I was having a little discussion about PvP in one of the Klingon threads and had a bit of an idea about how PvP in this game could be made fun and competitive. The idea isn't dazzlingly original, it may have even been suggested before, but I feel it could do with a bit of an airing to perhaps see what others think of it. Perhaps the Devs could weigh in on it, as well.
I'll cut and paste my reply below.

I don't know how other games handle uneven faction sizes. Maybe by not having them in the first place.

My idea would be that the factions have to be "auto-balanced". If the Klingon players are not enough to do as many missions as the Feds, we instead determine something like "average success ratio per faction player" and change the front lines based on that. PvP teams could get NPC ships added to balance them (of course, NPCs suck compared to most PvP players, so that would be very difficult to balance).
That's almost how it works, now. A pvp instance won't start until there is a minimum number of players per side. Unfortunately, there seems to be no maximum to minimum ratio; meaning that once the Klingons reach 5 players, the game may end up starting with twice or more number of starfleet players. This makes several of the Klingon players drop out of the queue and repeat the process in another one. It's why it always takes an ice age to get into PvPs sometimes.
However, by its very nature, conflict is imbalanced. In the real world, though, people don't want to pay for the opportunity to put themselves in danger; in the virtual world, they do. This necessitates PvP developers to ensure a certain level of "fairness" for everyone involved, otherwise they would lose all of their customers.
So.. hm.. How to maintain this balance...?
Aha!
Back in the older days of racing games, the further back you were from the lead, the faster you went in order to catch up and potentially take first place. The game certainly did not reflect this on your speedometer, but it made it so that everyone could stay competitive.
Perhaps they could do that with PvP in STO... Give the side with the fewest players a dynamic handicap. X% accuracy, damage, evasion and / or damage resist for every player the opposing team has over yours. Perhaps make it a dynamic handicap for everyone: 0.XX% for every "point" the other team has over yours.
This could create a competitive environment and make the combat just that much more like Star Trek. The small group of ships overcoming seemingly insurmountable odds and surviving to sing the tales (or make the report) when they get home. Fewer players would shy away from PvP just because they would be outnumbered and if an open conflict zone with a dynamic territory control scheme was added to the game, it would keep it competitive and fun, allowing players who have not yet switched sides to see that the Klingons are not at a disadvantage and worth joining.
Comments
Buff-the-minority was attempted in Warhammer Online, and did not seem to be particularly effective. They also tried it in WoW's Lake Wintergrasp "open" PvP zone, but the system ended up needing population caps anyway.
So while the acquistion of territory is an obvious, middle of the road objective for both sides. Create uniquly Fed oriented objctives like diplomacy, peace keeping and security patrols for some systems(ally or groups teetering on joing the Feds), while Klingons would have the objective of disrupting these systems, coehersing systems into distancing themselves from the Feds in order to recieve "protection" from the KDF.
KDF disruption of pivotal Fed diplomatic operations by secretly backing one side of a Civil conflict over the other...so we can be cloaked raiders, running interference against the supply of th opposing side. if we keep the conflict going, we lessen the influence of the Feds in trying to bring the two forces together. By securing the victory of th side we back, we gain influence in the area.
Supply interdiction of Fed held systems. Provide the KDF PvE targets in the war in th form of Federation supply ships. These supply ships are the artery allowing the Feds to utilize a captured/aquired system. By disrupting the flow of supplies into the system ,we weaken their influence in the system. It may not directly bring about the KDF acquistion of the system, but it may have a game mechanic that forces the Feds out. Disrupting supplie sout out of the system could allow a system, that the KDF cant take over by force, be rendered ineffective for the Feds by prevent the strategic utilization of that systems resources and assets.
All these KDF objectives utilize our stealth and aggresive nature to promote unconventional warfare. It also requires the Feds make use of of a large portion of their larger population to defend non-tactical(but still important) objectives...diverting resources instead to the defense and security of large strategic areas.
These KDF objectives types would not be available for the Feds, while some Fed objectives wouldnt be available to the KDF. Critical objectives toward victory might have opposing objectives to counter them for the other faction, but that counter-objctive may not be critical for the other factions progress toward victory...none-the-less, any objective either provides some progress toward victory, and/or deducts from the progress of the opposing faction.
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully
I don't know how other games handle uneven faction sizes. Maybe by not having them in the first place.
My idea would be that the factions have to be "auto-balanced". If the Klingon players are not enough to do as many missions as the Feds, we instead determine something like "average success ratio per faction player" and change the front lines based on that. PvP teams could get NPC ships added to balance them (of course, NPCs suck compared to most PvP players, so that would be very difficult to balance).
Problem is it would not work in match play,you can not program a NPC to think like PvP players, how would you work with NPC's. (focus fire, fed ball, cloak,regroup)
Now on the other hand, it can help to balance OPEN PvP. They would work as guards or patrols. Spawning to protect important objectives. It is all part of my proposal for open PvP. As it will help balance open instance maps.
Good try though.
The only thing I can think of for match play is to allow feds and klingons to fight on the same teams to balance. there are more feds in queues than klinglons. this way you will see more matches. I know it is not canon but if we want more matches then we have to compromise. Only until we see same balance. that is all I can think of to solve this problem. I also think the same about end game content.
I wonder if adding a variable to the formula that would take the total PvP participation experience of a player's @handle (basically, how veteran they are in STO pvp) and weighting it accordingly would help to alleviate that sort of issue. If, for example, @Angelsilhouette has never participated in PvP in STO and joins the side with fewer players, perhaps the partial handicap that would go away normally when a player joined would stay the same or even go up. Would that, or perhaps anything else, be incentive enough to end the hostility towards new players?
(Though honestly, I've never entered a PvP queue in this or any other game as a newbie where people were hostile to me; but while that experience may be alien to me, I concede that I may be an exception to the rule.)
The point of the quote was not to put forth Ridcully's proposal only, it was as a part of the whole. There was something below that, as well.