My major gripe with Cryptic developments is thier apparent fear of going "all out". It feels you guys are afraid to design games with depths out of fear it will scare players away. I beg you guys to not follow your typical "superficial" or "sampler's platter" of content modeling for RvR.
Please dont sell RvR short with some over-simplified, non-flexiable, overly rigid war. Nor do I want to get a series of isolated, yet unconnected arena battles strung together and called a war. The beauty of RvR is that its not a PvE story that is a ride on rails. The depth, complexity and thoroughness isnt in how you lead us around by the nose in an attempt to complete a episode. The depth and complexity is need in the back ground model and mechanics...the day to day, blow by blow experience is built by us the players...not you.
Your job is to create a convincing and dynamic canvas where each player contributes to the final masterpiece.
We need many objective areas(star systems, combat maps, etc)
We need both space and ground combat...sometimes simultaneously for the same objective area
We need purposeful objectives, not just some pointless objectives strewn about like in the Salavage Cap & Hold. Two maybe three objectives max...and spread them out, use up all that wonderful space on the maps.
We need spacious objective areas, as stated above, spread these things out, making them discrete objectives
We need to have all viable objective areas running simultaneously, anybody should be able to look at the map and pick a objective area within range of the front, and venture into to it to "see whats up".
We need some objective areas to be more valuable than others.
We need PvE content for the war...not necessarily episodes tied to the war, but war objectives that contribute to the RvR model. For instances, have NPC freighters moving between faction held systems that are instances that allow opposing factions to attack logistics convoys, and also allowing same faction players to respond to the distress signals from the besieged NPCs. Let these logistic missions matter, have the succesful or unsuccesful completion of NPC's flight mean something.
Make variable means of achieving success in the war(especially considering the strengths and weakness of the two factions involved). Obviously conventional strategies of acquiring territory is important, but also consider non-conventional methods also...like the succesful stiffeling of another factions supply/logistics. So even though the Feds may have an obvious number advantage, giving them an advantage in the conventional acquistion of new systems. The KDF can attempt to supplement their territorial acquistions with increased interdiction of Fed NPC logistic vessels between the systems acquired by the Feds to hamper the ability of the Feds to make use of their newly acquired territories. Allow KDF guerilla warfare, NPC raids and harrasment of systems to create contention and dis-satisfaction in the civilian populations of a system to turn them away or sour their relations with the Feds. This level of flexibility and complexity acknowledges various unique aspects(player populaton being a big one), goals, ideals, etc of the two factions at war. It allows varying gameplay for the two factions for a single conflict.
We need an end to the war, a victory and then a reset of the war and short period of peace before we go at it again.
We need single instances of each objective area, persistant, increased player limits and totally open.
We need all objective areas to be mixed tier PvP
We need a dynamic map where we acually change borders, we need an actual and moving front...not a bunch of isolated pockets of ownership...this means a full capture requires a link to other faction holdings all the way back to some area Command holding(Starbase or Governing planet base/colony/outpost), and that Command holding linked back Sol or Qo'noS. Captured but with no link is just a contentioned objective area which you hold, but cant utilize.
So we are looking at a code for determining ownership, for displaying it, for calculating contributions of NPC supply flights or thier destruction toward victory conditions...plus the current code for generating objective areas. Lastly, the creation of victory conditions and having the server monitor those conditions in order to alert us of a faction victory and the eventual initiation of a reset.
This is just a base for which I feel a good RvR model would build from. there is certainly more detail that I could go into...but I think this creates a benchmark. The thing to remember is that RvR isnt for novice or casual gaming...thats not to say it cant have content for them, or that they cant participate. Its just that entry into the part of the game should come with an understanding that on a grand scheme its a serious endeavour.
I like alot of your idea's Im not sure how the games architecture will hanble complete planets though. I like your idea's about supply runs. But IMO what we will get at first will be pretty basic. I might be pleasantly surpised though.
I like alot of your idea's Im not sure how the games architecture will hanble complete planets though. I like your idea's about supply runs. But IMO what we will get at first will be pretty basic. I might be pleasantly surpised though.
Im not asking that they model complete planets, but that we get objective based ground PvP maps that are planet surface maps with objectives(not more corridors and hallways). Imagine a ground PvP map the size of the Ice Minning Fleet action map...but with a few objectives for its capture. Or a large starbase like Sol station, but bigger, to run around and capture.
Planets would be objectives weither the actual objective is to capture a ground objective, an orbital objective, or just the space surrounding the planet...or any combination of the above.
But its not just planets as objectives, we would have nebulas, asteroid belts(resource assets), transwarp conduits, worm holes, etc. whatever the objectibe, it would be one or one of several objectives required to acquire the system
Ideally, acquistionof territory will be a layered process where ownership of each Sector comes by owning star systems, which requires owning the objective(s) within the star system, which in themselves could require achieving secondary objective(s).
A governing planet of Sector Command planet is just a label and strategic icon for which neighboring systems maintain a link to the faction...in other words, its the hub for all spokes of strategic acquistion of nearby territories. It would act as a launch pad for all area operations...a place to restock supplies, heal damage, respawn after defeat, etc, etc...but it doesnt require a whole planet environment be modeled...really it only requires a starbase or some other strategic orbital or ground structure as a social hub and anchor of operations.
Let's say, a "persistent" RvR (or Fraction vs. Fraction in this case) will be implemented.
What will happen next?
Feddies is outnumbering KdF by what now? 500 to 1
As KdF, you enter the RvR, if you are lucky, you might get a squad (5) together, you drop cloak, you are zerged
to dead by 200 feddies focus fire ...
Let's try to capture a post/planet/station/what ever... you get there by cloak, you attack, you start to win.
Feddie fleet who ones it, got a message, there "spot" get attacked, dropped a message in zone chat...
KdF get zerged down and post recaptured in less then 5 minutes.
Before anything of a persistent RvR can be implemented, we need more PvE content as KdF to make it
attractive to be KdF - if we can't get this before...
KdF enters RvR, all spots hold by Feddies, KdF drops cloak, KdF zerged ... more KdF pll leave either the
game or make a feddie toon.
Let's say, a "persistent" RvR (or Fraction vs. Fraction in this case) will be implemented.
What will happen next?
Feddies is outnumbering KdF by what now? 500 to 1
As KdF, you enter the RvR, if you are lucky, you might get a squad (5) together, you drop cloak, you are zerged
to dead by 200 feddies focus fire ...
Let's try to capture a post/planet/station/what ever... you get there by cloak, you attack, you start to win.
Feddie fleet who ones it, got a message, there "spot" get attacked, dropped a message in zone chat...
KdF get zerged down and post recaptured in less then 5 minutes.
Before anything of a persistent RvR can be implemented, we need more PvE content as KdF to make it
attractive to be KdF - if we can't get this before...
KdF enters RvR, all spots hold by Feddies, KdF drops cloak, KdF zerged ... more KdF pll leave either the
game or make a feddie toon.
Numbers only add a challenge to fight better and fight smarter.
Klingons will probably always be outnumbered but Klingons will get allot of resubs (most in my fleet left game because PvP got borring) and newer players from other games that were detered by the restrictive PvP system in place now. Alot of Fed players will just not want to PvP because they cant Capt Kirk everywhere. And most of the newer Klingons comming up are Feddies walking on the "Dark Side" and liking it. Also if they come out with another Faction or Factions it will pull from both factions but the 2 smaller ones in an effort to reduce the Feds numbers again will have to work together.
Cloak will finally be the advantage it was meant to be. The Klingons were always smaller than the Federation and needed a way to ballance it out. We would pick our fights and do our best to fight glorious battles.
I dont think its feasible to have RVR until all the factions have been placed into the game. The Federation player base is bigger than the Klingon one, of that there is little doubt. But I am hoping that if at least the Romulan faction were to be opened up, you'd find alot of players migrating.
The numbers in turn could be consolidated and some meaningful RVR can develop. The BEST implementation of RVR that I have heard about was Dark Age of Camelot. On that basis I played Warhammer (another Mythic game) for over a year. After a couple of months of some excellent RVR, the endgame dissolved into a mass PVE zerg fest in the opposing factions city..and it all fell apart.
RVR has to be meaningful before anything else. If we are capturing systems and supply lines between sectors, then there should be a good reason as to why we do that. Simply saying "cause we are at war" means nothing. Will the entire faction gain a bonus if we capture a certain % of territory? In Anarchy Online, the PVP game has a small but vital impact on the PVE game in that the % rate of bonus experience gained was directly proportional to how much territory was captured. This helped many of the lower levels to level faster.
That system will probably not work in this game, but what I do not want to see is PVP rewards translated into PVE content..i.e. capture 60% of the neutral zone so that you can open up the following dungeon to kill a boss and get some phat loot. That is unacceptable, and shows no initiative or creative thinking, especially since this type of formula has been done to death in other MMORPG's.
Let's say, a "persistent" RvR (or Fraction vs. Fraction in this case) will be implemented.
What will happen next?
Feddies is outnumbering KdF by what now? 500 to 1
As KdF, you enter the RvR, if you are lucky, you might get a squad (5) together, you drop cloak, you are zerged
to dead by 200 feddies focus fire ...
Let's try to capture a post/planet/station/what ever... you get there by cloak, you attack, you start to win.
Feddie fleet who ones it, got a message, there "spot" get attacked, dropped a message in zone chat...
KdF get zerged down and post recaptured in less then 5 minutes.
Before anything of a persistent RvR can be implemented, we need more PvE content as KdF to make it
attractive to be KdF - if we can't get this before...
KdF enters RvR, all spots hold by Feddies, KdF drops cloak, KdF zerged ... more KdF pll leave either the
game or make a feddie toon.
They could try "auto-scaling" options involving NPC ships/soldiers and base defenses. And one could weigh results based on the players available in a time frame or something like that.
If the war consists of many objective areas, the numbers advanatage wont matter much. Basically, the feds and their superior numbers cant be every where at once. With the combat heavy KDF vessels and the cloak we can use hit and run tactics in acquiring system, and do our best to hold what have. The key thing is that we remain mobile and not tied down to too much.
This might mean relaxing the requirment of a supply link for KDf captures...the idea being our logistics could operate under cloak...but we'd still have some limits on how and under what conditions we can occupy a system.
As I mentioned, having multiple methods for strategic success should take into account the unqiue circumstances of the KDF population, by utilizing our cloak asset and hard hitting ships as an advantage.
So even though Feds might have an easier time acquiring systems, we'd havd a easier time disrupting operations in and between these systems. So the KDF would have a unique feature in our ability to strike Fed NPC suply vessels along the supply lins between Fed holdings...this would be a unique feature that we can operat against that negativly impacts Fed victory conditions for the over all war. This means the Feds need to apply player resources in the escorting or response to NPC Fed distress calls as we hammer their freighters.
We need to be able to cause enough disruption in Fed held systems to cause disruption in thier alliance r relations with the inhabiting people of the system. Even Coeherse system populations to side with us because the Feds are unable to efefctivly protect them from us.
There cant be just one victoy method...though one way or the other everyone wins by acquiring an dutilizing systems. Fed holdings mean nothing if they are so wide spread they cant protect them all from the cloaking hoardes of the KDF.
This means the war has a PvP and PvE that caters to each faction. Boths sides will have slightly different exeoriences within the same war.
I don't want to speak for everyone in my fleet but I know lots of us are excited to play romulan race when they are released.
I would however like to see the option for getting a mirror image level of the opposite faction. SO if you have a fed RA5 then you could get a romulan RA5 without having to level up all the way.
IMO the game is a fed based story, klingon side PVE is extremely tedious and boring. Sitting at commander level currently and Loathing the push to captain.
If they do the same thing for romulans.....sigh
the mirror level thing would really open up faction based warfare big time. I know there would be lots more klingons out there PVPing. For sure a DOB klingon fight would be happening more. I love the alpha strike klingons get. When we do low level klingon DOB fights its wicked.
Romulan DOB......FTW
Speaking of attacking supply lines would, there are trade ships that move across the map anyway. What if they could be attacked by the other faction, like sensor contacts? The other faction could then have the chance to defend them after they get attacked.
I agree with Cocoa-jin; RvR is an excellent opportunity for Cryptic to add a bit of scale and complexity to the game (and it needs that very badly).
I don't know about open cross tier though. In some of the proposals I've made on this subject over the past couple of years, I have assumed that such things would be cross tier; but now that I'm playing the game, it seems pretty clear that the tiers don't mix very well.
Either higher tier players would get bored, or lower tier players would get slaughtered; depending on where the difficulty is set. The difficulty slider will only make this harder to balance properly (take two players with the same ships and equipment, but different difficulty settings, and have them fight the same ship together; how can it be easier for one than the other?).
Last time I was in a mixed tier battle, I found myself fighting -40 Borg cubes... was pretty dull. There were Klingon players in there too; but they didn't liven things up much (pretty sure they were flying T2 BoPs, while I was in a T5 escort; they didn't last very long).
The only way I can think of to make it all work was if there was special 'campaign' gear that put everyone more or less on the same level somehow; and we couldn't participate unless we were using it. That would be a little hard to rationalize though; why would Starfleet forbid us from using our best equipment?
I don't think Cryptic will make the same mistake twice when they release the Romulans. I'm sure they will have much more meaningful PvE content than the Klingons have now-- especially before the Season 1 patch. I imagine it will be some time before we see the next faction introduced because of this. Not only do they need to do a lot for the Federation still, but there's also the Klingon side that needs loving.
On topic though, I really wish there was more Faction vs. Faction stuff-- similar to the Warzone, but far more diverse and much more of it. Battling it out in Arenas is nice and thrilling, but the other options are limited-- I don't care too much for the Arathi Basin-wannabe map, and no one plays the Assault maps. Closest thing I can get to "RvR" is flying around Kerrat and trying to stop the Feds from winning by attacking them.
RvR is why I'm here. If Cryptic doesn't deliver to my expectations I'll be gone before you can count to 2. I want a real war like in DS9. And the implementation has to be good, no FFA, CTF etc. that has an allegible meaning. EVE is decent in that department.
I don't know about open cross tier though. In some of the proposals I've made on this subject over the past couple of years, I have assumed that such things would be cross tier; but now that I'm playing the game, it seems pretty clear that the tiers don't mix very well.
Its not intended to mix, its intended to be what it is...dynamic and diverse. These arent closed off arenas we are talking about, these are open and persistent combat/objective areas. If you are out-numbered or under powered, then you call in help from the player base, raise an alert on zone...then choose either to stay and hold them off until re-inforcements arrive or make a tactical re-treat/re-position out of the area until your additional forces can arrive.
The thing to remember is that its not so much about weither you die or not(of course no one wants to die, and smart choices improves survival odds), but its all about weither your actions contributes meaningfully to the acquistion of the objective.
But the thing to remember is that there is nothing making you stay in an area where you will get slaughtered...certainly not over and over. If a KDF fleet jumps a lone Miranda, there is no one to blame except perhaps the Mirandas choice to enter an objective area alone...and once he is popped that one time, there is no one to blame for his repeated death except himself for repeated attempts if he is not smart enough to recognize he doesnt stand a chance.
Mixed tiers are fine, sometime it'll be roughly even, sometimes it wont. Some times it'll be one high tier agianst many low tiers, sometimes it will be many heavies against a few light weights...thats war. No leader strives to bring parity to the battlefield...you always look to bring an advantage...thats aspect of war has to be respected and reflected in RvR. And as you guys know, this coming from a die-hard and out-numbered KDF player.
EDIT:
After additinal thought the balancing functions I might be willing to accept for mixed tiers is that all weapons, equipment and even consoles be set to a standard level upon entry. So their wont be any Mk X cannons against Mk IV cannons...I mean they will still be labled Mk X and MK IV, but they would all have a standardized value of like Mk V gear or something.
So bigger ships still have the advanatge of increased BOs, better ship specs and more weapon slots.
I might be willing to accept skill point contribution to stats be decreased, so higher ranked players still have more skill points allocated to their skills but it doesnt scale as much. So A T5 BG would still hit harder than a T3 Com...but not drastically so...keep in mind, the larger ship still has more weapon slots to increase thier DPS advantage.
So yeah, the ship's stock stats would become significantly more important in RvR than it is now, with player skills and BO specials being moe of a supplement to the ship instead of the defining aspects of the ship asit is now.
Still, there needs to be disparity between ships. Higher Tier needs to be better than Low Tier...but not necessarily with the current massive gap we have now between tiers.
What does RvR mean? My assumption would have been "Romulan vs Romulan" but that doesn't fit with the context you used.
It's not a common acronym.
It's short for "Realm vs. Realm", a faction-based PvP system properly associated with Mythic Studios' MMOs Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online. However, in this context, I think the OP is using it as a general term referring to faction-based PvP systems with persistent or pseudo-persistent territory control.
Let's say, a "persistent" RvR (or Fraction vs. Fraction in this case) will be implemented.
What will happen next?
Feddies is outnumbering KdF by what now? 500 to 1
As KdF, you enter the RvR, if you are lucky, you might get a squad (5) together, you drop cloak, you are zerged
to dead by 200 feddies focus fire ...
Let's try to capture a post/planet/station/what ever... you get there by cloak, you attack, you start to win.
Feddie fleet who ones it, got a message, there "spot" get attacked, dropped a message in zone chat...
KdF get zerged down and post recaptured in less then 5 minutes.
Before anything of a persistent RvR can be implemented, we need more PvE content as KdF to make it
attractive to be KdF - if we can't get this before...
KdF enters RvR, all spots hold by Feddies, KdF drops cloak, KdF zerged ... more KdF pll leave either the
game or make a feddie toon.
I'm all for RvR - but I am afraid this is exactly what we are going to see.
It's short for "Realm vs. Realm", a faction-based PvP system properly associated with Mythic Studios' MMOs Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online. However, in this context, I think the OP is using it as a general term referring to faction-based PvP systems with persistent or pseudo-persistent territory control.
Yeah, thats basically it. m not sure RvR fuly encompasses what Im trying to convey...but it seems to imply my desire close enough, with sufficent recognition by theplayer base of what Im refering to.
i am all for it but i do not think it is going to happen. but i have heard they are working on the PvP system.
i hear a lot of people talk about balance. they could help balance sides by improving the Klingon content . Making both sides different experiences. playing the same raid maps, whats the point. it is the same and there for i do not want to do it. more content and different game play and i would do it. reward me and i will play it. some of us need a reason to play the dark side.
We dont necessarily need balanced numbers...honestly that would be prefered, but instead, the devs need to cater the means of winning the war to the differences between the faction.
So taking territory wouldnt be the end all for winning the war...the Feds might excel in that aspect....so be it. Thats not to say the KDF shouldnt take territory...you shouldnt be able to enjoy perks of victory unless you acquire them. But assuming the Feds are acquiring more than the KDF, there is still the fact that you cant enjoy the perks of acquiring territory unless you can safely control and maintain the lines of supply.
So give the KDF the ability to attack supply ships in combat and outlying areas, Feds would only attack in combat areas.
So even if the Feds do cap it all, if the KDF can interdict NPC supply effectivly, the victory conditions wouldnt be met...or at least it would delay it. If we can pull enough Feds off of system defense, we can use our stealth to strike at systems left under-manned.
i have another idea for you. how about a PvP map that you enter( like the borg war game in the neutral zone). that is open to everyone. It would have 9 (Full size) planets, some asteroid bases, and some moon colonies. each side starts at a home base on the far side of the map. each faction control equal territory a start. each place your faction controls has defenses like space stations, turrets,phasers,space docks, and ships that are all NPC. To take control your faction destroys the defenses. once they are destroyed ( after a short time) your factions defenses take their place. faction move through the map until one side take full control.
As you said cocoa-jin, should be mixed tier PvP. I Agree. I also like the supply line idea it need to be worked in.
I think we could get in 20 to 25 players per side. as far as balance it will come in time.if it becomes popular then more fed will become Klingon to get into the game easier.
Right how only 5 players can team. so i think we would need a squad leader comm. for leader to coordinate attacks.
i do not believe they will change sector space. so we need more ideas for PvP maps or new zones.
i have another idea for you. how about a PvP map that you enter( like the borg war game in the neutral zone). that is open to everyone. It would have 9 (Full size) planets, some asteroid bases, and some moon colonies. each side starts at a home base on the far side of the map. each faction control equal territory a start. each place your faction controls has defenses like space stations, turrets,phasers,space docks, and ships that are all NPC. To take control your faction destroys the defenses. once they are destroyed ( after a short time) your factions defenses take their place. faction move through the map until one side take full control.
As you said cocoa-jin, should be mixed tier PvP. I Agree. I also like the supply line idea it need to be worked in.
I think we could get in 20 to 25 players per side. as far as balance it will come in time.if it becomes popular then more fed will become Klingon to get into the game easier.
Right how only 5 players can team. so i think we would need a squad leader comm. for leader to coordinate attacks.
i do not believe they will change sector space. so we need more ideas for PvP maps or new zones.
Too small, to restrictive...its just a bigger arena with most of the same problems we already see. I'd accept a max number of ships for objective areas in my proposal, but I cant accepted yet another "battle in a bottle" for a PvP model.
Each primary Objective should be its own large "map", though Im certainly open to secondary objectives being placed inside the "map" even as pre-requistes to capturin the primary objective. But in my mind, if a system has 4 high value objectives, there should be at least 2-4 "maps" for that system.
i would love to see the ideas together as it may take days or weeks to control a system in the sector. Making it ever long to control the sector.systems would be a system not just one planet. many goals. all out total war. as new factions come, they could take part in the war. i agree with goals but i do not agree with ganking in sector space. a player could not move 2 in. without be attacked. how would this work. everything can work if we can attack places a large sector map but not players.no queues only limit totals player in maps (20 to 25 per faction). player can free roam maps.like you said attack positions like supply lines(cargo ships), space station, and so on(all positions on the sector maps).making all positions on the sector map a target, but players. The faction controlling the system will show control on the sector map. that is the closest i can see to your plan.
Comments
Im not asking that they model complete planets, but that we get objective based ground PvP maps that are planet surface maps with objectives(not more corridors and hallways). Imagine a ground PvP map the size of the Ice Minning Fleet action map...but with a few objectives for its capture. Or a large starbase like Sol station, but bigger, to run around and capture.
Planets would be objectives weither the actual objective is to capture a ground objective, an orbital objective, or just the space surrounding the planet...or any combination of the above.
But its not just planets as objectives, we would have nebulas, asteroid belts(resource assets), transwarp conduits, worm holes, etc. whatever the objectibe, it would be one or one of several objectives required to acquire the system
Ideally, acquistionof territory will be a layered process where ownership of each Sector comes by owning star systems, which requires owning the objective(s) within the star system, which in themselves could require achieving secondary objective(s).
A governing planet of Sector Command planet is just a label and strategic icon for which neighboring systems maintain a link to the faction...in other words, its the hub for all spokes of strategic acquistion of nearby territories. It would act as a launch pad for all area operations...a place to restock supplies, heal damage, respawn after defeat, etc, etc...but it doesnt require a whole planet environment be modeled...really it only requires a starbase or some other strategic orbital or ground structure as a social hub and anchor of operations.
What will happen next?
Feddies is outnumbering KdF by what now? 500 to 1
As KdF, you enter the RvR, if you are lucky, you might get a squad (5) together, you drop cloak, you are zerged
to dead by 200 feddies focus fire ...
Let's try to capture a post/planet/station/what ever... you get there by cloak, you attack, you start to win.
Feddie fleet who ones it, got a message, there "spot" get attacked, dropped a message in zone chat...
KdF get zerged down and post recaptured in less then 5 minutes.
Before anything of a persistent RvR can be implemented, we need more PvE content as KdF to make it
attractive to be KdF - if we can't get this before...
KdF enters RvR, all spots hold by Feddies, KdF drops cloak, KdF zerged ... more KdF pll leave either the
game or make a feddie toon.
Numbers only add a challenge to fight better and fight smarter.
Klingons will probably always be outnumbered but Klingons will get allot of resubs (most in my fleet left game because PvP got borring) and newer players from other games that were detered by the restrictive PvP system in place now. Alot of Fed players will just not want to PvP because they cant Capt Kirk everywhere. And most of the newer Klingons comming up are Feddies walking on the "Dark Side" and liking it. Also if they come out with another Faction or Factions it will pull from both factions but the 2 smaller ones in an effort to reduce the Feds numbers again will have to work together.
Cloak will finally be the advantage it was meant to be. The Klingons were always smaller than the Federation and needed a way to ballance it out. We would pick our fights and do our best to fight glorious battles.
I still shudder at the memory of the level of gankage.
Although when I did manage to sneak my way into the CE I had a blast
The numbers in turn could be consolidated and some meaningful RVR can develop. The BEST implementation of RVR that I have heard about was Dark Age of Camelot. On that basis I played Warhammer (another Mythic game) for over a year. After a couple of months of some excellent RVR, the endgame dissolved into a mass PVE zerg fest in the opposing factions city..and it all fell apart.
RVR has to be meaningful before anything else. If we are capturing systems and supply lines between sectors, then there should be a good reason as to why we do that. Simply saying "cause we are at war" means nothing. Will the entire faction gain a bonus if we capture a certain % of territory? In Anarchy Online, the PVP game has a small but vital impact on the PVE game in that the % rate of bonus experience gained was directly proportional to how much territory was captured. This helped many of the lower levels to level faster.
That system will probably not work in this game, but what I do not want to see is PVP rewards translated into PVE content..i.e. capture 60% of the neutral zone so that you can open up the following dungeon to kill a boss and get some phat loot. That is unacceptable, and shows no initiative or creative thinking, especially since this type of formula has been done to death in other MMORPG's.
Make RVR meaningful before you implement it.
They could try "auto-scaling" options involving NPC ships/soldiers and base defenses. And one could weigh results based on the players available in a time frame or something like that.
This might mean relaxing the requirment of a supply link for KDf captures...the idea being our logistics could operate under cloak...but we'd still have some limits on how and under what conditions we can occupy a system.
As I mentioned, having multiple methods for strategic success should take into account the unqiue circumstances of the KDF population, by utilizing our cloak asset and hard hitting ships as an advantage.
So even though Feds might have an easier time acquiring systems, we'd havd a easier time disrupting operations in and between these systems. So the KDF would have a unique feature in our ability to strike Fed NPC suply vessels along the supply lins between Fed holdings...this would be a unique feature that we can operat against that negativly impacts Fed victory conditions for the over all war. This means the Feds need to apply player resources in the escorting or response to NPC Fed distress calls as we hammer their freighters.
We need to be able to cause enough disruption in Fed held systems to cause disruption in thier alliance r relations with the inhabiting people of the system. Even Coeherse system populations to side with us because the Feds are unable to efefctivly protect them from us.
There cant be just one victoy method...though one way or the other everyone wins by acquiring an dutilizing systems. Fed holdings mean nothing if they are so wide spread they cant protect them all from the cloaking hoardes of the KDF.
This means the war has a PvP and PvE that caters to each faction. Boths sides will have slightly different exeoriences within the same war.
I would however like to see the option for getting a mirror image level of the opposite faction. SO if you have a fed RA5 then you could get a romulan RA5 without having to level up all the way.
IMO the game is a fed based story, klingon side PVE is extremely tedious and boring. Sitting at commander level currently and Loathing the push to captain.
If they do the same thing for romulans.....sigh
the mirror level thing would really open up faction based warfare big time. I know there would be lots more klingons out there PVPing. For sure a DOB klingon fight would be happening more. I love the alpha strike klingons get. When we do low level klingon DOB fights its wicked.
Romulan DOB......FTW
I don't know about open cross tier though. In some of the proposals I've made on this subject over the past couple of years, I have assumed that such things would be cross tier; but now that I'm playing the game, it seems pretty clear that the tiers don't mix very well.
Either higher tier players would get bored, or lower tier players would get slaughtered; depending on where the difficulty is set. The difficulty slider will only make this harder to balance properly (take two players with the same ships and equipment, but different difficulty settings, and have them fight the same ship together; how can it be easier for one than the other?).
Last time I was in a mixed tier battle, I found myself fighting -40 Borg cubes... was pretty dull. There were Klingon players in there too; but they didn't liven things up much (pretty sure they were flying T2 BoPs, while I was in a T5 escort; they didn't last very long).
The only way I can think of to make it all work was if there was special 'campaign' gear that put everyone more or less on the same level somehow; and we couldn't participate unless we were using it. That would be a little hard to rationalize though; why would Starfleet forbid us from using our best equipment?
On topic though, I really wish there was more Faction vs. Faction stuff-- similar to the Warzone, but far more diverse and much more of it. Battling it out in Arenas is nice and thrilling, but the other options are limited-- I don't care too much for the Arathi Basin-wannabe map, and no one plays the Assault maps. Closest thing I can get to "RvR" is flying around Kerrat and trying to stop the Feds from winning by attacking them.
Its not intended to mix, its intended to be what it is...dynamic and diverse. These arent closed off arenas we are talking about, these are open and persistent combat/objective areas. If you are out-numbered or under powered, then you call in help from the player base, raise an alert on zone...then choose either to stay and hold them off until re-inforcements arrive or make a tactical re-treat/re-position out of the area until your additional forces can arrive.
The thing to remember is that its not so much about weither you die or not(of course no one wants to die, and smart choices improves survival odds), but its all about weither your actions contributes meaningfully to the acquistion of the objective.
But the thing to remember is that there is nothing making you stay in an area where you will get slaughtered...certainly not over and over. If a KDF fleet jumps a lone Miranda, there is no one to blame except perhaps the Mirandas choice to enter an objective area alone...and once he is popped that one time, there is no one to blame for his repeated death except himself for repeated attempts if he is not smart enough to recognize he doesnt stand a chance.
Mixed tiers are fine, sometime it'll be roughly even, sometimes it wont. Some times it'll be one high tier agianst many low tiers, sometimes it will be many heavies against a few light weights...thats war. No leader strives to bring parity to the battlefield...you always look to bring an advantage...thats aspect of war has to be respected and reflected in RvR. And as you guys know, this coming from a die-hard and out-numbered KDF player.
EDIT:
After additinal thought the balancing functions I might be willing to accept for mixed tiers is that all weapons, equipment and even consoles be set to a standard level upon entry. So their wont be any Mk X cannons against Mk IV cannons...I mean they will still be labled Mk X and MK IV, but they would all have a standardized value of like Mk V gear or something.
So bigger ships still have the advanatge of increased BOs, better ship specs and more weapon slots.
I might be willing to accept skill point contribution to stats be decreased, so higher ranked players still have more skill points allocated to their skills but it doesnt scale as much. So A T5 BG would still hit harder than a T3 Com...but not drastically so...keep in mind, the larger ship still has more weapon slots to increase thier DPS advantage.
So yeah, the ship's stock stats would become significantly more important in RvR than it is now, with player skills and BO specials being moe of a supplement to the ship instead of the defining aspects of the ship asit is now.
Still, there needs to be disparity between ships. Higher Tier needs to be better than Low Tier...but not necessarily with the current massive gap we have now between tiers.
It's not a common acronym.
It's short for "Realm vs. Realm", a faction-based PvP system properly associated with Mythic Studios' MMOs Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online. However, in this context, I think the OP is using it as a general term referring to faction-based PvP systems with persistent or pseudo-persistent territory control.
I'm all for RvR - but I am afraid this is exactly what we are going to see.
Yeah, thats basically it. m not sure RvR fuly encompasses what Im trying to convey...but it seems to imply my desire close enough, with sufficent recognition by theplayer base of what Im refering to.
i hear a lot of people talk about balance. they could help balance sides by improving the Klingon content . Making both sides different experiences. playing the same raid maps, whats the point. it is the same and there for i do not want to do it. more content and different game play and i would do it. reward me and i will play it. some of us need a reason to play the dark side.
good post, i like see new ideas.
So taking territory wouldnt be the end all for winning the war...the Feds might excel in that aspect....so be it. Thats not to say the KDF shouldnt take territory...you shouldnt be able to enjoy perks of victory unless you acquire them. But assuming the Feds are acquiring more than the KDF, there is still the fact that you cant enjoy the perks of acquiring territory unless you can safely control and maintain the lines of supply.
So give the KDF the ability to attack supply ships in combat and outlying areas, Feds would only attack in combat areas.
So even if the Feds do cap it all, if the KDF can interdict NPC supply effectivly, the victory conditions wouldnt be met...or at least it would delay it. If we can pull enough Feds off of system defense, we can use our stealth to strike at systems left under-manned.
As you said cocoa-jin, should be mixed tier PvP. I Agree. I also like the supply line idea it need to be worked in.
I think we could get in 20 to 25 players per side. as far as balance it will come in time.if it becomes popular then more fed will become Klingon to get into the game easier.
Right how only 5 players can team. so i think we would need a squad leader comm. for leader to coordinate attacks.
i do not believe they will change sector space. so we need more ideas for PvP maps or new zones.
Too small, to restrictive...its just a bigger arena with most of the same problems we already see. I'd accept a max number of ships for objective areas in my proposal, but I cant accepted yet another "battle in a bottle" for a PvP model.
Each primary Objective should be its own large "map", though Im certainly open to secondary objectives being placed inside the "map" even as pre-requistes to capturin the primary objective. But in my mind, if a system has 4 high value objectives, there should be at least 2-4 "maps" for that system.
what do you think about this?