test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Meaningfull PvP!

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
edited August 2010 in PvP Gameplay
Now im aware people have been crying out for this for a long time and I agree with those that do that STO is in need of some serious PvP. Not silly little mini-games, real, meaningful PvP.

Take a look at any other MMO and the mini-game PvP instances that STO currently use are the least used out of any PvP type. The simple fact being that they are meaningless and as such discarded as boring and pointless.

What's the point in doing something for the sake of it? Sure it may be fun for the first few turns but soon enough the novelty will wear off right?

So perhaps we could start throwing some suggestions out and hopefully Cryptic can considor them and possibly implement!

One idea I had originally was that due to Klingons being a PvP faction why not have players sign up to fight under a number of houses within the Klingon faction. Kind of like mini-factions within the larger. You could then turn the whole of KDF territory into an open PvP area where each house battles for supremacy and control over the different systems.

The whole point of doing this could be to earn different rewards from the houses you fight for. Perhaps they could drop some really cool weaponry or ship parts. Perhaps they can drop some really cool BoFFs... There are many goodies (incentives) Cryptic could throw in here to give people another reason other than fun PvP (and what everyone wants anyway).

Obviously this would spark a bit of whine from the Feds (not bloodwine unfortunately!) but being as KDF were primarily slotted as a PvP faction I think its a pretty reasonable solution for now.

Obviously eventually there has to be a larger picture in which the neutral sector could be come contested between the Feds and Klings for the same reasons as my above suggestion. I think however leaving cross-faction OPvP until at least the third faction is available would be a good idea.

Still if its doable then why not?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    What's the point in doing something for the sake of it?
    best walk away from gaming then :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I had posted a simlar idea that players get to choose which House they want to represent. Martok, Duras, J'mpok, or other houses. And they battle each other for higher prestige.

    In fact, Klingon House vs House would've made a very nice Tier 1 storyline than it spanning multiple levels.



    With FvK, there really needs to be territorial PvP. Where players have to fight over control over a planet. For instance:

    Neutral / War Sectors: Each World has various rewards and bonuses to fight over.

    Orbital Battles: Open PvP with hiding spots (anti-cloak, anti-sensor, etc), where players can fight it out. And in Orbit, some worlds could have space stations, defense satillites, or outposts where players can occupy and have PvP Ground Battles for control of those spots.

    Surface Battles: Each Side has a relative safe zone where players have the option to in another direction and fight in the mountains or to the south in a forest. In the Middle, there is a town, ruins, or fortesses where the key to occupation can occur. (Simlar to DoaC's Realm vs Realm). These areas are where the planetary control is focused, the winner gets the planet.

    One side can try to take over the world through brute force, or after a certain duration, control is automatically relinquished.

    Ruins? These are old school MMO Dungeons with monsters where you go fight a boss with a chance at some pretty unique loot.

    Diplomatic Corp Aiding? While others are shooting, Diplomats can take to the battle of wits in trying to influence a race to ally with their side, thus gainging control through that method.



    These are a few of my ideas that could really make PvP worth it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    I had posted a simlar idea that players get to choose which House they want to represent. Martok, Duras, J'mpok, or other houses. And they battle each other for higher prestige.

    In fact, Klingon House vs House would've made a very nice Tier 1 storyline than it spanning multiple levels.



    With FvK, there really needs to be territorial PvP. Where players have to fight over control over a planet. For instance:

    Neutral / War Sectors: Each World has various rewards and bonuses to fight over.

    Orbital Battles: Open PvP with hiding spots (anti-cloak, anti-sensor, etc), where players can fight it out. And in Orbit, some worlds could have space stations, defense satillites, or outposts where players can occupy and have PvP Ground Battles for control of those spots.

    Surface Battles: Each Side has a relative safe zone where players have the option to in another direction and fight in the mountains or to the south in a forest. In the Middle, there is a town, ruins, or fortesses where the key to occupation can occur. (Simlar to DoaC's Realm vs Realm). These areas are where the planetary control is focused, the winner gets the planet.

    One side can try to take over the world through brute force, or after a certain duration, control is automatically relinquished.

    Ruins? These are old school MMO Dungeons with monsters where you go fight a boss with a chance at some pretty unique loot.

    Diplomatic Corp Aiding? While others are shooting, Diplomats can take to the battle of wits in trying to influence a race to ally with their side, thus gainging control through that method.



    These are a few of my ideas that could really make PvP worth it.

    Back in the old days of SFC .. there were maps that we had: some of it for each team .. and a huge undiscovered area that needed to be explored or even TAKEN (if it belonged to the rival team).

    IMHO planets could be set up with bases on the ground as well as orbiral defenses, etc or even larger than life starbases that could be captured as well. These items could also be used to help drive the economy as well.

    (just a thought)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    STO's current PvP model is an insult to my intelligence. Im a grown a$$ man, deliver me an experience that challenges my need for mature gaming mechanics:
    * Objectives
    * Planning
    * Teamwork
    * Meaningful acquistion
    * Factionwide benefit from our victories
    * The ability to change the face of Geo-Politics across a Theater
    * Not just combat, but logistical objectives and missions
    * Not just acquistion of territory, but the ability of the faction to occupy, utilize and benefit from the area's resources(missions, content, staging for future conflicts, etc)
    * I want to see acquistion of an area, transform the living and breathing essence of the area...I want to see Faction Outpost(orbital and surface) pop up, complete with light defense. I want to see NPC traffic grow(both Faction and friendly/allied/neutral factions traffic also).
    * I want to see diverse, and in a few cases, faction unique victory conditions, objectives and means of furthering your faction's progression toward Campaign victory.

    This bubble-gum and cookies PvP aint cutting it no more!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    STO's current PvP model is an insult to my intelligence. Im a grown a$$ man, deliver me an experience that challenges my need for mature gaming mechanics:
    * Objectives
    * Planning
    * Teamwork
    * Meaningful acquistion
    * Factionwide benefit from our victories
    * The ability to change the face of Geo-Politics across a Theater
    * Not just combat, but logistical objectives and missions
    * Not just acquistion of territory, but the ability of the faction to occupy, utilize and benefit from the area's resources(missions, content, staging for future conflicts, etc)
    * I want to see acquistion of an area, transform the living and breathing essence of the area...I want to see Faction Outpost(orbital and surface) pop up, complete with light defense. I want to see NPC traffic grow(both Faction and friendly/allied/neutral factions traffic also).
    * I want to see diverse, and in a few cases, faction unique victory conditions, objectives and means of furthering your faction's progression toward Campaign victory.

    This bubble-gum and cookies PvP aint cutting it no more!

    This is a good post that rings very true to how I feel also. The way the PvE content holds you're hand through the game all the way is equally insulting but thats another matter...

    What I find interesting in you're post most is the last point. A greater goal for you're faction.

    I know it would take a bit of work but if they could implement a system where there was a point of victory for a faction to reach then it would be pretty sweet. Kind of like how Warhammer does it where you fight you're way through RvR content to get to the main city at the end upon which you fight another last battle to either sack the city or get 'kicked out' of it by the defenders. Once the city is sacked there starts a timer where the raiders can loot all sorts of goodies and partake in the cities raids. After a short while the city gets given back to the original owners and it all starts again.

    Now I know this system would be very heavy workload wise but seriously it would give such a huge boost to the PvP. I know PvP isn't everything on MMOs but frankly its 50% of them as far as im concerned and as such it should be treated like it was at least worth the time implementing.

    Maybe attacking Sol and Qo'nos would be a step too far but at the very least attacking the two outposts within the neutral sector would be pretty good. In fact thinking of it that would be far more interesting. Once the raiders have taken the station the defenders would be locked out of their station for a short while. This would give the attackers time to raid it and perhaps find some awesome loot. Heck there could be a chance to earn RvR specific trophies and whatnot.

    Theres just so much that could be done to improve it but it has to be addressed ASAP. You simply cannot create a game and tell people one faction is PvP only but it does nothing different than the PvE faction other than lack the entire PvE part of the game.

    KDF is either PvP only or its not. Make you're mind up and sort it out.

    I know DStahl is a fan of Klinks so hopefully he will have the urge to deliver.

    This isn't just about Klinks however, PvP mini-games became boring about 5 years ago. Why MMOs still believe non-objective instances are fun I will never know...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    STO's current PvP model is an insult to my intelligence. Im a grown a$$ man, deliver me an experience that challenges my need for mature gaming mechanics:
    * Objectives
    * Planning
    * Teamwork
    * Meaningful acquistion
    * Factionwide benefit from our victories
    * The ability to change the face of Geo-Politics across a Theater
    * Not just combat, but logistical objectives and missions
    * Not just acquistion of territory, but the ability of the faction to occupy, utilize and benefit from the area's resources(missions, content, staging for future conflicts, etc)
    * I want to see acquistion of an area, transform the living and breathing essence of the area...I want to see Faction Outpost(orbital and surface) pop up, complete with light defense. I want to see NPC traffic grow(both Faction and friendly/allied/neutral factions traffic also).
    * I want to see diverse, and in a few cases, faction unique victory conditions, objectives and means of furthering your faction's progression toward Campaign victory.

    This bubble-gum and cookies PvP aint cutting it no more!

    Would be revolutionary if Cryptic could pull that off.

    Suggest you make a thread on this and make a layout in how they could pull this off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Azurian wrote: »
    Would be revolutionary if Cryptic could pull that off.

    Suggest you make a thread on this and make a layout in how they could pull this off.

    see reference EvE.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    STO's current PvP model is an insult to my intelligence. Im a grown a$$ man, deliver me an experience that challenges my need for mature gaming mechanics:
    * Objectives
    * Planning
    * Teamwork
    * Meaningful acquistion
    * Factionwide benefit from our victories
    * The ability to change the face of Geo-Politics across a Theater
    * Not just combat, but logistical objectives and missions
    * Not just acquistion of territory, but the ability of the faction to occupy, utilize and benefit from the area's resources(missions, content, staging for future conflicts, etc)
    * I want to see acquistion of an area, transform the living and breathing essence of the area...I want to see Faction Outpost(orbital and surface) pop up, complete with light defense. I want to see NPC traffic grow(both Faction and friendly/allied/neutral factions traffic also).
    * I want to see diverse, and in a few cases, faction unique victory conditions, objectives and means of furthering your faction's progression toward Campaign victory.

    I and my Fleet fully support this proposal.

    Yours in meaningful persistent PVP Plasma,
    Star*Dagger
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    OlBuzzard wrote:
    see reference EvE.

    Why do people like you react in such a way when others try to come up with an idea to improve the game?

    Its neither helpful, funny nor is it needed.

    Please refrain from becoming a troll...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Anything to improve the PvP i'd welcome. I just came back to the game after a few months letting it, well, settle and it's still fairly anemic on that front. Though the pvp tourny thread does raise my hopes. There is a slight issue though.

    Numbers.

    There's a bazillion+ Feds compared to their klingon counterparts making anything resembling open PvP a non-starter. You'd have one or two Klingons being chased around by so many federation ships that "we shall fight in the shade" wouldn't be mere hyperbole.

    Also, no to the logistics. I do my time in eve. I ferry stuff already, i'm in no hurry to continue such trials here. It's simply not fun, satisfying though it is to know that half the ships in the murderball around you are there only by the grace of your cargo hold. As a side note, i grow more in love with the Amarr freighter by the day. It's just so pretty.

    More traffic could be intresting though. We've already got what i can only consider trade routes in the game. Plausibly we should be able to raid those in some form or fashion? Make it into a distress call that alerts whatever ships are in range and let only so many join. Easy enough to say they were too far away to react in time. It's even correct in fact.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Blinks wrote: »
    Anything to improve the PvP i'd welcome. I just came back to the game after a few months letting it, well, settle and it's still fairly anemic on that front. Though the pvp tourny thread does raise my hopes. There is a slight issue though.

    Numbers.

    There's a bazillion+ Feds compared to their klingon counterparts making anything resembling open PvP a non-starter. You'd have one or two Klingons being chased around by so many federation ships that "we shall fight in the shade" wouldn't be mere hyperbole.

    Also, no to the logistics. I do my time in eve. I ferry stuff already, i'm in no hurry to continue such trials here. It's simply not fun, satisfying though it is to know that half the ships in the murderball around you are there only by the grace of your cargo hold. As a side note, i grow more in love with the Amarr freighter by the day. It's just so pretty.

    More traffic could be intresting though. We've already got what i can only consider trade routes in the game. Plausibly we should be able to raid those in some form or fashion? Make it into a distress call that alerts whatever ships are in range and let only so many join. Easy enough to say they were too far away to react in time. It's even correct in fact.

    Logistics can be handled by NPCs...NPC ships moving through sector space can be moving on-demand instances for interdictions/supply missions. A Feremgi could provide an escort mission for Feds, a Raider mission for KDF.

    Logitics could be players also...non-combatant(not to be confused with non-combat) missiosn for those who arent exactly PvP oriented, but want to contribute to the overall progression of thier faction during the war Campaign(hey their faction's success helps them too). So you coul dhave newbie or moonlighting players to the war, grab mission sthat allo wthem to contribute outside of a normal combat patrol or siege. Instead, they navigate hostile areas, delivering goods to faction outposts, or aid to NPC allies those sub-factions they are attempting to gain as allies.

    Th0 egoal isnt to make you do logistics. The goal is to provide a multitud eof ways for a player to contribute...and the players does what they want...or what they feel needs to be done...but its their choice. If you didnt want to do logistic,, by all means dont...but someone will...and they'll like it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Agree with everything, but had to ask:
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Im a grown a$$ man
    You're a proctologist?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    What's the point in doing something for the sake of it?

    Why did you climb the mountain Sir Edmund

    "Because it was there."


    Though I am all for an open pvp set-up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    It does not look like they care about Pvp but it is something that could carry this game and make it better. as far as posting ideas, there are a lot of them if you look for them. I have posted some myself. But i agree that we need to keep posting new ideas.

    I see not posted plans in the near future for Open PvP territory control and it is the number one thing I want to see in this game. I have heard, looking in to it, but no posted plans. Has anyone else seen plans.

    I think most player playing PvP today would play longer for control of zones and it would be much more fun.
    PvP is boring, with no point, and the system is flawed in plug games.

    I wish more players would ask for open PVP zones.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    I posted this in the 24th of July thread, but I figured it might be more applicable here.

    I think having other meaningful strings attached to pvp could be really helpful in making it more fun and eventful, but enough people enjoy pvp that other methods will work as well - either separately or in accord with other meaningful attachments mentioned earlier in this thread. My idea of getting more people involved doesn't require as much developer involvement, although they should be dying to get in on it. I'm pretty sure every team would have a blast in it, and even if they didn't do well it should hopefully motivate them to improve. Regularly competitive pvp isn't an unachievable goal.

    I don't know how many of us played intramural sports in our lives, but i think pvp could really work off that. I'm borrowing from the idea of seasonal tourneys. During a school year, they usually had a 1st semester tourney and a 2nd that teams could sign up for. I personally think that we could to multiple tourney's to give more options to players. This would be soooooooooooooo much easier if we were helped by the developers, and it could possibly revolutionize pvp in MMO (listening Cryptic????). We could have a tourney run 4 times a year...seasonal. That would give 3 months for every tourney. We could have 2 months of weekly matches, and 1 month for a playoff. It would be similar to baseball in that the deeper (talented) your fleet, the better your chances of winning cuz not EVERY player could play EVERY week. For example, let's say two players can't make it one week. Well, a deep fleet can just pick two members right out of its pocket; players may not be AS skilled as the originals, but if the two were not as good they wouldn't even be on the fleet.

    That's still better than a puggy, and it's better to put up a fight than lose w/o trying. To go further, even if a fleet had to quickly recruit some puggies and train them, that's better than just forfeiting; plus, you might find some diamonds in the rough that way. I liken it to fantasy football, baseball, or basketball. Using football (i'm talking about north american football for all you europeans out there lol), just b/c a running back is on a bye week doesn't mean you just leave his slot empty. If you have no good backups, then you sign the best HB you can find off of the free agent list. It's better than nothing, and sometimes it really pays off.

    I think that kind of pvp gameplay would instill a highly lucrative pvp atmosphere. Another plus to multiple seasons is that if a fleet TRULY can't make it a season, they still have 3 (or however many we instill) tourneys left to enroll in for the year. There are soooo many examples of small tournament rules (tie breakers, etc...) that we could use. Intramurals run in colleges and high schools, and they aren't as professional as ncaa or pro level. They run just fine. Even individuals start tournaments on their own and have teams from all over the country (of various ages) play in their tournament. I'm in Florida right now at a national baseball tournament for kids between ages of 15-19. These kids aren't playing for high schools; rather, it was a group of dads, coaches, or whomever that decided to get a team together, enroll in a tournament, and play for a title. If they can do it, then we can do it on here. We have forums and vent to communicate. We also don't have to go through the trouble of designing uniforms, ordering and paying for them, sizing them for each kid, buying bats, balls, shoes, food, water, etc.....we have it easy.

    Another good thing about multiple seasons is that the losers don't have to sit and hope they get another shot at the title. They don't have to engage in word-wars to try to get ppl to realize they are good. They get multiple shots to prove their skill and take a shot at the title. Even if we lose, we can sit back and say "we'll get them in the next tourney." Another advantage, EVEN if a team DOES win due to competition needing to bow out, then nobody has a reason to be upset cuz "there's always next time." This isn't referring to 7th or any other fleet involved with the previous issue in this thread. I was enlightened by the issues teams faced due to time constraints, and this is simply a way to DEAL with that issue when it arises....because in all likelyhood people will have to bow out at inconvenient times.

    We should really hash out this idea and go for gold. We could all start something great. We have the tools. Not to mention, the devs might finally realize that PvP is the only good endgame we have as of now (IMO), and maybe they'll start supporting us so that we aren't just paying 15 a month for them to let us wait in the que forever and pvp once in a while. Perhaps they will realize how important pvp is to this game and start supporting us with carefully decided standardized rules, online brackets and (you listening Crytic????)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Kolikos wrote:
    Agree with everything, but had to ask:

    You're a proctologist?

    No...actually Im a pilot...so I guess that means I take it up the :eek:! Buy some dadgum plane tickets people! :D

    Roach wrote: »
    Why did you climb the mountain Sir Edmund

    "Because it was there."

    Yeah...but how many times did he have to climb it?

    Im all for taking a Planetary System because its there...but there is also something to gain for the expediture of resources and men. That action will have a larger/greater purpose and value outside of me showing that I could **** farther. Even if all we did was strip the system of resources, or use it as a strategic launch pad for more valuable acquistions, or gain more prestege for the House...even a waste disposal location is a worthwhile reason to acquire a system. But Im through with PvP until it evolves beyond this horribly ill-conceived, gladiator arena style, frag-fest. Im so tired of rinse and repeat "battles in a bottle"....we are Imperial Warriors, we are Feudal Warriors...we fight for honor, yes...but we also fight to expand. As of now, we are more prisoners, gladiator slaves...thats not Klingon. Cryptic hear us now, "Give us Free!!!!"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    No...actually Im a pilot...so I guess that means I take it up the :eek:! Buy some dadgum plane tickets people! :D
    Yes! Its still the safest way to travel.
    Yeah...but how many times did he have to climb it?
    The point was he didn't have to climb it, but did it out of a sense of adventure.
    Im all for taking a Planetary System because its there...but there is also something to gain for the expediture of resources and men. That action will have a larger/greater purpose and value outside of me showing that I could **** farther. Even if all we did was strip the system of resources, or use it as a strategic launch pad for more valuable acquistions, or gain more prestege for the House...even a waste disposal location is a worthwhile reason to acquire a system. But Im through with PvP until it evolves beyond this horribly ill-conceived, gladiator arena style, frag-fest. Im so tired of rinse and repeat "battles in a bottle"....we are Imperial Warriors, we are Feudal Warriors...we fight for honor, yes...but we also fight to expand. As of now, we are more prisoners, gladiator slaves...thats not Klingon. Cryptic hear us now, "Give us Free!!!!"
    You may have misunderstood me. I want open-pvp that involves faction control, front lines, starbases, systems being captured, missions behind enemy lines, etc. I do enjoy pvp currently, but its not like I have a choice of how to play a Klingon.

    One day to push the Federation back to the human homeworld and **** upon the ashes of thier preciuos Star Fleet. Its a small want of mine.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    You may have misunderstood me. I want open-pvp that involves faction control, front lines, starbases, systems being captured, missions behind enemy lines, etc. I do enjoy pvp currently, but its not like I have a choice of how to play a Klingon.

    One day to push the Federation back to the human homeworld and **** upon the ashes of thier preciuos Star Fleet. Its a small want of mine.

    No I understood, that last portion wasnt directly at you...just Cryptic's idea that anyone would be content with doing something 10,000 times just for the sake it. Adventure leaves some where around the 1,000th repeat:)

    My favorite vessel(BoP) is a Raider, but I have nothing to raid. Its an ambush and lightening strike unit, but I have nothing and no way to ambush, I only have objectives that encourage sustained engagements. No interdiction, no raiding, no ambushes, no stalking, no recon of OpForce movements in Sector space or in expansive objective systems/maps. Cryptic, what the hell am I here for, what the hell is my ship here for?

    We have massive siege vessel in Carriers, with nothing to acquire, we have front-line fleet vessels with nothing to attack, secure and occupy. We have systems with no value, planets and evironments with no worthwhile resource value for the faction. So why are we fighting?...it likly explains why after less than 6months, we arent fighting.

    Klingons dont hate Feds for being Feds, we confront Feds because they are supposed to get in the way of our Factions progression...they inetrfere with our purposeful expansion as Houses and an Empire. The so called "hate" just a mechanisim to make it easier to send their vaporized remains into the vacuum of space as we secure an objective...but its not a personal or blind hate. The fighting, the war...its all just a purposeful means to an end...that end is expansion, House and Imperial progression, its insuring a Klingon way of life. The Devs forgot that...or neglected to honor that, when they built PvP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    No I understood, that last portion wasnt directly at you...just Cryptic's idea that anyone would be content with doing something 10,000 times just for the sake it. Adventure leaves some where around the 1,000th repeat:)

    My favorite vessel(BoP) is a Raider, but I have nothing to raid. Its an ambush and lightening strike unit, but I have nothing and no way to ambush, I only have objectives that encourage sustained engagements. No interdiction, no raiding, no ambushes, no stalking, no recon of OpForce movements in Sector space or in expansive objective systems/maps. Cryptic, what the hell am I here for, what the hell is my ship here for?

    We have massive siege vessel in Carriers, with nothing to acquire, we have front-line fleet vessels with nothing to attack, secure and occupy. We have systems with no value, planets and evironments with no worthwhile resource value for the faction. So why are we fighting?...it likly explains why after less than 6months, we arent fighting.

    Klingons dont hate Feds for being Feds, we confront Feds because they are supposed to get in the way of our Factions progression...they inetrfere with our purposeful expansion as Houses and an Empire. The so called "hate" just a mechanisim to make it easier to send their vaporized remains into the vacuum of space as we secure an objective...but its not a personal or blind hate. The fighting, the war...its all just a purposeful means to an end...that end is expansion, House and Imperial progression, its insuring a Klingon way of life. The Devs forgot that...or neglected to honor that, when they built PvP.

    SPoken like a true Klingon. :D
    Let the Bloodwine Flow! One day we shall drink it from the skulls of our enemies.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Just wanted to drop in and say, I'm all for meaningful PvP, as long as PvE isn't affected.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    SPoken like a true Klingon. :D
    Let the Bloodwine Flow! One day we shall drink it from the skulls of our enemies.

    Breakfast cereal my friend...I'll be eating breakfast cereal out of thier skulls!

    LordOfPit wrote: »
    Just wanted to drop in and say, I'm all for meaningful PvP, as long as PvE isn't affected.

    Understood, there really isnt any reason why it would have to. Though I'd like to see traditional PvEers have a means of dabbeling and contributing in and to combat areas. Yesa, you'd be open to attack...but at least you'd only expose yourself to the threat by your choice of entering and participating in the combat area. The key thing, is that typical PvEers be provided a truly meaningful means of contributing to the war effort, without necessarily being an explict combatant in PvP battles.

    Even logistics vessels may have a weapon mount...and for good reason.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    Breakfast cereal my friend...I'll be eating breakfast cereal out of thier skulls!

    The wife has me on breakfast protien shakes.:(
    I would argue with her, but being a klingon it would involve witnesses , knives and a medic standing by....
    besides she knows where I sleep at nite.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited July 2010
    Roach wrote: »
    The wife has me on breakfast protien shakes.:(
    I would argue with her, but being a klingon it would involve witnesses , knives and a medic standing by....
    besides she knows where I sleep at nite.

    lol...it cant be that bad. Have some bacon with it;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    cocoa-jin wrote: »
    lol...it cant be that bad. Have some bacon with it;)

    MMMMM. Baco-protien shakes.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    sparkeh86 wrote: »
    Why do people like you react in such a way when others try to come up with an idea to improve the game?

    Its neither helpful, funny nor is it needed.

    Please refrain from becoming a troll...

    just FYI .. I wasn't Trolling .. some folks see EVE as having some genuine roots in meaningful PvP and rewards system.

    IMHO before you jump to such a conclusion you might ask what part of the game I was illuding to. In which case I would have simply suggested that conqest of a given area (planets , resources, etc) and utilizing those resouces to improve the fleet etc ... is what some players are looking for.

    IMHO that is not trolling. I don't expect everyone to agree. In fact I rather suspect that many will not. AND that is ok.

    The point is however, very simple: DEFINE what folks think will be "meaninful" PvP. IMHO ... conquest of an open area of space "COULD" have some potential IF it were done correctly. I don't know that PvP should become that form exclusively ... BUT perhpas having an area where that were available might have some credibility.

    just my 2 cents worth
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    OP - save yoru time and money STO is a **** poor game with **** poor implamentation of content (not even good content at that)
    the game went from over 1 million subs to 100k in 3 months I would bet they are well under 100k currently
    get off the titanic now before the lifeboats are all filled up and your looking out going WTF did I waste my time for?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited August 2010
    akumarev wrote:
    OP - save yoru time and money STO is a **** poor game with **** poor implamentation of content (not even good content at that)
    the game went from over 1 million subs to 100k in 3 months I would bet they are well under 100k currently
    get off the titanic now before the lifeboats are all filled up and your looking out going WTF did I waste my time for?

    Stop Having Fun People

    Anyway, back to the point at hand.

    Open PvP won't work, the population imbalance is massive and most likely always will be. People generally don't go into star trek to play klingons. It's all about kirk and Picard for the vast majority.

    For the same reason, closed instanced pvp has very large issues. The pop imbalance once more kinda TRIBBLE over one side though in this case it's the one with the greater numbers.

    Best idea i can really think of is something using Star trek's usual dimensional wierdness and making a pvp area which is utterly open. Has conquerable, something and everyone can shoot everyone else. With the exception of people that are in your own fleet.
Sign In or Register to comment.