As a die-hard supporter of purposeful, objective based, world impacting, dynamic PvP...I cant help but to feel that your the coming PvP territory Capture model you talk of introducing, will have a major impact on the success of the STO.
The territorty capture can be both amazing content for enrichinening the STO experience, but also be a tremendous offering and nod to those of us(past and present) PvP subscribers...especially my ailing Klingon Faction.
But at the same time, I also realize that any half stp attempt at building this model will be a nail in the coffin for STO when it comes continued subscription for many of us PvP fans(this is not an "or else Im leaving" post)...once again, especially for my beloved Klingon faction.
So I think its extremely important that this terrirtory capture be designed with a robust and thorough design that is flexible, rapidly adaptable to changes in the factions and changes in the greater STO storyline...and most importatly, recognizes and caters to the major differences between the factions, including populations.
Things not to do:
Please dont allow a concern for population imbalances push you into overly instancing these objective/comat areas/systems. Meaning, create one instance for each objective and sector...the key it to create many objective areas/systems. We are goingto need at least several dozen systems to fight over...anything less than 50 will favor the larger population of the Feds. Creating may systems means the larger population can never be in all the systems in great numbers at any one time...allowing the smaller population to coordinate its forces to either hit un-defended or lightly defended systems for capture.
Please dont restrict combat areas/systems to rank/tier. Leave all combat totally open to all tiers. Every ship, regardless of rank/tier as its place and is able to contribute. A T1 light Cruiser is just as capable of capturing a node, or adding its firepower to its group in order to destroy a hositle, as any other ship. A T5 capture of an objective contriubtes no more than a T1 capturing. These arent team death matches...kills dont win objectives.
Please dont limited combat areas/systems to only 5-10 per side. Open it up, allow for 20-25 per side at least. That leads to the next itme.
Please no queues, this is war its not a gladiator match. Success on the battlefield comes form maneuvering and strategizing to sway the balance of the conflict in yuor favor. If a small group of Faction A decides it wants to defend of capture a system, a large group from Faction B should be able to enter into that system, bump into the smaller group and fight them off. The defeat of the smaller group isnt the end of the world for that faction's interest in that combat area/system...they can always muster up a larger force of their own and challenge Faction B for control. Which brings up another issue.
Open PvP combat areas with no queues means yu can freely enter...but also freely leave/retreat. The smaller Faction A group coul dvery well see the larger Faction B group and make the smart choice of leaving before they all close within engagement range...allowing for a tactical fall back out of the system. Which can allow them to gather faction support to then re-enter the system with a fighting chance...possibly with superior forces.
Please do not have a singular process toward campaign victory. Provide multiple paths to campaign victory. Make some paths toward campaign victory faction unique. Lead certain mutual paths for victory weigh more or less for each faction. Meaning Faction A can do items/objectives types 1, 2, 3, 4 toward victory. Faction B can do 2, 3, 4, 5 toward victory. Faction A would get more "credit" toward victory by achieving 1 and 3. Faction B gets more "credit" for 3 and 5. Both factions get the same "credit" for 2 and 4.
Some objectives types will only add to the faction's "credits", while some would provide some "credit" toward, but deduct even more "credit" from the opposition. The objective types wouldnt even be available for for both factions. For instance, only the KDF might have access to Interdict NPC supply ships of the other faction. Perhaps only the Feds could be allowed to use diplomacy to annex new territories.
Please dont make paths to victory stuck in cement...keep it flexibale so as the dynamics of the game, its populations, etc change, the paths and the value of those paths toward victory can be adjusted independently and intelligently for boths sides as the devs see fit(based on sound and critical observations over time).
Lastly, and this is a big one, dont create only one...not even two entry/spawn points into a system. Honestly, we need to have at least 6...prefferably, six per faction if you ask me. I'd like for us to be able to cycle through each spawn point so we can see whats around before we spawn in...if its camped, let us check out the next one and spawn in there if we like. How about this? 6 spawns per faction, plus 6 neutral spawns that anyone can spawn in from.
I just wanted to add one thing, I personally do not want to see lock downs on systems or objectives. please do not do this. It want be better for control system to retake objectives. Like Cocoa-jin is saying, Players can't be everywhere. I believe he is right.
Sounds like fun, can't wait.
I agree. this would benefit both sides. I to fear they will come up with a generic system like they have now. It doesnt need to look pretty at start it is a war zone after all.
I love the idea of some kind of gauge/mechanic that shows the wars progress. I would love for them to take that into account when they progress the story line.
Though I don't know if your free form vision could be accomplished, I'm all for the direction.
How awesome would it be to check the "War Report" to see that the federation has lost 15 major battles today, and the Klingons have successfully pushed the front line two systems.
Well, it was a nice dream, thanks for letting me know its a shared one.
As a die-hard supporter of purposeful, objective based, world impacting, dynamic PvP...I cant help but to feel that your the coming PvP territory Capture model you talk of introducing, will have a major impact on the success of the STO.
The territorty capture can be both amazing content for enrichinening the STO experience, but also be a tremendous offering and nod to those of us(past and present) PvP subscribers...especially my ailing Klingon Faction.
But at the same time, I also realize that any half stp attempt at building this model will be a nail in the coffin for STO when it comes continued subscription for many of us PvP fans(this is not an "or else Im leaving" post)...once again, especially for my beloved Klingon faction.
So I think its extremely important that this terrirtory capture be designed with a robust and thorough design that is flexible, rapidly adaptable to changes in the factions and changes in the greater STO storyline...and most importatly, recognizes and caters to the major differences between the factions, including populations.
Things not to do:
Please dont allow a concern for population imbalances push you into overly instancing these objective/comat areas/systems. Meaning, create one instance for each objective and sector...the key it to create many objective areas/systems. We are goingto need at least several dozen systems to fight over...anything less than 50 will favor the larger population of the Feds. Creating may systems means the larger population can never be in all the systems in great numbers at any one time...allowing the smaller population to coordinate its forces to either hit un-defended or lightly defended systems for capture.
Please dont restrict combat areas/systems to rank/tier. Leave all combat totally open to all tiers. Every ship, regardless of rank/tier as its place and is able to contribute. A T1 light Cruiser is just as capable of capturing a node, or adding its firepower to its group in order to destroy a hositle, as any other ship. A T5 capture of an objective contriubtes no more than a T1 capturing. These arent team death matches...kills dont win objectives.
Please dont limited combat areas/systems to only 5-10 per side. Open it up, allow for 20-25 per side at least. That leads to the next itme.
Please no queues, this is war its not a gladiator match. Success on the battlefield comes form maneuvering and strategizing to sway the balance of the conflict in yuor favor. If a small group of Faction A decides it wants to defend of capture a system, a large group from Faction B should be able to enter into that system, bump into the smaller group and fight them off. The defeat of the smaller group isnt the end of the world for that faction's interest in that combat area/system...they can always muster up a larger force of their own and challenge Faction B for control. Which brings up another issue.
Open PvP combat areas with no queues means yu can freely enter...but also freely leave/retreat. The smaller Faction A group coul dvery well see the larger Faction B group and make the smart choice of leaving before they all close within engagement range...allowing for a tactical fall back out of the system. Which can allow them to gather faction support to then re-enter the system with a fighting chance...possibly with superior forces.
Please do not have a singular process toward campaign victory. Provide multiple paths to campaign victory. Make some paths toward campaign victory faction unique. Lead certain mutual paths for victory weigh more or less for each faction. Meaning Faction A can do items/objectives types 1, 2, 3, 4 toward victory. Faction B can do 2, 3, 4, 5 toward victory. Faction A would get more "credit" toward victory by achieving 1 and 3. Faction B gets more "credit" for 3 and 5. Both factions get the same "credit" for 2 and 4.
Some objectives types will only add to the faction's "credits", while some would provide some "credit" toward, but deduct even more "credit" from the opposition. The objective types wouldnt even be available for for both factions. For instance, only the KDF might have access to Interdict NPC supply ships of the other faction. Perhaps only the Feds could be allowed to use diplomacy to annex new territories.
Please dont make paths to victory stuck in cement...keep it flexibale so as the dynamics of the game, its populations, etc change, the paths and the value of those paths toward victory can be adjusted independently and intelligently for boths sides as the devs see fit(based on sound and critical observations over time).
Lastly, and this is a big one, dont create only one...not even two entry/spawn points into a system. Honestly, we need to have at least 6...prefferably, six per faction if you ask me. I'd like for us to be able to cycle through each spawn point so we can see whats around before we spawn in...if its camped, let us check out the next one and spawn in there if we like. How about this? 6 spawns per faction, plus 6 neutral spawns that anyone can spawn in from.
it's not linked to the ship but your rank. If you want to pvp with a T1 ship at RA5, you can. The trouble is not exactly the ship but the fact that at RA5, one can blow a Lt quit easily because of difference in skill available to them. If they want they could add some map with no restriction but not all of them.
Why did you think they put limitation to fleet mission? Because a Lt toon can not match a RA toon in damage. Before the change to the fleet mission the one in Kerrat (borg mission) was open to Klingon and Fed without regard to the level. I went there and many time you could see some high level player blasting lower level one without taking a breath in between. It might be fun when you are the one attacking even if you are at a lower level but it ain't that fun you are the one being blasted into piece.
it's not linked to the ship but your rank. If you want to pvp with a T1 ship at RA5, you can. The trouble is not exactly the ship but the fact that at RA5, one can blow a Lt quit easily because of difference in skill available to them. If they want they could add some map with no restriction but not all of them.
Why did you think they put limitation to fleet mission? Because a Lt toon can not match a RA toon in damage. Before the change to the fleet mission the one in Kerrat (borg mission) was open to Klingon and Fed without regard to the level. I went there and many time you could see some high level player blasting lower level one without taking a breath in between. It might be fun when you are the one attacking even if you are at a lower level but it ain't that fun you are the one being blasted into piece.
The inability for a Lt ship to match an Adm ship is planned. We have to create and respect differences, imbalances, strengths and weakeness, etc if we are going make this a truly open and dynamic war. We cant be concerned with each conflict being "matched". Is un-necessary, it creates obstacles for engagement...this isnt team death match, this isnt gladiator play, this ist about sportsmanship. Save balancing for duels, for "play date" queued arena matches.
10 Lt ships should be able to run into 1 Adm and 1 Lt ship by chance, without any beauracy and meddling getting in the way. Those 10 ships should have just as much opportunity to try and defeat the their opponents group regardless of how the dynamics actually match up. In the end, its not the kill tally that counts, its th eobjectives completed.
If a Lt ship thinks its out matched then he has two choice...stay and fight or leave. If he leaves he has two more choices, go some where else and fight, conceeding the system and its objectives to the stronger oppponent...or wait/gather up stronger forces to defeat the periovously stronger opponent.
War objectives arent a right, it a privelege that you have to work and sacrifice for...there is no inherit "equality" except that that objective pops equaly for either side based on the required trigger to complete it. Everything up until then you make...you make with whatever cards were dealt to you. And if the pot is too rich, find another table.
A Lt ship can enjoy the reward of a successful objective just as well as an Adm...regardless of weither either one survived the fight to see the victory made.
Kills arent the objective...the objectives dont require you kill off anyone...it can be fulfilled just as well by keping away or running away hostiles.
A Lt's 100 HP of damage hurts just as much as any other 100 HP of damage...it doesnt mattr that some in the group can do 500HP or more. The group is the referenced entity, not the lone ship. 2 ships with a DPS of 1000HP kills no faster than 10 ships with a DPS of 100HP.
1 Capt ship with a DPS of 500 HP is still in a fight of its life if it runs into 7 Lt ships with DPS of 100HP...because rank/tier doesnt matter...the group is what matters...its all that matters.
No finger will win a fight...if you look at only the one finger. But when look you beyond the finger and see the fist its part of, or the tool in that fist...then you recognize the insignificance of fixating on the one, when the battle is fought and won by the many.
Dont think "me" whenit comes to the war and its objectives, think "team", "we", "us", "our". The only "you" in the equation is fulfilling your role in the team. Do your job and the many have a shot at success. Think as a lone-wolf and you invite failure when it comes to the group dynmaic of the war.
EDIT:
You sport a Borg Cube in your sig, yet you are stuck percieving this concpet from that of an individual? No sigular drone defines the strength of the Collective(not even the "Queen"). Trying to balance an engagement with the Borg would never be done by balancing the 1 to 1 interaction of a lone Alpha/Beta meatbag with that of a drone. You miss the forest because of the tree.
Dont fixate on the one. No Lt ship is ging to loose the war. No Adm ship wins the system. The loser generally loses because he brought less to the table...thats goes way beyond any ship class/tier/rank. The winner generally wins because they brought more to the table. The Lt ship may lose in the conflict for an objective, but its because his side failed to bring enough and other side benefited from bringing more...thats war. That Lt ship would have been highly valued had he come with another Adm ship to engage the lone Adm ship on the other side...because the value of any one ship i snot static, but variable, based on the dynamics and make up of the two engaging groups.
A Lt ship in a system all by itself is just as valuable as a lone Adm ship in that system...because the objective doesnt care about ship anything.
The inability for a Lt ship to match an Adm ship is planned. We have to create and respect differences, imbalances, strengths and weakeness, etc if we are going make this a truly open and dynamic war. We cant be concerned with each conflict being "matched". Is un-necessary, it creates obstacles for engagement...this isnt team death match, this isnt gladiator play, this ist about sportsmanship. Save balancing for duels, for "play date" queued arena matches.
10 Lt ships should be able to run into 1 Adm and 1 Lt ship by chance, without any beauracy and meddling getting in the way. Those 10 ships should have just as much opportunity to try and defeat the their opponents group regardless of how the dynamics actually match up. In the end, its not the kill tally that counts, its th eobjectives completed.
If a Lt ship thinks its out matched then he has two choice...stay and fight or leave. If he leaves he has two more choices, go some where else and fight, conceeding the system and its objectives to the stronger oppponent...or wait/gather up stronger forces to defeat the periovously stronger opponent.
War objectives arent a right, it a privelege that you have to work and sacrifice for...there is no inherit "equality" except that that objective pops equaly for either side based on the required trigger to complete it. Everything up until then you make...you make with whatever cards were dealt to you. And if the pot is too rich, find another table.
A Lt ship can enjoy the reward of a successful objective just as well as an Adm...regardless of weither either one survived the fight to see the victory made.
Kills arent the objective...the objectives dont require you kill off anyone...it can be fulfilled just as well by keping away or running away hostiles.
A Lt's 100 HP of damage hurts just as much as any other 100 HP of damage...it doesnt mattr that some in the group can do 500HP or more. The group is the referenced entity, not the lone ship. 2 ships with a DPS of 1000HP kills no faster than 10 ships with a DPS of 100HP.
1 Capt ship with a DPS of 500 HP is still in a fight of its life if it runs into 7 Lt ships with DPS of 100HP...because rank/tier doesnt matter...the group is what matters...its all that matters.
No finger will win a fight...if you look at only the one finger. But when look you beyond the finger and see the fist its part of, or the tool in that fist...then you recognize the insignificance of fixating on the one, when the battle is fought and won by the many.
Dont think "me" whenit comes to the war and its objectives, think "team", "we", "us", "our". The only "you" in the equation is fulfilling your role in the team. Do your job and the many have a shot at success. Think as a lone-wolf and you invite failure when it comes to the group dynmaic of the war.
In a perfect world, it would not matter if player where not on the same level. The trouble is in STO, the world is not perfect. Just take the Fleet Mission and all the whining that came whit it because of higher player playing there...That is why Cryptic can not remove the lvl cap for all pvp map. Too much whining...
Personally, i do not mind if some map are not lvl capped but i know better and know how much whining it will cause if all of them are like that.
btw... Even if 7 Lt ship can hammer a one RA5 ship for a while, they can not hold for long if fire at by him. I do not know at what lvl you are but if you are at Lt or LC, try doing the DSE around DS9 you will see what i mean.
Just take the Fleet Mission and all the whine that came whit it because of higher player playing there...That is why Cryptic can not remove the lvl cap for all pvp map. Too much whine....
People complained on the Fleet Missions because even though you fought as a team...you competed for completion loot as an indivdual. For PvP territory capture, their should be individual rewards to compete over. All commodity rewards for contribution should be in some form credits...then any other perks should be faction-wide(very small, stacking faction buffs to various stats based on objectives acquired by the faction).
No one is going to complain if an Adm gets all the kills that allow the group to acquire an objective.
I am going to comment on this as will. If a LT. want to join the war they should be able to. Lower tier players need to work with groups or fleets. The whole point is you have a choice, you do not have to fight in open PvP. Lt can level up as we all have in PvP matches or PvE. Hopefully, the zone would not be forced on anyone.
The thing is if the control system is done right the war zone will be a immersed zone. it would be nice to make it as realistic as possible with mixed tiers. I know it is faction but i think you know what I mean.
Hopefully, it won't be a cheesy water down classic game version. That would be disappointing.
Comments
I just wanted to add one thing, I personally do not want to see lock downs on systems or objectives. please do not do this. It want be better for control system to retake objectives. Like Cocoa-jin is saying, Players can't be everywhere. I believe he is right.
Sounds like fun, can't wait.
I am glad you posted ,my thoughts exactly.
I love the idea of some kind of gauge/mechanic that shows the wars progress. I would love for them to take that into account when they progress the story line.
Though I don't know if your free form vision could be accomplished, I'm all for the direction.
How awesome would it be to check the "War Report" to see that the federation has lost 15 major battles today, and the Klingons have successfully pushed the front line two systems.
Well, it was a nice dream, thanks for letting me know its a shared one.
but sadly I feel we will never see it.
it's not linked to the ship but your rank. If you want to pvp with a T1 ship at RA5, you can. The trouble is not exactly the ship but the fact that at RA5, one can blow a Lt quit easily because of difference in skill available to them. If they want they could add some map with no restriction but not all of them.
Why did you think they put limitation to fleet mission? Because a Lt toon can not match a RA toon in damage. Before the change to the fleet mission the one in Kerrat (borg mission) was open to Klingon and Fed without regard to the level. I went there and many time you could see some high level player blasting lower level one without taking a breath in between. It might be fun when you are the one attacking even if you are at a lower level but it ain't that fun you are the one being blasted into piece.
The inability for a Lt ship to match an Adm ship is planned. We have to create and respect differences, imbalances, strengths and weakeness, etc if we are going make this a truly open and dynamic war. We cant be concerned with each conflict being "matched". Is un-necessary, it creates obstacles for engagement...this isnt team death match, this isnt gladiator play, this ist about sportsmanship. Save balancing for duels, for "play date" queued arena matches.
10 Lt ships should be able to run into 1 Adm and 1 Lt ship by chance, without any beauracy and meddling getting in the way. Those 10 ships should have just as much opportunity to try and defeat the their opponents group regardless of how the dynamics actually match up. In the end, its not the kill tally that counts, its th eobjectives completed.
If a Lt ship thinks its out matched then he has two choice...stay and fight or leave. If he leaves he has two more choices, go some where else and fight, conceeding the system and its objectives to the stronger oppponent...or wait/gather up stronger forces to defeat the periovously stronger opponent.
War objectives arent a right, it a privelege that you have to work and sacrifice for...there is no inherit "equality" except that that objective pops equaly for either side based on the required trigger to complete it. Everything up until then you make...you make with whatever cards were dealt to you. And if the pot is too rich, find another table.
A Lt ship can enjoy the reward of a successful objective just as well as an Adm...regardless of weither either one survived the fight to see the victory made.
Kills arent the objective...the objectives dont require you kill off anyone...it can be fulfilled just as well by keping away or running away hostiles.
A Lt's 100 HP of damage hurts just as much as any other 100 HP of damage...it doesnt mattr that some in the group can do 500HP or more. The group is the referenced entity, not the lone ship. 2 ships with a DPS of 1000HP kills no faster than 10 ships with a DPS of 100HP.
1 Capt ship with a DPS of 500 HP is still in a fight of its life if it runs into 7 Lt ships with DPS of 100HP...because rank/tier doesnt matter...the group is what matters...its all that matters.
No finger will win a fight...if you look at only the one finger. But when look you beyond the finger and see the fist its part of, or the tool in that fist...then you recognize the insignificance of fixating on the one, when the battle is fought and won by the many.
Dont think "me" whenit comes to the war and its objectives, think "team", "we", "us", "our". The only "you" in the equation is fulfilling your role in the team. Do your job and the many have a shot at success. Think as a lone-wolf and you invite failure when it comes to the group dynmaic of the war.
EDIT:
You sport a Borg Cube in your sig, yet you are stuck percieving this concpet from that of an individual? No sigular drone defines the strength of the Collective(not even the "Queen"). Trying to balance an engagement with the Borg would never be done by balancing the 1 to 1 interaction of a lone Alpha/Beta meatbag with that of a drone. You miss the forest because of the tree.
Dont fixate on the one. No Lt ship is ging to loose the war. No Adm ship wins the system. The loser generally loses because he brought less to the table...thats goes way beyond any ship class/tier/rank. The winner generally wins because they brought more to the table. The Lt ship may lose in the conflict for an objective, but its because his side failed to bring enough and other side benefited from bringing more...thats war. That Lt ship would have been highly valued had he come with another Adm ship to engage the lone Adm ship on the other side...because the value of any one ship i snot static, but variable, based on the dynamics and make up of the two engaging groups.
A Lt ship in a system all by itself is just as valuable as a lone Adm ship in that system...because the objective doesnt care about ship anything.
In a perfect world, it would not matter if player where not on the same level. The trouble is in STO, the world is not perfect. Just take the Fleet Mission and all the whining that came whit it because of higher player playing there...That is why Cryptic can not remove the lvl cap for all pvp map. Too much whining...
Personally, i do not mind if some map are not lvl capped but i know better and know how much whining it will cause if all of them are like that.
btw... Even if 7 Lt ship can hammer a one RA5 ship for a while, they can not hold for long if fire at by him. I do not know at what lvl you are but if you are at Lt or LC, try doing the DSE around DS9 you will see what i mean.
People complained on the Fleet Missions because even though you fought as a team...you competed for completion loot as an indivdual. For PvP territory capture, their should be individual rewards to compete over. All commodity rewards for contribution should be in some form credits...then any other perks should be faction-wide(very small, stacking faction buffs to various stats based on objectives acquired by the faction).
No one is going to complain if an Adm gets all the kills that allow the group to acquire an objective.
The thing is if the control system is done right the war zone will be a immersed zone. it would be nice to make it as realistic as possible with mixed tiers. I know it is faction but i think you know what I mean.
Hopefully, it won't be a cheesy water down classic game version. That would be disappointing.