Will STO have any war mechanics?

[cocoa-jin]

Will there be or are there plans for anything included in the game model that encourages, rewards and makes actual PvP war dynamics possible...or will we be just be repeatedly blowing each other up in PvP for no real purpose?

Will the war content be PvE only, or will their be dynamic and meaningful objectives based on faction PvP engagements in pursuit of these objectives?

Will we be able to impact faction ownership/occupation of systems, sectors, clusters, etc?

We are at war right? Will the war actually play our for us, or will it be just a back drop to flavor the game universe without actually ever playing out? Is it war in story and narration only or a ever changing ebb and flow of re-drawn borders, territory gained and lossed based on actual battles played out between players/fleets and factions?

[ODST_General]

This hasn't really been covered to much, someone else may be able to answer you to some small extent but honestly the only people who really know are the Devs I believe.

[Azurian]

Have you forgotten about the planets in the Neutral Zone, Cocoa? That they give bonuses to those who have control over them. (One planet was hinted at having a cloaking bonus).

And fighting for those worlds, would be similar to the PvP zones in Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR zones. (Though personally, I would love to see a movable front, within certain limitations of course. Don't need Klingons pushing all the way to Earth or Federation all the way to Q'onos because of players not being interested in PvP.)

[JacobFlowers]

Have you forgotten about the planets in the Neutral Zone, Cocoa? That they give bonuses to those who have control over them. (One planet was hinted at having a cloaking bonus).

And fighting for those worlds, would be similar to the PvP zones in Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR zones. (Though personally, I would love to see a movable front, within certain limitations of course. Don't need Klingons pushing all the way to Earth or Federation all the way to Q'onos because of players not being interested in PvP.)

I think what Coco is asking about is in regards to whether the STO universe will be genuinely dynamic, or if it is all static except that which happens in the neutral zone.

Valid questions, goooood questions. But we already know Cryptic is not ready to talk about these things yet. Likely they aren't nailed down yet.

Read the latest interview at the old gamers website. Fantastic interview... however Cryptic really doesn't have much to say in the way that is new or interesting (except that the Vo'Quv can launch pet BoPs).

[Azurian]

Be really nice if the entire Galaxy was that dynamic. But I'm guessing the Galaxy is going to be pretty static outside the Neutral Zone. With the only changes would be in storyline events and new information players provide during First Contacts.

Me personally, I would love if we (the players) have a major influence over the events in the Galaxy. Where one player could really make a difference (like Kirk or Picard). For instance, forging alliances with the Cardassians, Romulans, or the Tholians. Or perhaps the opposite in staring incidences that lead to war with them.

Now that would really make things interesting and put STO on the map.

[ODST_General]

Have you forgotten about the planets in the Neutral Zone, Cocoa? That they give bonuses to those who have control over them. (One planet was hinted at having a cloaking bonus).

And fighting for those worlds, would be similar to the PvP zones in Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR zones. (Though personally, I would love to see a movable front, within certain limitations of course. Don't need Klingons pushing all the way to Earth or Federation all the way to Q'onos because of players not being interested in PvP.)

Seemed to have missed that discussion.

[dr_truth]

Be really nice if the entire Galaxy was that dynamic. But I'm guessing the Galaxy is going to be pretty static outside the Neutral Zone. With the only changes would be in storyline events and new information players provide during First Contacts.

Me personally, I would love if we (the players) have a major influence over the events in the Galaxy. Where one player could really make a difference (like Kirk or Picard). For instance, forging alliances with the Cardassians, Romulans, or the Tholians. Or perhaps the opposite in staring incidences that lead to war with them.

Now that would really make things interesting and put STO on the map.

Agreed, it would be totally awesome. Only problem is everyone will want to be the Kirks and Picards and that would create total chaos if every single person on both factions had that sort of influence.

[JacobFlowers]

Be really nice if the entire Galaxy was that dynamic. But I'm guessing the Galaxy is going to be pretty static outside the Neutral Zone. With the only changes would be in storyline events and new information players provide during First Contacts.

Me personally, I would love if we (the players) have a major influence over the events in the Galaxy. Where one player could really make a difference (like Kirk or Picard). For instance, forging alliances with the Cardassians, Romulans, or the Tholians. Or perhaps the opposite in staring incidences that lead to war with them.

Now that would really make things interesting and put STO on the map.

I agree Azurian, it would make for a pretty awesome and innovative game. However I think it might be a very big development thing.

It could be watered down so that galaxy level acheivements (i.e. sector take overs, relations with NPC races etc) require the efforts of multiple players to effect change rather than one (although that could also happen on occasion but to a lesser more rare degree). It could be similar to the "war effort' as seen in WoW for the old An'Qiraj raids... only with missions more developed and less tedious.

Hopefully it can be in the resources to incorporate a truely dynamic universe sometime not too long after launch, similar to what was written about in the August 2008 Ask Cryptic (the very first one)

[cocoa-jin]

Have you forgotten about the planets in the Neutral Zone, Cocoa? That they give bonuses to those who have control over them. (One planet was hinted at having a cloaking bonus).

And fighting for those worlds, would be similar to the PvP zones in Dark Ages of Camelot's RvR zones. (Though personally, I would love to see a movable front, within certain limitations of course. Don't need Klingons pushing all the way to Earth or Federation all the way to Q'onos because of players not being interested in PvP.)

I never knew that...Planets give bonuses to the faction that controls them? Interesting...Then I hope they make this/these strategic areas very numerous. I would be disappointed if there was only a handful of strategic assets to fight over.

I'd hope the concept of control is a bit more expansive than just holding the planet, but also includes holding the system and surrounding systems/logistic lanes back to sovereign/core terrirtorial space. That way all combat for a strategic resource wouldnt be pidegon holed onto and in orbit around the planet...that would result in a disorganized frag-fest. Nothing will come about as players and their ships just keep recycling back into the fight after defeat.

I also dont want to see scheduled battles....you know, where we all sit in a waiting room waiting for the battle to start, then we all run amuck until the battle timer expires. I'd like battles for strategic assets to be fluid, spontaneous and in the hands of the combatants and their Command strutures(players and their Fleets). Where incursions and defense of assets ebbs and flows as attackers muster up numbers to attack as they see fit...and the defenders maintain a presence that responds to and calls in for support when enemy attacks are commenced.

I'd like to see something like the holding and securing of a space lane(s) to and from the strategic asset before one can occupy it and utilize the bonus. That way you have to strategically advance to the asset in order to take it and hold an open space lane(s) to utilize it. The enemy can either eliminate or reduce your bonus by closing your space lane(s), but must also create their own space lane to the asset before their occupation of the asset(weither it come before or after the creation of a secure space lane) provides a bonus to their faction.

This adds dynamic and dispersed combat fronts. It provides diversity in how one attempts to acquire and hold strategic assets. It promotes intelliegent tactics and strategic planning for the holding of strategic assets and the distributionof the bonuses they provide. It provides a full time, 24/7 dynamic and player/fleet driven, war mechanic for purposeful PvP that provides faction-wide benefits.

I can imagine Fleets/groups and individuals from both sides looking at the battle fronts and the strategic holdings of each faction...and then taking that outlook and planning coordinated assaults and defenses for the day. The Feds might see the Klingons working toward an asset planet that provides an armor bonus...that days objective in response would be setting up defense patrols in and around that system. They may also muster up a larger offensive force to finish a push for planet that will provide a phaser/disruptor bonus. The Klingons may be focused on the cloak bonus system they've aquired, while doing lightning strikes on the Fed forces that appear to be pushing toward the phaser/disruptor asset.

It would be totally dynamic, fluid and player driven. Players from each side can operate on behalf of their faction's interests for these assets independently(even a bunch of lone wolfs working independently for the same cause will effectivly act as a semi-coordinated wolf pack). Or players/groups/Fleets can work together, communicating and coordinating with other individuals/groups/Fleets for an organized war strategy.

The coordination will happen on its own, the incentives in bonuses will insure that. It'll happen through chat, PM/mail, through voice servers, web-sites, Alliances, etc. All we need is a small mechanic for the game server to recognize ownership(already there apparently) and the ability to recognize open space lanes from the assets to the core territories in order to throttle the bonuses to the faction...and plenty of space(a large Neutral/Contention Zone to hash out the war.

[perrigrine_falcon]

Hello, and welcome to the Star Trek Online forums!

There are at least three other active threads on this same topic. Perhaps you'd like to read/post in one of those threads instead of starting yet another one?

If you'd like more information about STO, you might find these threads helpful:
Ask Cryptic Blog Compilation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=22923)
Dev Chat Transcript Compilation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=27354)
Developer Interviews (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=12530)
Everything we know about STO (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14535)
STO Video Consolidation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=28328)

You might also want to go here and sign up for beta testing (http://www.startrekonline.com/) if you haven't already done so.

Welcome aboard captain!

[Blademaven]

Hey I'd love it if that were the case, and seeing as how cryptic has stated they only want one large server the idea of having the war play itself out has merit. Unfortunately they havn't mentioned much about these things at all. Either this will not be a PVP based game (a most dangerous oversight) or they wish to surprise the world with something new.


P.S. I say most dangerous oversight because FF12 failed for lack of PVP and as much as I love Star Trek if they couldn't pull that off no one can. Please nobody shout 'were red squad and we can do anything' here lol.

[slingbladez]

The PvP game, which takes place in the Neutral Zone, is much more involved and includes objectives and rewards (including character advancement) which offer something entirely different than the instanced PvPing of our challenge system.
http://www.theoldergamers.com/feature/qa-star-trek-onlines-al-rivera/

Hopefully this includes physical changes to the borders too so we can see tangible results on the sector map after we have taken some objectives.

[Azurian]

.....
I would agree, who knows how many planets are placed in the Neutral Zone.

And I agree with scheduled battles. That's what annoys me, because it turns the enjoyment of playing a game, and turn it into a second job.

Also the control of space lanes is interesting. Because I had a similar impression regarding Player Starbases, where fleets were responsibile in protecting their supply lines from other fleets or pirates. Perhaps Cryptic will think about such a system for the Freelancer expansion?


I agree Azurian, it would make for a pretty awesome and innovative game. However I think it might be a very big development thing.

It could be watered down so that galaxy level acheivements (i.e. sector take overs, relations with NPC races etc) require the efforts of multiple players to effect change rather than one (although that could also happen on occasion but to a lesser more rare degree). It could be similar to the "war effort' as seen in WoW for the old An'Qiraj raids... only with missions more developed and less tedious.

Hopefully it can be in the resources to incorporate a truely dynamic universe sometime not too long after launch, similar to what was written about in the August 2008 Ask Cryptic (the very first one)

Well, I could live with that, with more than a single player causing the whole universe to change. After all it was Spock and Sarak that got the ball moving with the Klingons, and it was Kirk's actions in saving the conference, which the Federation Council signed the Khitomer Accords. And Picard was at times, only a part of the cog in the process of diplomacy.

But still, it takes one person to start the chain, for the others to finish it up. ;)

[SiskoBell]

I never knew that...Planets give bonuses to the faction that controls them? Interesting...Then I hope they make this/these strategic areas very numerous. I would be disappointed if there was only a handful of strategic assets to fight over.

I'd hope the concept of control is a bit more expansive than just holding the planet, but also includes holding the system and surrounding systems/logistic lanes back to sovereign/core terrirtorial space. That way all combat for a strategic resource wouldnt be pidegon holed onto and in orbit around the planet...that would result in a disorganized frag-fest. Nothing will come about as players and their ships just keep recycling back into the fight after defeat.

I also dont want to see scheduled battles....you know, where we all sit in a waiting room waiting for the battle to start, then we all run amuck until the battle timer expires. I'd like battles for strategic assets to be fluid, spontaneous and in the hands of the combatants and their Command strutures(players and their Fleets). Where incursions and defense of assets ebbs and flows as attackers muster up numbers to attack as they see fit...and the defenders maintain a presence that responds to and calls in for support when enemy attacks are commenced.

I'd like to see something like the holding and securing of a space lane(s) to and from the strategic asset before one can occupy it and utilize the bonus. That way you have to strategically advance to the asset in order to take it and hold an open space lane(s) to utilize it. The enemy can either eliminate or reduce your bonus by closing your space lane(s), but must also create their own space lane to the asset before their occupation of the asset(weither it come before or after the creation of a secure space lane) provides a bonus to their faction.

This adds dynamic and dispersed combat fronts. It provides diversity in how one attempts to acquire and hold strategic assets. It promotes intelliegent tactics and strategic planning for the holding of strategic assets and the distributionof the bonuses they provide. It provides a full time, 24/7 dynamic and player/fleet driven, war mechanic for purposeful PvP that provides faction-wide benefits.

I can imagine Fleets/groups and individuals from both sides looking at the battle fronts and the strategic holdings of each faction...and then taking that outlook and planning coordinated assaults and defenses for the day. The Feds might see the Klingons working toward an asset planet that provides an armor bonus...that days objective in response would be setting up defense patrols in and around that system. They may also muster up a larger offensive force to finish a push for planet that will provide a phaser/disruptor bonus. The Klingons may be focused on the cloak bonus system they've aquired, while doing lightning strikes on the Fed forces that appear to be pushing toward the phaser/disruptor asset.

It would be totally dynamic, fluid and player driven. Players from each side can operate on behalf of their faction's interests for these assets independently(even a bunch of lone wolfs working independently for the same cause will effectivly act as a semi-coordinated wolf pack). Or players/groups/Fleets can work together, communicating and coordinating with other individuals/groups/Fleets for an organized war strategy.

The coordination will happen on its own, the incentives in bonuses will insure that. It'll happen through chat, PM/mail, through voice servers, web-sites, Alliances, etc. All we need is a small mechanic for the game server to recognize ownership(already there apparently) and the ability to recognize open space lanes from the assets to the core territories in order to throttle the bonuses to the faction...and plenty of space(a large Neutral/Contention Zone to hash out the war.

Excellent ideas cocoa-jin. I've been thinking along the same lines. One of the reasons I never really enjoyed SWG PvP was that it seemed pointless. Without the dynamic holding of assets and locations, PvP gets old fast. Given the IP behind STO, (just look at DS9's Dominion War arc) the system you describe would make PvP dynamic and exciting. It would encourage players to work together, and enhance our ability to create player-driven content.

[cocoa-jin]

Excellent ideas cocoa-jin. I've been thinking along the same lines. One of the reasons I never really enjoyed SWG PvP was that it seemed pointless. Without the dynamic holding of assets and locations, PvP gets old fast. Given the IP behind STO, (just look at DS9's Dominion War arc) the system you describe would make PvP dynamic and exciting. It would encourage players to work together, and enhance our ability to create player-driven content.

Exactly, it would create an easy player driven war. The devs only need to provide the basic mechanics. They can gradually increase the Neutral/Contention Zone's star systems over time, adding new bonuses or means of attaining bonuses(there is no need for only one planet to give a armor bonus). They just add on to the same simple base model and we will grow to encompass it in our player created war strategies.

Players can participate as see fit. Even non/not for-combatants can participate if the devs create a mechanic for explorers and science vessels to get involved too. The protection of these player vessels or even NPC logistic vessels and NPC facilities that populate and travel the asset and its neighboring systems would be tangible motivators for defending and attacking space lanes, neighboring outposts...and not just the asset itself.

[keekthesneek]

I just hope it doesnt turn into another one of those eve like situations where its just big blobs everywhere would get old, however I do like eves pvp model I think it just needs a bit of refining

[Kayos]

I hoping they will suprise us with a very robust pvp system. That is the part of the game I am most interested in.

[cocoa-jin]

I think you would find blobs here in there, but at least they will be purposeful and dynamic. Dispersed and mobile as strategic priorities change.

[keekthesneek]

Yea and a star trek blob just feels right lol I cant wait any longer I started playing eve just untill sto comes out now 5 years later wtf hurry

[Desterion]

Eve had some amazing ideas on paper, but in reality with players, it worked out poorly. having more restrictions on a looser system like that would be best

[cocoa-jin]

Eve had some amazing ideas on paper, but in reality with players, it worked out poorly. having more restrictions on a looser system like that would be best

Are you suggesting more restrictions for my proposed war model or EVE's? What restrictions or what concerns do you have if you were refering to my proposal?

I'd like to attempt to pre-empt any player divergence from the basic idea...though the idea is to provide more than one way to achieve strategic goals. There shouldnt be just one way. For instances, i shouldnt necessarily need to have an open space lane in order to attack an asset. It should be ok to acquire the asset and then wrok on securing the space lane if we decide to do it that way....of course securing the space lane first would be a prudent strategy too.

[BaakCha]

So does this mean that the system control will be server-wide or just in the instance that's controlled? If it's just in the individual instance I don't see any reason why the side that holds it should bother with other instances. One of many problems I have with a single server mmo.

[cocoa-jin]

So does this mean that the system control will be server-wide or just in the instance that's controlled? If it's just in the individual instance I don't see any reason why the side that holds it should bother with other instances. One of many problems I have with a single server mmo.

Ideally strategic systems would not be instanced. This would include not only the asset system, but surrounding systems and space lanes would not be instanced. If they instanced these like PvE content, there would be no purposful PvP, there would be no war....it would essentially be just boring and repeatitive raid content or something...yuck!

[BaakCha]

Ideally strategic systems would not be instanced. This would include not only the asset system, but surrounding systems and space lanes would not be instanced. If they instanced these like PvE content, there would be no purposful PvP, there would be no war....it would essentially be just boring and repeatitive raid content or something...yuck!

So that means there will areas in the game that will just have the one instance, and the rest will break off into different ones like Champions HQ in CO?

[Rivaris]

probarly serverwide.

so far we dont know if the neutralzone will even be instanced it could just be like in other servers that the free for all pvp zones are in fact a only zone. would it lag probarly but we will see what cryptic has tought up it might just be instanced.

i hope that they will work on that the zones jsut outside the neutral zone can also be taken over but not any further and maby in a expantion some deepspace zones can also be claimed for either side.

[Dagha]

Players can participate as see fit. Even non/not for-combatants can participate if the devs create a mechanic for explorers and science vessels to get involved too. The protection of these player vessels or even NPC logistic vessels and NPC facilities that populate and travel the asset and its neighboring systems would be tangible motivators for defending and attacking space lanes, neighboring outposts...and not just the asset itself.

To me, a decent way to incorporate Science/Research/Non-PvP vessels in the neutral zone fun would be to have a bonus on the bonus so to speak. What I mean by that is depending on what we have to do to capture a system/asset/lane/bowling alley, the vessel capturing it will determine what bonus it gives or how much of a bonus it gives. If a planet normally gives a(random numbers, don't be hatin') +3 armor bonus when captured by an escort vessel, it may give a +5 or +6 armor bonus when captured by a Science vessel. However, like i said, for a system like that to work, it would have to be an actual physical capture of the asset. If it's a system of X amount of ships have to stay around the asset for X amount of time, they could have it so that the bonus goes up or down depending on how many science vessels are in/around the asset. 10 Science vessels gives a bonus of +1, 20 a bonus of +2, so on and so forth. Also! Keep in mind the numbers are made up and not real, so stop yelling at me.

[JacobFlowers]

Hello, and welcome to the Star Trek Online forums!

There are at least three other active threads on this same topic. Perhaps you'd like to read/post in one of those threads instead of starting yet another one?

If you'd like more information about STO, you might find these threads helpful:
Ask Cryptic Blog Compilation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=22923)
Dev Chat Transcript Compilation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=27354)
Developer Interviews (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=12530)
Everything we know about STO (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14535)
STO Video Consolidation (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=28328)

You might also want to go here and sign up for beta testing (http://www.startrekonline.com/) if you haven't already done so.

Welcome aboard captain!


Woooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Peregrine Falcon was banned!

[Rivaris]

i missed that, I render he got to many reports of violation of rule number 14 with his cut and paste response.

it will probarly be a timeout ban i would be totaly odd that it would be a perm ban for something like that what he posted.

[Churchy69]

God damn time zones, I keep missing everthing!

[Tain]

Woooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! Peregrine Falcon was banned!

About time, geez.

[CaptainRAVE]

About time, geez.

Yeah, I visit here as much as I can. But almost every thread I ever look at had that spammed post. It was worse than the repeated threads.

Anyway, back on topic. I hope there is a war model. I always enjoyed the sector conquest idea in the Starfleet Command 3. It was basic, but was a great idea :)

[Rivaris]

Yeah, I visit here as much as I can. But almost every thread I ever look at had that spammed post. It was worse than the repeated threads.

Anyway, back on topic. I hope there is a war model. I always enjoyed the sector conquest idea in the Starfleet Command 3. It was basic, but was a great idea :)

Yeah that was great but i dont think if they add it that you can conquest your way to earth.

If its put in it will probarly be a few sectors with big Res bonuses for either side so the faction of that sector really wants to get it back.

would be fun tho i see it now massive starbase sieze then sector defence while shutteling in starbase parts so the npc constructors can build a starbase to claim the sector or something like that would be fun to see, it would be boring if you would just destroy or capture the starbase and then just win the sector. because then it would be more of a rush and focus fire on the starbase and ignore all the other players.

[cocoa-jin]

would be fun tho i see it now massive starbase sieze then sector defence while shutteling in starbase parts so the npc constructors can build a starbase to claim the sector or something like that would be fun to see, it would be boring if you would just destroy or capture the starbase and then just win the sector. because then it would be more of a rush and focus fire on the starbase and ignore all the other players.

yeah, if it was just capture the flag, there would be less need to truly wrestle control of the area away from the opponent, abd instead it would encourage just "crash and grab" tactics.

To me, a decent way to incorporate Science/Research/Non-PvP vessels in the neutral zone fun would be to have a bonus on the bonus so to speak. What I mean by that is depending on what we have to do to capture a system/asset/lane/bowling alley, the vessel capturing it will determine what bonus it gives or how much of a bonus it gives. If a planet normally gives a(random numbers, don't be hatin') +3 armor bonus when captured by an escort vessel, it may give a +5 or +6 armor bonus when captured by a Science vessel. However, like i said, for a system like that to work, it would have to be an actual physical capture of the asset. If it's a system of X amount of ships have to stay around the asset for X amount of time, they could have it so that the bonus goes up or down depending on how many science vessels are in/around the asset. 10 Science vessels gives a bonus of +1, 20 a bonus of +2, so on and so forth. Also! Keep in mind the numbers are made up and not real, so stop yelling at me.

Im ok with providing a bonus to encourage non/not for-combatant vessels to participate...but Im not sure it should require they take part in the assualt...let the warships do that. We can encourage these non-combatants to participate in manner consistent with their design taskings as a non-combatant. Logistics, exploration/research in and around the asset. There is a reason the planet or system is an asset...the warships grab it, but let the science and exploration guys squeeze the asset out.

I like the idea of the other poster that suggests the automated construction of NPC structures and stations...that would require security of system after capture(escort/security ship duties). The infrastructure must be built to take advantage of the asset. But we can also include the locating and research of the asset source(exploration and research ship duties). Because we have to simulate finding the stuff to acquire it. The bonus can be bigger if science ships are used to improve detection of asset sources compared to no science ships being utilized resulting in simulating "reduced" asset resource yields. I'd expect NPC infrastructure construction would happen in a short period of time in order to get the basic bonus out to the faction, but the science vessel "extra bonus" would require much more time depending on the number of player science vessels that enter the system, to participate in scanning and researching toward the "extra bonus". Perhaps the extra bonus comes after a certain number of science quests in the system and surrounding area is completed...or after a certain amount of science oriented EXP is collected by players in and around the system. So NPC construction may take a .5-1 day...the extra bonus maybe 1-2 days with average expected science vessel participation(which can be adjusted if expectations are off and their is a trend of it coming too soo or too late).

[Blademaven]

NOt sure 12 hrs is a good time for building starbases. Few people will have that amount of time to devote to the game on a regular basis. Maybe one to two hrs. That way the people who started the cap dont have to hope others will log on and defend the construction. I find the rest of the ideas in this thread intriguing however.
Also Perregrin Falcon was banned, but theres a new guy named Peregrin Falcon on the forums. one can only hope he/she has learned his/her lesson.

[Siphaed]

Will there be or are there plans for anything included in the game model that encourages, rewards and makes actual PvP war dynamics possible...or will we be just be repeatedly blowing each other up in PvP for no real purpose?

Will the war content be PvE only, or will their be dynamic and meaningful objectives based on faction PvP engagements in pursuit of these objectives?

Will we be able to impact faction ownership/occupation of systems, sectors, clusters, etc?

We are at war right? Will the war actually play our for us, or will it be just a back drop to flavor the game universe without actually ever playing out? Is it war in story and narration only or a ever changing ebb and flow of re-drawn borders, territory gained and lossed based on actual battles played out between players/fleets and factions?

We are at war with the Klingons (as Federation), but both are at war with certain NPC races such as the Borgs! According to the Q&A with the developers, there will be Borg invasions of certain systems (think the alien invasions in City of Heroes except in space) in which whole fleets will be needed to take on the Borg Cubes. During these invasions I'm sure that both the Klingons and Federation will cross paths that might cause some huge galactic fight.

[Azurian]

NOt sure 12 hrs is a good time for building starbases. Few people will have that amount of time to devote to the game on a regular basis. Maybe one to two hrs. That way the people who started the cap dont have to hope others will log on and defend the construction. I find the rest of the ideas in this thread intriguing however.

Na, should take at least a week to build a Starbase, and fleets should be activiely involved in it's construction. Because it shouldn't be like in SWG where you put it in a location and it builds itself over time.

Fleets can bring in supplies and those supplies become building materials. Also defending it from pirates or PvPers (if close to faction space) would be a nice touch.

[cocoa-jin]

NOt sure 12 hrs is a good time for building starbases. Few people will have that amount of time to devote to the game on a regular basis. Maybe one to two hrs. That way the people who started the cap dont have to hope others will log on and defend the construction. I find the rest of the ideas in this thread intriguing however.
Also Perregrin Falcon was banned, but theres a new guy named Peregrin Falcon on the forums. one can only hope he/she has learned his/her lesson.

Thats the original PF still on the forums...the nuisnace was an imposter.

12hrs may seem like a lot, but it does give the opposition the opportunity to wrestle the bonus away...even if they couldnt hold it either.

But its a faction wide bonus, it should require a faction wide effort to hold it. Plus since its a bonus, it should be difficult to obtain and secure.

Since the game will be world wide and 24/7, there will always be someone around to defend it. The only requirement is an easy way to inform those willing of what and where to defend when they log on. I play a game like this now...sometimes the faction loses something you worked hard to capture or defend...the reasons are many, but generally there is someone willing to log in to defend because its just as much in their interests to hold it as it was for you to take or defend it. Sometimes its lost because the opposition puts more resources into taking it than was available to keep it. Sometimes it drops in priority due to the dynamics of a truly fluid war...it happens...to both sides. You do your part when you can, thats what team work is, thats what being part of a faction is.

[Desterion]

I'd love starbase construction, but I just don't see them putting it in till a couple of expansions down the road

[Blademaven]

That works great Cocoa if the sides are balanced. This is even more important since there will only be one server (at least when your getting rofl stomped you can think to yourself 'In another universe they are kicki klingon but'). If one side has significantly more people (lets take summer vacation for example) it will just create severe frustration in the PVPers.
Speaking as someone who was heavily outnumbered by destro in war all summer I can say that 1hr is hard enough when the enemy has that advantage. But with 12 I wouldnt' even bother cause even if you do take something there is no way your gonna hold it.
Also I was under the impression that people were saying you wouldnt get your bonus untill the base was built. That was supposed to be what indicated you had control. Just my thoughts

[greglg]

Will there be or are there plans for anything included in the game model that encourages, rewards and makes actual PvP war dynamics possible...or will we be just be repeatedly blowing each other up in PvP for no real purpose?

Will the war content be PvE only, or will their be dynamic and meaningful objectives based on faction PvP engagements in pursuit of these objectives?

Will we be able to impact faction ownership/occupation of systems, sectors, clusters, etc?

We are at war right? Will the war actually play our for us, or will it be just a back drop to flavor the game universe without actually ever playing out? Is it war in story and narration only or a ever changing ebb and flow of re-drawn borders, territory gained and lost based on actual battles played out between players/fleets and factions?

The devs have pointed out that the Klingons are a PvP faction primarily. I suspect that will also mean RvR as well. If they follow the Warhammer model it would mean dynamic conquest, and since I plan to be a Klingon player primarily, I really am hoping Cryptic got something like this in the oven. It's the only real way to go when creating a faction like the Klingons.

[cocoa-jin]

We are at war with the Klingons (as Federation), but both are at war with certain NPC races such as the Borgs! According to the Q&A with the developers, there will be Borg invasions of certain systems (think the alien invasions in City of Heroes except in space) in which whole fleets will be needed to take on the Borg Cubes. During these invasions I'm sure that both the Klingons and Federation will cross paths that might cause some huge galactic fight.

Its not a question of can we and will we fight...fighting is the bear minimum for a war mechanic. Im asking can we occupy territory, change borders, have real and purposeful objectives that have significance for the faction and their opponent? Can i do something that benefits my side, while possibly inhibiting the other in our pursuits of war?

Or will we be just blowing each other up for nothing? There has to be more to it than us not liking each other. Can I aid in the acquiring some limited resource for my faction that is desired by both sides...spacem planets, resource locations, travel lanes, bonuses, etc, etc?

Or am i supposed to be content with just some pointless engagement and pi$$ing contest?

[Desterion]

The devs have pointed out that the Klingons are a PvP faction primarily. I suspect that will also mean RvR as well. If they follow the Warhammer model it would mean dynamic conquest, and since I plan to be a Klingon player primarily, I really am hoping Cryptic got something like this in the oven. It's the only real way to go when creating a faction like the Klingons.

Dear god i hope they completely avoid the warhammer route. The pvp was just terrible. If anything, they should go with the Dark Age of Camelot route. Which is what mythic should have done with warhammer.

[dudewhat]

Well from what I can tell from the Klingon Trailer HERE (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=28911) is that the Klingon's war with the Federation and other aliens will be the dominate storyline for Klingon players. They have also said Klingon gameplay will revolve around Houses fighting each other.

[cocoa-jin]

Well from what I can tell from the Klingon Trailer HERE (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=28911) is that the Klingon's war with the Federation and other aliens will be the dominate storyline for Klingon players. They have also said Klingon gameplay will revolve around Houses fighting each other.

None of that implies, suggest or means in anyway that the game will contain what I've asked...so the questions still stand.

[Dagha]

Its not a question of can we and will we fight...fighting is the bear minimum for a war mechanic. Im asking can we occupy territory, change borders, have real and purposeful objectives that have significance for the faction and their opponent? Can i do something that benefits my side, while possibly inhibiting the other in our pursuits of war?

In regards to your changing borders question, I know that in one of the Ask Cryptic articles, they cover that topic. It may not be the answer you're looking for but they said that the only borders that will change are those of the neutral zone whenever the klingons or federation make a push. The actual borders of federation, Klingon, Romulan, etc... space will not change as far as i know. If I find the article, ill add the link in an edit

[cocoa-jin]

In regards to your changing borders question, I know that in one of the Ask Cryptic articles, they cover that topic. It may not be the answer you're looking for but they said that the only borders that will change are those of the neutral zone whenever the klingons or federation make a push. The actual borders of federation, Klingon, Romulan, etc... space will not change as far as i know. If I find the article, ill add the link in an edit

That would be just fine, as long as the Neutral/Contention zone is vast. Im not looking to push into sovereign territories...I dont want to impact the non-combatants and PvE guys anymore than is necessary to establish a thorough war model. The Neutral Zone and any newly discovered systems(and perhaps parts of the Romulan Empire) are the prize...let us crave it up for our respective factions.

[Desterion]

pvp should be contained within the neutral zones, but if the klingons capture vast amounts of it, it should begin to negatively effect the federation in a slight way. Like some increased prices and things like that as the war comes closer to home. There needs to be something so that the federation can just ignore most pvp

[sexymexy]

pvp should be contained within the neutral zones, but if the klingons capture vast amounts of it, it should begin to negatively effect the federation in a slight way. Like some increased prices and things like that as the war comes closer to home. There needs to be something so that the federation can just ignore most pvp


I would hope or perhaps it's already stated that planets will be up or par in the Neutral Zone, perhaps these can have increased resources, I.E. better mining deposits which can really help buff ships and so fourth.

Make tempting targets for both sides to drool over.

[Desterion]

Well that's the thing that needs to be introduced. Most games with mechanics like this have the better and rarer resources out in the more dangerous zones closer to the border for the enemy. Ones near the Federation border wouldn't have as great of resources as ones in the middle of the neutral zone. There needs to be a pve tie in as well to pvp objectives as to draw in the casual crowd more.

[cocoa-jin]

pvp should be contained within the neutral zones, but if the klingons capture vast amounts of it, it should begin to negatively effect the federation in a slight way. Like some increased prices and things like that as the war comes closer to home. There needs to be something so that the federation can just ignore most pvp

agreed...but you dont have to take away from the other faction to create incentive. As someone suggested...giving bonuses to the side through successful occupation of strategic assets in the combat zone would be motivation enough. MMO players seem to have an addiction to "more".

[Desterion]

Dark age of camelot ha a special dungeon available to the faction who controlled the most Keeps in the pvp zones. So crafters, farmers and levelers would go out to help capture keeps in order to gain access to this zone. The dungeon gave increased money drops and exp as well as seals which could be turned into dungeon vendors for gear. The dungeon was also pvp enabled, so if it turned over, remnants of the enemy faction could be hunted down, or come hunting for you. It was a brilliant mechanic at the time of it's release, and remained an important factor for many years

[cocoa-jin]

Well that's the thing that needs to be introduced. Most games with mechanics like this have the better and rarer resources out in the more dangerous zones closer to the border for the enemy. Ones near the Federation border wouldn't have as great of resources as ones in the middle of the neutral zone. There needs to be a pve tie in as well to pvp objectives as to draw in the casual crowd more.

PvE content out there is fine, even giving some non-combat means of contributing is essential...but I'd still like the main war push to be man to man. If you want it for your side(because Kahless knows I want it for my side), then put your tail on the line, take your licks, dish some out and take a committd role in acquiring these highly sought out perks for your faction.

No matter what, in war, somebody has to put 'foot to tail" of somebody else to take and hold something of value.

[cocoa-jin]

Dark age of camelot ha a special dungeon available to the faction who controlled the most Keeps in the pvp zones. So crafters, farmers and levelers would go out to help capture keeps in order to gain access to this zone. The dungeon gave increased money drops and exp as well as seals which could be turned into dungeon vendors for gear. The dungeon was also pvp enabled, so if it turned over, remnants of the enemy faction could be hunted down, or come hunting for you. It was a brilliant mechanic at the time of it's release, and remained an important factor for many years

I really dont want it to be a dungeon/loot thing...just give a faction wide bonus for holding the assets. In fact the stupid dungeon and loot pursuit would distract and divert combat assets to the loot grind.

I'd like to move the war away from the individual based, loot grind model.

[Dagha]

I like the idea of prices going up or down depending on how much of the neutral zone a faction controls. It makes sense when you think about it, if there's a trade route for the federation cutting through a section of the neutral zone and the klingons now control that area of the neutral zone, the cost of getting that item to earth/federation space goes up since they have to go around klingon controlled territory. That said though, Cryptic can't stress enough that they're not making a space simulator, they're making a fun Star Trek game so we can't expect to see every minor detail taken to the extreme.

[mrwalsh]

I think the idea is great; we definitely should have something to fight for and a dynamic system like the one proposed is a good idea. My only problem is with the 'player driven' part. I've played some games with a massive team vs team gameplay with everyone working together and coordinating attacks, taking objectives strategically and calling enemies and so on (which is an awesome and rewarding experience)... and I've played the same games (with the same number of people) where no one does anything. People camping for K/D and other exp requirements, or just blatantly ignoring teamwork to go off for their own amusement or even hamper their team. Even worse is when one side is drastically overpowered/outnumbered...

It would be cool if the players just made up a portion of the units fighting; if there were NPC ships (weaker than players and of lesser rank, to justify the whole admiral hero ship thing) fighting along side you, maybe even fighting constantly in the NZ (to keep the idea of a constant struggle going and to make sure you always had someone to fight, even if almost no one else is around). Maybe the benefits you were talking about for capturing and building could extend to reinforcing and faster re-population of NPC ships. Not something to supplant player roles, but to provide assistance and exciting gameplay when players can't be found (sort of like the henchies in GW, but a whole lot more). Make them localized to a specific area so you won't have one side overpowering the other with a massive NPC fleet (that area would spawn ships-if it could spawn ships-according to the faction controlling it), and make sure each side has an un-capturable home base that generates NPC ships so that it always remains balanced (won't have one side trapping the other side first thing and then having it stuck that way). Maybe even make them spawn (or unspawn) according to current player population and presence in the NZ.

Could even grant some basic fleet command controls to higher ranked PvP players, add a bit more of an RTS element to the system. That's not really necessary though.

Ideally, the only thing the above suggestion would affect is the numbers in a given battle and the on-going appearance of heated conflict.

[cocoa-jin]

I think the idea is great; we definitely should have something to fight for and a dynamic system like the one proposed is a good idea. My only problem is with the 'player driven' part. I've played some games with a massive team vs team gameplay with everyone working together and coordinating attacks, taking objectives strategically and calling enemies and so on (which is an awesome and rewarding experience)... and I've played the same games (with the same number of people) where no one does anything. People camping for K/D and other exp requirements, or just blatantly ignoring teamwork to go off for their own amusement or even hamper their team. Even worse is when one side is drastically overpowered/outnumbered...

It would be cool if the players just made up a portion of the units fighting; if there were NPC ships (weaker than players and of lesser rank, to justify the whole admiral hero ship thing) fighting along side you, maybe even fighting constantly in the NZ (to keep the idea of a constant struggle going and to make sure you always had someone to fight, even if almost no one else is around). Maybe the benefits you were talking about for capturing and building could extend to reinforcing and faster re-population of NPC ships. Not something to supplant player roles, but to provide assistance and exciting gameplay when players can't be found (sort of like the henchies in GW, but a whole lot more). Make them localized to a specific area so you won't have one side overpowering the other with a massive NPC fleet (that area would spawn ships-if it could spawn ships-according to the faction controlling it), and make sure each side has an un-capturable home base that generates NPC ships so that it always remains balanced (won't have one side trapping the other side first thing and then having it stuck that way). Maybe even make them spawn (or unspawn) according to current player population and presence in the NZ.

Could even grant some basic fleet command controls to higher ranked PvP players, add a bit more of an RTS element to the system. That's not really necessary though.

Ideally, the only thing the above suggestion would affect is the numbers in a given battle and the on-going appearance of heated conflict.

Dynamic NPC presence is a good idea. As server or specific faction populations drop, NPCs would be spawned to maintain a reasonable challenge, number of targets and immersion for the defense of assets only. But any NPC presence should be seen as supplemental...no one should expect NPCs to push back a coordinated and dedicated attack...it just slows them down. And as players move in to provide defense, the NPCs numbers deminish by reducing or eliminating their rate of re-spawn(likly simulated through NPC warp in and launch from NPC starbases if present).

[Desterion]

NPCs will be needed. Especially for the klingons who will be vastly outnumbered

[kkmccall]

pvp should be contained within the neutral zones, but if the klingons capture vast amounts of it, it should begin to negatively effect the federation in a slight way. Like some increased prices and things like that as the war comes closer to home. There needs to be something so that the federation can just ignore most pvp


I hope you're not suggesting that your silly PvP games should mess with my PvE game? Maybe my PvE game should mess with your PvP nonsense? Like if I complete a certain mission I close down PvP for 24hrs? No?

In World of Warcraft, more specifically in the Outlands, there are a couple of zones that have towers (or something) & if your faction captures all the towers, then your faction gains a bonus (+5% damage, or something like that). If I am in that zone, it really doesn't bother me whether or not my faction has the bonus - it really doesn't effect me, so that's fine.

You seem to have this silly notion that everyone is a 'closet PvP'er' or that we all sit on the fence undecided. Let me make this clear - I hate PvP, I will tolerate it if it does not effect me. I think it is a bad idea mixing PvE with PvP in a game - I always have. PvP always leads to nerfs that greatly impact the PvE game. I could /rant on for several dozen pages, but I won't.

So, please don't assume 'everyone loves pvp!', because you would be wrong.

At least cocoa-jin appears to appreciate this fact.

I have no objection if your pvp antics are all restricted to the Neutral Zone - it is a zone I will just never enter .

/end Rant :cool:

[Desterion]

well that certainly was a rant. but they should not be 2 entirely independent systems. Not everyone is a total carebear or total hardcore. If you only want to pve, that's fine. But you seem to forget that the whole premise of the game is based upon a Federation - Klingon WAR. Things aren't all rainbows and sunshine during a war. I was suggesting that if one faction owned significant amounts of the neutral zone, like 75%, there should be a small increase in prices to reflect this. That or some certain exotic materials and items obtained from the neutral zone become unavailable based upon whoever has control of the zone. This is not a OMG PVP concept. It was part of ff11. A game that was based entirely on PVE. There was competition between the 3 kingdoms and zones were controlled by one of the 3 or were neutral. The one that controlled it got bonuses while the others were inconvenienced. These things help to create a better community as a whole as people are driven to work together to accomplish a goal rather than run off and solo in their own little world all the time.

And yes, PVE should also effect PvP to an extent. The population imbalances however for the federation and that they are a more pve oriented faction should factor in to it being a more subtle bonus. Having factionwide daily goals for the players to obtain based on population. Complete 5000 episodes for a 10% bonus to shield strength for 24 hours. This would apply to both pve and pvp. Obviously pvp actions such as the taking of neutral zones of areas with rare resources and things like that would also benefit PVE. There can also be server mandated PvP goals. Recapture Outpost 835 in the neutral zone and receive a 3% damage bonus for 24 hours, which would apply to pve and pvp as well. An extra reward of skill points or the like for those who participated in reaching a goal can provide additional incentive. While there does not have to be a directly negative benefit, there should at least be something to inconvenience others to some extent. Likewise if klingons aren't keeping up on their local pve patrols and missions, pirate or Borg invasions can be more common because their defenses at home are weaker. There is a lot of room to discuss certain methods to increase interest and bring a faction closer together.

[mrwalsh]

You can have world effecting PvP rewards without detriments. I like the world at war concept of GW, where whichever region holding the Hall of Heroes gains access to the high level end-game PvE areas for all players in that region. Not having access to those areas doesn't punish anyone, and the turnover is high enough that everyone gets a chance (mostly due to time-zones).

A particular faction merchant price hike according to which space lanes are being controlled might be a little too much (they won't be trading within the Neutral Zone, they're at war and that territory is 'off-limits'), but it could have effect on black market values and other inter-faction trade and bonuses (the one controlling an area will have more control over which ships get to bend the rules)... You have to figure that each faction is incredibly expansive beyond the NZ. They'd have to come up with something pretty specific for other resources in the Federation or Klingon Empire to be hampered by what's available in the NZ.

A more valid point would be the effects of PvE players attributing to their faction's PvP strength. New races, resources and technologies being contributed to the front lines can be see as a major bonus to a faction's combat strength. A true world at war concept will tie in the efforts of all players to their faction's strength, regardless of how they choose to contribute. heh Like Sins of a Solar Empire... you have your combat ready planets tying in at conflict points (a sort of fortification at a neutral zone) with massive fleets and defenses, and you have other planets devoted to research and resource gathering to strengthen your front-line effort as well as the on-going search for adding new planets (with new resources and new tactical venues) to your empire . Both are equally important to winning the game.

[cocoa-jin]

Im not sure increased costs of prestege, credits(yuck I hate that idea), honor, etc doesnt seem totally appropriate. The neutral zone historically hasnt been a resource or financial pre-requiste for either faction...I can see the war pushing both factions to attempt to exploits its resources, but I'd assume we'd see costs drop for the controlling faction...not increase for the losing. The neutral zone would be much less a variable in costs increase compared to the avialbility of resources in areas already held and traditionally utilized for faction interests within their soveriegn territories.

I have an especially significant distaste to trying to enforce some economic model on the militaries. Starfleet and its officers would be more or less buffered from any free-market pressures...Klingon Houses would be affected more...but in both cases, their is the fact that there is no appropriate civilian economy in our outside either faction to properly affect. Without a much broader and complex true civilian free-market to create a natural and appropriate pressure on and off the two militaries and their access to resources, any attempt to inflate of depress costs on players would be inappropriate...It'll lend too much exposure to, and create too much an inkling of free-market participation of these sovereign military social institutions.

I really dont want to see some concept of enterpeunuralism creeping in...even in this manner. Because I fear it will provide credence to lumping some gamey, yet inappropriate economics model in game. Im not against an economy...I just want appropriate economies(yes plural) and the proper affiliations/sub-factions/civilian populations(legal and even illegal) to properly run them. Then look into having the real economy in-directly influence access to resources based on how these militaries are funded(government funding for Starfleet...House funded for Klingon fleets).

[discopunk1118]

To answer the first post...maybe they do it like Guild Wars: Factions. The two sides would fight for control of out posts through pvp. It was essentially a boundary line that would constantly be changing. For instance if you are a klingon in a klingon outpost you will get benefits but if you are a fed and your there...you can potentially be killed OR you just dont get any benefits from the vendors.

[Desterion]

You have to have something with an economy though. If money is worth nothing, then you're going to have the entire game worse off as a result.

[Tain]

You have to have something with an economy though. If money is worth nothing, then you're going to have the entire game worse off as a result.

I disagree. I happen to believe player economies are one of the worst things that can ever be added to a game.

[Desterion]

I disagree. I happen to believe player economies are one of the worst things that can ever be added to a game.

So you're saying all money should be eliminated and everything based on a barter system. How would you work that out?

[cocoa-jin]

You have to have something with an economy though. If money is worth nothing, then you're going to have the entire game worse off as a result.

Naw, you only say that because you havent had the benefit of experiencing a good MMO without one. Though Im willing to bet you exepreinced plenty of horrible MMOs with economies(but oddly never made teh connection that economies make bad MMOs)...its not the economy so much that matters, per say, just the effort and detail that went into making good economies(especially if its part of a well done MMO).

But economies are no more required than a stealth character, or a healer or a big a$$ sword is required...its just what you've seen so much, you make the mistake of thinking it has to be there.

Good content, detail, diversity, etc make good MMOs...an economy can be part of that, but its not required...especially if its not appropriate/applicable.

[warelink]

i like this idea, as long as it isnt all, "you have to be max level to do this" cause that limits alot of players, non the less awesome idea.

[cocoa-jin]

i like this idea, as long as it isnt all, "you have to be max level to do this" cause that limits alot of players, non the less awesome idea.

No way should it be "elite only" content. War has its places and roles for all ship and experience types...even non-combatants too. No one should be held back from supporting thier faction in a time of war. And a combat oriented Captain should be able to rank up in PvP for strategic assest in the Neutral Zone on behalf and in the interest of their faction and its war effort, just as easy as PvE questing. I dont agree that PvP dueling should gain points toward rank...duels are pointless and empty engagements and do nothing toward the faction's interests and its war effort(not to mention it can be easily exploited to accelerate one's rank time...people will farm a second account for EXP).

The war effort has to be given its due. Its a time of war, Klingon or Fed...when its time to drop the hammer, both sides will take their war footing serious. Like the Klingons, Starfleet will respect, honor, encourage and reward Captains of high combat ability.

[Sjet]

No way should it be "elite only" content. War has its places and roles for all ship and experience types...even non-combatants too. No one should be held back from supporting thier faction in a time of war. And a combat oriented Captain should be able to rank up in PvP for strategic assest in the Neutral Zone on behalf and in the interest of their faction and its war effort, just as easy as PvE questing. I dont agree that PvP dueling should gain points toward rank...duels are pointless and empty engagements and do nothing toward the faction's interests and its war effort(not to mention it can be easily exploited to accelerate one's rank time...people will farm a second account for EXP).

The war effort has to be given its due. Its a time of war, Klingon or Fed...when its time to drop the hammer, both sides will take their war footing serious. Like the Klingons, Starfleet will respect, honor, encourage and reward Captains of high combat ability.

What are you doing still running around these forums with your fancy ideas Cocoa?

While I think that having a lot of dynamic PvP functions is a great thought there is a chance it would be too far into the simulation territory. So much time and effort would drastically impact the availability of many individuals being able to participate in the capture of systems. The "gamey" gameplay in many other games allows for everyone to participate whenever they can get on but makes the impact much less pronounced on the game world.

If Cryptic could make a system between the two I'd be enormously appreciative, but there will still be people who don't like it.

[SiskoBell]

Na, should take at least a week to build a Starbase, and fleets should be activiely involved in it's construction. Because it shouldn't be like in SWG where you put it in a location and it builds itself over time.

Fleets can bring in supplies and those supplies become building materials. Also defending it from pirates or PvPers (if close to faction space) would be a nice touch.

Now that would be grand. Imagine a faction coordinating their actions to achieve the initial victory of driving the opposing faction out of the system. Now the faction players must perform missions and defend the system for a week while facilities and infrastructure are built. This would encourage PvPers to act with deliberation and caution.

Imagine the flip side, the word spreads through your faction's PvP community that the enemy will complete their new starbase in three days. Your side has that much time to plan an attack. The other side is coordinating their activities to defend the system while the station is being built. Your side has to work together to break through those defenses and stop the base from begin completed. Who will engage the enemy's screening vessels? From what system will the main attack launch? Who'll attack the actual base? Should some members stage a decoy attack on another system to draw away defenders?

[cocoa-jin]

Now that would be grand. Imagine a faction coordinating their actions to achieve the initial victory of driving the opposing faction out of the system. Now the faction players must perform missions and defend the system for a week while facilities and infrastructure are built. This would encourage PvPers to act with deliberation and caution.

Imagine the flip side, the word spreads through your faction's PvP community that the enemy will complete their new starbase in three days. Your side has that much time to plan an attack. The other side is coordinating their activities to defend the system while the station is being built. Your side has to work together to break through those defenses and stop the base from begin completed. Who will engage the enemy's screening vessels? From what system will the main attack launch? Who'll attack the actual base? Should some members stage a decoy attack on another system to draw away defenders?

Exactly...this kind of activity and content is way better than some bland raid.

So much time and effort would drastically impact the availability of many individuals being able to participate in the capture of systems.

No, not really. You can participate whenever and however much you can. You dont have tobe there hen the walls fall to feel like you participated. Once you accept this is all truly team/faction oriented accomplishments, you'll accept that your presence hours before capture, or while warping in because you died right before capture, your diversion attacks in other systems, etc, etc...is all important contributions to achievein the goal. Just like you dont have to be on the field for the winning play in order to feel like a "winner" and feel like you contributed to the win. Every contribution you made leading up to that win is just as important as the last play...because that last play couldnt happen without all the hard work done, by all players involved, leading up to it.

[Gadareth]

I would think a positive reinforcement is always preferable to a negative. As the conflicts will be occuring in the neutral zone have certain key locations within the zone which are worth holding. Rare minerals or a strategic advantage. for example listening posts or scientific research stations as well as mining colonies. There could also be certain specialised races which can only be recruited if your side holds their planets and whose benefits are boosted if your side holds their planets.

This makes it desirable to hold these areas because there is a tangible benefit but also does not adversely affect the PvE expirience for those who have no desire to face the conflicts. Those who primarily PvE could also perhaps have missions to help the war effort by running PvE resupply missions to the edge of the neutral zone. These missions fraught with PvE dangers could have them delivering supplies which in turn could reduce costs for those in the neutral zone.

Just a few rough ideas
Gadareth

[Blademaven]

Now that would be grand. Imagine a faction coordinating their actions to achieve the initial victory of driving the opposing faction out of the system. Now the faction players must perform missions and defend the system for a week while facilities and infrastructure are built. This would encourage PvPers to act with deliberation and caution.

Imagine the flip side, the word spreads through your faction's PvP community that the enemy will complete their new starbase in three days. Your side has that much time to plan an attack. The other side is coordinating their activities to defend the system while the station is being built. Your side has to work together to break through those defenses and stop the base from begin completed. Who will engage the enemy's screening vessels? From what system will the main attack launch? Who'll attack the actual base? Should some members stage a decoy attack on another system to draw away defenders?

Okay it seems pretty obvious to be that I'm alone in thinking this is a bad idea. I am merely going to throw out a few observations about this approach for consideration.

First lets keep in mind that a lot of people are casual players who may be on for an average of 1-2 hrs a day. I think this would make coordination difficult because it will be hard to know whos going to be on.

Secondly lets consider that even if each faction had exactly the same total number of players their will be deviations in which at some point there will be a massively larger number of people online from one faction. I realize this wont be as bad in this game as in others however by statistcal variation it will happen.

The idea of npc patrolls could offset this but I see 2 probs with it. One the npcs are stated to be weaker which doesn't make up for uneven numbers (unless thier are swarms of them). Two, the reason to create a forward base is to support the ships on the front not so the ships onthe front can support it. Basically it is reasonable to assume that an unfinished base could only support a small contingent of npc ships.

These points taken into consideration I think that with a full week of opportunities it is a certainty that no faction will ever complete a starbase. I fear that faced with such a stalemate war peopel will not 'encourage pvpers to act with deliberation and caution' nor will it encourage us to work closely as a team. I fear that this would merely destroy any interest in PVP that a player might bring to the game.

I'm not saying I woulnd't enhoy the mechanic IF IT WORKED. I'm merely pointing out my concerns about it being able to work.

[Eclipse1987]

No you aren't the only one. I agree, it wouldn't be practical.

[Sjet]

Exactly...this kind of activity and content is way better than some bland raid.



No, not really. You can participate whenever and however much you can. You dont have tobe there hen the walls fall to feel like you participated. Once you accept this is all truly team/faction oriented accomplishments, you'll accept that your presence hours before capture, or while warping in because you died right before capture, your diversion attacks in other systems, etc, etc...is all important contributions to achievein the goal. Just like you dont have to be on the field for the winning play in order to feel like a "winner" and feel like you contributed to the win. Every contribution you made leading up to that win is just as important as the last play...because that last play couldnt happen without all the hard work done, by all players involved, leading up to it.

According to your posts on the subject including organizing defenses and attacks, its pretty clear that most of the time these actions will be carried out by fleets and alliances. I've never seen a group war effort that allowed for just anyone to tag along or be invited into what would have to be a very quiet setup.

And sure some people may not need to be there to feel like they contributed, but a vast majority in the game are going to want to be Picards and Kirks. Its a large part of why we're having everyone is a captain of a ship. Seeing that you must infer that many people aren't going to be happy being a part of a war effort that doesn't allow them to get up on the front lines.

Its a great idea in a Star Trek sim, but in a game where we're allowed to travel the breadth of the galaxy rather quickly for the sake of allowing people to get to the fun it doesn't have much of a place.

[cocoa-jin]

According to your posts on the subject including organizing defenses and attacks, its pretty clear that most of the time these actions will be carried out by fleets and alliances. I've never seen a group war effort that allowed for just anyone to tag along or be invited into what would have to be a very quiet setup.

And sure some people may not need to be there to feel like they contributed, but a vast majority in the game are going to want to be Picards and Kirks. Its a large part of why we're having everyone is a captain of a ship. Seeing that you must infer that many people aren't going to be happy being a part of a war effort that doesn't allow them to get up on the front lines.

Its a great idea in a Star Trek sim, but in a game where we're allowed to travel the breadth of the galaxy rather quickly for the sake of allowing people to get to the fun it doesn't have much of a place.

Groups, Fleets and players can operate independently for the same goals. They may or may not coordinate or communicate with others. Its not all about absolute coordination...the resulting effort and success can come from individual contributions taken collectivly.

So, the efforts to take a system can be the culmination of dozens if individuals who made up their minds to attack a system. Some of these dozens would happen into this system during the same period of time and would cooperate to varying degrees with each other(5 lone wolves attacking a target at/or roughly the same time can be almost as good as 5 from a coordinated group or fleet).

While these guys are operating independently, there is nothing to prevent a Fleet or coordinated group from engaging that system without coordinating with the lone wolves. These coordinated groups could choose to coordinate with the lone wolves or not...it doesnt matter, all that matters is that combat assets are engaging the enemy.

Im not sure the war effort has to cater to the "I want to change he world in 2 hrs) player population. That type of player can get that type of satisfaction from the single player PvE quest content. War is a campaign, it takes time, it takes large contributions of man-power and resources...2 hr satisfaction comes from episodic content.

War is a team sport...you have to adjust your perspective to appreciate and succeed in it. The more self-centered values/oriented motivations dont apply or translate over as well...and it shouldnt, this wouldnt be the place for them. Just PvP isnt for everyone, Klingon game play wont appeal to all, science vessels are for certain people...so would the war(perhaps why its seperated and isolated from everything else).

[Sjet]

Groups, Fleets and players can operate independently for the same goals. They may or may not coordinate or communicate with others. Its not all about absolute coordination...the resulting effort and success can come from individual contributions taken collectivly.

So, the efforts to take a system can be the culmination of dozens if individuals who made up their minds to attack a system. Some of these dozens would happen into this system during the same period of time and would cooperate to varying degrees with each other(5 lone wolves attacking a target at/or roughly the same time can be almost as good as 5 from a coordinated group or fleet).

While these guys are operating independently, there is nothing to prevent a Fleet or coordinated group from engaging that system without coordinating with the lone wolves. These coordinated groups could choose to coordinate with the lone wolves or not...it doesnt matter, all that matters is that combat assets are engaging the enemy.

Im not sure the war effort has to cater to the "I want to change he world in 2 hrs) player population. That type of player can get that type of satisfaction from the single player PvE quest content. War is a campaign, it takes time, it takes large contributions of man-power and resources...2 hr satisfaction comes from episodic content.

War is a team sport...you have to adjust your perspective to appreciate and succeed in it. The more self-centered values/oriented motivations dont apply or translate over as well...and it shouldnt, this wouldnt be the place for them. Just PvP isnt for everyone, Klingon game play wont appeal to all, science vessels are for certain people...so would the war(perhaps why its seperated and isolated from everything else).

I think we're looking at war way too differently in games. I'm still of the opinion that if you think that a single person will go and attack a planet independenty, they should get destroyed pretty easily. With that assumption I didn't think that anyone would do an attack run on a system alone which lessens the chance of several loners attacking at the same time.

All of your counter arguments seem to base off chance of people attacking one system when there isn't coordination or that people without the time to spend should just stick to PvE while also saying that lone wolves should have an impact. Truthfully I don't get where you're going with it all.

[cocoa-jin]

I think we're looking at war way too differently in games. I'm still of the opinion that if you think that a single person will go and attack a planet independenty, they should get destroyed pretty easily. With that assumption I didn't think that anyone would do an attack run on a system alone which lessens the chance of several loners attacking at the same time.

All of your counter arguments seem to base off chance of people attacking one system when there isn't coordination or that people without the time to spend should just stick to PvE while also saying that lone wolves should have an impact. Truthfully I don't get where you're going with it all.

I think PvPers will go where the action is. My plan doesnt assume you have to take all attacks straight to Berlin to defeat the Reich. Lone wolf PvPers can participate and do their part not only by being front and center at the taking of the strategic sset, but also by engaging targets in surrounding systems, taking out the strategic asset's support system. They can engage in lightning strikes and incursions against player patorls, player logistics, player science vessels attempting to secure higher bonuses for their faction.

Lone Wolves can coordinate with each other over chat. If I want to attack Beta-Cryate 3, I can make an announcement while at a Starbase or a faction or sector announcing that Im looking for people to team with. Lone Wolves can and will join up and engage the asset in some semi-corrdinated manner.

PvE can still be present in the surrounding and central system. NPC logistic vessel running the space lanes, acting as re-supply links for NPC complexes in these systems, ect, etc. If you only have 2 hrs, then intercept a few NPC or Player vessel operating in the surrounding areas.

Yeah, it'll be hard...but when has that stopped players from throwing their cards into the pile? Honestly, what do they have to lose...not their ship...maybe a little bit of pride? It'll happen...and as with many aspects of any MMO, some may choose not to spend their time and energy on this content. Thats their call, each player makes the judgement of weither or not engaging war campaign objectives(or any other content) is worth their 2hrs.