What about forced PvE?

[Bazil]

I'm sorry if this has brought up before, but after lurking and searching (didn't really know what to search for), I did not see a thread about this.

There's been a lot of talk about "Forced PvP" and how PvE'ers are adamant about PvP not being necessary in order to obtain everything in the game. No special "ores" or other resouces being restricted to the open PvP areas such as in EvE and I agree! It is terrible having to do something that you hate doing in order to obtain what you want.

But why is this being portrayed as a problem exclusively for the PvE crowd? Us PvP'ers... When you stab* us, do we not bleed? When you tickle us do we not laugh? When you force us to grind and kill mobs in order to get the gear and levels needed to compete in PvP, do we not get frustrated, annoyed and cry like little girls because we have to spend hours upon hours doing something we hate doing?

Please add a function which allows you to progress your character via PvP! Add a resource system which rewards you with ways to upgrade your ship and a system awarding experience and personal character progression through PvP.

And when it comes to exploitation, there are many ways of preventing a system like this from being exploited. People won't constantly "let someone kill them" if the death penantly requires them to wait a while before getting back into the fight, or adding diminishing returns. In random teambased combat where only one team gets rewarded for winning, "letting the other side win" wouldn't be an issue either.

*I had to change "*****" to stab because "*****" gets censored, as you might have noticed, even though it's not a swearword in that context.

[Flixi]

I guess you get your gear and super equipment also throughout PvP.

It is just that there are two ways to get forward in the game. Way 1 = PvE with all its features and Way 2 is PvP with all its features.

There is no nead to worry. Cryptic will offer fun for both without forcing one to do the other. Ok?!

[Bazil]

There is no nead to worry. Cryptic will offer fun for both without forcing one to do the other. Ok?!

Where did you read this? Seems like an intersting piece of information I've missed.

[Flixi]

From the official FAQ on the website:
http://www.startrekonline.com/faq

Will there be PvP, PvE and RP rule set servers?
There will not be separate servers for PvP and PvE rulesets. Open PvP will be restricted to designated sectors of space (far-off reaches of unclaimed territory). Consensual PvP and competitive PvE will occur between the realm borders (the Neutral Zone), where players will be competing over territory and resources with the option to PvP.

So you see there will be open PvP areas, but restricted to certain regions in space, so that PvE'ers can play in other areas.

[Bazil]

So you see there will be open PvP areas, but restricted to certain regions in space, so that PvE'ers can play in other areas.

That's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about PvP'ers having to PvE in order to advance their characters.

[Flixi]

to that question I can't give you a 100 % answer, I just hope think that Cryptic will make vast PvP areas with PvP related missions for you PvPers out there. I would also like to do a lot of PvP if I can progress my character with this.

I would say you can indeed only play PvP - it's your choice. But how far you gain experience and equipment through PvP is unknown. It is also unknown if you are forced to do PvE to get better gear for example. But as I said, I hope Cryptic will put in missions and rewards into PvP to have longtime fun there.

[r2data]

That's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about PvP'ers having to PvE in order to advance their characters.

But that's how you normally advance anyway... PvPer or not. Don't tell me you create a new character and start bashing people from Lvl 1? I had thought you grind to build up your levels and equipment until a suitably high level before PvPing...

[Bazil]

to that question I can't give you a 100 % answer

Yeah, I'm not so much asking a question as I am making a request to Cryptic and trying to see if there's any support for a system like this. I am after all a July member, you lowly August member.

I had thought you grind to build up your levels and equipment until a suitably high level before PvPing...

Yes, and I do not like that.

[Neogunmetal]

It is sad that we really have to ask this question at all. If you want to pvp then do so, but let those that dont alone. Cryptic will set up pvp zones im sure and there will probably be arena style settings as well, but i for one would hate for this game to fall into having to pvp for the best gear like other games have done in the past. Equal pay for equal play...PVPer should be able to pvp if they want to get things or you can PVE your brains out to get the same things. it is your choice how you get there.

[bobh]

That's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about PvP'ers having to PvE in order to advance their characters.

Looks more like a troll to me, a well timed troll knowing that Razor and company take weekeneds off.

What makes you think you can't advance by fighting the good fight against the Feds or the Klingons?

Even combatants have to take time out to do mundane/refit/morale type stuff.

[ob1klone]

There is one problem that I can think of with advancing through using PVP. The exploits would be rampant. A player could effectively advance to the highest levels in a rather short amount of time just by pvping against friends. You know this would happen. A couple people get together and make toons in both factions and meet in a designated location, and stand around killing each other all day. I say no to this idea, unless there is a way to stop the exploits.

[bobh]

There is one problem that I can think of with advancing through using PVP. The exploits would be rampant. A player could effectively advance to the highest levels in a rather short amount of time just by pvping against friends. You know this would happen. A couple people get together and make toons in both factions and meet in a designated location, and stand around killing each other all day. I say no to this idea, unless there is a way to stop the exploits.

I'm sure Cryptic is well aware of moves like this and will stop it in their tracks. Especially if they use a reputation type mechanic in which with each gain, there is a loss.

Not many "friends" are going to want to be spinning their wheels getting nowhere by being bait, and switching roles might not work, as the gains from a PvP might never exceed the losses.

[ob1klone]

How would you stop it. So I want to go get killed all day by my friends. Who is to say I can't. The only way to stop it would be, if they only alow you join one faction.

[bobh]

How would you stop it. So I want to go get killed all day by my friends. Who is to say I can't. The only way to stop it would be, if they only alow you join one faction.

Game logs tell interesting tales.

[PeterQuincyTaggart]

Even combatants have to take time out to do mundane/refit/morale type stuff.

I don't know about OP but I'd like as little mundane tasks as possible. Besides, people usually get paid to do mundane stuff instead of the other way around!

If I have spend an hour a day on this game, I'd rather spend them on actually playing. I do not want to spend time grinding for parts/resources in PvE when I could use that time to advance in storyline or to PVP. Jack also said he wouldn't want to see a 14-year-old with more time owning everyone simply by playing 18 hours a day. I doubt they have a system yet for a balanced player experience/tech progression but it seems like they already know what to avoid on this matter.

[ob1klone]

Game logs tell interesting tales.

I understand that, but so what. How would you stop people from doing it. Keep banning people for dying in game. This isn't an exploit that you would be taking advantage of a flaw in the game. It is a properly working function. It isn't truely an exploit to exploit a intended function of the game. But is would taken advantage of, and would be legal. You can't prevent people from dying in game, whether intentional or not.

[bobh]

I doubt they have a system yet for a balanced player experience/tech progression but it seems like they already know what to avoid on this matter.

Like elitist PVP'er types who have no regard for the concept of Star Trek's view of the future, and are solely looking for a fight.

[r2data]

I don't know about OP but I'd like as little mundane tasks as possible. Besides, people usually get paid to do mundane stuff instead of the other way around!

If I have spend an hour a day on this game, I'd rather spend them on actually playing. I do not want to spend time grinding for parts/resources in PvE when I could use that time to advance in storyline or to PVP. Jack also said he wouldn't want to see a 14-year-old with more time owning everyone simply by playing 18 hours a day. I doubt they have a system yet for a balanced player experience/tech progression but it seems like they already know what to avoid on this matter.

But that's what makes the game interesting. How you approach gathering things and fulfilling certain requirements. If everyone could do everything without any effort taken, it'd be a really really short, boring game.

[Hagon]

Wow, seems a lot of hostility toward someone that's asking a pretty valid question. It also appears some people need to concentrate a bit more on their reading comprehension. Or maybe just need to slow down and actuality read everything they're going to respond to or comment on.

There are vast numbers of people that play MMOGs that don't like PvE. . That doesn't make them elitist. It just makes them people that would rather spend their time fighting other players as opposed to NPCs. The usual reason is that they find it more challenging, which I don't necessarily agree with, but it is how they feel. To ignore those people is pretty questionable, even though it's done all the time

The opinion that it's not really fair that in most games that are out there someone that prefers PvP has to first level up their character doing countless hours of PvE content that they hate doing is , as I said, a valid one( I know WAR will let people level up via PvP, and I think one can now do it in WoW as well, and there may be others I'm not remembering at the moment too).

The main problem is that many game developers still don't really want to have to balance a game for PvP. Which is also valid. It's a real headache to balance a game for both PvE and PvP. So what we usually end up with is a games concentrating on PvE for the most part, since it's the easier of the two for the developers to deal with. Then PvP elements are tacked on and fingers are crossed that the imbalances that'll inevitably raise their heads during PvP play won't be too glaring. Or cause too much complaining is probably the more accurate desired outcome.

I think we'll have to wait and see how successful WAR is in regards to the popularity of levelling up via PvP exclusively before there may be changes in how developers think, since that game is the first one that is developing a game with that option as a feature from the get go, and one of it's big selling points. So far, there's been no indication from Cryptic that they'll provide for it in STO.

As for the exploiting thing, the OP pointed out in their first post some different ways other games have come up with to combat people exploiting the feature. All of which are effective.

[marscentral]

I'm more PvE myself but to each there own. I know with CoH, PvP was pretty much an after thought but, Cryptic realised how much people wanted it in that game and started to include more for it.

While I doubt that STO will allow you to exclusively play PvP (too much room for exploiting, being combat ready from day 1 etc), I imagine they're putting a lot of effort into it. Who knows, maybe STOs PvE will win you over :)

[LordDave]

I would imagine that completing missions and exploring would generate experience. And if we have randomly generated (but kinda cookie cutter) missions, then that should keep you from having to grind too much to advance.
However, without knowledge of the leveling system, it's impossible to know what kind of system can be setup to keep the grind down to 0. Perhaps it'll be skill based tree where, after a certain skill points are reached, you get to rank up and get access to better ships. If this is the case, then I submit that missions geared towards a specific skill tree would be appropriate rather then "Kill it and get XP" as well as completing missions.

I am opposed to PVP generated experience simply because to calculate skill, augments, ect... requires more flexibility in the algorithm they you really should have. I mean, how do you calculate someone's skill? Just go with their rank? If that's the case, then how do you keep the people from twinking?(twinkiing is when you level up to a point right before you go into the next "level hierarchy" and just PVP, knowing your as powerful as you can be against your level.)
I like the "You lose more then you win" idea. Yeah, people can still exploit it, but it'll take much longer and frankly, if your going to go through the trouble of exploiting a game for your own gain, you have problems in life and should be pitied.

[knight1b]

There is a fundamental design flaw with this idea. As pvp players progress new players will find it harder and harder to advance due to lack of compatible opponents. This factor alone for me would make it an unwise choice to develop a pure pvp aspect of the game especially considering the fairly small player base there would be for it.

[PeterQuincyTaggart]

But that's what makes the game interesting. How you approach gathering things and fulfilling certain requirements. If everyone could do everything without any effort taken, it'd be a really really short, boring game.

You're now talking about quest/mission design. I only dislike those quests that ask you to travel from point A to B, kill ridiculous amount of monsters that have the worst AI, and come back for a super prize.

The result is that everyone will do that same quest, and will do it repeatedly, only for the sake of getting more of this "super prize". Apply the same formula, and up the relative difficulty of the monsters, and you have the shadow of many MMO games out there. That is worse than a short, boring game. That is a long, boring game. Sadly, a lot of people don't have a problem with that. They consider doing that as some kind of accomplishment while all they did was spending time on a game that's not even fun anymore.

PvP provides an element of surprise when you play against human players. The reward is pride of wit over another human being. When this challenge is protected by time-padded tech and stats, then this reward is taken away. So goes the hope of many, many casual players to ever achieve high goals.

[Hagon]

There is a fundamental design flaw with this idea. As pvp players progress new players will find it harder and harder to advance due to lack of compatible opponents. This factor alone for me would make it an unwise choice to develop a pure pvp aspect of the game especially considering the fairly small player base there would be for it. Not jumping at you, but just clarifying. Are you saying that you believe there's an extremely small player base that would want to level via PvP exclusively?

If so, I'd have to be blunt, but doing so with all due respect, and tell you that you're very very wrong. I don't include myself as one, since I enjoy PvE and PvP equally and find both fun, interesting, and rewarding, but the numbers of exclusively PvPers in MMOGs has almost become equal to the number of exclusively PvEers since WoW has been around. Granted, most MMOG enthusiasts now enjoy a good mix of both though.

As for the matter of diminishing numbers of compatible opponents, there's already been a way designed to address that. designed by Cryptic as a matter of fact. Allowing players to scale down in level was implemented in the CoX games, and showed that great numbers of higher level players love to drop down and repeat and participate again in lower level PvP, and PvE for that matter, keeping the lower levels vibrant for newer players.

[Bazil]

(I am officially declaring Hagon my new favourite person on this forum, I was losing hope in my first thread in ages right around the point where I was called a "Troll"... Which is a first for me)

I won't be so bold as to say that there aren't any flaws or possible dead ends when it comes to a design like this, but I'm not saying there couldn't be compromises. I'd just like for whatever reward-system which is do'able to be done. There are several ways of avoiding exploitation, some of which have been pointed out, others are probably in the brains of the developers waiting to be brought out.

I've played quite a bit of MMORPG's in my time and I've just gotten sick with the basic design of "Work first, play later", the mind-set that you should work for several months and then finally be able to do what you actually like doing. Which in my case is PvP.

It would be like a PvE'r having to win x amount of pvp matches in order to get access to the crafting, dungeon, raid or quest system, they wouldn't like it, and neither do I.

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

I've played quite a bit of MMORPG's in my time and I've just gotten sick with the basic design of "Work first, play later", the mind-set that you should work for several months and then finally be able to do what you actually like doing. Which in my case is PvP.

Honestly, that sounds less like a debate over PvP versus PvE and more like criticism of games with character development and progression.

[TheMasterpiece]

Looks more like a troll to me, a well timed troll knowing that Razor and company take weekeneds off.

What makes you think you can't advance by fighting the good fight against the Feds or the Klingons?

Even combatants have to take time out to do mundane/refit/morale type stuff.



Or hes just someone posting his opinion?

PvE and PvP are both big parts of the game, although alot is going to revolve around things that have nothing to do with combat.

[Trekkie]

I think that most people look at Player vs. Player as an accessory of the game instead of a main feature, whereas a lot of players expect to be involved in Player vs. Environment scenarios. Allowing players to progress through Player vs. Player interaction is an interesting idea but the developers would have to be careful if they chose to implement something like it.

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

I think that most people look at Player vs. Player as an accessory of the game instead of a main feature, whereas a lot of players expect to be involved in Player vs. Environment scenarios. Allowing players to progress through Player vs. Player interaction is an interesting idea but the developers would have to be careful if they chose to implement something like it.

Yeah, but again (and I don't mean to put words in Bazil's mouth) it still sounds to me like the real objection here is progression, whether it's PvE or PvP-based. The whole "work first, play later" criticism is what gave me that impression.

[bourne077]

That's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about PvP'ers having to PvE in order to advance their characters.

If that's the only reason you want to play this game is for PVP I suggest you look somewhere else. Do tell of other titles that only offer PVP for rewards? Most other MMO titles you do PVE content to get gear to do other things like PVP.

[Hagon]

Yeah, but again (and I don't mean to put words in Bazil's mouth) it still sounds to me like the real objection here is progression, whether it's PvE or PvP-based. The whole "work first, play later" criticism is what gave me that impression.Well taking the one paragraph that you quoted out of context would make it appear that's what is being said, but given the other posts it's clear what is meant by it.

It's not progression that's the problem, since the ability to progress via PvP is what is being asked for. The problem is that people that only enjoy PvP are usually forced to spend inordinate amounts of time completing PvE content they have no interest in completing. They'd rather get xp for PvP kills and progress that way.

To tell the truth though, I don't know how it would work really, since it would be tough to determine the proper amount of xp per PvP kill, and as well, finding players to PvP against isn't usually a very consistent thing. I was in the WAR beta, but lost interest in yet another fantasy based MMOG and quite the beta before they'd come up with a satisfactory way of levelling via PvP only. It'll be interesting to see what they came up with in the end.

I know that I'd personally prefer having the option available to gain xp in both ways in open PvP areas. What I mean by that is for the game to provide enough PvE content inside areas where PvP is allowed (done in a way so as to bring the two factions into contact with each other), so that I can level up in the more traditional manner when PvP is hard to find. In that way if there were no PvP opponents to be had at any given time I could still gain xp and also have the feeling of danger from the ever present possibility of being attacked by the enemy at any time.

[Hagon]

If that's the only reason you want to play this game is for PVP I suggest you look somewhere else. Do tell of other titles that only offer PVP for rewards? Most other MMO titles you do PVE content to get gear to do other things like PVP.With all due respect, is telling people to basically get lost what we want to be doing? Especially since Bazil's desires for the game are no less valid than yours, or mine, or anyone else's.

Also, I already named some games that allow levelling via PvP only. One is the biggest game out there by far, and the other is the most anticipated game that come down the pipe in years.

Citing what it's like in most other MMOGs isn't really relevant to the discussion either. Most other MMOGs are fantasy based. So does that mean that all other MMOGs should be? We wouldn't be here if that was the case now would we?

[LordDave]

I just want it to be known:
If I had to PVP to level up, I would be very upset. So upset in fact that I would form a fleet of ships whose sole purpose was to gank anyone and everyone, camp drydocks, quest planets, ect.... in the hopes of causing them to suffer like I suffer for having to PVP.

I know, I know, this post doesn't belong here, but I felt it should be said.

Frankly speaking, PVE is going to be your main leveling. Now I'm sure you can get some kind of reward for helping to secure PVP systems, but my guess is it'll be less then doing a single PVE mission.

[Hagon]

I just want it to be known:
If I had to PVP to level up, I would be very upset. So upset in fact that I would form a fleet of ships whose sole purpose was to gank anyone and everyone, camp drydocks, quest planets, ect.... in the hopes of causing them to suffer like I suffer for having to PVP.

I know, I know, this post doesn't belong here, but I felt it should be said.

Well the statement is only out of place because no one has even remotely suggested that levelling up via PvP only be forced on anyone.

[BobBold]

I feel The OP Is not truly wanting to play an MMORPG but a MMOcombat Sim type game, where all the content is about battles . Which is not what I belive the DEv's want for this game. I belive they are wanting a much more emersive game that you can feel like you are in the Star Trek universe. A game that has a place for those who love to battle for glory. and a place for those that want to explore.

[Hagon]

I feel The OP Is not truly wanting to play an MMORPG but a MMOcombat Sim type game, where all the content is about battles . Which is not what I belive the DEv's want for this game. I belive they are wanting a much more emersive game that you can feel like you are in the Star Trek universe. A game that has a place for those who love to battle for glory. and a place for those that want to explore.I have to say that you do make a good point there, since after all, if one doesn't ever do any missions that involve exploration, or impart any story, which is very hard to do (if not impossible) doing PvP only, then all you're really left with is ships sailing around space shooting at each other.

I would argue though that what the devs want players to take away from a game can only be taken into consideration up to a certain point. In the end the players themselves will decide what they want to take away from the game and what they don't. Ideally, games should offer people more than just one narrow path to go down. That's not often possible though, mainly due to development time and resource restrictions. Which is something that recently a few people had to come to terms with in regards to another issue here on these forums.

[babanathie]

While I think the OP was made as thinly veiled attempt to attack those players advocating a more "controlled" PvP atmosphere, I'll entertain it as a valid point.

My response is to ask the following questions:

First, is it in keeping with the Star Trek philosophy?
Second, does it necessarily serve the setting of Star Trek?
Third, does it belong in a Star Trek game?

Don't get me wrong, it would be an excellent idea for another game that is not Star Trek based (unless your talking about Star Fleet Battles). If the develpers happen to add it, fine. However, I just don't see the goal of advancing solely based off PvP experience as being Star Trek-like and don't think the developers should waste too much time catering to the idea.

[Silverspar]

Not jumping at you, but just clarifying. Are you saying that you believe there's an extremely small player base that would want to level via PvP exclusively?Based on past MMOs the number of exclusive PvPers would be smaller than the PvE player base, which still strikes me as odd, considering if a person just wants PvP there are many other games for that outlet. FPS generally come to mind.

If so, I'd have to be blunt, but doing so with all due respect, and tell you that you're very very wrong. I don't include myself as one, since I enjoy PvE and PvP equally and find both fun, interesting, and rewarding, but the numbers of exclusively PvPers in MMOGs has almost become equal to the number of exclusively PvEers since WoW has been around. Granted, most MMOG enthusiasts now enjoy a good mix of both though.At best, a third of WoW's servers are dedicated to PvP and most of the action is now locked up firmly in the arenas and Battlegrounds. Few actually participate in world PvP outside of those outlets.

As for the matter of diminishing numbers of compatible opponents, there's already been a way designed to address that. designed by Cryptic as a matter of fact. Allowing players to scale down in level was implemented in the CoX games, and showed that great numbers of higher level players love to drop down and repeat and participate again in lower level PvP, and PvE for that matter, keeping the lower levels vibrant for newer players.

CoX has a fundamental design flaw when it comes to high levels entering a low level zone. Despite they are being lowered to that level, a high levels power is still going to be greater than the low levels in the zone. Furthermore, if ship enhancements and personal character gear exists within the game, being downgraded in level won't effectively improve anything. The low levels will still be outclassed by the higher levels who have either better ships or better gear than the low levels.

[Hagon]

Based on past MMOs the number of exclusive PvPers would be smaller than the PvE player base, which still strikes me as odd, considering if a person just wants PvP there are many other games for that outlet. FPS generally come to mind.Exactly. Past MMOs. Way in the past. Since the release of WoW no game has been released that ignored the large population of PvPers out there, with many major titles actually trying to cater to mostly PvPers.

At best, a third of WoW's servers are dedicated to PvP and most of the action is now locked up firmly in the arenas and Battlegrounds. Few actually participate in world PvP outside of those outlets.I'm afraid you're wrong there, and I've already posted a link in another thread to show you that. I'll post it again though.

http://www.wowwiki.com/Realms_List

I've also explained why few take part in open world PvP in that game anymore, reasons that Blizz acknowledges as well, and it has nothing at all to do with open world PvP ever being unpopular.


CoX has a fundamental design flaw when it comes to high levels entering a low level zone. Despite they are being lowered to that level, a high levels power is still going to be greater than the low levels in the zone. Furthermore, if ship enhancements and personal character gear exists within the game, being downgraded in level won't effectively improve anything. The low levels will still be outclassed by the higher levels who have either better ships or better gear than the low levels.Actually I believe that problem of higher level players still having greater power was addressed quickly, and now one is simply scaled down in skills and power to the appropriate level.

The problem of gear is easily dealt with in the same manner. The game can easily retain character info as one progresses and and also disable any gear or ships that are too high of a level. It would take some other mechanics as well, but again very easily done.

[Silverspar]

Actually I believe that problem of higher level players still having greater power was addressed quickly, and now one is simply scaled down in skills and power to the appropriate level.

The problem of gear is easily dealt with in the same manner. The game can easily retain character info as one progresses and and also disable any gear or ships that are too high of a level. It would take some other mechanics as well, but again very easily done.

Nope, my 6 slot brute, blaster or corruptor still has more slots than the level 25 in the same zone as me. I still come out ahead in damage accuracy and endurance management as well.

And if I have a better ship than someone lower level than me, that means my ship also must have better structure, armor and weapon relays as well, not to mention shielding. How would you really scale all that? Would you really force someone piloting a Neg'Vhar or a Sovereign into the stats of Bird of Prey or even a Miranda class? Shut out someone's access to their quantum torpedoes? It's not as cut and dry simple as you make it believe.

Scaling might exist in City of Heroes and Villains, but a high level still has an advantage over someone lower level than they are.

[Hagon]

Nope, my 6 slot brute, blaster or corruptor still has more slots than the level 25 in the same zone as me. I still come out ahead in damage accuracy and endurance management as well. Well I stand corrected then.

And if I have a better ship than someone lower level than me, that means my ship also must have better structure, armor and weapon relays as well, not to mention shielding. How would you really scale all that? Would you really force someone piloting a Neg'Vhar or a Sovereign into the stats of Bird of Prey or even a Miranda class? Shut out someone's access to their quantum torpedoes? It's not as cut and dry simple as you make it believe. Of course I would. Why wouldn't I? If that was the mechanic in place to allow for higher level players to drop down and participate with their lower level friends, then it would be fine. I imagine most would accept it as a no brainer. It is as easy as I make it out to be, it would just take a desire for the developers to implement it correctly. All the data for each character would be there for them to use, so what would be difficult?

[Silverspar]

So basically, what you are saying is, if someone has a Sovereign or Neg'Vhar with approximately 16 phaser/disruptor relays, type XII (for arguments sake) you would completely shut everything down on those ships that have them? Thus the people that have the modulating shields for better protection, hull plating to withstand damage for better structural points and higher grade pahsers, relays and launchers, you are saying youw ould completely shut all that down for people, and force them to have to essentially do the WoW thing and carry what amounts to multiple pieces of gear for all the various ranges of PvP as well as PvE? Telling someone who has all that they would have to downgrade all the systems in their ship?

Might sound good on paper, but why would someone bother then? Be a few, who would go out and make twink characters of course (they do it in WoW a lot to) but that still doesn't negate the fact you are telling the players that put work into their characters and ships they would essentially be worthless.

Then let's go onto other factors outside of equipment. What about player skills? If my tactical officer is capped out on weapons and targetting how would you really balance that? If my engineer is set up to repair shield damage quickly and recover power used how would you settle that? What about ship speeds? Obviously a Sovereign or Neg'Var would be much easier to hit than a Miranda class, or Bird of Prey, how would you settle that then if you make the higher levels pretty much equal to the lower levels?

Considering Jack has stated that rank advancement means, currently, a forced ship change, there are just so many variables you have to consider, and though it makes some sense on paper for a game like City of Heroes/Villains, if Star Trek Online has gear and equipment for the ships in particular, and I suspect it will, that opens upa brand new can of worms.

[Hagon]

Like I said, of course I'd do all of that, and if I was a player wanting to drop down and enter an area meant for lower level players so that I could play along side my lowbie mates (since that is what we're talking about here), I would thoroughly welcome it. What would be the fun in being comparatively overpowered at that time? It would be contrary to the point of it. It would be my free choice to go there, I would know that the changes wouldn't be permanent, and I'd be getting to have some fun with mates I'd otherwise have to wait to have fun with until they reached my level.

Equipment and skills would simply get scaled back to what they were when I was at that level. The game could, say, offer a shipyard where I could store ships and equipment that I out levelled, and I could simply go get the appropriate stuff whenI felt like it. Or even simpler, the game just keeps all the data regarding my character as I level, when I decide to enter a lowbie area to PvP I select the level, and it auto switches my ship, equipment, and skills back to what they were at that level.

That's just a basic concept off the top of my head, but it illustrates that it's not rocket science. It would just take the will of the devs to implement.

This has really gone off on a tangent though, so that's enough about it from me anyway.

[Silverspar]

There might be more than involved than you think it would. Again paper always sounds good, it's practice that is the real decision maker.

[Dustnite]

There might be more than involved than you think it would. Again paper always sounds good, it's practice that is the real decision maker.

I don't see why, the CoX games worked similarly and those were more or less ok. CoX just had the problem of having PvP tacked on after the game had been released for a year, thus friction resulted from the PvE only crowd and the PvP only crowd.

But the OP has a valid point. If he just wants to PvP why should he be forced to PvE all the way through. There are games that allow you to do one or the either for leveling or both. Champions Online is going to allow you to level through PvP and that's using the same engine even.

I'd say to the OP: You can probably expect it to happen if Champions has the system in place too, we'll just have to wait and see...

[Deadzone]

If that's the only reason you want to play this game is for PVP I suggest you look somewhere else. Do tell of other titles that only offer PVP for rewards? Most other MMO titles you do PVE content to get gear to do other things like PVP.


Well, we can say the same for you. Is PvE the only reason you want to pay this game?? Then you can go somewhere else!!!
Your argument is PURE FAILPEDO!!!

The gist I think Bazil is getting across from his priginal post, was sort of a sracastic respone to the PvE'ers saying..."why do we have to be forced into PVP if we don't want to?"

Well, why should PVPers be forced into PvE if we don't want to?

Apparently this game is designed for much more PvE content than PVP content, so that side is heavily biased towards one aspect of gameplay. Why should this be tolerated? If one side doesnt want to be ""forced"" into anythnig, why should the other?

I myself, am getting pretty sick of hearing all the carebears saying they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do. Well, i'll tell you then....don't Don't play the game. Go find a one-person game that you can play by yourself and that way you have no way of being attacked by anyone you don't want attacking you. Or bugging you for that matter.

Here in the MMOG world, you have thousands of people around you all the time. And guess what, in a CANON game like this, you just might be having people shooting at you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it, don't go around the areas you can be shot. Its about as simple as anyone can make it.

And do us all a favor and stop the goddamn incessant whining already! You sound like a bunch of 3 years-olds who can't get the toy they want!!!

[Elfender]

Though Hagon and Bazil make vaild points and ask valid questions, the truth is that the hostility on this board may be warranted. See, in the dozens of other PVP QQ Posts on this forum whining about PvP being limited, PvPers say stuff like "If you don't like it...tough..." or my favorite "If you dont like it dont play the game." The comments on this board are only a representation of some of those threads reversed, but probably uncalled for on any thread.

Warhammer has a system whereupon one can PvP for Experience and Equipment equal and sometimes better than those obtainable by PvE, however one still has to do SOME PvE storyline content. This system makes seperate but equal rewards for PvE/PvP using Zones that artificially boost your level to the minimum area cap and flags you for RvR. Both the PvP and PvE objectives on the game are Seperate, you almost never have to PvP and almost never have to PvE if you dont want to, but expect to die alot if you go into a RvR zone too early. In my opinion, your NEVER going to get away from that, it would be nearly impossible for someone to walk into the game and start leveling say....1 year after release by PvPing, since most PvPers will have a much better grasp on the game, and to be honest much better ships, crew and weapons.

As much as Cryptic wants everyone to be happy, i doubt that a comprehensive NO PVE system is even possible.

Well, we can say the same for you. Is PvE the only reason you want to pay this game?? Then you can go somewhere else!!!
Your argument is PURE FAILPEDO!!!

The gist I think Bazil is getting across from his priginal post, was sort of a sracastic respone to the PvE'ers saying..."why do we have to be forced into PVP if we don't want to?"

Well, why should PVPers be forced into PvE if we don't want to?

Apparently this game is designed for much more PvE content than PVP content, so that side is heavily biased towards one aspect of gameplay. Why should this be tolerated? If one side doesnt want to be ""forced"" into anythnig, why should the other?

I myself, am getting pretty sick of hearing all the carebears saying they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do. Well, i'll tell you then....don't Don't play the game. Go find a one-person game that you can play by yourself and that way you have no way of being attacked by anyone you don't want attacking you. Or bugging you for that matter.

Here in the MMOG world, you have thousands of people around you all the time. And guess what, in a CANON game like this, you just might be having people shooting at you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it, don't go around the areas you can be shot. Its about as simple as anyone can make it.

And do us all a favor and stop the goddamn incessant whining already! You sound like a bunch of 3 years-olds who can't get the toy they want!!!

Dude...take a Chill Pill and shut the heck up...PvPers and PvEers have BOTH done thier fair share of QQ Whining and forum flame and trolling...your no differnt than the 3 years-olds who can't get the toy they want!!! the fact is the games PvP system is set in stone the way it is, there will msot likely be balance twaeking and content adjustments, but i doubt they'll get away from the PvP Zone and PvE content style gameplay thats made some very successful games in the past.

[marscentral]

As long as the advancement in PvP doesn't outpace PvE (ie they're balanced with each other), I don't see why people shouldn't be PvE or PvP exclusive if they want to. My only concern is the middle ground. If someone is trying to play both elements, are they going to have trouble because their ship isn't optimized for PvP (or have difficulty in missions because they aren't set up for sciences). I think the only way to prevent that is to make sure PvP relies on as many ship features as PvE and isn't just about who has the biggest and baddest defenses and weapons. I'm not big on PvP, but does that sound reasonable?

[mezlabor]

I'm sorry if this has brought up before, but after lurking and searching (didn't really know what to search for), I did not see a thread about this.

There's been a lot of talk about "Forced PvP" and how PvE'ers are adamant about PvP not being necessary in order to obtain everything in the game. No special "ores" or other resouces being restricted to the open PvP areas such as in EvE and I agree! It is terrible having to do something that you hate doing in order to obtain what you want.

But why is this being portrayed as a problem exclusively for the PvE crowd? Us PvP'ers... When you stab* us, do we not bleed? When you tickle us do we not laugh? When you force us to grind and kill mobs in order to get the gear and levels needed to compete in PvP, do we not get frustrated, annoyed and cry like little girls because we have to spend hours upon hours doing something we hate doing?

Please add a function which allows you to progress your character via PvP! Add a resource system which rewards you with ways to upgrade your ship and a system awarding experience and personal character progression through PvP.

And when it comes to exploitation, there are many ways of preventing a system like this from being exploited. People won't constantly "let someone kill them" if the death penantly requires them to wait a while before getting back into the fight, or adding diminishing returns. In random teambased combat where only one team gets rewarded for winning, "letting the other side win" wouldn't be an issue either.

*I had to change "*****" to stab because "*****" gets censored, as you might have noticed, even though it's not a swearword in that context.

If we pvers demand that no part of the game should FORCE us into pvp then I guess its only fair that pvpers should request the ability to go through the game doing nothing but pvp. Dont ask me how they can accomplish both I'm sure its possible I'm just not that creative.

[Creoleman]

This seems to be getting a touch bit on the serious side. Name calling on both sides is unnecessary and it is highly unproductive to any discussion. I have to admit it did seem like a very serious post by the OP and that's why many replied like they did, feeling like he was calling for serious rewards for PvP'ing in the game. And if that was his intent, then the replies are at least responding to what they perceived as a serious call are somewhat warranted, except for the name calling that has been hurled on both sides. And if he was posting this in jest, might I suggest a comedy writer because it didn't read as a satirical poke at the 'Anti Forced PvP' threads out there.

While I don't support a experience gain for PvP, there can be rewards in other ways for successfully winning battles in PvP. The case for PvP is to try your skills against other players, and the success in that arena should be rewarded in other ways than gaining levels and rank in the game proper.

Of course, if they were to implement a PvP advancement system wherein the player when they enter a PvP zone would gain access to ships and weapons based on their career in PvP battles, perhaps gaining access to factions that are not available to PvE players (wanna tour the galaxy in a Borg Cube or Species 8472 bioship?), that would be quite the incentive to PvP, wouldn't it? There are a number of advantages that PvP'ers could gain without having to receive XP for playing in the PvP zone.

However PvP and/or level advancement are handled when STO hits the market, they will make sure that there is ample reason for all to play the game, whatever their motivations are to play the game.

Live Long and Prosper.

[Dext]

Will they them selfs have told us the PvP is not wort there focusing on so I really don't see the need for this thread but PvE only to get what you need then pvp the rest of the time am if you don't like PvE at all why play mmos just stay with shooters.

[Elfender]

Will they them selfs have told us the PvP is not wort there focusing on so I really don't see the need for this thread but PvE only to get what you need then pvp the rest of the time am if you don't like PvE at all why play mmos just stay with shooters.

Even though im a straight PvE guy (i like PvP, just dont want it EVERYWHERE.) even i can answer this. As with the solo players, PvPers play MMOs for the depth of gameplay. Both single player solo games and multiplayer VS shooters and arcade games lack depth and are really, once you boil it down, the same game over and over. MMORPGs make people work for thier victory, and part of that work is sometimes the PvE content you have to plow through to get there...even i dont like ALL PvE content...but i put up with it to get to the good stuff.

[Dext]

You missed my point they have told use their not so worried about PvP (I will be in the game but not a Focus so the PvP that are looking just to PvP will Be much Content) un like PvE. If you looking for PvP all the time play WW2 online.

I do like to PvP to but it is not all I look for in a game there need to be more PvE then PvP an what ever ranking g there is in PvP should just go to a PvP rank. It can be done SWG an a Ex. your PvP Rank will not lower your lvl If you 90(Max lvl in SWG) an your PvP Rank is Lt. there will be people that are also lvl 90 an General.

What I am saying is there should be something for the pvp but not go to your rank/lvl. This would add more for you to do.

[Elfender]

you don't like PvE at all why play mmos just stay with shooters.

was actually answering the Psuedo question/statement you made at the end of your last post.

[Dext]

OK but even then they have all ready told us there not that focused on it so that saying there not looking to make the PvPers there priority.

[r2data]

Even though im a straight PvE guy (i like PvP, just dont want it EVERYWHERE.) even i can answer this. As with the solo players, PvPers play MMOs for the depth of gameplay. Both single player solo games and multiplayer VS shooters and arcade games lack depth and are really, once you boil it down, the same game over and over. MMORPGs make people work for thier victory, and part of that work is sometimes the PvE content you have to plow through to get there...even i dont like ALL PvE content...but i put up with it to get to the good stuff.

I find it hard to imagine that PvPers play games for the immersive content and depth of gameplay. You get that from PvE where you interact with the environment and reap the benefits of storyline, which equates to content and therefore depth.

PvPers prey on other players and while, yes, there is more challenge to it, does not advance the storyline one iota. It also does not prevent them from preying on the weaker and the helpless, thus preventing them from enjoying and experiencing the game.

Let me use an analogy to explain why I think PvP is not compulsory while PvE is. Think of it like a food chain with PvE being your primary consumers and PvP being like secondary consumers i.e., herbivores and carnivores. I think it should be obvious as to the similarities there. Hebivores are necessary for the food chain as they take up energy from the source (i.e. plants) and transmit it throughout the chain. The carnivores would not be able to survive without the herbivores as they take energy from preying on them and cannot gather it from the source.

Using in-game terms, the content would be likened to the source, so if there was no PvE, the in-game experience and depth of the game would be severely limited.

[Galv]

The only way to solve this problem for pvpers is to have a PVP only server with a PVP advancement style of play, but as Cryptic have already stated this isn't going to happen. And i can't see how they can combine PVP advancement running alongside PVE advancement, as surely the PVPers are going to get bored pretty quickly when they're restricted to zones in the game, and even then most of the PVP is going to consenting so this limits your gaming futher. From what i gather from the FAQ it sounds more like the PVP is going to an option of play for fleets to gather together to have some fun like it was in SWG. Plus with Cryptic wanting to appeal to as many gamers as possible they're bound to gear the game more towards PVE as, i'm not 100% on this but i'm pretty sure there's more gamers wanting PVE than PVP, as most PVE gamers see PVP as a fun side attraction to do when they fancy some multiplayer action, which is going to be alot of fun with fleets battling it out. It must be gutting if your PVP only fan but i just don't see this happening with STO. Maybe Legacy or Bridge Commander would suit you more as those game have plenty of PVP options and having played both online they are great multiplayer games.

[bourne077]

It's not progression that's the problem, since the ability to progress via PvP is what is being asked for. The problem is that people that only enjoy PvP are usually forced to spend inordinate amounts of time completing PvE content they have no interest in completing. They'd rather get xp for PvP kills and progress that way.

No offense Hagon, but this is what I was alluding to. The OP is asking for something to be included in the game which is not a core part of the game tailoring it to be for their style of gameplay. The game is about PVE mainly with PVP aspects included. It is not a PVP only title. If the only interest they have is the PVP side of things that's fine everyone is entitled to play the way they choose. I did not mean my earlier comment in a rude manner just merely stating that if that's what the OP is solely looking for then perhaps they would be better off trying another title. I'm sure there have been titles that you yourself have tried because you liked how the concept sounded, but yet when you got into the gameplay it turned out you didn't like it because it didn't conform to your style of play that you enjoy. Did the game change when you went back to it if you did to try it again? Probably not and I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but you probably searched for another title that was more suited to your style of play. That's all I was getting at.

The other point is what LordDave mentioned in the quote below. What type of game environment would it become if that was how you progressed your character in game? One big deathfest and not in line with the Star Trek philosophy.


I just want it to be known:
If I had to PVP to level up, I would be very upset. So upset in fact that I would form a fleet of ships whose sole purpose was to gank anyone and everyone, camp drydocks, quest planets, ect.... in the hopes of causing them to suffer like I suffer for having to PVP.

[JemarqueMarquis]

I do agree that pve and pvp need to both be full games.

[bourne077]

Well, we can say the same for you. Is PvE the only reason you want to pay this game?? Then you can go somewhere else!!!
Your argument is PURE FAILPEDO!!!

The gist I think Bazil is getting across from his priginal post, was sort of a sracastic respone to the PvE'ers saying..."why do we have to be forced into PVP if we don't want to?"

Well, why should PVPers be forced into PvE if we don't want to?

Apparently this game is designed for much more PvE content than PVP content, so that side is heavily biased towards one aspect of gameplay. Why should this be tolerated? If one side doesnt want to be ""forced"" into anythnig, why should the other?

I myself, am getting pretty sick of hearing all the carebears saying they shouldn't have to do anything they don't want to do. Well, i'll tell you then....don't Don't play the game. Go find a one-person game that you can play by yourself and that way you have no way of being attacked by anyone you don't want attacking you. Or bugging you for that matter.

Here in the MMOG world, you have thousands of people around you all the time. And guess what, in a CANON game like this, you just might be having people shooting at you, whether you like it or not. Don't like it, don't go around the areas you can be shot. Its about as simple as anyone can make it.

And do us all a favor and stop the goddamn incessant whining already! You sound like a bunch of 3 years-olds who can't get the toy they want!!!

And you say that I'm the one doing the whining? Good one. Now on to the topic at hand as I stated in another post this game is about PVE mainly. I did not say it's about PVE only. It does have PVP aspects to it alongside the PVE content. I fully understand the whole PVE/PVP debate that rages on and I am fully aware of both sides of the table. I've played WOW and Eve online so I know about the PVP side of things. I've engaged in both PVE and PVP so don't think you have the right to call me a carebear when you don't know me k thnx.

Secondly I was stating that if the OP ONLY WANTS TO PVP then perhaps another title will be better suited for what they want to do because this game is not centered around that style so perhaps they won't be happy or get as much enjoyment from it as other people. That's all I was saying. I never said no to PVP. I realize and understand it will be in game and I'm fine with that, quite frankly I'm used to it. I understand that if I venture into an unknown area or into a border zone that I can and probably will be attacked, hence PVP kicks in at this point. The essence of Star Trek is about exploration and diplomacy and staying true to that universe is what the game developers are attempting to do not turn it into a warfest with a Star Trek skin on it.

[Hagon]

No offense Hagon, but this is what I was alluding to. The OP is asking for something to be included in the game which is not a core part of the game tailoring it to be for their style of gameplay. The game is about PVE mainly with PVP aspects included. It is not a PVP only title. If the only interest they have is the PVP side of things that's fine everyone is entitled to play the way they choose. I did not mean my earlier comment in a rude manner just merely stating that if that's what the OP is solely looking for then perhaps they would be better off trying another title. I'm sure there have been titles that you yourself have tried because you liked how the concept sounded, but yet when you got into the gameplay it turned out you didn't like it because it didn't conform to your style of play that you enjoy. Did the game change when you went back to it if you did to try it again? Probably not and I'm taking a stab in the dark here, but you probably searched for another title that was more suited to your style of play. That's all I was getting at.

The other point is what LordDave mentioned in the quote below. What type of game environment would it become if that was how you progressed your character in game? One big deathfest and not in line with the Star Trek philosophy.No offence taken at all.

I would ask you, and a few others, with respect of course and realizing that I may very well have missed something, where has this definite opinion of what the game will be about (i.e. mainly a PvE centric game with PvP being essentially tacked on) come from?

As far as I knew, the only definite things we know about the PvP /PvE mix is in the FAQ. Which states.

Will there be PvP?
Yes. We plan for a faction vs. faction PvP ruleset, but there are also plans for a competitive PvE mechanic.

Will there be PvP, PvE and RP rule set servers?
There will not be separate servers for PvP and PvE rulesets. Open PvP will be restricted to designated sectors of space (far-off reaches of unclaimed territory). Consensual PvP and competitive PvE will occur between the realm borders (the Neutral Zone), where players will be competing over territory and resources with the option to PvP.



In regards to the Star Trek "philosophy", well this gets bandied about on these forums quite a bit, but who's Star Trek "philosophy" are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Lord Dave's? Who's to say that some person that's playing a bloodthirsty Klingon that wants nothing more than to engage every possible target they can to do glorious battle and to try and ensure that they die with honour ( just the quickest example off the top of my head) is playing with the wrong "philosophy"?

[Galv]

No offence taken at all.

I would ask you, and a few others, with respect of course and realizing that I may very well have missed something, where has this definite opinion of what the game will be about (i.e. mainly a PvE centric game with PvP being essentially tacked on) come from?

As far as I knew, the only definite things we know about the PvP /PvE mix is in the FAQ. Which states.



In regards to the Star Trek "philosophy", well this gets bandied about on these forums quite a bit, but who's Star Trek "philosophy" are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Lord Dave's? Who's to say that some person that's playing a bloodthirsty Klingon that wants nothing more than to engage every possible target they can to do glorious battle and to try and ensure that they die with honour ( just the quickest example off the top of my head) is playing with the wrong "philosophy"?

Not sure if you've watched the webcasts of the vegas event or the hailing freq. Q+A session with Jack, he does outline that the game is being made in the direction of PVE content. From what he was saying it sounds like (to me anyway) there planning alot of stories/advetures that sort thing, the Star Trek experiance.
It does sound to me as if PVP is secoundary to this, but that's my thoughts on the answers he gave not fact. Watch them and see what you take from the answers.

[LordDave]

Not sure if you've watched the webcasts of the vegas event or the hailing freq. Q+A session with Jack, he does outline that the game is being made in the direction of PVE content. From what he was saying it sounds like (to me anyway) there planning alot of stories/advetures that sort thing, the Star Trek experiance.
It does sound to me as if PVP is secoundary to this, bu that my thoughts on the answers he gave not fact. Watch them and see what you take from the answers.

I agree with your assessment. This goes in line with the trek experience: We watch shows to see the starship triumph at a problem or save a colony or not get blown up by the new species they just met, ect...
Heck, even in TOS, how many Klingons did kirk go out and PVP?

[Elfender]

Even in TOS when there were open hostilities, and in TNG with the Romulans, border excursions and fleet action were rare. Even in SFB, with the exception of the General War deep border excursions were VERY RARE, and even during the General War they were hit and runs with the exception of large fleet strikes on Tactically Signifigant targets.

The klingons and federation were in a hightened cold war status during TOS, combat wasnt unheard of, but it certainly wasnt massive, especially since the Organians prevented the federation and klingons from waging war upon one another. It was a political fencing match with subject worlds and rescources much as the US and Russia, with occasional skirmishes. Both Starfleet Battles and Star Trek set a precedent for the type of gameplay Cryptic is planning with its PvE/PvP system (they way it's been described.)

yes yes, i've said it before, and ill say it again...i know SFB isnt cannon, but it is based in part off of star trek.

[Deltab]

I'm sorry if this has brought up before, but after lurking and searching (didn't really know what to search for), I did not see a thread about this.

There's been a lot of talk about "Forced PvP" and how PvE'ers are adamant about PvP not being necessary in order to obtain everything in the game. No special "ores" or other resouces being restricted to the open PvP areas such as in EvE and I agree! It is terrible having to do something that you hate doing in order to obtain what you want.

But why is this being portrayed as a problem exclusively for the PvE crowd? Us PvP'ers... When you stab* us, do we not bleed? When you tickle us do we not laugh? When you force us to grind and kill mobs in order to get the gear and levels needed to compete in PvP, do we not get frustrated, annoyed and cry like little girls because we have to spend hours upon hours doing something we hate doing?

Please add a function which allows you to progress your character via PvP! Add a resource system which rewards you with ways to upgrade your ship and a system awarding experience and personal character progression through PvP.

And when it comes to exploitation, there are many ways of preventing a system like this from being exploited. People won't constantly "let someone kill them" if the death penantly requires them to wait a while before getting back into the fight, or adding diminishing returns. In random teambased combat where only one team gets rewarded for winning, "letting the other side win" wouldn't be an issue either.

*I had to change "*****" to stab because "*****" gets censored, as you might have noticed, even though it's not a swearword in that context.

This is the best post I have seen so far. PvP leveling is what I have been wanting since... well I dunno a long time ago. I'm tired of pve to pvp...

[Deltab]

Not sure if you've watched the webcasts of the vegas event or the hailing freq. Q+A session with Jack, he does outline that the game is being made in the direction of PVE content. From what he was saying it sounds like (to me anyway) there planning alot of stories/advetures that sort thing, the Star Trek experiance.
It does sound to me as if PVP is secoundary to this, but that's my thoughts on the answers he gave not fact. Watch them and see what you take from the answers.

Jack did make a big point as to PVP is an important point of their way of thinking.

Also perhaps Star Fleet would have more pve content and the Klingons more PvP.

[Hagon]

Well I must still respectively maintain that whether some of you like it or not, or whether I like it or not, to many many people the "Star Trek experience" includes violent conflict, or in other words PvP. The way I see it, providing that "experience" to those people is just as important as providing any other.

In my opinion PvP shouldn't take precedence, but it shouldn't be marginalized or play second fiddle either. Ideally it should be done in such a way as to provide just as much of a rewarding experience as provided for PvE enthusiasts. Allowing people to level through the game via PvP only is one of many different ways they could do that, so, to me anyway, the question that was originally asked is perfectly acceptable and valid.

[ReynoldsXD]

I'm sorry if this has brought up before, but after lurking and searching (didn't really know what to search for), I did not see a thread about this.

There's been a lot of talk about "Forced PvP" and how PvE'ers are adamant about PvP not being necessary in order to obtain everything in the game. No special "ores" or other resouces being restricted to the open PvP areas such as in EvE and I agree! It is terrible having to do something that you hate doing in order to obtain what you want.

But why is this being portrayed as a problem exclusively for the PvE crowd? Us PvP'ers... When you stab* us, do we not bleed? When you tickle us do we not laugh? When you force us to grind and kill mobs in order to get the gear and levels needed to compete in PvP, do we not get frustrated, annoyed and cry like little girls because we have to spend hours upon hours doing something we hate doing?

Please add a function which allows you to progress your character via PvP! Add a resource system which rewards you with ways to upgrade your ship and a system awarding experience and personal character progression through PvP.

And when it comes to exploitation, there are many ways of preventing a system like this from being exploited. People won't constantly "let someone kill them" if the death penantly requires them to wait a while before getting back into the fight, or adding diminishing returns. In random teambased combat where only one team gets rewarded for winning, "letting the other side win" wouldn't be an issue either.

*I had to change "*****" to stab because "*****" gets censored, as you might have noticed, even though it's not a swearword in that context.


as long as noone side gets uber stuff and the progression is fair, all power to you.

[Galv]

Well I must still respectively maintain that whether some of you like it or not, or whether I like it or not, to many many people the "Star Trek experience" includes violent conflict, or in other words PvP. The way I see it, providing that "experience" to those people is just as important as providing any other.

In my opinion PvP shouldn't take precedence, but it shouldn't be marginalized or play second fiddle either. Ideally it should be done in such a way as to provide just as much of a rewarding experience as provided for PvE enthusiasts. Allowing people to level through the game via PvP only is one of many different ways they could do that, so, to me anyway, the question that was originally asked is perfectly acceptable and valid.

Yea of course but it's only going to work with pvp only servers and Cryptic aren't going to do that.

[bourne077]

No offence taken at all.

[QUOTE]I would ask you, and a few others, with respect of course and realizing that I may very well have missed something, where has this definite opinion of what the game will be about (i.e. mainly a PvE centric game with PvP being essentially tacked on) come from?


In response to this all I can say is watch the Vegas video at 40:55 my response to your question is there.

As far as I knew, the only definite things we know about the PvP /PvE mix is in the FAQ. Which states.

In regards to the Star Trek "philosophy", well this gets bandied about on these forums quite a bit, but who's Star Trek "philosophy" are we talking about? Yours? Mine? Lord Dave's? Who's to say that some person that's playing a bloodthirsty Klingon that wants nothing more than to engage every possible target they can to do glorious battle and to try and ensure that they die with honour ( just the quickest example off the top of my head) is playing with the wrong "philosophy"?


In response to this I have to say that perhaps you are somewhat correct in that the "philosophy" that I hold to is the one of Gene's vision for Star Trek of peace and unity, working together for the better of all. Now you're correct in saying that it may not be shared by all and I apologize for just assuming that's how others may look upon the Star Trek universe. Yes it is my opinion and my view on Star Trek for me.

As for the glorious Klingon example, once again my view on it, I like to believe that the Klingon players who are sticking to the honorable role would take on challenges rather than preying on the weak for there would be no honor in that.

I think the whole raging debate between PVP and PVE comes down to one thing. The PVE'ers enjoy content. The PVP'ers enjoy combat. Where the waters get muddied and where it gets hostile is when the PVE crowd gets ganked and griefed by those players, not saying that all PVP'ers are like that far from it, I've experienced PVP battles with very skilled and honorable opponents. At the same time where the PVP'ers get annoyed is when, again I'm referring to the griefers, they can't get their way to be able to do those sort of actions to the PVE'ers because that's what they enjoy.

If you read clearly on the forums, which I believe you have, you'll see the true respected PVP'ers are ok with the system that Cryptic has stated will be in the game. As opposed to those that constantly bring up topics and try to come up with reasons for the PVP aspect to be expanded upon. As I said before I am not opposed to either PVE or PVP I have engaged in both in different titles. I understand both sides and respect the views on both sides. I am not choosing one over the other.

In regards to the OP's original statement, perhaps my first reply wasn't the best used, I was just saying due to the fact that Cryptic Studios has already outlined the PVP portion of the game that if it doesn't fall in line to how they wish to play the game then maybe this game is not for them. I meant no other meaning behind it as opposed to the way my first post came off. Hope this clears the air for you and I don't mean that sarcastically, but sincerely.

[Hagon]

[QUOTE=Hagon;180331]No offence taken at all.



In response to this all I can say is watch the Vegas video at 40:55 my response to your question is there.



In response to this I have to say that perhaps you are somewhat correct in that the "philosophy" that I hold to is the one of Gene's vision for Star Trek of peace and unity, working together for the better of all. Now you're correct in saying that it may not be shared by all and I apologize for just assuming that's how others may look upon the Star Trek universe. Yes it is my opinion and my view on Star Trek for me.

As for the glorious Klingon example, once again my view on it, I like to believe that the Klingon players who are sticking to the honorable role would take on challenges rather than preying on the weak for there would be no honor in that.

I think the whole raging debate between PVP and PVE comes down to one thing. The PVE'ers enjoy content. The PVP'ers enjoy combat. Where the waters get muddied and where it gets hostile is when the PVE crowd gets ganked and griefed by those players, not saying that all PVP'ers are like that far from it, I've experienced PVP battles with very skilled and honorable opponents. At the same time where the PVP'ers get annoyed is when, again I'm referring to the griefers, they can't get their way to be able to do those sort of actions to the PVE'ers because that's what they enjoy.

If you read clearly on the forums, which I believe you have, you'll see the true respected PVP'ers are ok with the system that Cryptic has stated will be in the game. As opposed to those that constantly bring up topics and try to come up with reasons for the PVP aspect to be expanded upon. As I said before I am not opposed to either PVE or PVP I have engaged in both in different titles. I understand both sides and respect the views on both sides. I am not choosing one over the other.

In regards to the OP's original statement, perhaps my first reply wasn't the best used, I was just saying due to the fact that Cryptic Studios has already outlined the PVP portion of the game that if it doesn't fall in line to how they wish to play the game then maybe this game is not for them. I meant no other meaning behind it as opposed to the way my first post came off. Hope this clears the air for you and I don't mean that sarcastically, but sincerely.Well I'd respond first with the content of the trailer, which clearly implies that conflict is going to be a major part of the game. In fact, pretty much half of the trailer comes after the line "However, even those that strive for peace, must be prepared for war!", and then cut scenes of combat are shown for the rest of it.


As for that particular statement in the LV vid, he's answering a specific question. "First, you spoke about player run fleets building space stations and such, how similar will this be to the player run corporations in EvE Online?"

The answer given is totally only in regards to the economy of STO. It speaks of how unlike in EvE where the economy is very PvP centric and resources are fought over, in STO a PvP centric economy isn't what they're going for. The economy will have the element, among other elements one would assume, of people competing for resources but not necessarily fighting over them (note though that even there, he's not ruling out PvP being part of resource gathering).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that I have a handle on what kind of PvE/PvP mix the game will have either, and I truly believe that no one will be forced to PvP if they don't want to, but people that are adamant that this will essentially be a PvE centric game really seem to be taking assumptions they're making off of very limited information available and running with them.

[Galv]

[QUOTE=bourne077;180470]Well I'd respond first with the content of the trailer, which clearly implies that conflict is going to be a major part of the game. In fact, pretty much half of the trailer comes after the line "However, even those that strive for peace, must be prepared for war!", and then cut scenes of combat are shown for the rest of it.


As for that particular statement in the LV vid, he's answering a specific question. "First, you spoke about player run fleets building space stations and such, how similar will this be to the player run corporations in EvE Online?"

The answer given is totally only in regards to the economy of STO. It speaks of how unlike in EvE where the economy is very PvP centric and resources are fought over, in STO a PvP centric economy isn't what they're going for. The economy will have the element, among other elements one would assume, of people competing for resources but not necessarily fighting over them (note though that even there, he's not ruling out PvP being part of resource gathering).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that I have a handle on what kind of PvE/PvP mix the game will have either, and I truly believe that no one will be forced to PvP if they don't want to, but people that are adamant that this will essentially be a PvE centric game really seem to be taking assumptions they're making off of very limited information available and running with them.

This is true it's just gamers take on whats been said so far. I just think that the PVPers out there should be asking for a PVP only server instead of wanting to expand on whats be proposed already this way all parties are happy. As it's pretty obvious from all the threads posted on these forums that there's a huge split in what PVEers and PVPers want out the game, and i don't see how they can coexist.

[Silverspar]

[QUOTE=bourne077;180470]Well I'd respond first with the content of the trailer, which clearly implies that conflict is going to be a major part of the game. In fact, pretty much half of the trailer comes after the line "However, even those that strive for peace, must be prepared for war!", and then cut scenes of combat are shown for the rest of it.


As for that particular statement in the LV vid, he's answering a specific question. "First, you spoke about player run fleets building space stations and such, how similar will this be to the player run corporations in EvE Online?"

The answer given is totally only in regards to the economy of STO. It speaks of how unlike in EvE where the economy is very PvP centric and resources are fought over, in STO a PvP centric economy isn't what they're going for. The economy will have the element, among other elements one would assume, of people competing for resources but not necessarily fighting over them (note though that even there, he's not ruling out PvP being part of resource gathering).

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think that I have a handle on what kind of PvE/PvP mix the game will have either, and I truly believe that no one will be forced to PvP if they don't want to, but people that are adamant that this will essentially be a PvE centric game really seem to be taking assumptions they're making off of very limited information available and running with them.

The trailer was aimed at marketting of course and the most common questions. I think one of the things players have always talked about, even back in Perpetual's day, was the talk of fighting the Borg and such, so they handled that. It was a demonstration video, showing off mostly the combat aspects, where people typically look when it concerns a game.

On that note, however, the FAQ already answers the aspects of PvP, in basically that only designated zones will be full on PvP, with contsted areas being completely optional PvP with elements that also have contested PvE aspects, thus would not mean a single phaser shot would have to be fired at the opposing faction. Hell, from TOS to DS9, many of the conflicts were more or less gaining the trust or control of something for resources and resulted less in actual starship battles or phaser fights.

As far as resources, again the FAQ states that in PvP areas and the contested PvE areas it will be a fight for resources, as it were, which would be in line with how things have been handled in Trek before. Though I am still curious about how and if Star Trek Online will allow ships of the Federation to go into the Klingon Empire and vice versa for the Klingons.

[KirksOtherSon]

As far as resources, again the FAQ states that in PvP areas and the contested PvE areas it will be a fight for resources, as it were, which would be in line with how things have been handled in Trek before. Though I am still curious about how and if Star Trek Online will allow ships of the Federation to go into the Klingon Empire and vice versa for the Klingons.

You raise a good question, Spar. Sometimes I wonder if the Federation and the Klingon factions will actually be at war, officially, at game launch.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt this, as an "open war" scenario would pull the game story in a very specific direction -- or would tend to pull things that way. I imagine we'll get something more like what we saw with the Klingons and the Romulans in classic Trek, or the Cardassians in TNG and Deep Space Nine -- clashes, problems, incidents, even outright battles on a regular basis but "what happens in the neutral zones stays in the neutral zones" -- neither government willing (as yet) to declare full-scale war.

If so, then cross-border envoys and missions would certainly be possible. Lots of opportunities for espionage missions, political double-deals, betrayals, and "plausible denability" ambushes there!

It will be interesting to see how Cryptic ultimately handles things,

KOS

[shivafang]

The OP makes a valid point and one that I would like to see more games start implementing.

I say "More" because the new MMO that's being released in September, Warhammer Online, takes exactly this approach. You can start PvPing from level 1 and you can progress through the game doing only PvP if you chose, though Ideally you'd be doing a mixture of PvP and PvE content.

It's being done by other games so I can't see why it wouldn't work here.

For STO I'm probably not going to do a lot of PvP, however I normally am a competitive PvP player.

[Silverspar]

The OP makes a valid point and one that I would like to see more games start implementing.

I say "More" because the new MMO that's being released in September, Warhammer Online, takes exactly this approach. You can start PvPing from level 1 and you can progress through the game doing only PvP if you chose, though Ideally you'd be doing a mixture of PvP and PvE content.

It's being done by other games so I can't see why it wouldn't work here.

For STO I'm probably not going to do a lot of PvP, however I normally am a competitive PvP player.

Warhammer is about fighting other players. Has been from the get-go. To say otherwise would be foolish and to make Warhammer anything else would be disastrous. It's something I would expect as a semi Warhammer player to see, the focus being PvP combat.

[KirksOtherSon]

The OP makes a valid point and one that I would like to see more games start implementing.

I say "More" because the new MMO that's being released in September, Warhammer Online, takes exactly this approach. You can start PvPing from level 1 and you can progress through the game doing only PvP if you chose, though Ideally you'd be doing a mixture of PvP and PvE content.

It's being done by other games so I can't see why it wouldn't work here.

For STO I'm probably not going to do a lot of PvP, however I normally am a competitive PvP player.

Hey Shiva,

It may come down to expectations, in determining how Cryptic decides how to handle PvE and PvP advancement in Star Trek Online.

I think it's fair to say that there's an expectation that a Trek MMORPG had better have good PvE in place at launch, since Trek has ideas and storytelling as a central element of how people define it, and what they expect from it. Cool starship battles are there too, of course, but I don't think they're the first thing people expect from Star Trek. They look for an engaging adventure story about life in "the final frontier" .

On the other hand, the devs behind Warhammer Online must know that having good PvP at launch is most crucial for an MMORPG with the Warhammer name on it. Conflict and grit define the Warhammer franchise; it's what those fans require and expect.

So, I think that Cryptic may be most focused on making sure PvE works _best_ at launch, but I don't think they'll neglect PvP either. The good thing about MMORPGs is that they're always ongoing -- things can be added or tweaked even after launch.

So, it may not be as easy to advance via PvP as PvE on launch day, but (given Cryptic's track record) I could certainly see a day when both paths would become equally viable.

My opinions, anyway,

KOS

[Ptahk]

This is a subject very close to my heart. I fall into the category of absolutely ****** hating pvp, but do agree that it should be in the game, if only to appease the pvpers. I dont agree with stuff being available only in pvp areas, its daft, makes my blood boil when people mention it and besides there already is a game out there doing just that called eve online. Is that what everyone wants? an eve clone? Sod Eve! Its a niche game that appeals to a certain type of player. How many play eve? not that many!
I don't think for one minute it will be like eve anyway. The best areas to mine wont be in pvp only areas. The best stuff wont drop off rats in pvp only areas. Just my opinion. :D

[Hagon]

[QUOTE=Hagon;180580]

The trailer was aimed at marketting of course and the most common questions. I think one of the things players have always talked about, even back in Perpetual's day, was the talk of fighting the Borg and such, so they handled that. It was a demonstration video, showing off mostly the combat aspects, where people typically look when it concerns a game.

On that note, however, the FAQ already answers the aspects of PvP, in basically that only designated zones will be full on PvP, with contsted areas being completely optional PvP with elements that also have contested PvE aspects, thus would not mean a single phaser shot would have to be fired at the opposing faction. Hell, from TOS to DS9, many of the conflicts were more or less gaining the trust or control of something for resources and resulted less in actual starship battles or phaser fights.

As far as resources, again the FAQ states that in PvP areas and the contested PvE areas it will be a fight for resources, as it were, which would be in line with how things have been handled in Trek before. Though I am still curious about how and if Star Trek Online will allow ships of the Federation to go into the Klingon Empire and vice versa for the Klingons.Yes, exactly, and it's good to see you finally acknowledge that combat and war is most definitely going to be a big part of the Star Trek experience for STO. I'm sure though that those that don't particularly want that kind of Trek experience will have ways to avoid it. All that was asked here was that the same accommodation be made for those that want to avoid a more non-combative experience, if I may put it that way. I still don't see why that's considered by some to be an unreasonable desire.

How the zones are laid out is yet to be seen, but from the little we know so far one can assume that there's a high possibility that there'll be just as much game space, if you will, dedicated to PvP as there will be to PvE. So I don't see your reasoning why any of this would negate the possibility of them including a way for players that make the choice (stressing the "that make the choice" part) to advance their characters via PvP exclusively. Just because there'll be areas where PvP will be enabled, but avoidable for those that don't want to do it, doesn't remove that possibility.

Warhammer is about fighting other players. Has been from the get-go. To say otherwise would be foolish and to make Warhammer anything else would be disastrous. It's something I would expect as a semi Warhammer player to see, the focus being PvP combat.Actually the Warhammer TT game is about fighting other players, but the Warhammer IP isn't just about that at all.

As someone that was following WAR from it's very early stages of development, and was invited into the beta pretty early on, I assure you that the game is absolutely not focused on PvP alone at all. I'm not breaking any of the NDA that's left (They've lifted most of it now) by saying that one can level up in that game never taking part in PvP, and have just as rich and satisfying a gaming experience as someone that only PvPs (if you can take yet another fantasy MMOG that is. I know I found I couldn't), and in fact in terms of actual content there's more PvE stuff to do than PvP.

[Mook]

That's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about PvP'ers having to PvE in order to advance their characters.

dude get over it .i hope they make it where you do both pve/pvp no matter what to get stuff and that

[Hagon]

[QUOTE=Hagon;180580]

This is true it's just gamers take on whats been said so far. I just think that the PVPers out there should be asking for a PVP only server instead of wanting to expand on whats be proposed already this way all parties are happy. As it's pretty obvious from all the threads posted on these forums that there's a huge split in what PVEers and PVPers want out the game, and i don't see how they can coexist.I think it's important to differentiate the types of PvPers that are asking for things, and to make sure and understand exactly what they're asking for.

From what I see when I look around, there's really only a very very few that actually want anything resembling more hardcore PvP rule sets, or FFA PvP.

What I see most PvP enthusiasts asking for is that PvP be treated with as much care, attention, and detail that PvE is treated. That PvPing in the game provide just as much of a fun and rewarding experience, and is given as much depth as they would give the PvE. Believe me, PvP can have great depth to it, and be truly story based and story driven. Those of us that played DAoC will attest to that without reservation. Not very many of the things I've seen asked for would require separate PvP servers at all, including what was asked for here, but just added depth to the PvP content that will be provided on every server. It in no way has to infringe upon any PvE content or areas either.

So I say again, I don't see why those kinds of desires are continually treated as being unreasonable.

[KirksOtherSon]

This is a subject very close to my heart. I fall into the category of absolutely ****** hating pvp, but do agree that it should be in the game, if only to appease the pvpers. I dont agree with stuff being available only in pvp areas, its daft, makes my blood boil when people mention it and besides there already is a game out there doing just that called eve online. Is that what everyone wants? an eve clone? Sod Eve! Its a niche game that appeals to a certain type of player. How many play eve? not that many!
I don't think for one minute it will be like eve anyway. The best areas to mine wont be in pvp only areas. The best stuff wont drop off rats in pvp only areas. Just my opinion. :D

I expect that Star Trek Online won't resemble EVE Online when finished. For one thing, it doesn't fit the Trek franchise to imitate EVE too closely.

Besides, EVE Online is already out there for those who want it (LINK (http://eve-online.com/)) and NetDevil is releasing a very EVE-like upgrade of an old game of theirs, titled Jumpgate Evolution (LINK (http://www.jumpgateevolution.com/)) sooner than later.

With two MMO variations on the same themes available, there's not much incentive to make Star Trek Online particularly EVE-like. Hardcore EVE fans would likely find the whole Trek melieu disappointing anyway, because it wouldn't give them enough of what they enjoy -- unless it was "All Dominion War, All The Time",or something similar ...

That said, I would be careful how you bait the EVE fans hereabouts. Many of them tend to be ... over-excitable, to say the least. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

KOS

[Silverspar]

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth Hagon. Star Trek still isn't about war.

[Galv]

[QUOTE=Galv;180617]I think it's important to differentiate the types of PvPers that are asking for things, and to make sure and understand exactly what they're asking for.

From what I see when I look around, there's really only a very very few that actually want anything resembling more hardcore PvP rule sets, or FFA PvP.

What I see most PvP enthusiasts asking for is that PvP be treated with as much care, attention, and detail that PvE is treated. That PvPing in the game provide just as much of a fun and rewarding experience, and is given as much depth as they would give the PvE. Believe me, PvP can have great depth to it, and be truly story based and story driven. Those of us that played DAoC will attest to that without reservation. Not very many of the things I've seen asked for would require separate PvP servers at all, including what was asked for here, but just added depth to the PvP content that will be provided on every server. It in no way has to infringe upon any PvE content or areas either.

So I say again, I don't see why those kinds of desires are continually treated as being unreasonable.

I think i see what your saying, but for this to happen your effectively have 2 different games running on 1 server won't you? are you as a PVPer going to be happy with just a few systems/zones where it's all out PVP to progress in? this is why i mentioned the PVP only server atleast it would open up the whole galaxy for you instead of a few zones, i just don't see how they can provide enough content for you to progress as a PVPer. I'd find it very frustrating being stuck patroling a few zones waiting for another PVPer to enter.

[Elfender]

Warhammer is about fighting other players. Has been from the get-go. To say otherwise would be foolish and to make Warhammer anything else would be disastrous. It's something I would expect as a semi Warhammer player to see, the focus being PvP combat.

Warhammer has a very comprehensive PvE system as well, both systems exist apart in unison, its possivly to either PvP or PvE all through the game without ever doing the other side.

[QUOTE=Hagon;180736]

I think i see what your saying, but for this to happen your effectively have 2 different games running on 1 server won't you? are you as a PVPer going to be happy with just a few systems/zones where it's all out PVP to progress in? this is why i mentioned the PVP only server atleast it would open up the whole galaxy for you instead of a few zones, i just don't see how they can provide enough content for you to progress as a PVPer. I'd find it very frustrating being stuck patroling a few zones waiting for another PVPer to enter.

Warhammer does...and they have seperate PvP/PvE Areas

[Galv]

Warhammer has a very comprehensive PvE system as well, both systems exist apart in unison, its possivly to either PvP or PvE all through the game without ever doing the other side.

[QUOTE=Galv;180768]

Warhammer does...and they have seperate PvP/PvE Areas


Well i don't about warhammer never played it, but all i'm saying is with Cryptic already mentioning that PVP will be restricted to zones i'm guessing this going to restrict your PVP play, wouldn't you rather have the whole galaxy to play in, instead of a few zones. On top of that some of these zones it will still be consenting PVP anyway.

[Elfender]

Well i don't about warhammer never played it, but all i'm saying is with Cryptic already mentioning that PVP will be restricted to zones i'm guessing this going to restrict your PVP play, wouldn't you rather have the whole galaxy to play in, instead of a few zones. On top of that some of these zones it will still be consenting PVP anyway.

ummm...i do have the entire universe to play in...i prefer seperate PvP/PvE...no offense, but in my experience across games 75-85% of all PvPer are immature people who prefer to dominate the weak, and are not above greifing and camping...i know, i used to grief and camp people who did just that in WoW just to see if i could make them give it up...usually they logged out, probly cursing up a storm, not my fault i was a better player, with better equipment and tended to PvP where it was actually a challenge, so i was more equiped to deal with griefers than they were with me.

PvP everywhere is just as big a mistake as no PvP at all...let it be like this, we still dont know how the system will play out.

[Galv]

ummm...i do have the entire universe to play in...i prefer seperate PvP/PvE...no offense, but in my experience across games 75-85% of all PvPer are immature people who prefer to dominate the weak, and are not above greifing and camping...i know, i used to grief and camp people who did just that in WoW just to see if i could make them give it up...usually they logged out, probly cursing up a storm, not my fault i was a better player, with better equipment and tended to PvP where it was actually a challenge, so i was more equiped to deal with griefers than they were with me.

PvP everywhere is just as big a mistake as no PvP at all...let it be like this, we still dont know how the system will play out.

No offence taken, i much prefer pve, and pvp should just be an added option, like in SWG where you could enter deep space when you wanted for some PVP action. I thought from your earlier post you wanted the STO pvp element expanded like others had mentioned on this thread.

[Elfender]

No offence taken, i much prefer pve, and pvp when i want some multiplayer battling. I thought from your earlier post you wanted the STO pvp element expanded like others had mentioned on this thread.

I've been known to PvP, like i said, i LOVE finding ways to grief the griefers...but most of my PvP experience is reactionary. I Played the WAR Beta, and i love the system they built to placate both PvE and PvP minded players. I Got to level 16...and 4 of those were done in an RvR zone against other players...

But as i've also stated...UNlimited unrestricted server wide PvP is just as bad as no PvP content at all, especially considering the IP of Star Trek, its lore and history. Even the conflict in Star Trek was themed with the over riding peaceful exploration tones.

[KirksOtherSon]

i prefer seperate PvP/PvE...no offense, but in my experience across games 75-85% of all PvPer are immature people who prefer to dominate the weak, and are not above greifing and camping...i know, i used to grief and camp people who did just that in WoW just to see if i could make them give it up...usually they logged out, probly cursing up a storm, not my fault i was a better player, with better equipment and tended to PvP where it was actually a challenge, so i was more equiped to deal with griefers than they were with me.

PvP everywhere is just as big a mistake as no PvP at all...let it be like this, we still dont know how the system will play out.

If more PvP players thought like you, Elfender, I'd probably still give it a go once in a while. Unfortunately, most of my PvP experiences have been exactly what you describe: getting ambushed and group-killed by a gang of guys far above my level, just because they could. Guys who always run from any fight where they don't have an obvious and overwhelming advantage at all times.

I don't PvP any more because, ultimately, dying repeatedly because of "goon gang" ambushes is a boring way to spend my online time and money. Plus all the trash talk and gloating is irritating when you know they only won because there were eight of them, and one of you.

Glad to know some PvPers still try to play it as an actual tactical contest, and not just "bully boy" crap meant to compensate for having small manly bits. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

KOS

[TheMasterpiece]

can i remind everyone that this IS a game of exploration, diplomacy, tactics, strategy, and management. This isnt halo. And combat isnt and should not be a huge part of the game. a part, but not a HUGE part. PvP is going to have a HUGE amount of room (all unclaimed sectors of space) and PvE can take place anywhere, at anytime. I see no reason to complain

[Elfender]

i still dont think unexplored sectors should be open PvP...but i will probably still explore even if it is.

[Bazil]

I just have to say that I love the way the thread is progressing, I just came back from my vacationhouse and I read through it all, I couldn't find anything to repsond to that Hagon didn't already respond to in my absence, thank you Hagon for that by the way. I'll try to be more active in any further discussions.

I read 2-3 messages claiming that I was suggesting a system in which PvP would be compulsory and that's completely the opposite of what I am suggesting. I also realize that making a system in which PvP would be a means to progress your character is a daunting task and most likely one that the developers are hesitant to attempt, but simply implementing something would go a long way to making PvP a more rewarding experience.

Oh, and to the posters who said the series were peaceful and about exploring rather than combat. I agree, of course, but all of the Star Trek series and movies were from a Starfleet perspective, who are peaceful and diplomatic by nature. I wonder how much diplomacy and exploration there would be in a Star Trek series taking place on a Bird of Prey.

[Hagon]

Now you are trying to put words in my mouth Hagon. Star Trek still isn't about war.For you, and of course for others as well. For yet others war and conflict are a big part of what Star Trek is, and what it is for them is just as true as what it is for you.

I didn't try and put words in your mouth at all. I said...

"Yes, exactly, and it's good to see you finally acknowledge that combat and war is most definitely going to be a big part of the Star Trek experience for STO."

Which you acknowledged, and which is clearly evident when one watches the trailer and watches the Las Vegas vid. No one is saying that it's going to be all about that. It's going to be one of the elements of it. Just as exploration is going to be an element of it. It's certainly been made clear that it's not going to be about just one thing that's for sure.

[Silverspar]

For you, and of course for others as well. For yet others war and conflict are a big part of what Star Trek is, and what it is for them is just as true as what it is for you.

I didn't try and put words in your mouth at all. I said...

"Yes, exactly, and it's good to see you finally acknowledge that combat and war is most definitely going to be a big part of the Star Trek experience for STO."

Which you acknowledged, and which is clearly evident when one watches the trailer and watches the Las Vegas vid. No one is saying that it's going to be all about that. It's going to be one of the elements of it. Just as exploration is going to be an element of it. It's certainly been made clear that it's not going to be about just one thing that's for sure.

I never denied that war wasn't in Star Trek, however I stated that war was not about waht the Star Trek experience is. Preparing for war is a totally different animal than being at war. And conflict is always present, but the majority of conflicts in Star Trek, not including Sisko's attempt at being Kirk, most conflict based situations involved more thinking out of it, and rarely used the phaser, especially aggressively.

[Hagon]

[
Well i don't about warhammer never played it, but all i'm saying is with Cryptic already mentioning that PVP will be restricted to zones i'm guessing this going to restrict your PVP play, wouldn't you rather have the whole galaxy to play in, instead of a few zones. On top of that some of these zones it will still be consenting PVP anyway.I think that many may be thinking of this wrong. There seems to be this assumption that the main game IS the PvE game, and that PvP will be peripheral. I think this misconception is coming about because of people misinterpreting what was said about where Pvp will be taking place.

Just because they say that PvP will be restricted to designated sectors of space (far-off reaches of unclaimed territory), doesn't necessarily mean that PvP is going to be marginalized. It's describing the areas where PvP will be taking place.

As an example of what I mean, when one reads the description of where PvP takes place in DAoC, it's described as taking place on the distant frontiers. Yet PvP is a major part of that game, definitely equal to PvE in scope and player participation. Even though it is in fact happening on the frontiers, it's relatively easy to get there, and the location of where it's taking place doesn't reflect the importance of it in the game.

[Hagon]

can i remind everyone that this IS a game of exploration, diplomacy, tactics, strategy, and management. This isnt halo. And combat isnt and should not be a huge part of the game. a part, but not a HUGE part. PvP is going to have a HUGE amount of room (all unclaimed sectors of space) and PvE can take place anywhere, at anytime. I see no reason to complainI quoted this post, but I'm addressing some of the other previous ones as well.

No one has been asking that the PvP take precedence over any other part of the game. Not in this thread. That in no way has been what this thread has been about. No one in this thread has asked for more space in the game to be given over to PvP in either.


I don't mean to seem like I'm jumping at anyone. I just thought it important to not let the topic at hand get clouded up by entirely different issues.

It's really unfortunate that what with some of the unfortunate chips some people have on their shoulders regarding PvP that they immediately get their bristles up whenever they see someone asking for anything to do with PvP. As someone that enjoys both aspects of the game equally, and has PvPed in MMOGs for many many years, long before WoW came on the scene, I'll contradict what someone else has said here and state emphatically that the vast majority of people that enjoy PvP take no part in griefing, or ganking, or any of the other silly and immature behaviour that people always cite.

[Hagon]

I never denied that war wasn't in Star Trek, however I stated that war was not about waht the Star Trek experience is. Preparing for war is a totally different animal than being at war. And conflict is always present, but the majority of conflicts in Star Trek, not including Sisko's attempt at being Kirk, most conflict based situations involved more thinking out of it, and rarely used the phaser, especially aggressively.I really don't know how to relate to you on this matter Silverspear, and I don't say that in an insulting way, but just because you can't seem to accept that there's any other way to view what the "Star Trek" experience is. You are obviously convinced that how you view it is the correct way and the only way., so there's no way to get beyond that point.

[Saladin_Class]

There are vast numbers of people that play MMOGs that don't like PvE.
.

Thats just play poppycock.

There are pure PvP MMos where you can fight, die, rez, rinse and repeat all you want to.

PvPers in a mixed envonrment want to grieve, and gank PvEers, Nothing More.


If any of you PvPers wanted a real chalange, go try Aces High, or Warbirds. For space Jumpgate

PURE PVP, no special armor, gear, XP, or anything to get in ytour way of raising to the top of the kill board.

Except othes just like you.

Everytime I post this somewhere, the stanard reply is:

Its to hard, it takes to long, they are always ganking me etc etc etc

Put up or shut up.

No one forces PvE on anyone, but we are all forced PvP

The ONLY way to keep the peace is to keep the PvPers and PvEers seperated.

Even when MMOs like EVE try to, the gankers come into PvE space and suicide themsleves.

[Silverspar]

I really don't know how to relate to you on this matter Silverspear, and I don't say that in an insulting way, but just because you can't seem to accept that there's any other way to view what the "Star Trek" experience is. You are obviously convinced that how you view it is the correct way and the only way., so there's no way to get beyond that point.

There is a difference here. Your view is a gamers view, you believe that war and fighting is always going to happen. That is still not, in the words of Gene himself, how he views the future of Star Trek. It doesn't matter in principle whether you accept that view or not, that was the view and ideals set forth by the creator himself. That humanity itself strove to be better than itself. That is the view of Gene Roddenberry.

Personally don't understand why you keep contesting it and stating it's my view, when it's not. It's the view that was laid down by the creator himself.

[Bazil]

Thats just play poppycock.

I disagree.


PvPers in a mixed envonrment want to grieve, and gank PvEers, Nothing More.


Nobody is suggesting a mixed enviorment, please read the thread and original post for an idea what this thread is about.


No one forces PvE on anyone, but we are all forced PvP


Just plain old incorrect, on both accounts.

[Hagon]

There is a difference here. Your view is a gamers view, you believe that war and fighting is always going to happen. That is still not, in the words of Gene himself, how he views the future of Star Trek. It doesn't matter in principle whether you accept that view or not, that was the view and ideals set forth by the creator himself. That humanity itself strove to be better than itself. That is the view of Gene Roddenberry.

Personally don't understand why you keep contesting it and stating it's my view, when it's not. It's the view that was laid down by the creator himself.I keep contesting it because as I said, what "the creator" intended is essentially irrelevant once a piece of art is out there among the people. It's what each individual that experiences that art takes away from it that's true. Each individual's truth about that art is just as valid as any other individual's truth about it. Thats at the very core of all things artistic, and any true artist will tell you that.

Furthermore I personally think that you've skewed Roddenberry's vision a bit, put him up on a bit too high of a pedestal, and attributed a bit too much to him as well. As far as being the driving force behind what Star Trek is anyway. That's a whole other debate though, and one that's been raging for decades.

[Hagon]

I disagree.



Nobody is suggesting a mixed enviorment, please read the thread and original post for an idea what this thread is about.



Just plain old incorrect, on both accounts.heh ya, I just couldn't think of a way to respond to that one without hurting the poor person's feelings too much, so I skipped it. ;)

[Galv]

Will there be PvP, PvE and RP rule set servers?
There will not be separate servers for PvP and PvE rulesets. Open PvP will be restricted to designated sectors of space (far-off reaches of unclaimed territory). Consensual PvP and competitive PvE will occur between the realm borders (the Neutral Zone), where players will be competing over territory and resources with the option to PvP.

I've watched some more of the interviews with Jack and on the MMO video when asked about Klingons and Feds competeing he clear states "indirectly for resources and directly in pvp" and then on one of the Gencon videos he mentions a zone which will be all out war. That with the above Q+A assues me that any pvp will be up to the player. So this shouldn't be a problem for anyone, PVPers can blast each all they want but won't be able to attack any gamer who hasn't consented or unless they've entered this war zone. This is ideal because once i'm ready for some and my ships powerful enough i can jump in and have fun. I think most of gamers concerns over pvp is that it will stop them accessing certain planets/systems or resources (it was my concern anyway) which you have undestand. Where as you 2 Hagon and Bazil just want a pvp experiance, not every pvper is like that and many would try exploit any advantage they can take, but i'm sure the above rules will stop this the keyword is consent. Just not sure they'll make it as depth as you want though.

[Wallach1]

Honestly, I really don't see the problem here. From what I am seeing, you will be able to not only use PvE to advance your toon, but pretty sure there will be plenty of people out there to PVP you when you wish to, at any level of advancement.

So either way you get to go at it from the get go.

But from what I've seen from previous MMOs I've been in, not very many people want to PvP at level 1.

Just my 2 slivers of latnum.

[bourne077]

There is a difference here. Your view is a gamers view, you believe that war and fighting is always going to happen. That is still not, in the words of Gene himself, how he views the future of Star Trek. It doesn't matter in principle whether you accept that view or not, that was the view and ideals set forth by the creator himself. That humanity itself strove to be better than itself. That is the view of Gene Roddenberry.

Personally don't understand why you keep contesting it and stating it's my view, when it's not. It's the view that was laid down by the creator himself.

Agree with everything you said Silverspar.

As for the glorious Klingon example, once again my view on it, I like to believe that the Klingon players who are sticking to the honorable role would take on challenges rather than preying on the weak for there would be no honor in that.

Obviously didn't get the message on this one.

I think the whole raging debate between PVP and PVE comes down to one thing. The PVE'ers enjoy content. The PVP'ers enjoy combat. Where the waters get muddied and where it gets hostile is when the PVE crowd gets ganked and griefed by those players, not saying that all PVP'ers are like that far from it, I've experienced PVP battles with very skilled and honorable opponents. At the same time where the PVP'ers get annoyed is when, again I'm referring to the griefers, they can't get their way to be able to do those sort of actions to the PVE'ers because that's what they enjoy.

Did you read this part at all Hagon???

If you read clearly on the forums, which I believe you have, you'll see the true respected PVP'ers are ok with the system that Cryptic has stated will be in the game. As opposed to those that constantly bring up topics and try to come up with reasons for the PVP aspect to be expanded upon. As I said before I am not opposed to either PVE or PVP I have engaged in both in different titles. I understand both sides and respect the views on both sides. I am not choosing one over the other.

Or this part?

[QUOTE=Hagon;180580][QUOTE=bourne077;180470]Well I'd respond first with the content of the trailer, which clearly implies that conflict is going to be a major part of the game. In fact, pretty much half of the trailer comes after the line "However, even those that strive for peace, must be prepared for war!", and then cut scenes of combat are shown for the rest of it.


If all you took from this clip was PVP combat and not perhaps showing the ships and combat in general that's your opinion, just like this is mine.



[QUOTE=Galv;180617]I think it's important to differentiate the types of PvPers that are asking for things, and to make sure and understand exactly what they're asking for.

Good point. Ask the majority of PVP'ers out there want they would like to see and see what kinds of responses are given. I'll hold my response to this one until some PVP'ers have responded.

ummm...i do have the entire universe to play in...i prefer seperate PvP/PvE...no offense, but in my experience across games 75-85% of all PvPer are immature people who prefer to dominate the weak, and are not above greifing and camping...i know, i used to grief and camp people who did just that in WoW just to see if i could make them give it up...usually they logged out, probly cursing up a storm, not my fault i was a better player, with better equipment and tended to PvP where it was actually a challenge, so i was more equiped to deal with griefers than they were with me.

PvP everywhere is just as big a mistake as no PvP at all...let it be like this, we still dont know how the system will play out.

More good points I agree with and a personal testimonial.

If more PvP players thought like you, Elfender, I'd probably still give it a go once in a while. Unfortunately, most of my PvP experiences have been exactly what you describe: getting ambushed and group-killed by a gang of guys far above my level, just because they could. Guys who always run from any fight where they don't have an obvious and overwhelming advantage at all times.

Another personal testimonial

I don't PvP any more because, ultimately, dying repeatedly because of "goon gang" ambushes is a boring way to spend my online time and money. Plus all the trash talk and gloating is irritating when you know they only won because there were eight of them, and one of you.

A big fact here some people skip over.

Glad to know some PvPers still try to play it as an actual tactical contest, and not just "bully boy" crap meant to compensate for having small manly bits. :rolleyes:

Cheers,

KOS

Some.

I just have to say that I love the way the thread is progressing, I just came back from my vacationhouse and I read through it all, I couldn't find anything to repsond to that Hagon didn't already respond to in my absence, thank you Hagon for that by the way. I'll try to be more active in any further discussions.

SO how much are you paying him for this all?? It's a joke get over it.

[bourne077]

I have a simple question for you Hagon and Bazil. I'm curious to see what your responses are. Let's use this as an example.





If you were faced entering an uncharted, unexplored, whatever you wish to call it, zone and come across another vessel that is lesser than your own.



What would your initial response be to that situation?

Would you merely laugh and open fire on the other ship because your bigger, have more guns, shields are better, or just plain can cause you feel like it?

Would you attempt communications first off to determine the other ship's intentions?

Would there be diplomacy on your part to avoid conflict and resolve the situation peacefully for the better of both parties involved?

I'm looking for an honest answer, not doctored or skewed in any way. Your personal OPINIONS and FEELINGS on the matter at hand.

I could take this further, but I'll reserve that once you both have responded.

[bourne077]

I keep contesting it because as I said, what "the creator" intended is essentially irrelevant once a piece of art is out there among the people. It's what each individual that experiences that art takes away from it that's true.[/B]

So let me ask you this since this is the stance you've taken on things. I'll use an example here. If we were to take a look at the Mona Lisa, for arguments sake, and basically what you're saying is that everyone who looks upon the painting of the Mona Lisa comes away with their own opinions of what it should be correct? Ok I can fly with that because everyone is entitled to their opinions and views. So if you looked at it and I looked at it and we come away from looking at it with you saying it's one thing and I'm saying it's another thing, because we both have minds and expressions.

Does that change the painting? Has it morphed each time someone looks at it and changed the way it looks or is the painting exactly the same way it was before either of us ever looked upon it the way the painter, or creator for that matter, intended it to look? I'm just curious and trying to understand your logic about Gene's vision that he had for Star Trek? Because you constantly bring up the argument that his "vision" that he created is irrelevant and the point is moot.

Here's another example for you as well. If we pick up the same book and read it. What you may come away with because of your reading style may be different than what I come away with, but have the words on the pages that the writer wrote changed in any way? No they are still the same words and will continue to be the same words irregardless. The words on the pages of paper do not change. The writer's vision or creativity within those words have not changed. They are the same.

Look at my other post and answer that for us here, both you and Bazil please.

Oh and one more thing for you to say that people are making things up and "running" with it isn't very accurate as well. Look at this post..........

http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=8673

For yet others war and conflict are a big part of what Star Trek is, and what it is for them is just as true as what it is for you.

At the time when I saw the post there were 15 posts on the thread. Out of those 15 posts 2 answered that PVP would be the first thing they do, but 1 of the 2 was tied with questing, nevertheless. 9 out of the 15 didn't even include PVP. The other 6 answered that did include PVP in their response it wasn't as high a priority. The majority of what they would be doing, as indicated by their responses was exploring, questing, trading, and crafting. This is in response to this comment you made. Yes I'm using facts and not "just running with it".

[Hagon]

I have a simple question for you Hagon and Bazil. I'm curious to see what your responses are. Let's use this as an example.





If you were faced entering an uncharted, unexplored, whatever you wish to call it, zone and come across another vessel that is lesser than your own.



What would your initial response be to that situation?

Would you merely laugh and open fire on the other ship because your bigger, have more guns, shields are better, or just plain can cause you feel like it?

Would you attempt communications first off to determine the other ship's intentions?

Would there be diplomacy on your part to avoid conflict and resolve the situation peacefully for the better of both parties involved?

I'm looking for an honest answer, not doctored or skewed in any way. Your personal OPINIONS and FEELINGS on the matter at hand.

I could take this further, but I'll reserve that once you both have responded. I should first say here that you seem to have missed the fact that I've stated a few times that I enjoy PvE and PvP equally. I know, I know. Some believe we all need to a put into separate categories and labelled so they can keep things straight in their heads and judge us accordingly, so sorry if I'm confusing anyone. People should get used to it though, because there's A LOT more like me than some seem to think.

Anyway, back to the question.

For myself, it would be a matter of how PvP is set up in the game.

If killing that ship would advance my faction's standing in any way (i.e.points garnered toward some faction reward or whatnot) , or my personal standing (again, points toward some goal etc etc), then it's dead. Simple as that.

For this to happen then that smaller, less powerful ship would have had to enter a PvP zone alone, knowing full well that there were more powerful enemy ships about, and that those ships would be looking to score points (or whatever system might be in place) if they could. It deserved what it got because of bad decision making.

If there's no point in killing that ship (i.e. nothing to gain for my faction or me), and it's clearly underpowered compared to myself and wouldn't offer any challenge in killing it, then I'd simply pass it by. If there was, say a wave emote, or a salute emote, I'd give one of those. If the person playing that ship decided to annoy me by firing on my clearly superior ship, then it's dead.

To give a quick answer to your other questions.

No when we walk away from the Mona Lisa the painting doesn't change.

We have though.

We both have taken something away from it. That being our own individual interpretation of what we saw.

You may think it's a scathing commentary on the vapid nature of wealthy early 16th century woman.

I may think it's a painting of da Vinci's mistress, and she's smiling because he's standing on the other side of the easel nekkid.

Meanwhile ol' da Vinci just thought of it as a commissioned painting of Lisa del Giocondo done for her rich family that brought him in some much needed coin.

In your book example, again no the words don't change, but our personal interpretations of what those words are saying to us will more than likely be completely different. We each take away what we do based on our perspective of the world, our past experiences, our education, heck a myriad of things too numerous to list here.

I've been a fan of all things Trek for @ 35 years (yes yes, I was born in the 60's. I am that old. :p ). I don't profess to being a Trek expert though, or that what I take away from Trek is what everyone else should take away from Trek either. My knowledge of it, and what I think of it, is mine. Who are you, or anyone else, to tell me I'm wrong?

At the time when I saw the post there were 15 posts on the thread. Out of those 15 posts 1 answered that PVP would be the first thing they do. Everyone else answered something other than PVP, and if they did include PVP in their response it was secondary or non existent. The majority of what they would be doing, as indicated by their responses was exploring, questing, trading, and crafting. This is in response to this comment you made. Yes I'm using facts and not "just running with it". What does that show? That the majority of the people that randomly happened to see this one particular thread in a brief space of time responded with those comments. That's it. That's all it shows. Nothing more. I know you're trying to get across that you believe this is some kind of representative sampling of all Trekkies that might come to play STO, but I assure you it's not. Not even remotely close.

If you want evidence of something, how about the ever increasing numbers of people posting about PvP in STO in positive terms now that the word is getting out that there will in fact be PvP in the game?

Did you read this part at all Hagon???
Yes I read it, but I'm not a griefer, and the vast majority of the people that enjoy PvP that I've met, or have seen, in many years of gaming online aren't either.

[Bazil]

I'm just curious and trying to understand your logic about Gene's vision that he had for Star Trek? Because you constantly bring up the argument that his "vision" that he created is irrelevant and the point is moot.

Personally, not speaking for Hagon. This will be a game, not a continuation and homage to the legend that is Gene. Therefor, as a game, what matters is the opinions and the wants/needs of the people who will play it, Gene Roddenberry most likely won't even play the game, thus, his view of how the game should be made is irrelevant.

Also I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that maybe in this future, fighting against ships from a different species has become a larger part of the lives on both sides than it was in the more peaceful era that we've known.

Ps. I second Hagon's reply to your question.

[Saladin_Class]

I disagree.


Nobody is suggesting a mixed enviorment, please read the thread and original post for an idea what this thread is about.


Just plain old incorrect, on both accounts.

My post was in regard to hagons quote.

(A) when you use the term (most) that would mean the majority. This isnt so. WIthout polls per age group, this is a baseless comment. Thus it is poppycock.

(B) I read lots of forums for new MMOs, everyone is riddled (this one also) with post about how worthless this or that game will be without FFA PvP. Thus my answer.

(C) go play EVE and tell me PvPers are not forcing themselves on others. ANy MMO that gives a PvPer an inch , some will take a mile.

[sokolov]

[begin non-serious post]
Forced PvP? Forced PvE?

What about forced gameplay?

I want to work in Starfleet and advance through hard work and dedication, not waste doing meaningless sidequests or killing other players. If I want to sit at a desk reviewing trade agreements between Federation members to ensure fairness (and have both sides hate me), I should be able to be a Trade Arbitrator!
[end non-serious post]

[Galv]

Personally, not speaking for Hagon. This will be a game, not a continuation and homage to the legend that is Gene. Therefor, as a game, what matters is the opinions and the wants/needs of the people who will play it, Gene Roddenberry most likely won't even play the game, thus, his view of how the game should be made is irrelevant.

Also I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that maybe in this future, fighting against ships from a different species has become a larger part of the lives on both sides than it was in the more peaceful era that we've known.

Ps. I second Hagon's reply to your question.

Anything be it game, book or movie is a homage to Roddenberry it's based on his vision. Any Star Trek fan will tell you that. I'm guessing the "Gene Roddenberry most likely won't even play the game" was intened as a joke and a bad one at that. The more i read the pvp threads the more it seems to me that they all want some sort of EVE clone, and i'm sorry but the pvp mechanic doesn't work in the trek galaxy unless it's purely for war, in general Fed ships never just attack a vessel unless in defence, how many trek episodes or movies has the enterprise entered a system and opened fire on KIingon without trying to hail it first and find out why it's there, how do you propose to get round this?. What your not making clear in this thred is how you want the pvp thing to work, how are you going progress in rank etc. Don't get me wrong i'm not against it everyone is entiled to play the game how they want, but it just seems to me that pvpers aren't happy because the current system is going to limit who they can attack and when/where.

[Bazil]

My post was in regard to hagons quote.
(A) when you use the term (most) that would mean the majority. This isnt so. WIthout polls per age group, this is a baseless comment. Thus it is poppycock.

And when did he say "Most"?



(C) go play EVE and tell me PvPers are not forcing themselves on others. ANy MMO that gives a PvPer an inch , some will take a mile.

I did play EvE, and I agree that in that game PvP was a prominent part which you were usually "forced" to take part of.

But you didn't say EvE, you made a general statement which seemed to refer to all MMORPG's, and your statement about PvE was definately false, even in EvE.

[Bazil]

Anything be it game, book or movie is a homage to Roddenberry it's based on his vision. Any Star Trek fan will tell you that.

Based on, not restricted to. A game should be made to reflect the wants of the people who will play it. It's the old canon vs fun argument, and I think they should add more combat than Gene originally had in the series, thus I suppose I support Fun for once.


in general Fed ships never just attack a vessel unless in defence, how many trek episodes or movies has the enterprise entered a system and opened fire on KIingon without trying to hail it first and find out why it's there, how do you propose to get round this?. What your not making clear in this thred is how you want the pvp thing to work,

That's because I'm not trying to suggest a PvP system, I'm suggesting rewards for whatever PvP system they do put in the game. Since there will be PvP in the game, it's clear that federation ships will attack Klingon ships for some reason, I'm not concerned with why or how, I'm concerned with being rewarded for your efforts while fighting.

[Galv]

Based on, not restricted to. A game should be made to reflect the wants of the people who will play it. It's the old canon vs fun argument, and I think they should add more combat than Gene originally had in the series, thus I suppose I support Fun for once.



That's because I'm not trying to suggest a PvP system, I'm suggesting rewards for whatever PvP system they do put in the game. Since there will be PvP in the game, it's clear that federation ships will attack Klingon ships for some reason, I'm not concerned with why or how, I'm concerned with being rewarded for your efforts while fighting.


That's what i was asking really, i'm guessing by rewards you mean itemes or how this will progress your rank? what sort of reward system would you want?

[NeoWolf]

I'm sorry if this has brought up before, but after lurking and searching (didn't really know what to search for), I did not see a thread about this.

There's been a lot of talk about "Forced PvP" and how PvE'ers are adamant about PvP not being necessary in order to obtain everything in the game. No special "ores" or other resouces being restricted to the open PvP areas such as in EvE and I agree! It is terrible having to do something that you hate doing in order to obtain what you want.

But why is this being portrayed as a problem exclusively for the PvE crowd? Us PvP'ers... When you stab* us, do we not bleed? When you tickle us do we not laugh? When you force us to grind and kill mobs in order to get the gear and levels needed to compete in PvP, do we not get frustrated, annoyed and cry like little girls because we have to spend hours upon hours doing something we hate doing?
.

The reason for this is simple... and that is this... this game is an MMORPG not an MMO[b]G[/b} as such the fundamental point of it is in questing/missions/the story and your characters role in them and the social and cooperative elements that those bring, which is the main point of MMORPG's as opposed to Fighting, and objective based competitve game play which is the main gist of MMOG's

Its like saying why doesnt my COD4 avatar get to level up and distribute skill points and why cant I make a better gun.. i.e because it isnt as important to the nature of the game as the ability to actually pick up that gun and shoot that guy.

Now in todays MMORPG's we try to cater a little to everyone to some dgree so PVP is invariably tagged on in some way, very few MMORPG's have ever actually been made specifically with a main emphasis to appeal to the MMOG games predominantly in how they function.. I can think of EVE, DAoC and AoC as these are all about some GREATER ongoing conflict overall.. but the point of tagging it on with the rest of the games is to provide "choice" and "options" not to fundamentally shift the point of the game away from the story to the conflict and if people are hoping STO will just be a big battleground as opposed to a story driven game whose main emphasis is about the Exploration, and Bolldly going where noone has gone before without getting griefed and ganked every other warp by the minority of players who want to just spend thier time fighting anyone and everyone, then they'll be disappointed as STO will never be the kind of MMORPG whose main empahasis in gameplay is abut the conflict as that is a total departure from what "Trek" is.

There will however be zones for PVP so you MMOG players out there will have your space to fight and compete and Ive no doubt thier will be some overall incentive or point to it all to gie you a reason for doing it So its not like you'll be missing out on anything as you will always have the option of leaving the conflict zones and doing the PVE content or not and staying put, all done without impacting on the way others (ie the PVEers) play. You will have a choice, same as us and the point of contention for most of us is not in your ability to play they way you want but for you to do so without it impacting on the way we too want to play. And that is how STO will work, you guys can o your thing, we can do ours and it isnt ever the case where your style of play is done at the expense or ours and vice versa..

As a related aside In Trek the conflicts were only ever used to add to the story and the characters tales.. but it was never the point of the story... the overriding message of Trek has and always will be one of peaceful cooperation and exploration and in finding ways that leave behind those old notions that gave us a history of wars and conflicts and instead striving to live by higher and much nobler ideals.. Constantly throughout the Trek serie's, movies, and books we are reminded of the dark times and primitive cncepts they have worked hard and long to leave behind, and that if they fight at all now it is in defence and in the protecion of others not in the pursuit of conquest or struggle for power or for shiny new toys..

[Bazil]

That's what i was asking really, i'm guessing by rewards you mean itemes or how this will progress your rank? what sort of reward system would you want?

Oh I see. Well, without knowing the system they are putting in for the PvE portion I am unsure whether or not the same system could be applied to the PvP system. However they could emulate the WoW (Yes, I know, evil) system which awards you with tokens/currency for every team-based instanced win which can then be traded in for items and such. I think that this same system could be augmented to reward "Experience" rather than currency with little or no chance of exploitation.

However I am no developer and can't say for sure what would and what would not work, which is exactly why I didn't write a large wall of text explaining the details and mechanics, I am simply asking that those who have the education and ability, investigate the possibility. How they actually impliment it, is less important to me.

[Galv]

Oh I see. Well, without knowing the system they are putting in for the PvE portion I am unsure whether or not the same system could be applied to the PvP system. However they could emulate the WoW (Yes, I know, evil) system which awards you with tokens/currency for every team-based instanced win which can then be traded in for items and such. I think that this same system could be augmented to reward "Experience" rather than currency with little or no chance of exploitation.

However I am no developer and can't say for sure what would and what would not work, which is exactly why I didn't write a large wall of text explaining the details and mechanics, I am simply asking that those who have the education and ability, investigate the possibility. How they actually impliment it, is less important to me.

I see so teams of feds and kilingons can slug it out in pvp sectors, sounds good. I'm pretty sure they'll b something along those lines i doubt you'll be forced to PVE.

[Bazil]

The reason for this is simple... and that is this... this game is an MMORPG not an MMO[b]G[/b} as such the fundamental point of it is in questing/missions/the story and your characters role in them and the social and cooperative elements that those bring, which is the main point of MMORPG's as opposed to Fighting, and objective based competitve game play which is the main gist of MMOG's

RPG just means Role Playing Game, if the role I want to play is a captain who flies around and fires on every ship in sight, then so be it. There is nothing saying MMORPG's can't be 100% about pvp and fighting.



and if people are hoping STO will just be a big battleground as opposed to a story driven game whose main emphasis is about the Exploration, and Bolldly going where noone has gone before without getting griefed and ganked every other warp by the minority of players who want to just spend thier time fighting anyone and everyone, then they'll be disappointed

all done without impacting on the way others (ie the PVEers) play.

You will have a choice, same as us and the point of contention for most of us is not in your ability to play they way you want but for you to do so without it impacting on the way we too want to play.

And that is how STO will work, you guys can o your thing, we can do ours and it isnt ever the case where your style of play is done at the expense or ours and vice versa..


Not every PvP thread is about PvP'ers wanting to gank everyone, although people sure seem to assume they are.


STO will never be the kind of MMORPG whose main empahasis in gameplay is abut the conflict as that is a total departure from what "Trek" is.

[i]the overriding message of Trek has and always will be one of peaceful cooperation and exploration

Though this time you will get to play for the Klingon Empire, so the Starfleet way of doing things and their philosophy is irrelevant.

[Trojun]

I played EvE for a while also and I had two separate accounts. One for 0.0 space and one for mission running back closer to civilization. But even EvE pvp'ers in 0.0 space aren't necessarily insulated from playing PVE - whether it's mining or mission running your corp has to generate ISK somehow to buy those big ships. I guess if one were a solo pirate and liked to hang around lo sec stargates and gank mission runners you could make a few isk off their mods. Seemed awefully inefficient though. I dunno maybe things have changed since I stopped playing? Skilling up was also time-based which turned a lot of my hardcore gamer friends off because they knew no matter how hardcore they played that someone could skill up just as fast using EvEmon and barely ever log on. I personally liked it because I always played it as a secondary game to some other MMO I was playing hardcore.

But I get the spirit of your original post. It would be nice if there were some type of PVP rewards system which I'm guessing they'll have to some degree. But I highly doubt a PVPer could be completely insulated from PVE in an mmorpg. Even Warhammer has pve in it that you can't totally avoid.

[Bazil]

But I get the spirit of your original post. It would be nice if there were some type of PVP rewards system which I'm guessing they'll have to some degree. But I highly doubt a PVPer could be completely insulated from PVE in an mmorpg. Even Warhammer has pve in it that you can't totally avoid.

Agreed, I wouldn't be so bold or naive as to ask for it either, I simply want whatever is possible for them to create within reason.

[bourne077]

I should first say here that you seem to have missed the fact that I've stated a few times that I enjoy PvE and PvP equally. I know, I know. Some believe we all need to a put into separate categories and labelled so they can keep things straight in their heads and judge us accordingly, so sorry if I'm confusing anyone. People should get used to it though, because there's A LOT more like me than some seem to think.


What does that show? That the majority of the people that randomly happened to see this one particular thread in a brief space of time responded with those comments. That's it. That's all it shows. Nothing more. I know you're trying to get across that you believe this is some kind of representative sampling of all Trekkies that might come to play STO, but I assure you it's not. Not even remotely close.

If there's a lot more like you then why is that other thread I mentioned to you showing differently? I know you're gonna say it's just a few people that saw the thread and replied. You're right to a point. The people that have replied and stated their intentions have shown thus far that PVP, in whatever form, is secondary or not important to them at all. Irregardless how many have replied, it does give some indication. You can't dispute that fact.

I never said all that I can recall, and if I did then that was a mistake on my part, and how do you know for certain this isn't going to be the case? Why shouldn't it be considered as some indication?

Anyway, back to the question.

For myself, it would be a matter of how PvP is set up in the game.

If killing that ship would advance my faction's standing in any way (i.e.points garnered toward some faction reward or whatnot) , or my personal standing (again, points toward some goal etc etc), then it's dead. Simple as that.

For this to happen then that smaller, less powerful ship would have had to enter a PvP zone alone, knowing full well that there were more powerful enemy ships about, and that those ships would be looking to score points (or whatever system might be in place) if they could. It deserved what it got because of bad decision making.

If there's no point in killing that ship (i.e. nothing to gain for my faction or me), and it's clearly underpowered compared to myself and wouldn't offer any challenge in killing it, then I'd simply pass it by. If there was, say a wave emote, or a salute emote, I'd give one of those. If the person playing that ship decided to annoy me by firing on my clearly superior ship, then it's dead.

This response is exactly what I thought it would be. Thank you for clearly giving me your answer.

To give a quick answer to your other questions.

No when we walk away from the Mona Lisa the painting doesn't change.

We have though.

We both have taken something away from it. That being our own individual interpretation of what we saw.

You may think it's a scathing commentary on the vapid nature of wealthy early 16th century woman.

I may think it's a painting of da Vinci's mistress, and she's smiling because he's standing on the other side of the easel nekkid.

Meanwhile ol' da Vinci just thought of it as a commissioned painting of Lisa del Giocondo done for her rich family that brought him in some much needed coin.

In your book example, again no the words don't change, but our personal interpretations of what those words are saying to us will more than likely be completely different. We each take away what we do based on our perspective of the world, our past experiences, our education, heck a myriad of things too numerous to list here.

Yes I read it, but I'm not a griefer, and the vast majority of the people that enjoy PvP that I've met, or have seen, in many years of gaming online aren't either.

I beg to differ on that point, but it's only my opinion.

Personally, not speaking for Hagon. This will be a game, not a continuation and homage to the legend that is Gene. Therefor, as a game, what matters is the opinions and the wants/needs of the people who will play it, Gene Roddenberry most likely won't even play the game, thus, his view of how the game should be made is irrelevant.

Also I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that maybe in this future, fighting against ships from a different species has become a larger part of the lives on both sides than it was in the more peaceful era that we've known.

Ps. I second Hagon's reply to your question.

And I thank you as well for clearly stating your response on your gameplay as Hagon has done earlier.

I think I'm done with this. All I can say on a final note is that I do truly hope that Cryptic makes a wholehearted attempt at doing things properly. Whatever the outcome for either side PVP'ers and PVE'ers it will be a wait and see. Hopefully if done right that it thrives and flourishes for the players and them as well. As opposed to taking the wrong turn and having an empty shell of space.

[NeoWolf]

RPG just means Role Playing Game, if the role I want to play is a captain who flies around and fires on every ship in sight, then so be it. There is nothing saying MMORPG's can't be 100% about pvp and fighting.

To non roleplayers Im sure that is all it means, but t those of who know better what a ROLE playing game means is very much indicative not only of the way you play and the kinds of game that is indusive to that kind of playing in mechanics also. And that si ebcauser this style of game harkens back to PnP RPG's which si where the term originated in reference to these kinds of game and this kind of gaming.

As I noted previously RPG's are invariable quest/story driven games, with mechanics for advancements and improvement over time.. but the emphasis with them is the story not the conflicts..

By your defintion if I assume the role of a soldier in COD4 then COD4 (or any FPS) game is a role playing game, which is i am afraid totally incorrect.. it isnt a simplistic as just meaning playing as someone else as then any game where you ply the role of something else (which is most) would then be an RPG, but they arent..


But as noted an RPG isnt just idnciative of the kind of game, but it is also indicative of the "way" it is played. MMORPGs are invariably the turf of PVE'ers by thier very nature as much as MMOG's are the turn of PVP'ers. Games from one or the other style may include elementso cater for the other group also but a game invariably remains always essentially only one thing or the other.


Not every PvP thread is about PvP'ers wanting to gank everyone, although people sure seem to assume they are.

And noone said it was, but that widely held opinion as inconvenient as it may be to some of you is not an opinion plucked out of thin air, but instead one formed via direct experiences formed by many of thousands of people who play MMORPG's.. and it is to this end that "most" games include separate servers for both the main play styles to play on with thier own.

However STO is not going that route it is going the route of joint use on a single server so like it or nt common ground WILL have to be found, which means the game will have to appeal to both not just one or th other, and so far it seems it will do. You guys are getting your zones to compete in though the exact specifics of which havent even been hinted at. And we are being given our zones to enjoy our story and do our exploring in without worrying about gankers and griefers and other common mixed open pvp hassles.

Though this time you will get to play for the Klingon Empire, so the Starfleet way of doing things and their philosophy is irrelevant.

No it is not irrelevant, it is 50% of the Equation, perhaps more so as the game is called STAR TREK Online, not the Klingon Battlegrounds...
Also the Klingons have a very strong and strict code of honour and conduct.. how many pvpers do you think would play that way in order to portray Klingons accuately? as opposed to just wanting to fight and compete and gain rankings for kills and shiny toys for kills...etc..etc.. I

magine a Federation player comes into sight, he doesnt want to PVP, but killing him will earn the Klingon some points towards getting some nice newshiny Disruptors for his ship.. wil the klingon player play true to a klingon or will he just shoot straight away because the pioints for the kill are more important to the player?
This is the difference between a PVE'er and PVP'er and why MMORPG's and MMOG gamers dont lend well to the same environment.. but as ive said we ARe going to be in the same enironment so we ARE going to have to find a common ground.

[Bazil]

But as noted an RPG isnt just idnciative of the kind of game, but it is also indicative of the "way" it is played. MMORPGs are invariably the turf of PVE'ers by thier very nature.

I disagree. The concept has evolved to become more encompassing than that.

as much as MMOG's are the turn of PVP'ers. .

An MMORPG is an MMOG.


And noone said it was, but that widely held opinion as inconvenient as it may be to some of you.

The opinion isn't inconvenient, you expressing it in a thread that has nothing to do with it is just distracting and derails any discussion.



No it is not irrelevant, it is 50% of the Equation, perhaps more so as the game is called STAR TREK Online, not the Klingon Battlegrounds...

Actually, the fact that the Klingon faction will attack without provocation means that the federation will have every excuse and right to attack them on sight to defend themselves, thus, it's 100% of the equation.


Also the Klingons have a very strong and strict code of honour and conduct

You won't necessarily be a Klingon, you will simply be fighting for their faction, a faction which is much less concerned with rules of engagement. Also, "honour isn't what it used to be" some old Klingon said, whose to say it won't further deteriorate in 30 years.


Ps. Thank you to Bourne for bringing a discussion to a respectful end, it was nice hearing your opinion.

[NeoWolf]

I disagree. The concept has evolved to become more encompassing than that.
An MMORPG is an MMOG.

Your welcome to disgree, but it doesnt mean your right. and no an MMORPG is NOT an MMOG, nor have they ever been and nor will they ever be. The reason tey ARE cassified as two separate things is because they ARE two separate things, by nature and by definition.

The opinion isn't inconvenient, you expressing it in a thread that has nothing to do with it is just distracting and derails any discussion.


not at all, it was entirely relevant to the reply I made. You however chose to take a single sentence out of my reply and object to it and then try to portray it as non relevant and off topic.. maybe if you had left it where it was where it was in context and on topic it would have made more sense t you.

Actually, the fact that the Klingon faction will attack without provocation means that the federation will have every excuse and right to attack them on sight to defend themselves, thus, it's 100% of the equation.

no it isnt, just as it is not fact that a Klingon would attack without provocation.. if you new anything about Trek you would know this, and wouldnt need me to point it out. It is also somewhat contradictory to your orignal remakr about how PVPers shouldnt be concieved as just people who want to shoto stuff, seeing as here you are effectively defending your right to do so indiscriminately.. you may want to rethink that. if you think Klingons just run around shooting anything that moves.

You won't necessarily be a Klingon, you will simply be fighting for their faction, a faction which is much less concerned with rules of engagement. Also, "honour isn't what it used to be" some old Klingon said, whose to say it won't further deteriorate in 30 years.

The Factions is the Klingon Empire, whatever way you look at it that is going to be predominantly Klingon.. and they would be as unlikely to accept anyone dishonouring themselves in battle under thier flag as they would one of thier own.
Also that Klingons comment was pertinent to the story it was stated in was about, it wasnt a footnote to the entire state of the Klingon empire :) so whose to say it hasnt deteriorated further? who is to say it has..? assumptions, Id sooner wait for facts and as far as this game goes atm, their are far too few to make concrete assumptions and giant leaps of logic.

I dont think any of us have anything to worr about, Cryptic are mor ethan competant at providing a game that has room for both PVe'ers and PVP'ers and provide a point for them to both do wat it is they wnt to do in some meaningful fashion

[mezlabor]

this should settle all debate on this issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-yy2URAYqU

[Bazil]

Your welcome to disgree, but it doesnt mean your right. and no an MMORPG is NOT an MMOG, nor have they ever been and nor will they ever be. The reason tey ARE cassified as two separate things is because they ARE two separate things, by nature and by definition.

MMOG = Massively Multiplayer Online Game

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game

A roleplaying game is a game like a hammer is a tool.

You however chose to take a single sentence out of my reply and object to it

Four sentences actually, and they were all saying the same thing, the very thing which was irrelevant to the discussion.


just as it is not fact that a Klingon would attack without provocation.

I disagree. An enemy ship in a contested zone claimed by the Klingon Empire would be all the reason they'd need to destroy them. Which is exactly how I see zone based PvP will be handled.

[Galv]

this should settle all debate on this issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-yy2URAYqU

Haha, indeed

[NeoWolf]

MMOG = Massively Multiplayer Game

MMORPG = Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Game

A roleplaying game is a game like a hammer is a tool.

Google it or ask someone else if you dont want to take my word for it, but an MMORPG and an MMOG are not the same thing at all.. a Game is a Game, but an MMORPG is NOT an MMOG.. indeed they ONLY thing they have in common is an online element and even then one s persistent and the other not.. but you seem to want to generalise for the need to be awkward so seems to be little point in trying to get you to see sense.

Four sentences actually, and they were all saying the same thing, the very thing which was irrelevant to the discussion.

In your opinion and considering you arguments thus far have been vapid and nitpicky in nature there wouldnt seem to be much point trying to explain further.

I disagree. An enemy ship in a contested zone claimed by the Klingon Empire would be all the reason they'd need to destroy them. Which is exactly how I see zone based PvP will be handled.

You disagree, well theres a shock lol As for once you didnt include what you were objecting too I dont really know what to say but for he record I do not necessarily disagree with your view above of how PVP in a contesed zone should occur on the whole.. but s I never argued the opposite I dont really see the relevance of your response???
Previously you argued the right to to shoot an opposing faction vessel at any time simply because ti was there which is very much an Open PVP kind of arrangement, which I and many others object too strongly, but we now know the game will not be an Open PVP environment, indeed I was told by Jack directly..

But now out o the blue you mention zones, which I have no problem with, but as I never argued the opposite again I fail to see the relevance...anyway...on how you view pvp happening in a contested zone as I say I do not disagree.

[NeoWolf]

this should settle all debate on this issue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-yy2URAYqU

Thats just.... FRIGHTENING Mezlabor lol :D

[mezlabor]

Thats just.... FRIGHTENING Mezlabor lol :D

there's more where that came from >.>

[Hagon]

The reason for this is simple... and that is this... this game is an MMORPG not an MMO[b]G[/b} as such the fundamental point of it is in questing/missions/the story and your characters role in them and the social and cooperative elements that those bring, which is the main point of MMORPG's as opposed to Fighting, and objective based competitve game play which is the main gist of MMOG's

Well I had this whole long response in mind ,picking apart your "theorizing" here, but then I realized that there isn't much point in trying. I guess you might be sincere in believing some of what you say here is somehow factual or based in some known truths, but according to your "definitions" given, there's never been a MMORPG developed. So I don't know how to respond to that.

[TheMasterpiece]

His point was that combat is only one little part of the game and not the main focus so we could be talking about everything all together instead of one small section

[doam]

They plan for CO to allow you to make it from 1-50 (max level) in PvP, as well as getting gear from PvP, all while saying PvP will be completely concentual. I don't see why STO would be any differant. Cryptic learned alot from CoX, chiefly that if you treat a certain portion of the population like crap, your game doesn't succeed as well.


...go figure.



I do like that some of the PvE'ers are being all aggresive and such. Good on ya! PvE'ers have always made some of the best forum and chat PvP'ers. Just need to work on translating that into game PvP. You get shiny blasty phasers when you to it that way! ;)

[Hagon]

His point was that combat is only one little part of the game and not the main focus so we could be talking about everything all together instead of one small sectionI don't recall anyone in this thread saying, or even hinting, that they thought that PvP was the main focus of the game. That isn't what this thread was about.

[Hagon]

They plan for CO to allow you to make it from 1-50 (max level) in PvP, as well as getting gear from PvP, all while saying PvP will be completely concentual. Oh? I wasn't aware of that.

Well there's a bit of encouraging info Bazil ! You may very well see what you want to see in STO yet. ;):cool:

[Bazil]

Google it or ask someone else if you dont want to take my word for it, but an MMORPG and an MMOG are not the same thing at all.. a Game is a Game, but an MMORPG is NOT an MMOG...

So you're arguing that a roleplaying game is not a game? I really don't know what to say to that.


In your opinion and considering you arguments thus far have been vapid and nitpicky in nature there wouldnt seem to be much point trying to explain further.

That's good, it seems the more you explain the less sense it makes to me. My fault, I'm sure.


You disagree, well theres a shock lol As for once you didnt include what you were objecting too

I'm rather sure I did, the quote I responded to is right there in my post above my reply. You said the klingons would not attack another vessel on sight due to honour or such. I made the point that they would because to the Klingon Empire, the contested space would be their territory and thus any Federation ship would be an invading ship.


Previously you argued the right to to shoot an opposing faction vessel at any time simply because ti was there which is very much an Open PVP kind of arrangement, which I and many others object too strongly, but we now know the game will not be an Open PVP environment, indeed I was told by Jack directly..

Even more text that should be relocated to another thread.

But now out o the blue you mention zones, which I have no problem with, but as I never argued the opposite again I fail to see the relevance...anyway...on how you view pvp happening in a contested zone as I say I do not disagree.

Out of blue, because as I said, this thread is not about discussing the mechanics and rules of a PvP system, it is to discuss a possible reward system for the PvP system Cryptic implements. Our argument has been over whether or not the federation can possibly have an excuse to fight against the Klingons that won't go against the "Vision of Star Trek". I am confident that Cryptic can find several ways for Starfleet ships to engage Klingons without breaking Canon.

[mezlabor]

Umm Neo.. an Mmorpg is an MMOG. MMORPG= Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

MMOG= Massively Multiplayer Online Game

[ob1klone]

To non roleplayers Im sure that is all it means, but t those of who know better what a ROLE playing game means is very much indicative not only of the way you play and the kinds of game that is indusive to that kind of playing in mechanics also. And that si ebcauser this style of game harkens back to PnP RPG's which si where the term originated in reference to these kinds of game and this kind of gaming.

As I noted previously RPG's are invariable quest/story driven games, with mechanics for advancements and improvement over time.. but the emphasis with them is the story not the conflicts.

I have to jump in here, because I can't take it any more. Don't confuse Role playing with role playing games. They are two very different things. You have spoken of the old table top RPG's. You are correct about one thing with this. They are where mmo's got their basis. But your assesment is way off base. Those old table top rpg's were centered around the combat. Yes the PVP combat. The one that started it all DnD. It was all about the combat. That was what the dice were for.

The kind of roleplaying you are speaking of, only exsists in forum based rpg's these days. That is the legacy for true ROLE playing. Not video games. Though they do provide an avenue for it. That is where the fundamental differece occurs. Not in the mentallity of the player. RPG's are the privy of the player in question, not one persons interpritation of such. You claim to be a roleplayer, but you forget the first rule of roleplaying. Every player has the right to play their character the way they want to, not how you think they should.

[Hagon]

MMORPG is "technically" considered a sub-genre of MMOGs, but truthfully in reality there is absolutely no difference between the two, and both terms are completely interchangeable.

I prefer to use MMOG because, frankly, I believe using the term MMORPG these days gives RPers some false sense of entitlement. A kind of "We're the only one's that play these games the right way" mentality. As displayed here already, and believe me that false sense of entitlement isn't just limited to this particular game.

Having said that, please don't take me for someone that is against RPing in these games. I think it's great for the people that want to do it. Heck I imaging I'll be doing a little (very little mind you) bit of role playing in this game seeing as I'm going to play a Klingon (kind of hard not to just for laughs once and awhile).

It's just I don't believe that RPGs mean "games for role playing". Not in the same way this NeoWolf and many other RPers seem to anyway.

Oh and no I don't subscribe to the whole "as soon as you log in to one of these games you're role playing" thing either.


There's my off topic post for the day.

[Jaelk01]

Bazil,

Not a bad idea, I can agree that, generally I can't see why you shouldn't ask why you should be forced to PvE to get to the PvP content.

Originally, I'd have to say that I disagreed with the same "knee jerk reaction" that other posters have, however you do make a decent case for your proposition. That being said I am drawn back to a memory of my standing behind a Trechbut in Shadowbane as the "leader" of the last guild commanding the last city in the world not held by my alliance dropped the tree of life "accidentally" and the walls fell to our co-ordinated, and somewhat protracted assault.

The game lost the better part of that server's subscribers that day, everyone who lost and everyone who won and that's nothing compared to the number who left and transferred as our forces scoured the lands during our advance. I personally put down serveral hundred in "police actions" on our soil and died ... well not as much when the eventual retaliation came.

Long story short, the main reason pure PvP games aren't popular is that PvE audiences are always more populus, PvP Players are generally mercurial (as a population) and, by and large this IS a commercial enterprise.

Even Eve change their original vision when the hordes of MOO ran rampant over Tranquility, Ultima On-Line created Feluca when they started heamoraging players to Everquest and SWG capped the FRS when people started to Fightclub to advance in the rankings.

Not a pretty picutre and, in some cases I have been in the Van.

So in closing I'd say that while I don't disagree with your statement I would ask that you cast your eye toward the smoking hulks of "PvP first" experiments past and then ask yourself if you want that to be the fate of STO.

Just a thought.

J.

[ob1klone]

MMORPG is "technically" considered a sub-genre of MMOGs, but truthfully in reality there is absolutely no difference between the two, and both terms are completely interchangeable.

I prefer to use MMOG because, frankly, I believe using the term MMORPG these days gives RPers some false sense of entitlement. A kind of "We're the only one's that play these games the right way" mentality. As displayed here already, and believe me that false sense of entitlement isn't just limited to this particular game.

Having said that, please don't take me for someone that is against RPing in these games. I think it's great for the people that want to do it. Heck I imaging I'll be doing a little (very little mind you) bit of role playing in this game seeing as I'm going to play a Klingon (kind of hard not to just for laughs once and awhile).

It's just I don't believe that RPGs mean "games for role playing". Not in the same way this NeoWolf and many other RPers seem to anyway.

Oh and no I don't subscribe to the whole "as soon as you log in to one of these games you're role playing" thing either.


There's my off topic post for the day.

I am a role player. Hard core in some games(will be in this one) not so much in others. I certainly don't take offense to what you are saying because you are absalutely correct. But this statement also aplies to everyone who takes themselves to seriously when it comes to online games. PvP, PvE, Role players, everyone. People need to relax and play the game the way they want to play it, and stop forcing their oppinion on other people.

[Hagon]

Bazil,

Not a bad idea, I can agree that, generally I can't see why you shouldn't ask why you should be forced to PvE to get to the PvP content.

Originally, I'd have to say that I disagreed with the same "knee jerk reaction" that other posters have, however you do make a decent case for your proposition. That being said I am drawn back to a memory of my standing behind a Trechbut in Shadowbane as the "leader" of the last guild commanding the last city in the world not held by my alliance dropped the tree of life "accidentally" and the walls fell to our co-ordinated, and somewhat protracted assault.

The game lost the better part of that server's subscribers that day, everyone who lost and everyone who won and that's nothing compared to the number who left and transferred as our forces scoured the lands during our advance. I personally put down serveral hundred in "police actions" on our soil and died ... well not as much when the eventual retaliation came.

Long story short, the main reason pure PvP games aren't popular is that PvE audiences are always more populus, PvP Players are generally mercurial (as a population) and, by and large this IS a commercial enterprise.

Even Eve change their original vision when the hordes of MOO ran rampant over Tranquility, Ultima On-Line created Feluca when they started heamoraging players to Everquest and SWG capped the FRS when people started to Fightclub to advance in the rankings.

Not a pretty picutre and, in some cases I have been in the Van.

So in closing I'd say that while I don't disagree with your statement I would ask that you cast your eye toward the smoking hulks of "PvP first" experiments past and then ask yourself if you want that to be the fate of STO.

Just a thought.

J.Wow, it's rare to come across a post that you completely agree with, but have no idea what motivated it.

No offence meant, and admitting that I may have missed some posts in the thread, but I didn't think that Bazil had ever put forward (or even hinted at) that he had a "PvP first" mentality.

Providing for players to be able to level up via PvPing only wouldn't give them any advantage, or any more area to PvP in, or any ability to attack anyone that the game wouldn't already have planned they'd be able to attack.

It's just a simple matter of them being able to advance their character without having to PvE. That's it, that's all.

[Hagon]

I am a role player. Hard core in some games(will be in this one) not so much in others. I certainly don't take offense to what you are saying because you are absalutely correct. But this statement also aplies to everyone who takes themselves to seriously when it comes to online games. PvP, PvE, Role players, everyone. People need to relax and play the game the way they want to play it, and stop forcing their oppinion on other people.Yes, I completely agree.

Well said. :cool:

[Elfender]

I'm all for PvP only advancement if anyone wants it, im just saying it's not likely to happen as it would be very difficult to tell the over-riding story of the STO universe in a PvP only universe, and in the end (to me at least) the story has to be compelling. I also believe that unlike other games...PvP/PvE rewards and advancement needs to be balanced with one another.

[Bazil]

No offence meant, and admitting that I may have missed some posts in the thread, but I didn't think that Bazil had ever put forward (or even hinted at) that he had a "PvP first" mentality. .


Indeed, thank you. I'm personally looking forward to PvE in STO, for once it might actually be interesting due to the fact that for the first time the world will actually interest me, and exploring/diplomacy are new and fresh ways of playing.

Still, PvP has always intruiged me and usually been the most rewarding experience for me in MMORPG's so I know I will spend a decent amount of time doing it, and I don't want to feel as if I'm "wasting my time" while having fun simply because I can't advance my character.

[NeoWolf]

So you're arguing that a roleplaying game is not a game? I really don't know what to say to that.

Apparently you need to learn to read because the quote of mine you included didnt say that at all.. maybe I could use finger puppets or something?

My fault, I'm sure.

Im glad we agree

I'm rather sure I did, the quote I responded to is right there in my post above my reply. You said the klingons would not attack another vessel on sight due to honour or such. I made the point that they would because to the Klingon Empire, the contested space would be their territory and thus any Federation ship would be an invading ship.

That is what I said, BUT I made no mention of contested space, you suddenly brought that after the fact.. and PVP in contested space as opposed to open space is nto what we were previously talking about, so once egain your blowing hot air...

Even more text that should be relocated to another thread.

Sorry, all I heard was BLah Blah Blah...

[NeoWolf]

I have to jump in here, because I can't take it any more. Don't confuse Role playing with role playing games. They are two very different things. You have spoken of the old table top RPG's. You are correct about one thing with this. They are where mmo's got their basis. But your assesment is way off base. Those old table top rpg's were centered around the combat. Yes the PVP combat. The one that started it all DnD. It was all about the combat. That was what the dice were for.


I dont believe I have confused them, Indeed I even stated the games were inspired from the PnP RPG's, something I am very familiar with ave not only played and run them twice weekly for almost three daceds but also being a publishe author of a number of PnP RPG supplements.
And no D&D was not just about the combat and it was in no way PVP as it was never player versus player, indeed it was entirely PVE player versus DM run monsters and encounters so if you are going to try to condascend on a subject at least have the decency of getting your facts straight.

The kind of roleplaying you are speaking of, only exsists in forum based rpg's these days. That is the legacy for true ROLE playing. Not video games. Though they do provide an avenue for it. That is where the fundamental differece occurs. Not in the mentallity of the player. RPG's are the privy of the player in question, not one persons interpritation of such. You claim to be a roleplayer, but you forget the first rule of roleplaying. Every player has the right to play their character the way they want to, not how you think they should.

Actualy it doesnt exist on forum based RPGs only, it iexists in a number of MMORPG's, most of which ive been playig for years..

And for the record the number one rule of PnP RPGs is not every player has the right to play thier character the way they wants (not that anyone ever implied otherwise, I might add), the first rule is to have fun.

[NeoWolf]

Umm Neo.. an Mmorpg is an MMOG. MMORPG= Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

MMOG= Massively Multiplayer Online Game

In the broadest of senses, as I said the only thing the two have in common is an online mutiplayer components but I think you will find as will anyone else who actually bothers to find out instead of just stating thier own personal view on the subject... tat the two accronyms refer to entirely different kindsof games.

MMORPG's tends to refer to games which have a persistent world element (i.e that dont vanish when people leave) and commonly cover games with advancements of character and story based, character dirven games.. which is almost exclusively RPg style games, plus some cross genre games but not many.

MMOG's tend to refer to FPS, RTS, Sport Games, Driving Games etc... games which although have a competitive, cooperative element do not persist in any way once people leave the game.. they are non Persistant Environment games... so COD4, Halo, etc..etc..

As Ive said people needn't take my word for it, do your homework, look it up there is plenty (thousands upon thousands) of sources to support what I am stating.

[mezlabor]

In the broadest of senses, as I said the only thing the two have in common is an online mutiplayer components but I think you will find as will anyone else who actually bothers to find out instead of just stating thier own personal view on the subject... tat the two accronyms refer to entirely different kindsof games.

MMORPG's tends to refer to games which have a persistent world element (i.e that dont vanish when people leave) and commonly cover games with advancements of character and story based, character dirven games.. which is almost exclusively RPg style games, plus some cross genre games but not many.

MMOG's tend to refer to FPS, RTS, Sport Games, Driving Games etc... games which although have a competitive, cooperative element do not persist in any way once people leave the game.. they are non Persistant Environment games... so COD4, Halo, etc..etc..

As Ive said people needn't take my word for it, do your homework, look it up there is plenty (thousands upon thousands) of sources to support what I am stating.

Umm COD4 and Halo arent MMOGs. Theres pretty much only one MMOG shooter and its planetside. Multiplayer does not mean MMOG

A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMOG or simply MMO) is a video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMOG

[NeoWolf]

Umm COD4 and Halo arent MMOGs. Theres pretty much only one MMOG shooter and its planetside. Multiplayer does not mean MMOG

A massively multiplayer online game (also called MMOG or simply MMO) is a video game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and feature at least one persistent world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMOG


MMORPG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are played online over a network or the Internet by more than one player. ...
www.intel.com/products/glossary/body.htm

Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game A fully realised, living, breathing online world which exists in its entirety in real-time, allowing players to quest and develop their character, no matter where they are within it at any one time. ...
www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx

Massive multiplayer online RPG. A ’shared world’ online game, with at least some persistant elements, featuring a large base of otherwise ...
www.diepointyhat.com/

Abbreviation used for indication of the multiuser role games. From English expression Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (on-line role ...
awplanet.com/rw/pages/docs/fundamentals/dictionary/terms.en.do

massively multiplayer online role-playing game
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMORPG


MMOG
massive multiplayer online gaming. Interactive web-based games with multiple players who compete against each other from multiple locations
www.chrsolutions.com/TelecomGlossary.html

A computer game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and ...
thatinterweb.typepad.com/my_weblog/big-interweb-words.html

[mezlabor]

MMORPG
Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games are played online over a network or the Internet by more than one player. ...
www.intel.com/products/glossary/body.htm
Dead link

Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game A fully realised, living, breathing online world which exists in its entirety in real-time, allowing players to quest and develop their character, no matter where they are within it at any one time. ...
www.game.co.uk/lowdown.aspx
Dead link

Massive multiplayer online RPG. A ’shared world’ online game, with at least some persistant elements, featuring a large base of otherwise ...
www.diepointyhat.com/
I see alot of hate towards dnd 4e?

Abbreviation used for indication of the multiuser role games. From English expression Massive Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game (on-line role ...
awplanet.com/rw/pages/docs/fundamentals/dictionary/terms.en.do

massively multiplayer online role-playing game
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/MMORPG
according to this baldurs gate, icewind dale, and nwn are mmos... and they aren't they are multiplayer games

MMOG
massive multiplayer online gaming. Interactive web-based games with multiple players who compete against each other from multiple locations
www.chrsolutions.com/TelecomGlossary.html

A computer game which is capable of supporting hundreds or thousands of players simultaneously. By necessity, they are played on the Internet, and ...
thatinterweb.typepad.com/my_weblog/big-interweb-words.html

According to this every multiplyer game ever made is an mmo? MMOS are defined by thousands of people playing toegther. Games Like COD$, UT3 and Halo all cap out at around 64 people to the server. Certainly not 5000+ which you see in mmos.

[NeoWolf]

Those were just cut and pastes of te first handful of definitions for each.. if you google it you'll find plenty more, as I did... thousands upon thousands in fact.

As for D&D 4e, thatsd another chat for another place lol but on the back of 3.5 no it wsnt widely wlecomed for a while lol. I myself didnt make the jump from 3.5 to 4e simple because I had no desire to spend 1000's rebuying new books to replace the collection I already have... AGAIN lol.. but anyway I digress lol

[Bazil]

because the quote of mine you included didnt say that at all.

In the sentence I quoted you said:

but an MMORPG is NOT an MMOG....

You are saying that a Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Game is not a Massively Multiplayer Online Game. If you don't understand how this means you are saying a roleplaying game is not a game, I don't know how to explain it to you.




Apparently you need to learn to read

so once egain your blowing hot air...

Sorry, all I heard was BLah Blah Blah...

Is this really all you have left? I guess trying to argue that a game is not a game is a difficult task, but I atleast expected you to try without resorting to petty personal insults. I really think you should find a new thread to inhabit for a while, so we can try to salvage what is left of this one after you derailed it with your nonsensical arguments.

[vanlore]

Like elitist PVP'er types who have no regard for the concept of Star Trek's view of the future, and are solely looking for a fight.

I'm sorry did you say klingon ? I think it is you who do not regard the concept of Star Trek's views..

How about respecting other peoples playstyles even if they are different than ours. Who says they can't advance in PvP and we can't advance in PvE?

Why can't both get too choose ? No one said you had to Pvp... You hate people because they like different things?

[CaptainQuirk]

But that's how you normally advance anyway... PvPer or not. Don't tell me you create a new character and start bashing people from Lvl 1?

And why shouldn't PvP be possible at level 1? As long as it is done between players within the same level range...

When getting orders from Starfleet/High Command, the missions we get sent on, based on our preferred playstyle (PvE, PvP, Both), which we should be able to set up should dictate which kind of missions we get.

So if you as a Starfleet PvPer take a mission to patrol a sector along the edge of the Klingon side of the Neutral Zone, and someone, as a Klingon, gets a mission to take out any ships that look like they are straying into Klingon space, both ships are sent to the same sector. And there's a very good chance that they will cross paths, and combat will ensue.

[Bazil]

The fact that Crytptic seems to be implementing a feature like this in Champions Online really makes me hopeful that they are going to do something similar in this game. Though it's probably not the same team, I'm hoping that some of the same people are involved.

[Galv]

The fact that Crytptic seems to be implementing a feature like this in Champions Online really makes me hopeful that they are going to do something similar in this game. Though it's probably not the same team, I'm hoping that some of the same people are involved.

So Starfleet/Kilingon empire will have different sets of missions for PVP and PVE? this would be the ideal way to do it, as we've seen in all PVP threads it's causing alot heated debate, but this way would ensure that both sets of gamers are kept seprate.

As i've never played game where you could progress with pvp alone, how would it work if say, i wanted to play the pvp side of things to lev up/progress in rank, but i wasn't very good and kept getting blown up and failing my mission would i be stuck at a low level, how would i progress?

[Bazil]

how would it work if say, i wanted to play the pvp side of things to lev up/progress in rank, but i wasn't very good and kept getting blown up and failing my mission would i be stuck at a low level, how would i progress?

I'm not suggesting a system where you permanently choose which of the 2 you want to progress your character through, if you don't want to play PvP or if you're not any good at it, you can simply play PvE instead and get the same rewards.

[Galv]

I'm not suggesting a system where you permanently choose which of the 2 you want to progress your character through, if you don't want to play PvP or if you're not any good at it, you can simply play PvE instead and get the same rewards.

I wasn't saying you were, i was asking out of interest. Because if i don't like pve and i can't progress with pvp as i'm not very good at it how do i progress? how does it work in other games?

[Kinjiru]

I wasn't saying you were, i was asking out of interest. Because if i don't like pve and i can't progress with pvp as i'm not very good at it how do i progress? how does it work in other games?

In a lot of other MMOs, progression of your character has nothing to do with PvP. What happens is that a lot of players grind out to max level and then start to PvP when they run out of content. It's basically considered an endgame scenario in those games.

What I'd like to see is that players of all ranks can PvP and feel like they're making a contribution to their side, and not be automatically considered fodder to the higher levels.

In Galaxies for instance, if you were level 80 or below in a PvP zone, you were basically insta-toast, and straight to the cloner you went. But in Pirates of the Burning Sea, myself and a friend, both at level 17 were able to outmanouver and board (actually, my friend boarded, I waited in case he failed.) a level 37 player's ship, and we won.

[Galv]

In a lot of other MMOs, progression of your character has nothing to do with PvP. What happens is that a lot of players grind out to max level and then start to PvP when they run out of content. It's basically considered an endgame scenario in those games.

What I'd like to see is that players of all ranks can PvP and feel like they're making a contribution to their side, and not be automatically considered fodder to the higher levels.

In Galaxies for instance, if you were level 80 or below in a PvP zone, you were basically insta-toast, and straight to the cloner you went. But in Pirates of the Burning Sea, myself and a friend, both at level 17 were able to outmanouver and board (actually, my friend boarded, I waited in case he failed.) a level 37 player's ship, and we won.

Yea i know that, i played SWG for 3 years until the NGE took my creatures away and made eveyone jedis, it's just the OP over the last few post has been talking about progressing using only pvp and that it has been done in other games, i was just wondering how.

[Hagon]

Yea i know that, i played SWG for 3 years until the NGE took my creatures away and made eveyone jedis, it's just the OP over the last few post has been talking about progressing using only pvp and that it has been done in other games, i was just wondering how.Usually you're given a certain amount of xp even if you lose a PvP encounter. You also sometimes share xp with others when in a group PvP encounter (there's different ways they'll divide the xp up. One way is to divvy up the xp for a kill based on damage done by each member of the group for example)

So if you're not good at it, it simply means you'd progress slower. Which is the same thing as levelling via PvE. If you're dying a lot trying to complete missions, you tend to advance slower than those who don't.

[Kinjiru]

Yea i know that, i played SWG for 3 years until the NGE took my creatures away and made eveyone jedis, it's just the OP over the last few post has been talking about progressing using only pvp and that it has been done in other games, i was just wondering how.

Oh. I see. :)

I'm not sure that a fair way could be found to progress through PvP only, unless maybe the proposed Prestige/Honor systems would award for it on a higher level. I don't know though. Perhaps Starfleet would award Prestige commensurate to the level of the accomplishment, the same would be true with the Klingons and Honor, I suppose.

This would require classifying PvP "wins" as official accomplishments though. (Basically, treated as successfully completed missions)

Please keep in mind that I don't necessarily advocate PvP-only character progression, I'm just trying to figure out a theoretical way to make it work.

[vanlore]

[QUOTE=Galv;180617]I think it's important to differentiate the types of PvPers that are asking for things, and to make sure and understand exactly what they're asking for.

From what I see when I look around, there's really only a very very few that actually want anything resembling more hardcore PvP rule sets, or FFA PvP.

What I see most PvP enthusiasts asking for is that PvP be treated with as much care, attention, and detail that PvE is treated. That PvPing in the game provide just as much of a fun and rewarding experience, and is given as much depth as they would give the PvE. Believe me, PvP can have great depth to it, and be truly story based and story driven. Those of us that played DAoC will attest to that without reservation. Not very many of the things I've seen asked for would require separate PvP servers at all, including what was asked for here, but just added depth to the PvP content that will be provided on every server. It in no way has to infringe upon any PvE content or areas either.

So I say again, I don't see why those kinds of desires are continually treated as being unreasonable.

I agree with this post.

[vanlore]

[QUOTE=Hagon;180736]

I think i see what your saying, but for this to happen your effectively have 2 different games running on 1 server won't you? are you as a PVPer going to be happy with just a few systems/zones where it's all out PVP to progress in? this is why i mentioned the PVP only server atleast it would open up the whole galaxy for you instead of a few zones, i just don't see how they can provide enough content for you to progress as a PVPer. I'd find it very frustrating being stuck patroling a few zones waiting for another PVPer to enter.

No its not 2 different games running on 1 server. It is 2 different playstyles running on 1 server.. I happen to like both playstyles.

Also so what its ok for people to cry for PC Crews that is essentially 5 different games- jacks words- but not okay to respect other peoples playstyles?

[Galv]

Usually you're given a certain amount of xp even if you lose a PvP encounter. You also sometimes share xp with others when in a group PvP encounter (there's different ways they'll divide the xp up. One way is to divvy up the xp for a kill based on damage done by each member of the group for example)

So if you're not good at it, it simply means you'd progress slower. Which is the same thing as levelling via PvE. If you're dying a lot trying to complete missions, you tend to advance slower than those who don't.

I see, thanks. I've played a few mmo's using PVE to progress and entered into PVP as end game as with SWG or LOTR. Having a PVP option to progress would be fun to jump into if i fancied a change, like having starfleet missions to patrol the neutral zone.

[Galv]

No its not 2 different games running on 1 server. It is 2 different playstyles running on 1 server.. I happen to like both playstyles.

Also so what its ok for people to cry for PC Crews that is essentially 5 different games- jacks words- but not okay to respect other peoples playstyles?

I wasn't disrespecting anyones play style i was asking a question.

[vanlore]

I wasn't disrespecting anyones play style i was asking a question.

I gave an answer to my view on it. And I did not say you was disrespecting anyones play style. I was asking a question myself.

[Galv]

I gave an answer to my view on it. And I did not say you was disrespecting anyones play style. I was asking a question myself.

Sorry for that, just came across that way with the quote. Problem seems to be that there's so many trek fans out there that everyone is going to want so many different things, as with the bridge crew and pvp. The trouble with the other PVP threads is that most of the OP's want it to be more open which is getting alot backs up (mine included), atleast this thread actually seems to be talking about the PVP being away to progress without affecting anyone who's more interested in PVE.

[Jaxston]

I would like to see a balanced approach....lots for both types to play....but I must have uncharted regions of space that have resources be open PvP so it can be fought over......only makes sense.

:D

[Galv]

deleted..........................................

[Galv]

I would like to see a balanced approach....lots for both types to play....but I must have uncharted regions of space that have resources be open PvP so it can be fought over......only makes sense.

:D

That will be ok if the resource can be gathered from a PVE zone aswell, end of the day aslong as everybody has a choice the game should work great.

[NeoWolf]

Is this really all you have left? I guess trying to argue that a game is not a game is a difficult task, but I atleast expected you to try without resorting to petty personal insults. I really think you should find a new thread to inhabit for a while, so we can try to salvage what is left of this one after you derailed it with your nonsensical arguments.

hmm lets see youve misquoted me three times, youve tried to imply..actually not imply, outright state Ive said certain things or argued specific points I havent and have already clarified my stance on numerous times... and yet you continually come back with the same tired "stamp your feet, and shake your fist" replies that are based on your own personal opinion as opposed to actual fact and you refuse to actually go away and corroborate what I have said as I had already done before making the point.. also because there was nothing new, there seemed little point in me restating my point again so you could come back again and claim I said somethign else again, and misquote me again and act superior and condascending again.... and we could go round and around and around...until hell freezes over but it serves no purpose so yes.. blah blah blah..

for the record thier was no prsonal attack had I actually used profanity against you there would have been but me saying you blow hot air is not an attack as the conversation was going round in circles to no end..so it was simply a statement of fact.

Also I will post where I choose and if you find that a problem, tough.. I should also note I made the original point your objecting to in a separate response that made several responses pertinent to the thread.. it was however YOU who chose to make an issue of one point of it and derail the topic, so im afraid you have only yourself to blame there Bazil, you derailed your own topic.

[NeoWolf]

I see, thanks. I've played a few mmo's using PVE to progress and entered into PVP as end game as with SWG or LOTR. Having a PVP option to progress would be fun to jump into if i fancied a change, like having starfleet missions to patrol the neutral zone.


It will be interesting to see how Cryptic balance it.

I have tried it as you have previously, not really being a PVP fan, but levelling via PVE and then when level capped tried PVP, but my experience of that is the gear you tend to get through PVE is of little real use in a PVP environment and vice versa.. So it makes me wonder whether PVE and PVP will be balanced together or separately so that ships have to be completely different in thier equipment and upgrades for PVP use over PVE?

Im sure there must be some way of making levelling solely by PVP as viable for that crowd as it is levelling by mission for the PVE'ers ideally that isnt so gear oriented.

[PhantomPhoton]

I agree with a lot of what Bazil and Hagon have said. I enjoy both PvP and PvE. What I do depends upon how much time I have to play, what I feel like that day etc etc. I would definitely support the ability to develop a character without being forced to grind thru a PvE storyline. While the first time I play thru, I may enjoy the story, but when I make a second (or who knows even a third) character, I'd like to be able to rise thru the ranks in a new way. A PvP option could be great for this.

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned Guildwars. While it isn't a perfect system (what is?), I see the answer to a lot things on this topic already covered in that game. A new account can immediately jump right into PvP. You get faction for kills and winning matches, and you can then spend that faction to unlock new skills, equipment upgrades, etc.
The part that doesn't quite work with STO is when you create a character in GW you choose PvP-only or PvE. Note that PvE Charicters aren't limited to PvE only though. But when you choose the PvP character you get lvl 20 automatically. Max armor and weapons automatically. The thing that counts in GW is player skill, strategy and execution anyway so equipment doesn't mean a whole lot. It is a great system that works very well for that game. And some of these could easily be implemented into another game like STO.

I absolutely love large group PvP. And I quite enjoy a challenging PvE puzzle, wild goose chase, zergling-esque swarm of monsters to defend against etc. I enjoy very much the social part of MMOs. But, I'm a trekkie first and a gamer second; thus I'm very torn between being security or engineer for my first character in STO. I'm cheering for both sides to be as open, rich, and fun as they can possibly be. Unfortunately many people in this thread seem to have a very small view based upon terrible games and experiences of the past. MMORPGs can be so much more than EVE and WoW, EQ and DAOC.

In closing I'll comment that I did not buy and play City of Heros solely because they did not initially support PvP. Good games have to be able to do both in order to have broad appeal. There are A LOT of MMORPG PvPers out there and it is good to see some games start to treat them equally to PvE players.

[Elfender]

I agree with a lot of what Bazil and Hagon have said. I enjoy both PvP and PvE. What I do depends upon how much time I have to play, what I feel like that day etc etc. I would definitely support the ability to develop a character without being forced to grind thru a PvE storyline. While the first time I play thru, I may enjoy the story, but when I make a second (or who knows even a third) character, I'd like to be able to rise thru the ranks in a new way. A PvP option could be great for this.

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned Guildwars. While it isn't a perfect system (what is?), I see the answer to a lot things on this topic already covered in that game. A new account can immediately jump right into PvP. You get faction for kills and winning matches, and you can then spend that faction to unlock new skills, equipment upgrades, etc.
The part that doesn't quite work with STO is when you create a character in GW you choose PvP-only or PvE. Note that PvE Charicters aren't limited to PvE only though. But when you choose the PvP character you get lvl 20 automatically. Max armor and weapons automatically. The thing that counts in GW is player skill, strategy and execution anyway so equipment doesn't mean a whole lot. It is a great system that works very well for that game. And some of these could easily be implemented into another game like STO.

I absolutely love large group PvP. And I quite enjoy a challenging PvE puzzle, wild goose chase, zergling-esque swarm of monsters to defend against etc. I enjoy very much the social part of MMOs. But, I'm a trekkie first and a gamer second; thus I'm very torn between being security or engineer for my first character in STO. I'm cheering for both sides to be as open, rich, and fun as they can possibly be. Unfortunately many people in this thread seem to have a very small view based upon terrible games and experiences of the past. MMORPGs can be so much more than EVE and WoW, EQ and DAOC.

In closing I'll comment that I did not buy and play City of Heros solely because they did not initially support PvP. Good games have to be able to do both in order to have broad appeal. There are A LOT of MMORPG PvPers out there and it is good to see some games start to treat them equally to PvE players.

Hrm...whereas i support this idea to an extent...i dont believe allowing someone to leap into PvP like that with Full weapons and Full armor treats non hardcore PvPers fairly. I will probably play my "Main" through PvE and PvP. So, those people who get rocketed to rank 20 with very good ships/weapon/armor should PvP against only those same people...and no progression can be made like that...it would stay a static even system and thats just plain boring. Your exploits through PvP/PvE should be able to reflect at least partially in the other arena of gameplay. PvPers are usually very good at combat and translating it to PvE, PvEers are usually fairly unpradictable in PvP (from my experience) usually leading to intresting encounters.

[PhantomPhoton]

Hrm...whereas i support this idea to an extent...i dont believe allowing someone to leap into PvP like that with Full weapons and Full armor treats non hardcore PvPers fairly. I will probably play my "Main" through PvE and PvP. So, those people who get rocketed to rank 20 with very good ships/weapon/armor should PvP against only those same people...and no progression can be made like that...it would stay a static even system and thats just plain boring. Your exploits through PvP/PvE should be able to reflect at least partially in the other arena of gameplay. PvPers are usually very good at combat and translating it to PvE, PvEers are usually fairly unpradictable in PvP (from my experience) usually leading to intresting encounters.

Well at least from the standpoint of game mechanics in GW, it's completely fair to the hardcore PvP veteran. Noobs die quick even tough their level and equipment are the same. They simply don't have the skill and judgment yet to play the game well. Its a skill based game vs a level or loot based game.

Now, as I stated the PvP only toon concept isn't the ideal, and especially not for STO. But the underlying mechanics of being able to jump right in to PvP and to progress your account via skill unlocking while never, ever having to enter PvE are still a very good, working example.

How could this be applied into STO? Well instead of earning "prestige" or whatever by running mindless missions from some NPC Admiral, one could earn prestige by winning glorious victories. And with said prestige, one could upgrade skills, rank, whatever. The big question is how to handle the equipment.

Let's first discuss ground based combat. Will there be uber-phasers? For the love of Q I hope not. But perhaps if you want to upgrade to that pulse compression phaser you need a bit of prestige before they issue you one. But a player with a type II phaser isn't at a disadvantage to one with a compression rifle in all situations. Use the right tool for the right job. Will there be attack and defense "skills" that one learns as they climb up the combat tree? You have to earn your way up to the next branch, etc etc. Again this an be done via standard PvE or via PvP.
For space combat, obviously you get bigger ships with more (energy) potential. More phasers, more room for more photon torpedo tubes, better sensors, bigger disruptor canons, etc. (Again I hope there isn't uber loot.) Engaging into combat in your little runabout, you may not be able to take down someone with a galaxy class starship, but there are plenty of functions that you could to to help your fleet win a battle, and be rewarded for your contributions...eventually gaining rank and getting a bigger ship at your command if you so desire. Training your (*ugh* :mad: NPC crew) and working your way up.

Some of how to implement such a system still depends very much upon pieces of the game that we have absolutely no idea about. Will there be crafting and a player driven economy? How that works will definitely affect how the topic of this thread could work. Will it be a skill tree game or a standard, unimaginative, generic level based game? Will there be uber loot which gives a single player an unfair advantage based upon real life time "spent" camping spawns or egay gold purchased - or will the game be based upon skill? Unless cryptic really screws it up, there is so much potential. Now we just have to hope Cryptic does not act like SOE.

[Elfender]

true, cryptic in my opinion has shown a great skill and wisdom in giving gamers a good experience and listening to thier fanbase, but the biggest problem with STO is the added fanbase of Trek Fans, wether hardcore or more flexible, they want a universe that reflects the political and cannon universe of Star Trek. A lot of these PvP discussions will most likely be rendered moot when the next Q/A session or gameplay video/review is released. I think cryptic is already set on how thier going to implement the System and i hope they include content that if not perfect, is at least useful and fun for everyone.

EDIT: SOE Hates Gamers!!!

[Bazil]

hmm lets see youve misquoted me three times, youve tried to imply..actually not imply, outright state Ive said certain things or argued specific points I havent and have already clarified my stance on numerous times... .

If you still don't get what we are telling you then there's really no point in trying to tell you, it seems you simply don't understand.

So I'm just going to give up and move on and I suggest you do the same so the thread can get back on track.

[hoggj]

I thinck cyptic wil have a equal measser of both PVE AND PVE combat in the game

[hoggj]

Criptic no doubt will keep a certain cannonicity and stuf for the star trek fans but they will also want to have the game open for people new to star trek, and get them to play the game as well.

So in some ways it all about the money and wel the games does in the gameing market.

[Hagon]

Yes, I think by now game development companies know better than to lean too far toward catering to more hardcore IP fams that just might happen to play computer games, or take one up because it's based on their favourite IP. You would hope they'd have learnt that by now anyway.

[Galv]

I'm also looking forward to an update to Q+A. One way around the problems with loot would be to have no loot drop from ships or toons, i think a sysem where better ship upgrades are offered once you've progresed through rank. Like going back to ship yards for refitting, i think maybe this might address the issues with balance between pve and pvp. They'd probably have to have some sort of tier system in place for the pvp zones, like a starting pvp zone for Ensigns only, progressing up to Captain.

[Haegemon]

Why don't make it easy....? Let the PVP mode being conducted by NPC to keep the background history stay correct.

I'm far more afraid of non devoted players using stupid names as "king of galactica", "lord sith", "Magneto", "Destroyer", "Asslicker",etc... :rolleyes:

...creating guilds with no sense in ST universe as "RenegadePirates", "StarfleetRebels", "TemplarKnights", "Mycousinlikesit"... :confused:

...and fighting each other no matter which side: Fed vs Fed, Fed allied with Romulan agaist Klingon allied with Cardassian" :eek:

These nosense usually happening in online games could be avoided easily with a more intrusive NPC about who's against who, and certain limitations or rules about creating names.

[NeoWolf]

If you still don't get what we are telling you then there's really no point in trying to tell you, it seems you simply don't understand.

Odd as I was thinking exactly the same about you

So I'm just going to give up and move on and I suggest you do the same so the thread can get back on track.

more than happy to do so, just as soon as you make such a suggestion without a preceeding snide comment attached to it.

[Elfender]

perhaps Neo and Bazil, a chance for both of you to calm down, and argue rationally without taking things personally is in order, possibly go off to another thread and air your ideas. No Offense...but these petty little arguments solve nothing and only end up tarnishing your reputations both, not just one, and sounding childish.

[Kinjiru]

perhaps Neo and Bazil, a chance for both of you to calm down, and argue rationally without taking things personally is in order, possibly go off to another thread and air your ideas. No Offense...but these petty little arguments solve nothing and only end up tarnishing your reputations both, not just one, and sounding childish.

"This bickering is pointless! Vader, release him!"

:D

Sorry, I had a Tarkin moment.

[Bazil]

perhaps Neo and Bazil, a chance for both of you to calm down, and argue rationally without taking things personally is in order, possibly go off to another thread and air your ideas. No Offense...but these petty little arguments solve nothing and only end up tarnishing your reputations both, not just one, and sounding childish.

You have no idea how much selfcontrol I am exercising in order to keep my tone civil and without stooping to childish insults and comments. But don't worry, I have given up on explaining things to him and will not be "debating" him anymore, as you said, it's solving nothing.

[ob1klone]

Odd as I was thinking exactly the same about you



more than happy to do so, just as soon as you make such a suggestion without a preceeding snide comment attached to it.

Is it to much for you to say anything about the topic. It's people like you that give all roleplayers a bad name.

[NeoWolf]

Is it to much for you to say anything about the topic. It's people like you that give all roleplayers a bad name.

Check what I have posted to date, I have actually posted on topic numerous times, but each time I have to come back and defend myself when either you or Bazil decide to say something snotty and ill informed... learn a little restraint instead of saying pointless barbs like the above and the topic MAY actually continue.

As right now it is you keeping it off track..

[ob1klone]

Check what I have posted to date, I have actually posted on topic numerous times, but each time I have to come back and defend myself when either you or Bazil decide to say something snotty and ill informed... learn a little restraint instead of saying pointless barbs like the above and the topic MAY actually continue.

As right now it is you keeping it off track..

I have never said anything snotty. I am not that nasal. As for you saying anything on topic in this thread, I haven't seen it for the last 10 pages. It has been all this drible about MMO, MMOG and MMORPG. Let it go. You are "defending" yourself because you bring it on yourself. You may not think you are an elitest, or maybe you do, I don't really know. But that is the reason you have to "defend" yourself. This, "I'm rite and you're wrong attitude" that you have, is always going to rub people the wrong way. And they will continually take shots at you, because they know it will **** you off.

[NeoWolf]

I have never said anything snotty. I am not that nasal.

try not to be witty you arent very good at it.. if you do not find anything snotty about your previous posts comments then that is a very sad state indeed..

As for you saying anything on topic in this thread, I haven't seen it for the last 10 pages. It has been all this drible about MMO, MMOG and MMORPG. Let it go. You are "defending" yourself because you bring it on yourself. You may not think you are an elitest, or maybe you do, I don't really know. But that is the reason you have to "defend" yourself. This, "I'm rite and you're wrong attitude" that you have, is always going to rub people the wrong way. And they will continually take shots at you, because they know it will **** you off.

Odd because there is on topic stuff as close as a page or so back, obviously you didnt look, just stated the usual unsupported nonsense that has been yours and Basil's defence in this argument thus far.

And now you attack me by calling me an elitist.. pretty rich really, people who live in glass houses and all that... thereby keeping the topic MORE off topic yet again by just being childish and aggressive..

Its no good arguing a point about this being off topic when you are the one who is continuing to make that the case by posting crap like this that you know I will respond to in order to set the record straight.

And I know you like to think your a majority in this but you aren't, youve been 2 people.. everyone else has had the good sense to stay away from the bickering, bickering I did not start I might add.

At any rate I imagine this thread will end up closed sooner rather than later because of this crap..

[.Spartan]

Maybe I'm failng to understand something with the OP or maybe I'm just dead tired and my higher level reasoning skills are off. But how can one have a 100% PVP MMO without giving some players a distinctive advantage over covetted resources? The good stuff has to start owned by someone -yes? This thread makes no sense to me.

[Bazil]

Maybe I'm failng to understand something with the OP or maybe I'm just dead tired and my higher level reasoning skills are off. But how can one have a 100% PVP MMO without giving some players a distinctive advantage over covetted resources? The good stuff has to start owned by someone -yes? This thread makes no sense to me.

Heh, I don't quite understand what you are saying here. I am not suggesting a 100% PVP MMO, I'm suggesting that PvP activities should progress your character in similar ways to PvE so that those who prefer PvP over PvE wouldn't be forced to PvE as much as they usually are. Not talking about an EvE-system where you take control over systems or resources through PvP.


Ps. Please, everyone stop replying to NeoWolf, try to bury the discussions with him so we can move on.

[.Spartan]

OK. The "as much" part makes all the difference. I read your first past as stating you should not being forced to do what you dont want to do. Which translated in my mind as an absolute statement.

[Bazil]

OK. The "as much" part makes all the difference. I read your first past as stating you should not being forced to do what you dont want to do. Which translated in my mind as an absolute statement.

Well you shouldn't be forced to do what you don't want to do in the perfect game. It should all just be a glorious euphoric haze of fun and excitement. However, this is the real world, and some concessions have to be made and I will accept the fact that I will have to do some PvE and some things I might not love, I just want to minimize it.

[ob1klone]

try not to be witty you arent very good at it.. if you do not find anything snotty about your previous posts comments then that is a very sad state indeed..



Odd because there is on topic stuff as close as a page or so back, obviously you didnt look, just stated the usual unsupported nonsense that has been yours and Basil's defence in this argument thus far.

And now you attack me by calling me an elitist.. pretty rich really, people who live in glass houses and all that... thereby keeping the topic MORE off topic yet again by just being childish and aggressive..

Its no good arguing a point about this being off topic when you are the one who is continuing to make that the case by posting crap like this that you know I will respond to in order to set the record straight.

And I know you like to think your a majority in this but you aren't, youve been 2 people.. everyone else has had the good sense to stay away from the bickering, bickering I did not start I might add.

At any rate I imagine this thread will end up closed sooner rather than later because of this crap..

You truly are lost.:rolleyes:

/Turn's and finds the door.

[paynesgrey]

Offhand, there's only one problem I can think of with xp/leveling (or the equivalent) by PvP alone: That would be the guys who basically grind by taking turns killing each other. It'd be a two-box grinder's dream come true. Unless they throw down a very harsh deaht penalty, which they've stated they plan on avoiding. Now, if some checks and balances get thrown in to prevent abuse, I really have no issue with advancement through PvP.

[ob1klone]

Offhand, there's only one problem I can think of with xp/leveling (or the equivalent) by PvP alone: That would be the guys who basically grind by taking turns killing each other. It'd be a two-box grinder's dream come true. Unless they throw down a very harsh deaht penalty, which they've stated they plan on avoiding. Now, if some checks and balances get thrown in to prevent abuse, I really have no issue with advancement through PvP.


That was my concerne with this idea from the beginning. It was my thinking that, if we are alowed multiple characters, then people could just make some throw away toons, that people would be leveling up on all day. But I have since thought about that situation, and simple salution exsists. Make the XP based on the level of the opponent. Say, if I am level 20, just as an example, and am fighting another level 20, the XP is full. If I am that level 20 fighting a level one, the xp would then decrease, to something like 1% of full. Siply base the XP earned on the levels of the characters in the fight.

[paynesgrey]

That would handle the Mule Beating, but it still leaves us with "You kill me while I eat a sammich, then I kills you some, then you kill me again. Then we take turns loggin on alts and grind some more us."

[ob1klone]

I would think that the death penalties will handle that. They don't have to be very stiff to build up quikly with that type of thing going on.

[Hagon]

That would handle the Mule Beating, but it still leaves us with "You kill me while I eat a sammich, then I kills you some, then you kill me again. Then we take turns loggin on alts and grind some more us."There's different ways that this kind of thing is dealt with in games, things such as rapidly diminishing returns on consecutive kills for instance. It's also not hard for GMs to check up on. Everything you do in game is logged after all.

[paynesgrey]

Possibly....what cost level 50? We'll have to see what they decide on for death penalties I suppose.

[StarTuxia]

First off I am going to admit to not having read all these threads, but have the got the impression there seems to be two camps of MMO players in general. Warning, great wall of text follows.

Those that like PVP and those that like PVE.

I've played PC RPG games since the Ultima Series, indeed it was those high 256 colour graphics that lead me away from the sanctity of my Commodore Amiga :).

My first MMO was EQ1 and to be honest I had a love/hate relationship with that game, I loved the world as it was quite large and well done, but I hated the death and the "Evercamp". Oh and the death penalty, if you played for 3 or so hours at certain levels you could lose all that with one death. Irritating to say the least, especially if it was not your fault as some areas were renown for "trains" and these, if you were unlucky or not quick enough would killl you as a horde of monsters basically ran over you chasing some character that had pulled too many mobs. PVP, in that game was really implemented well, I mainly saw duels.

I then played WoW, but never got beyond level 20 as I just couldn't get into it, although I liked the way they dealt with death, but I got bored by 20 and never rally liked the graphics so much. Again PVP, well at 20 I never really experienced it, but even at launch and 6 months later and 6 months ago when I last tried it the system didn't seem to be part of the world if that makes sense. Oh, and I never felt compelled to join a guild, although I wondered if they would help with the higher level player killing lowbies.

Lord of the Rings Online was fun, but again I got bored at level 20 with little to do apart from too much crafting. The background and lore is probably unbeatable. I was never feeling any real benefit in playing

I did not play Dark Ages of Camelot, much to my regret as people have praised that and its seems to have been a dark horse...

Right now I'm waiting for Warhammer Online and was privileged to have played in their Preview Weekend, well my very first impressions was this, "oh its like Wow", but then Wow borrowed from EQ so their starting areas are similar and to be honest its a good formula, but I soon moved out of that and ended up in a Public Quest, again fun but too many people at that time. One quest given was to join a Scenario and so I joined that accompianed by various other Destruction classes and followed them, and soon realised it was to capture certain points. It was so mcuh fun playing against another player, yet I had an option to do so. Anyway, my main point after all this is that don't shun anything from a bad experience, but also the game itself has to have the proper mechanic at the outset for this to work with PVP and PVE. Warhammer has an advantage in that you have truly two factions at war so its easier to make it fun, but make allowances for the pve player who may have tried pvp and not liked it, or vice versa. There is a lot more to WAR, but I wanted to make an example that I think they may have made it work and I am looking forward to taking forts, castles and cities, well hopefully cities.

Anyway as with regards to Star Trek. Its not quite got the same clear cut war going on, so pvp will be different, unless of course a full blown war breaks out against the Klingons :).

Sorry about the wall of text, but I hope people will be willing to let Cryptic develop something really fun and rewarding, yet I hope they listen to their player base too. Although at the end of the day, "you can please some of the people some of the time, you can please some of the people all of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time"

StarTuxia

[Bazil]

Offhand, there's only one problem I can think of with xp/leveling (or the equivalent) by PvP alone: That would be the guys who basically grind by taking turns killing each other. It'd be a two-box grinder's dream come true. Unless they throw down a very harsh deaht penalty, which they've stated they plan on avoiding. Now, if some checks and balances get thrown in to prevent abuse, I really have no issue with advancement through PvP.

There is a risk of abuse if the system is not done right, but honestly it would not be hard to stop. Diminishing returns would both stop the kind of "I eat a sammich you kill me" abuse and the kind where you would kill a weaker or even afk opponent over and over.

A random teambased pvp system using instancing would also stop it. By only rewarding the side that won, both sides will constantly want to win, by using random teams you are preventing the kind of "you kill me I kill you" abuse on a larger scale.

Point is, I'm quite sure it can be done without any or little risk of abuse, WoW for example has a system similar to what I am suggesting though they don't reward XP, and I haven't heard of any way to exploit their system.

[Jaelk01]

Wow, it's rare to come across a post that you completely agree with, but have no idea what motivated it.

No offence meant, and admitting that I may have missed some posts in the thread, but I didn't think that Bazil had ever put forward (or even hinted at) that he had a "PvP first" mentality.

Providing for players to be able to level up via PvPing only wouldn't give them any advantage, or any more area to PvP in, or any ability to attack anyone that the game wouldn't already have planned they'd be able to attack.

It's just a simple matter of them being able to advance their character without having to PvE. That's it, that's all.

It's a question of focus really. Building a PvP system is more or less like building a totally separate game. Building one, as an independant path within a game even more so. The point has been made and discussed many times in the past (just not in the STO discussions).

Looking from a perspective of commercial viability and ROI building a PvE system then adding a PvP system seems to be the approach to use. So based on my original point choosing both (given a fixed amount of capital) will ensure that neither system will be the best that it can be. Choosing PvP only has the disadvantages stated in my previous post.

From a business perspective (and that is what this is to Cryptic a business) the approach of PvE with some PvP at launch but most probably developed post-launch would be the most sensible option. This is also the approach that they have taken with their titles perviously.

One which has kept them in the market to build STO.

[paynesgrey]

There's different ways that this kind of thing is dealt with in games, things such as rapidly diminishing returns on consecutive kills for instance. It's also not hard for GMs to check up on. Everything you do in game is logged after all.

That's true, although it leads to more work for GM's. Have some secret self farming alert feature, I suppose.

[Ayradyss]

Just IMO, I don't think there's a system that can prevent exploitation. It's like copy protection. It's ultimately pointless. No matter what new-fangled setup you create, someone is always going to find out how to get around it. That will hold true for any coded solution.

While human-oversight could curb exploitation, that's simply not going to happen. That costs the host company money, and they're not going to invest that much. That's been the bottom line with EVERY game out to date and will remain so. I think you're fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. (I'm not saying they won't have real people handling some CS stuff, but no, they're not going to babysit us all and monitor 50,000 XP curves.)

Frankly, I really don't understand why someone who basically just wants a multi-player combat simulator would pay a monthly fee for a MMORPG. I mean, hey, if you want to, go right ahead. It just seems that you are not matching up your wishes with the type of game that actually caters to them. 'All that PVE stuff' that you don't want to bother with is generally termed the 'content' of an MMORPG and that's largely what you'll be paying for.

[Sumdian]

As long as the rewords are the same for end game pvp and pve im happy i hate how wow has turned into nothing more then a pvp grind fest when it was ment to be more a pve game with a little pvp when your not doing anything now you drop pvp gear in pve zones and or pve raid bosses and i hate it not that i dont mind a bit of pvp now and then but pvp shouldnt get prioraty over pve thay should be the same

[Bazil]

Just IMO, I don't think there's a system that can prevent exploitation. It's like copy protection. It's ultimately pointless. No matter what new-fangled setup you create, someone is always going to find out how to get around it. That will hold true for any coded solution...

I still refer to the World of Warcraft method which as far as I know has not been or at the very least is not being exploited or is at all possible to exploit with any real success.

They are also including a system similar to this in Champions Online apparently, where you will be able to progress through PvP so I will assume Cryptic already has a method or methods to prevent exploitation.



Frankly, I really don't understand why someone who basically just wants a multi-player combat simulator would pay a monthly fee for a MMORPG..

I am personally excited by the PvE in STO, partially because I might actually care about the storyline for once, and I will surely play PvE to quite an extent. I simply want to avoid the grind aspect that seems to always be associated with PvE, by adding rewards similar to PvE to PvP, you enable the players to switch between the 2 and play the thing they enjoy the most at that time, without worrying about not advancing their character. It will atleast for me minimzie the feeling of grind and being forced to do something I don't enjoy.

Also, PvP is great.

[Hagon]

Frankly, I really don't understand why someone who basically just wants a multi-player combat simulator would pay a monthly fee for a MMORPG. I mean, hey, if you want to, go right ahead. It just seems that you are not matching up your wishes with the type of game that actually caters to them. 'All that PVE stuff' that you don't want to bother with is generally termed the 'content' of an MMORPG and that's largely what you'll be paying for.So what about all the games out there that essentially have no "end game" and where pretty much all there is to do after a certain point is PvP? They're not MMOGs?

Generally the 'content" as you describe it is there to impart a story to the game and the setting, and provide for advancement of character. PvE content doesn't hold a monopoly on that though. PvP content can do the job of imparting the story just as well, and as we've been discussing here, can provide for advancement of character too.

Sure it's possible that people will find an exploit, but that's true for most any feature in the game, and if we used that reasoning then no new kinds of features should go into any game, since people might eventually find a way to exploit it.

Anyway, it's not hard, or expensive, to set up a sniffer to detect abnormal levelling curves and alert the GMs so they can have a closer look. Games do it for PvE levelling all the time, since after all, PvE levelling exploits are just as likely.

[Jaelk01]

So what about all the games out there that essentially have no "end game" and where pretty much all there is to do after a certain point is PvP? They're not MMOGs?



I'm not sure that I understand this statement. Could you give us some examples of games that you mean? If you are referring to MMOGs or MMORPGs then I do not understand how you can make this statement.

J.

[Hagon]

Well really MMOGs aren't supposed to end, so end game is kind of a misnomer, but I'm referring to games like UO, SWG, DAoC, PotBS, etc etc, where after you've reached max level or advanced your skills all the way, there's really not much else to do except PvP.

The person put forth that PvE is the content, so then does that mean that these games that have no (or very very little) PvE after a certain point, and all that's left to do is PvP (unless of course you're going to stand around and chat and tell stories all that time) somehow stop being MMOGs?

[Jaelk01]

Well really MMOGs aren't supposed to end, so end game is kind of a misnomer, but I'm referring to games like UO, SWG, DAoC, PotBS, etc etc, where after you've reached max level or advanced your skills all the way, there's really not much else to do except PvP.

The person put forth that PvE is the content, so then does that mean that these games that have no (or very very little) PvE after a certain point, and all that's left to do is PvP (unless of course you're going to stand around and chat and tell stories all that time) somehow stop being MMOGs?

I understand your perspective but if "all" there is to do at this end game point is PvP against others.. Well, for me there's the cancel button. I get more then enough spirited conflict in my real life without having to do the same for recreation. I do, however hope (and I have in most games so far) to find a good community group to join before I get to that point and well yeah the sitting around chatting and generally helping others to achieve their objectives as I can with the limitations of my commitments IS the end game for me.

Saying that PvP is "all" there is lessens the medium. I respect your choice but you also have to accept that what floats your boat isn't necessarily the same as what floats mine or others.

J.

[Mook]

I guess you get your gear and super equipment also throughout PvP.

It is just that there are two ways to get forward in the game. Way 1 = PvE with all its features and Way 2 is PvP with all its features.

There is no nead to worry. Cryptic will offer fun for both without forcing one to do the other. Ok?!

AGREED i hope this is the way. i do both pve/pvp :)any way this will make eveone happy i think if its done like this:)

[Hagon]

I understand your perspective but if "all" there is to do at this end game point is PvP against others.. Well, for me there's the cancel button. I get more then enough spirited conflict in my real life without having to do the same for recreation. I do, however hope (and I have in most games so far) to find a good community group to join before I get to that point and well yeah the sitting around chatting and generally helping others to achieve their objectives as I can with the limitations of my commitments IS the end game for me.

Saying that PvP is "all" there is lessens the medium. I respect your choice but you also have to accept that what floats your boat isn't necessarily the same as what floats mine or others.

J.With all due respect, I don't think I'll respond to this post in detail, because you've evidently lost track of the point somewhere.