test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Open PVP Zones

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Not a bad idea. Could fit into the Star Trek Universe nicely. After all who ever heard of the Neutral Zone without a Romulan encounter that resulted in conflict.

I say role with the idea and make open pvp zones. Limited areas ofcourse.:D
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Kelenan wrote: »
    Not a bad idea. Could fit into the Star Trek Universe nicely. After all who ever heard of the Neutral Zone without a Romulan encounter that resulted in conflict.

    I say role with the idea and make open pvp zones. Limited areas ofcourse.:D

    Good call!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Kelenan wrote: »
    Limited areas ofcourse.:D

    ie. NOT in PvE zones. ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    they tried mixing pve story content and pvp zones in warhammer if i remember right , didnt work . my guess it wont work here either , pvp and pve mechanics are allmost differant genres , and they mix bad

    shame really this game is screaming out for faction warfare and planery control strartegy type play but i dought it will happen
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    they tried mixing pve story content and pvp zones in warhammer if i remember right , didnt work . my guess it wont work here either , pvp and pve mechanics are allmost differant genres , and they mix bad

    shame really this game is screaming out for faction warfare and planery control strartegy type play but i dought it will happen

    Having awesome persistent PvP areas doesn't have to conflict with PvE at all. Warhammer didn't work because the engine was clunky, and their RvR system didn't work because it was shallow and over limiting.

    But that's neither here nor there. STO is perfectly capable of having engaging and fun RvR content if it is done correctly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Problem is, you have PvE only players who will feel angry and alienated if they made open PvP everywhere. If they wanna make neutral zones that are strictly for PvP with no PvE, then thats perfectly fine. And yes, planetary control systems could be interesting, especially if they add player owned stations/colonies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mourne wrote:
    Having awesome persistent PvP areas doesn't have to conflict with PvE at all. Warhammer didn't work because the engine was clunky, and their RvR system didn't work because it was shallow and over limiting.

    But that's neither here nor there. STO is perfectly capable of having engaging and fun RvR content if it is done correctly.

    im sorry man your wrong , i have made lots of online friends over the last ten years of gaming and we have seen it all and everyone of us has come to the conclusion you cant mix pvp and pve . the balancing allways screws it up for one side .

    id love a planetery control strategy type format for this game beleave me , but if you think it wont impact on the pve raider types who play your wrong in a big way . sure you can make rvr lakes , but getting skils balanced right to suite the two types of play is nigh on impossible to keep both sides happy .

    me im not a pve raider player ive been there done it , got the t-shirt and dont particulary want to do the whole dedicated gear grind again , lol my friends are itching me to play LOTRO but i refuse cause of the gear and raid system

    STO is kinda at a cros roads atm and im waiting anxiously to see which road the devolopers go down , but beleave me if they try mix the genre they will fail , and no matter how much a star trek fan you are (i am) the game will be bad and people will stop playing it , sad as i have waited since 2003 for this game ,

    it was a great disapointment to me this game didnt have territory control from the start , i loved the SFC series of games ,

    god that was more long winded a reply than i wanted lol =)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Got my Vote!!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    im sorry man your wrong , i have made lots of online friends over the last ten years of gaming and we have seen it all and everyone of us has come to the conclusion you cant mix pvp and pve . the balancing allways screws it up for one side .

    id love a planetery control strategy type format for this game beleave me , but if you think it wont impact on the pve raider types who play your wrong in a big way . sure you can make rvr lakes , but getting skils balanced right to suite the two types of play is nigh on impossible to keep both sides happy .

    me im not a pve raider player ive been there done it , got the t-shirt and dont particulary want to do the whole dedicated gear grind again , lol my friends are itching me to play LOTRO but i refuse cause of the gear and raid system

    STO is kinda at a cros roads atm and im waiting anxiously to see which road the devolopers go down , but beleave me if they try mix the genre they will fail , and no matter how much a star trek fan you are (i am) the game will be bad and people will stop playing it , sad as i have waited since 2003 for this game ,

    it was a great disapointment to me this game didnt have territory control from the start , i loved the SFC series of games ,

    god that was more long winded a reply than i wanted lol =)

    Well said....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    they tried mixing pve story content and pvp zones in warhammer if i remember right , didnt work . my guess it wont work here either , pvp and pve mechanics are allmost differant genres , and they mix bad

    shame really this game is screaming out for faction warfare and planery control strartegy type play but i dought it will happen

    I like how you automatically shoot down an idea that has been done well on a game like Global Agenda just because you saw it fail on a WOW clone like Warhammer.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    im sorry man your wrong , i have made lots of online friends over the last ten years of gaming and we have seen it all and everyone of us has come to the conclusion you cant mix pvp and pve . the balancing allways screws it up for one side .

    id love a planetery control strategy type format for this game beleave me , but if you think it wont impact on the pve raider types who play your wrong in a big way . sure you can make rvr lakes , but getting skils balanced right to suite the two types of play is nigh on impossible to keep both sides happy .

    me im not a pve raider player ive been there done it , got the t-shirt and dont particulary want to do the whole dedicated gear grind again , lol my friends are itching me to play LOTRO but i refuse cause of the gear and raid system

    STO is kinda at a cros roads atm and im waiting anxiously to see which road the devolopers go down , but beleave me if they try mix the genre they will fail , and no matter how much a star trek fan you are (i am) the game will be bad and people will stop playing it , sad as i have waited since 2003 for this game ,

    it was a great disapointment to me this game didnt have territory control from the start , i loved the SFC series of games ,

    god that was more long winded a reply than i wanted lol =)

    Another person who bases their experience off of "I player some games this one time" SWG had no problem mixing PVE with PVP, there are free MMOs offering PVP/PVE,and Global Agenda has a descent system. Once again the Blizzard mentality strikes again and it will lead to the death of this game
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    sovereign wrote: »
    Problem is, you have PvE only players who will feel angry and alienated if they made open PvP everywhere. If they wanna make neutral zones that are strictly for PvP with no PvE, then thats perfectly fine. And yes, planetary control systems could be interesting, especially if they add player owned stations/colonies.

    It isn't a problem, because I don't think anyone is advocating "open PvP everywhere." It's perfectly reasonable to have open PvP areas that are persistent without forcing PvE-minded players to partake in it.

    And Creovex, just because PvP balance is hard to achieve does not mean it is impossible. I don't know what games you and your name drops have experienced, but I assure you I've experienced just as much if not more. If the argument is simply that powers/abilities for PvE do not translate well to PvP, the argument can be made that balancing is a continual process on any MMO, and not exclusive to PvP based ones.

    Where there is a will, there is a way. I could go into brainstorming ways for it to work, but that's not my job, and there are tons of ideas around the forums, and entire epic posts that are much more well worded than what I could do right now just to prove my point.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mourne wrote:
    It isn't a problem, because I don't think anyone is advocating "open PvP everywhere."

    I am advocating open pvp everywhere.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Someone wrote an extremely good PVP/PVE idea before. You can mix PVP and PVE content in sectors using the current instancing system. Some instances in the sector should be marked PVE, while others would be marked PVP. If you don't want to PVP just change your instance to PVE and you will be "invisible" to the PVP players.
    My persistent territory control idea is in my sig.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    they tried mixing pve story content and pvp zones in warhammer if i remember right , didnt work . my guess it wont work here either , pvp and pve mechanics are allmost differant genres , and they mix bad

    shame really this game is screaming out for faction warfare and planery control strartegy type play but i dought it will happen

    They have one system in here, Karett, that works the same way. It is a Mission system for both Klingon, and Federation, and open PVP goes on in there regularly. After each round of PVP in there though, Posts pop up complaining about it from one side or the other.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Curs0r wrote: »
    I am advocating open pvp everywhere.

    i take that a step up i want pvp anywhere except the 2 home worlds and i want deathpenaltys i want risk vs reward not just a stupid pat on the back and good job ,and respawn when you died (if you know about old ultima online their player killer system was great) you could kill anyone you wanted loot their corpses and such but as a risk you got flagged red wich mean anyone could attack and kill you without any risk at all, and if the red player died he actually had a 25% stat loss if he wanted to respawn instantaly wich would take forever to grind so most took the other option waiting online as a ghost until a set number of days had passed ,wich had to pass while online no offline time , to be turned back to blue and be able to ress without penalty.

    Later in this game they added faction fights with faction hq's and such anyone from opposite faction could attack you anywhere and vice versa. if you werent part of the faction fights the normal red system was there to both protect and punish if you wanted to be a player killer....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Another person who bases their experience off of "I player some games this one time" SWG had no problem mixing PVE with PVP, there are free MMOs offering PVP/PVE,and Global Agenda has a descent system. Once again the Blizzard mentality strikes again and it will lead to the death of this game

    i think your mistaking me for an ex blizzard subscriber , i thinki spent 3 months on wow . i still have an active SWG account and if you beleave it didnt have balance issues pre-cu , to this day , your looking at it through pink glasses

    i have tachnical issues trying to play global agenda so in all fairness i cant commment
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    While I am not a huge pvp fan myself I think it would be fun to have more pvp options. I don't think sector space should be open to pvp unless it is by choice or in a area that you don't have to go to but maybe something like fleet bases in certain systems that can be attacked. One of the best features from lineage 2 were the castle sieges in which a clan held a castle and once a week anyone who registered could attack and try to take it and if they could do something like that it would be awesome. Those who controlled the castles could set up to a 10 or 15% tax I think on npc stores in their area so there was a good reason to try to control them. You could also improve defenses by buying them before the siege. In sto this could be buying npc ships and weapons batteries to defend them. You could have fleets fighting outside the base trying to keep the others away while other teams could beam onto the base and try to take it. Like say have 10 or so systems that fleets can hold and once a week they can come under seige by other fleets by flying to those systems.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Fiorra wrote:
    While I am not a huge pvp fan myself I think it would be fun to have more pvp options. I don't think sector space should be open to pvp unless it is by choice or in a area that you don't have to go to but maybe something like fleet bases in certain systems that can be attacked. One of the best features from lineage 2 were the castle sieges in which a clan held a castle and once a week anyone who registered could attack and try to take it and if they could do something like that it would be awesome. Those who controlled the castles could set up to a 10 or 15% tax I think on npc stores in their area so there was a good reason to try to control them. You could also improve defenses by buying them before the siege. In sto this could be buying npc ships and weapons batteries to defend them. You could have fleets fighting outside the base trying to keep the others away while other teams could beam onto the base and try to take it. Like say have 10 or so systems that fleets can hold and once a week they can come under seige by other fleets by flying to those systems.

    I like it, this would give fleets a purpose for starters. Aside from all having the same logo in the future.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I want an open world enviroment zone.

    dont really care if it's PvP or not....... I just want to explore.... get "my own self" into trouble for once..... instead of the linear instancing all the time.


    we KNOW you can do open worlds devs.... the 'other' cryptic game is fashioned around it.


    .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    tarjan wrote: »
    i take that a step up i want pvp anywhere except the 2 home worlds and i want deathpenaltys i want risk vs reward not just a stupid pat on the back and good job ,and respawn when you died (if you know about old ultima online their player killer system was great) you could kill anyone you wanted loot their corpses and such but as a risk you got flagged red wich mean anyone could attack and kill you without any risk at all, and if the red player died he actually had a 25% stat loss if he wanted to respawn instantaly wich would take forever to grind so most took the other option waiting online as a ghost until a set number of days had passed ,wich had to pass while online no offline time , to be turned back to blue and be able to ress without penalty.

    Later in this game they added faction fights with faction hq's and such anyone from opposite faction could attack you anywhere and vice versa. if you werent part of the faction fights the normal red system was there to both protect and punish if you wanted to be a player killer....

    Open PvP everywhere would just open the door to griefers to do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Thats one of the reasons they made seperate servers on UO. People were getting of that TRIBBLE and rightfully so.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    sovereign wrote: »
    Open PvP everywhere would just open the door to griefers to do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Thats one of the reasons they made seperate servers on UO. People were getting of that TRIBBLE and rightfully so.

    Go with Open PvP Zones, if it works out great.

    As for people using Kerrat as a reason for why it won't work. Can someone please tell me how many times you have been there and NOT had some bug or the other??? Seriously, going there is like asking for a bug, mission resetting at random, to wrong faction identifications, to disappearing objectives, to mission not even triggering, and so forth.... Maybe had this one been bug free for more then a month, it would have a better following.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    sovereign wrote: »
    Open PvP everywhere would just open the door to griefers to do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Thats one of the reasons they made seperate servers on UO. People were getting of that TRIBBLE and rightfully so.

    well most of the serious pvpers actually went out and killed griefers and goldsellers and such aswell but we where still called the bane of anything decent etc .
    Another intresting fact my brother who was a crafter miner/armorsmith he quit the game after they split it up there was no more risk it took away the enjoyment of getting something made. Games just need a decent punishment system and remeber for every griefer there is atleast 100+ ppl that hate him and her ,why not join up and get rid of them ppl are just to scared of risk, without risk there is no reward. This is how i feel thou,games have gotten to easy no risk no chance of loss just grind grind grind..
    There was guilds dedicated to hunting the so called bad guys ,ppl that escorted miners and such all this lead to an better community and a sense of purpose.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    tarjan wrote: »
    (if you know about old ultima online their player killer system was great) you could kill anyone you wanted loot their corpses and such but as a risk you got flagged red wich mean anyone could attack and kill you without any risk at all, and if the red player died he actually had a 25% stat loss if he wanted to respawn instantaly wich would take forever to grind so most took the other option waiting online as a ghost until a set number of days had passed ,wich had to pass while online no offline time , to be turned back to blue and be able to ress without penalty.

    And then the blue healers started joining the red murderers and that system went into the tank. Not to mention (oops) that only the long term counts went towards stat loss.

    I think you forgot to state that the ghosts would just macro off their time while their players slept or did something else or played on a second account. Some penalty.

    Pass. Open PvP simply does not work in a PvE environment.


    "People are broken." - Lum the Mad
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    tarjan wrote: »
    Games just need a decent punishment system

    If you want to be punished when you die, why not just delete your character or toss away whatever items you feel you should have lost when you died? There's absolutely nothing stopping you from enjoying being punished and the best part is you can punish yourself as much and as often as you like. I think Cryptic's "punishment" system is perfect since every player can have the EXACT punishment they feel is appropriate. Everyone wins! :)

    Regarding Open PvP zones... if Ker'rat was not buggy, would it be similar to the concept of an Open PvP zone? Perhaps the objective is weak, but the point being both factions are present trying to complete an objective while preventing the other faction from doing the same?

    My experience in Ker'rat is there's usually a 2 or 3 Klingon players there who hang out until someone is tangled up with the borg, decloak and finish someone off. Sometimes the skirmishes remain near the spawn point. Even with the bugs fixed, it's been made crystal clear there are significantly more Federation players than Klingon players.

    Is Open PvP going to bring back enough Klingon players to keep the area balanced with players or is Open PvP just another firestorm in the making when Cryptic "fails to get it right" for the Klingons? I keep reading about how awesome Open PvP is and how desperately it's needed but haven't really heard any ways to keep it balanced, which is a requirement for it to be fun.

    What about all those posts regarding imbalanced PvP queues? Nobody liked those what would make it better if it was an open area instead?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mikus wrote:
    And then the blue healers started joining the red murderers and that system went into the tank. Not to mention (oops) that only the long term counts went towards stat loss.

    I think you forgot to state that the ghosts would just macro off their time while their players slept or did something else or played on a second account. Some penalty.

    Pass. Open PvP simply does not work in a PvE environment.


    "People are broken." - Lum the Mad

    And u forgot the blue healers got flagged GREY crimenals wich made anyone able to attack them without any action taken against them.
    the macroing and botting was easy cause they where sloppy enforcing against it.
    Playing 2accounts at the same time aka multi boxing wasent illigal at all in UO . so yes this system can work fine . ANd yes i was one of the bad boys in UO i was a pk and pvp players in a guild called deathjesters on europa.

    And nice "People are broken." - Lum the Mad quote .
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Bring on the Open PvP zones...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    No pvp arent gonna bring enugh players to klingon side this is pretty obvious when you look at the population imbalance so the right step to go would be scrap all pvp in game (yes this will upset pvp players)
    fill klingon side with the story and history it desrve this will bring a lot more players to the klingon side , then finally add a good solid pvp system with sector control and area none instanced pvp..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Canmore wrote:
    im sorry man your wrong , i have made lots of online friends over the last ten years of gaming and we have seen it all and everyone of us has come to the conclusion you cant mix pvp and pve . the balancing allways screws it up for one side .

    id love a planetery control strategy type format for this game beleave me , but if you think it wont impact on the pve raider types who play your wrong in a big way . sure you can make rvr lakes , but getting skils balanced right to suite the two types of play is nigh on impossible to keep both sides happy .

    me im not a pve raider player ive been there done it , got the t-shirt and dont particulary want to do the whole dedicated gear grind again , lol my friends are itching me to play LOTRO but i refuse cause of the gear and raid system

    STO is kinda at a cros roads atm and im waiting anxiously to see which road the devolopers go down , but beleave me if they try mix the genre they will fail , and no matter how much a star trek fan you are (i am) the game will be bad and people will stop playing it , sad as i have waited since 2003 for this game ,

    it was a great disapointment to me this game didnt have territory control from the start , i loved the SFC series of games ,

    god that was more long winded a reply than i wanted lol =)

    There would be only zones for open pvp that will in noway clash with your pve.:D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Mikus wrote:
    And then the blue healers started joining the red murderers and that system went into the tank. Not to mention (oops) that only the long term counts went towards stat loss.

    I think you forgot to state that the ghosts would just macro off their time while their players slept or did something else or played on a second account. Some penalty.

    Pass. Open PvP simply does not work in a PvE environment.


    "People are broken." - Lum the Mad

    As stated before this idea sudgests just open pvp zones and only zones! You won't ever have to enter if you do not wish to.:p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    There is noway you can get 100% combat balance in any game there are too many factors, above all a persons own skill or lack of skill.

    They have a pretty well balanced combat now. I feel it leans a little to Klingons but not that much. Gear is always gonna be an issue, he with the best gear is usually harder to kill.

    Rewards for said zones. I don't believe anyone should lose what that have earned in the game as a drop for someone who has defeated you.

    But a reward for being good at it must be inplace. A seperate reward system just for the open pvp zones I feel should be inplace. Also a way to track kills and defeats would be nice.:)

    Remeber facing good teams is going to be the ultimate challenge always. There is never a tougher fight than fighting a well organized team.

    Rewards for defeating a good team should be greater. When you defeat someong who has more kills than you, you should get a better reward.

    All in all this would add to the fun of this game and also add to the realism to the Star Trek Univers. Atleast for those who follow the genre.
Sign In or Register to comment.