, by being deep enough to have two sectors secured by opposing factions side by side.

They could also throw in a couple larger sectors featuring a solar system, with a few more construction ships involved, more build points, maybe a few more types of station available. As well as providing some benefit to all ships in the neutral zone. Perhaps from something inherent to one of the planets, or from a facility constructed there.

Personal combat can come into play on these stations/planets. Maybe instead of destroying the opposing faction's station in a given sector, board it and take over. Save yourselves the trouble of waiting for your own to be built. We could have folks boarding stations, landing on planets to assault a base, maybe board the other faction's construction ship, slow the enemy construction and accelerate their own.

Come to an enemy controlled planet, you can attack their station, board it and take over, or run past to land on the planet to knock out the remote power station either by shooting it with your ship or assaulting it on foot.

Nice ideas! This would tie in very nicely with what has been said in another thread (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=20450), with regards to different ships and their roles in combat and how these would sync together, as well as the overall PVP strategies you mentioned.

It's pretty obvious that science ships will have the best sensors and longest sensor ranges, and cloaked vessels will be able to sneak behind the lines and launch attacks/distract, or cause general havoc; there could be recon missions, hit-and-run, siege, and concerted assaults on certain areas. Could be pretty deep pvp, and spread out across the sector(s) so as not to create intense lag in one place.

Organised assaults would be more successful overall, maybe even against overwhelming numbers, with science vessels "looking ahead", Capital ships safeguarding certain installations/laying siege to others, smaller vessels perhaps distracting or ambushing the enemy. Cloaked vessels could also ambush ships, or even do sabotage missions, beaming aboard listening posts and sabotaging them (I would love to see a "misinformation" option, to make the listening post relay false information and make enemy vessels appear where they are not).

This type of pvp might persuade players to work together and be more organised to be successful and reap the rewards that controlling that sector would give.

I hope the devs are reading this :o

[CaptainHanson]

I don't want to see any buffs. I want combat based on tactics and ship specs. Buffs kill a game

[Reinkaos]

I don't want to see any buffs. I want combat based on tactics and ship specs. Buffs kill a game

How about instead of your typical buff, i.e +5% damage, you get increased/decreased efficiency and convenience through controlling the area (besides the special resources or whatever the area might hold) - that is to say if you control the area, you get a "forward base" where you'll spawn if you're killed in the area, and where you can go to for repairs and quests maybe, whereas the enemy will have to go to their nearest base, which would be a fair bit away inside their space by comparison.

This way, attacks on the area would have to organised and strategic to succeed, as they'll be further from their nearest base, but they'll have a lot to gain in controlling the area through the local resources they'll gain and also the convenience of having that forward base from which to push on. This could also be close to deep/unexplored space for another reason to control it - not cruicial for PVE, but convenient if you're lazy and want "the wild" right next door to you.

[ransomwk]

I don't want to see any buffs. I want combat based on tactics and ship specs. Buffs kill a game

From the Oslo ship of the line article;

"The Oslo has limited room on board for medical or scientific research facilities, and it will often work in concert with other ships that have improved sensor arrays and laboratories. Being able to coordinate with an engineering vessel will keep the Oslo fighting for longer than it could without such support, making it an ideal vessel for battle groups and fleet actions."

Per the last line, ships will be able to support each other via non-combat methods. So basically we're already going to be dealing with buffs, we just wont call them "buffs", but rather "support". Exactly what for this "support" will take remains to be seen.

[Leonidusroar]

I just hope they encourage team-based strategic combat.

[Tamgros]

From the Oslo ship of the line article;

"The Oslo has limited room on board for medical or scientific research facilities, and it will often work in concert with other ships that have improved sensor arrays and laboratories. Being able to coordinate with an engineering vessel will keep the Oslo fighting for longer than it could without such support, making it an ideal vessel for battle groups and fleet actions."

Per the last line, ships will be able to support each other via non-combat methods. So basically we're already going to be dealing with buffs, we just wont call them "buffs", but rather "support". Exactly what for this "support" will take remains to be seen.

Yeah, before when I said 'buff's' I didn't purely mean +5% whatever. I more meant improved sensor ranges, more NPC turrets, NPC support fighters, shielded areas to duck behind, things of that nature.

The arena pvp or competative PvE matches could be to turn off different sensors or whatever by cutting off the power source to the sensor grid (just as an example). I also like the idea of fighting over tech, races, resources and things of that nature.

[Citationpilot]

Only thing I could think to add to the OP's idea is that of a multi-stage battle ground. Possibly where you begin the engagement in-ship and it leads to ground-based combat. Basically, your factions performance in-space determines where you start on the ground.

I could see it going one of two ways:

1. The loser in-space will have fled to the surface or station and holds the emplacements forcing the opposing faction to storm the gates so to speak.

Or

2. The loser in-space will be forced to emergency transport to a location held by the enemy in hopes of capturing a communications array to request reinforcements.

Which way it goes could be determined by where you were when the fight broke out. If you were in your factions space (defending) and you lost in space you would have the high ground in the 2nd stage. And vica versa if you were the attacking force and lost.

Anyway, would seem to make for a bit more interesting pvp since it allows for each player to contribute based on their personal abilities.

[Condemnation]

This thread makes me cry. Seriously, none of you seem to understand what pvp is.

First off, Halo? Seriously? Go play it if you want it, leave it out of Trek.

Second: - Battlegrounds. I get it, i really do. You play WoW, maybe WAR, and you figure that battlegrounds are pvp. Ok, no. They are not pvp at all. Battlegrounds are little sandbox encounters that are only in games so that the rest of the population who whines about pvp can avoid them. Battlegrounds in theory sound cool but in practice they are simply static fights that never ever change and people only play so that they can get the PVE rewards out of them. They are not pvp, no one does then to pvp, and frankly they were a FAILED experiment from WoW. If you have ever played WoW and tried to actually go fight the enemy, you get yelled at because the rest of the people just want to flip the battleground as many times as they can. Look at Alterac Valley for reference. I doubt that any of you have been in a match that lasted longer than twenty minutes...why then did they used to last days? Partly because blizzard nerfed the bosses, but more so because people stopped fighting each other. They just run past each other and go for the objective at the end never bothering to defend or fight. THAT ISN'T PVP!

WAR took the concept and said, oh people seem to like this because they do them over and over again. They misjudged why people actually do them, and added them to an already pvp game making their open world pvp objectives completely worthless. The problem with Battlegrounds is that once you give people something to farm, they wont do anything else for fear that they will fall behind the people who do actually do them..

So, if battlegrounds are the ONLY pvp that you are going to put in the game, super, no problem. HOWEVER, if there is going to be open world pvp, then there needs to be no Battlegrounds, because if you put them both in the same game, then you will end up with people farming battlegrounds and ignoring the open world pvp twenty feet away. We saw this in WAR, while my guild was busy fighting for the castle, in view of the war camp...about fifty people were standing in the camp waiting for their battleground to spawn. When someone mentioned that there were enemies attacking their castle....their response..."dont worry, we are safe in here." They were farming. They had no intention of actually pvping, that was incidental. They just wanted the rewards.

So no, no battlegrounds. If you want cool encounters by all means put them in, but don't make them instanced. Put in two fleets of ships that once every couple of hours clash, fight, and then pull back so that people can join in if they want. Put some quests out there for them, but don't make it instanced, otherwise people will ignore all else and just farm it without regard for the content and without regard for actually pvping.

Battlegrounds are NOT PvP!

[Tamgros]

This thread makes me cry. Seriously, none of you seem to understand what pvp is.

First off, Halo? Seriously? Go play it if you want it, leave it out of Trek.

Second: - Battlegrounds. I get it, i really do. You play WoW, maybe WAR, and you figure that battlegrounds are pvp. Ok, no. They are not pvp at all. Battlegrounds are little sandbox encounters that are only in games so that the rest of the population who whines about pvp can avoid them. Battlegrounds in theory sound cool but in practice they are simply static fights that never ever change and people only play so that they can get the PVE rewards out of them. They are not pvp, no one does then to pvp, and frankly they were a FAILED experiment from WoW. If you have ever played WoW and tried to actually go fight the enemy, you get yelled at because the rest of the people just want to flip the battleground as many times as they can. Look at Alterac Valley for reference. I doubt that any of you have been in a match that lasted longer than twenty minutes...why then did they used to last days? Partly because blizzard nerfed the bosses, but more so because people stopped fighting each other. They just run past each other and go for the objective at the end never bothering to defend or fight. THAT ISN'T PVP!

WAR took the concept and said, oh people seem to like this because they do them over and over again. They misjudged why people actually do them, and added them to an already pvp game making their open world pvp objectives completely worthless. The problem with Battlegrounds is that once you give people something to farm, they wont do anything else for fear that they will fall behind the people who do actually do them..

So, if battlegrounds are the ONLY pvp that you are going to put in the game, super, no problem. HOWEVER, if there is going to be open world pvp, then there needs to be no Battlegrounds, because if you put them both in the same game, then you will end up with people farming battlegrounds and ignoring the open world pvp twenty feet away. We saw this in WAR, while my guild was busy fighting for the castle, in view of the war camp...about fifty people were standing in the camp waiting for their battleground to spawn. When someone mentioned that there were enemies attacking their castle....their response..."dont worry, we are safe in here." They were farming. They had no intention of actually pvping, that was incidental. They just wanted the rewards.

So no, no battlegrounds. If you want cool encounters by all means put them in, but don't make them instanced. Put in two fleets of ships that once every couple of hours clash, fight, and then pull back so that people can join in if they want. Put some quests out there for them, but don't make it instanced, otherwise people will ignore all else and just farm it without regard for the content and without regard for actually pvping.

Battlegrounds are NOT PvP!

Wow, lol, my idea of what battlegrounds were was way off:o. I blame WoW players for telling me they were awesome and my imagination for then filling in the blanks with stuff that actually is awesome.

Like I said in an earlier post, I think the OPs idea might be ok for a little arena type match off that the main reward would be some sort of buff/debuff in the battleground.

See my of battleground in STO neutral zone is a system of hotly contested Key points. This would span many star systems and starbases consisting of multiple sensor networks and stationary defense structures. I'm talking thousands of key points here, this is game is supposed to have some longevity, right?

The reason you would fight in the battlegound would be for territory, resource, planet, and alien race control. These benefits would go to the faction through the people involved in the battle (ie. the people/fleets who actually were in the battle would have more control over the resource distribution and alien race influenc). But, these rewards would come over time so you would have to hold position over weeks/months and allowing for zone swapping would be pointless.:(

Because the system was so vast, certain sectors could be cut off or flanked by taking sides around them. In this way there would be tactics to it and factions/fleets would need to work together to form strategies.

To correct for imbalance a bit, as one faction got closer to the PvE type territory of the other faction, the defense networks would be better (only makes sense really).

This kind of system would naturally create huge fleet battles:eek: and many interesting diplomatic situations naturally. I really wouldn't like if there was just a little arena with one starbase and that was what PvP amounted to in this game.

[ransomwk]

This thread makes me cry. Seriously, none of you seem to understand what pvp is.

First off, Halo? Seriously? Go play it if you want it, leave it out of Trek.

Second: - Battlegrounds. I get it, i really do. You play WoW, maybe WAR, and you figure that battlegrounds are pvp. Ok, no. They are not pvp at all. Battlegrounds are little sandbox encounters that are only in games so that the rest of the population who whines about pvp can avoid them. Battlegrounds in theory sound cool but in practice they are simply static fights that never ever change and people only play so that they can get the PVE rewards out of them. They are not pvp, no one does then to pvp, and frankly they were a FAILED experiment from WoW. If you have ever played WoW and tried to actually go fight the enemy, you get yelled at because the rest of the people just want to flip the battleground as many times as they can. Look at Alterac Valley for reference. I doubt that any of you have been in a match that lasted longer than twenty minutes...why then did they used to last days? Partly because blizzard nerfed the bosses, but more so because people stopped fighting each other. They just run past each other and go for the objective at the end never bothering to defend or fight. THAT ISN'T PVP!

WAR took the concept and said, oh people seem to like this because they do them over and over again. They misjudged why people actually do them, and added them to an already pvp game making their open world pvp objectives completely worthless. The problem with Battlegrounds is that once you give people something to farm, they wont do anything else for fear that they will fall behind the people who do actually do them..

So, if battlegrounds are the ONLY pvp that you are going to put in the game, super, no problem. HOWEVER, if there is going to be open world pvp, then there needs to be no Battlegrounds, because if you put them both in the same game, then you will end up with people farming battlegrounds and ignoring the open world pvp twenty feet away. We saw this in WAR, while my guild was busy fighting for the castle, in view of the war camp...about fifty people were standing in the camp waiting for their battleground to spawn. When someone mentioned that there were enemies attacking their castle....their response..."dont worry, we are safe in here." They were farming. They had no intention of actually pvping, that was incidental. They just wanted the rewards.

So no, no battlegrounds. If you want cool encounters by all means put them in, but don't make them instanced. Put in two fleets of ships that once every couple of hours clash, fight, and then pull back so that people can join in if they want. Put some quests out there for them, but don't make it instanced, otherwise people will ignore all else and just farm it without regard for the content and without regard for actually pvping.

Battlegrounds are NOT PvP!

Dude, since you're familiar with wow I'm going to use it as a common reference point;

First off, l2breathe

Second, while I can't speak for anyone else, what I personally was thinking about would work like this;
Tanaris is alliance controlled, Silithus is horde controlled, both factions are fighting in Ungoro. Players fight to hold key points, NPCs scurry around ungoro building on those key points to secure them. Horde manage to push alliance out of ungoro, and start fighting in Tanaris. Some alliance then go around and hit Silithus from Faralas in the north. Horde have to pull back to secure their rear, alliance are able to push them out of Tanaris and take the fight back to ungoro.

These are not instances, these are not battle grounds, these are persistent environments open to anyone who wanders in.

[Condemnation]

Dude, since you're familiar with wow I'm going to use it as a common reference point;

First off, l2breathe

Second, while I can't speak for anyone else, what I personally was thinking about would work like this;
Tanaris is alliance controlled, Silithus is horde controlled, both factions are fighting in Ungoro. Players fight to hold key points, NPCs scurry around ungoro building on those key points to secure them. Horde manage to push alliance out of ungoro, and start fighting in Tanaris. Some alliance then go around and hit Silithus from Faralas in the north. Horde have to pull back to secure their rear, alliance are able to push them out of Tanaris and take the fight back to ungoro.

These are not instances, these are not battle grounds, these are persistent environments open to anyone who wanders in.

I am perfectly calm, now go back and read the title of this thread. This thread is called, "pvp battleground ideas" Not open world ideas, not pvp ideas, not world pvp ideas. It is called Battleground ideas. While both you and the guy above you are on the right track, you are not referring to battlegrounds or any sort of battleground system. The OP clearly is. My criticisms and opinions on battlegrounds are perfectly legitimate here.

[Tamgros]

I am perfectly calm, now go back and read the title of this thread. This thread is called, "pvp battleground ideas" Not open world ideas, not pvp ideas, not world pvp ideas. It is called Battleground ideas. While both you and the guy above you are on the right track, you are not referring to battlegrounds or any sort of battleground system. The OP clearly is. My criticisms and opinions on battlegrounds are perfectly legitimate here.
My definition battleground may not meet your little WoW definition of battleground, but all a battleground mean is an area where a battle is being waged. The OP didn't define battlegrounds, he just gave an example of what he would like to see in them. I offered another opinion of what I think the areas of battle should look like in STO. So yes, I was "referring to battlegrounds or any sort of battleground system". I was on topic.

To remain on topic, I think the system I outlined above would help prevent some of the problems of being able to have characters on both factions on the same server (if that happens). Having gradual effects on a persistent world would prevent people from constantly swapping, having it be open would prevent people from being able to throw the matches (as exclusive instances allow), and giving extra bonuses to those taking part in the battle gives less incentive for faction swapping to the side that has been winning for the past few months because you would have had to actually take part in the battle to get most of the rewards.

Spying really isn't going to be able to be stopped, but at least some of the problems of having primarily exclusive instances are avoided.

[USS_Parallax]

Basic types of gameplay I'd like to see:

PvP Instanced, large battles. (like 10+++ ships on each side)

PvP Instanced, small battles (1v1 and up to maybe 5v5)

PvPvE Instanced and World. PvP with NPC help like guards, troops, enemy ships, etc.

PvP World. A Guild might build a starbase in a PvP zone (if that'll ever be possible in STO). Why not attack it? :p Might have some NPC stuff so it's not defenseless when nobody is logged in.

PvP World large and small battles.

PvE Instanced (small groups to raids)

PvE World (small groups to raids)


Equal rewards in each different way to play. Easier ones would take longer. Harder ones would be shorter.

[Reinkaos]

I was wrong with my thread title I guess - I'd just like somewhere where people can collect ideas they have for PVP situations in STO, be it any sort of instanced stuff, or persistent world PVP. Basically the places you'd like to see, and ideas you have to make them fun/unique/interesting, and any ideas you have that might make them work. :o much like this post and those like it:

Second, while I can't speak for anyone else, what I personally was thinking about would work like this;
Tanaris is alliance controlled, Silithus is horde controlled, both factions are fighting in Ungoro. Players fight to hold key points, NPCs scurry around ungoro building on those key points to secure them. Horde manage to push alliance out of ungoro, and start fighting in Tanaris. Some alliance then go around and hit Silithus from Faralas in the north. Horde have to pull back to secure their rear, alliance are able to push them out of Tanaris and take the fight back to ungoro.

These are not instances, these are not battle grounds, these are persistent environments open to anyone who wanders in.

I can't speak for how possible or likely any of the ideas in this thread might be, this is all brainstorming and part speculation, but I'll be damned if these ideas don't sound fun :o

Sorry for the misunderstandings :(

[Reinkaos]

Having just read this:

Zinc: The universe of Star Trek Online is shaped and changed by the actions of the players. The Federation and the Klingon Empire will be competing for influence and resources throughout the galaxy and players can influence the results through PvP battles and a system we're calling Competitive PvE.
from an old Ask Cryptic (http://www.startrekonline.com/dev_blog/ask_cryptic_8-25-08), I can't help but wonder if some of my ideas in my OP would be better suited to this Competitive PVE :)

Particularly boarding some stations or sensor outposts in PVE zones that are neighbours to their world PVP zones, could weaken enemy lines and give an advantage to your side in PVP in the area?

The argus array (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Argus_Array) comes to mind as a sort of example, and at least an idea of a situation where competitive PVE might arise.

[Reinkaos]

Any more ideas? :)

[azozel]

I think a canyon shuttle dog fight would be cool. You have to stay in low bounds due to some sort of force field or you get zapped if you try and fly too high.
It could even be a CTF scenario or something cool like that.
Something cool with gaseous vents that can throw you off course and rock slides falling off land bridges you have to fly under. that would be cool because you could use the tractorbeem to pick up stuff and hurl it at other shuttles if your guns need to recharge.

Or a pit fighting arena on a hostile alien world for scalps of the fallen victims you have slain.

Also I think you should be able to steal small amounts of money or better yet ears or other tokens from corpses of slain players you have killed. This way you could keep tabs on who you have killed and collect on bounties in pvp.

[billybob442]

Any more ideas? :)

What about a world in the contested zone with dilithium mines on it? or some other irreplaceable installation, anything you can't just fly over and bomb because it has to be intact. Then you give that installation it's own benefit separate from the surrounding space... the dilitium mine might give more power to ships in the sector if you controlled it. However it wouldn't matter if the Federation took the whole sector away from the Empire, a few Klingon warriors holding out in that dilitium mine would deny the UFP side their buff. This way the Feds have to land the troops and go tunnel ratting if they want to get their dilithium. I can imagine close combat in twisting mine tunnels.

Another idea. What about missions that are set off by large scale PvP actions? Imagine a Federation world that gets taken over by the Klingons during large scale PvP. Not long there after someone on the Starfleet side gets a mission saying that the Klingons managed to capture an important officer, brilliant scientist... something like that .. before he could be evacuated. So they've been chosen to slip behind enemy lines on a rescue mission.

Just a couple ideas.

[Sumdian]

I like a lot of the ideas im seeing hear im hoping that the PVP zones will never be the same like as in 1 week sector 447 is a combat zone and then next week sector 552 is a combat zone and so on so we are not always stuck in the 1 sector pvping and its spreed out over the hole map at randem sectors from week to week or longer

[Tech151]

All i know for pvp is i want to have a fleet of ships circling the planet with the ability to beam down away teams anywhere on the surface during a surface to surface battle. That way you could have a squad end up behind enemy lines or why the hell out there to serve as a support or sniper team.

[Xenoshaft]

Heh, just an idea here, but I was thinking of PVP in STO, and on-foot PVP, what possible battlegrounds we might see? I'm hoping they're not just planetside. I'd like there to be ship or station-based PVP battlegrounds/arenas, with something important on them, (so the story might go - or they themselves might be strategiacally important), and both Feds and Klingons battle for control of it (or to capture a piece of information on it).

It would be, in my mind, a bit like a capture the flag or king of the hill type scenario - you'd have to "hold the hill" while you decrypt the computer's security system and find the information, and then a capture-the-flag affair, where you fight back to your beam-out point, marked by pattern enchancers.

It would make for a good on-foot PVP scenario (as opposed to ships battling it out), I think. It has to be on-foot because, lets say, the ship's structural integrity is absolutely beat and it's barely holding together and wouldn't be able to withstand being towed at warp velocities, so your objective is to beam over and retrieve info from its heavily damaged computer.

The ship would be in some volatile nebula, or damaged region of space, which weapons-fire would ignite, and which prohibits many of your ship's functions - enemy ships can't fire at eachother or remotely download this mysterious ship's computer, thus forcing them to have to battle it out on the ship. Radiation leaks or structural integrity would force you into having to beam in at location A or B (depending on whether you're Federation or Klingon), and these locations would also be spawn points, so to speak, if you're knocked out.

The ship could be one of your faction's, with something prototype on it that the enemy would love to get their hands on, or a neutral/mysterious ship with something cool on it.. anything, really :D

There could be other "versions" too, other derelict ships (even weapons platforms) in contested territories, where you have to hold the territory (like Warcraft's Wintergrasp, except instanced) for a set amount of time before your reinforcements arrive and the area is held, and you keep/gain control of that sector of space for a while; think of the DS9's importance in controlling the wormhole, and of the series episode The Ship (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Ship_(episode)), where Sisko and his crew have to defend themselves against a Dominion siege.

I mentioned weapons platforms above as they make sense as a Wintergrasp style area of importance which could and would directly influence the space around it, maybe this could be a non-instanced WG style PVP area? But I've begun to ramble now, so I shall digress :p


Any ideas for battlegrounds or features that you'd like to see, or improvements on these ideas and such? :)


I agree- We need both ground and space based instanced /controlled pvp. I think they did say they would have some kind of battle grounds and they WOULD be important for both factions. But I dont think they said if it was SPACE OR GROUND.. crazy i just assumed space.. Nice post.


Also -- this little nebula / stranded ship smells like a good koby!! :)

[azozel]

defending a space station as a character and fighting off players ships by manning guns and shooting from turrets would also be very cool.
So one side is ships only and the other is characters only manning guns and station defenses.

[bjwalle1]

Nice ideas! This would tie in very nicely with what has been said in another thread (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=20450), with regards to different ships and their roles in combat and how these would sync together, as well as the overall PVP strategies you mentioned.

It's pretty obvious that science ships will have the best sensors and longest sensor ranges, and cloaked vessels will be able to sneak behind the lines and launch attacks/distract, or cause general havoc; there could be recon missions, hit-and-run, siege, and concerted assaults on certain areas. Could be pretty deep pvp, and spread out across the sector(s) so as not to create intense lag in one place.

Organised assaults would be more successful overall, maybe even against overwhelming numbers, with science vessels "looking ahead", Capital ships safeguarding certain installations/laying siege to others, smaller vessels perhaps distracting or ambushing the enemy. Cloaked vessels could also ambush ships, or even do sabotage missions, beaming aboard listening posts and sabotaging them (I would love to see a "misinformation" option, to make the listening post relay false information and make enemy vessels appear where they are not).

This type of pvp might persuade players to work together and be more organised to be successful and reap the rewards that controlling that sector would give.

I hope the devs are reading this :o

----


I absolutely agree! Great Ideas! Now they just need to be repeated enought times for Cryptic to notice!!

[bjwalle1]

I think the best battleground senarios should be inside your own ship and space stations.... Planets should be a given.

I think an Idea may be to have many contested Space stations within the neutral zone that can be captured by either faction. If these are captured your faction gains that sector or its benifits maby a repair facility. These stations should not be able to be destroyed. They should only be disabled, such as weapons systems and sheilds. So that the next faction just has to repair and they are set.

Building stations seem to kinda cool but I wonder if cyptic wants to program that much into the game. IM just happy if I can fly my ship around to planets and beam down. lol Plus fight some klingons.

This would simply make the Space station a king of the hill type battle ground where, intruders try to kill you and take over station for their faction or race. I think that each station should only allow so many players in the map at a time reducing the lag and forcing each enemy to fight for their presence in space near the station.

I wonder how vulnerable your ship is when you are on an away mission??

Does you Ship just sit there in space as you beam onto a Planet/station/ship????? I hope not but I think cryptic has some good ideas. I just dont like the idea of my ship floating there helpless when im on a away mission, so that another player can just come up and cheap shot it. But thats ok if It does sit there, cuz then it would promote real team work for pvp.. Somebody must guard the ships!!! lol Cheap shots are ok ,but only if I have a chance to react or act.

[Mandolorian]

I don't want to see any buffs. I want combat based on tactics and ship specs. Buffs kill a game

I agree completely with this, buffs do kill a game the new SWG is a perfect example.

[Mandolorian]

defending a space station as a character and fighting off players ships by manning guns and shooting from turrets would also be very cool.
So one side is ships only and the other is characters only manning guns and station defenses.

Ha sorry to necro this thread but once I read it I had to post, this and many other posts from what I have read remind me a lot of the SWG space system well for the most part. This short post in particular tho, manning guns and shooting turrets you could do in SWG the multi-passenger ships. They had the 3rd person view for people in the bridge, the pilot, anyone else up there. If you were not up there you were manning a gun or running around the ship repairing things and checking the shields ect. Point is SWG had and still has one of the most advanced space combat systems around they should look into getting ideas from there space wise. Ground PvP wise not so much that they probably don't have, another thing in space they could do is eject from the ships onto the planet. I read a post in here that reminded me of it in a way mostly when they said it can lead to ground based combat.

"where you begin the engagement in-ship and it leads to ground-based combat. Basically, your factions performance in-space determines where you start on the ground."

"1. The loser in-space will have fled to the surface or station and holds the emplacements forcing the opposing faction to storm the gates so to speak."

"2. The loser in-space will be forced to emergency transport to a location held by the enemy in hopes of capturing a communications array to request reinforcements."

"Which way it goes could be determined by where you were when the fight broke out. If you were in your factions space (defending) and you lost in space you would have the high ground in the 2nd stage. And vica versa if you were the attacking force and lost."

[krnr]

battlegrounds are for carebears whom dont want a Challenge open World pvp is the only way to go.

[Grey2ham]

battlegrounds are for carebears whom dont want a Challenge open World pvp is the only way to go.

Bad news for you is they stated it won't be full open world pvp. There will be a PvP zone in the neutral zone. How it works or what is in there is currently unknown. They have also stated that there will be competitive PvE (whatever that means).