I have seen people say in some threads that the various wars in the game are meaningless. Win or lose in combat missions, it doesn't matter. Nothing changes.
The thing is, how do you make a mission or series of missions that would have a significant affect on the outcome of a war when thousands of people are going to do them? The same thing applies to diplomacy type missions. Success or failure by individuals can't have any effect on the overall storyline / situation of the game.
So I had an idea.
I have never played the WW II Online: Battleground Europe game, but I understand in that game, successful actions / missions on your part have an affect on the overall situation. The front lines move depending on what happens between players. I suppose Cryptic could make some PvP sectors where the outcome of battles between Feds and Klingons determine who controls what planet, part of the sector, and so forth. If one side takes the sector, then one next to it becomes available for combat. The 'lines' could in theory move back and forth across numerous sectors.
There could also be specific sectors for PvE, where you do assigned missions and the situation changes depending on how well you succeeded (which means there would have to be a chance of complete failure). A downside to this is if a given sector is played mostly by one faction, the sector will fall to that side quickly. The PvE sectors could be set up so that, for example, a Fed player is doing a PvE mission to destroy an enemy shipyard. A few minutes later a KIlingon player enters the sector intent on doing a PvE mission. The Klingon player is informed of the presence of the Fed player and that he is currently engaged in a mission to destroy a shipyard. Then, If both sides agree, the Klingon can enter the mission which then becomes a PvP. If the Fed player isn't interested in doing PvP, he can decline the request and continue his PvE mission, and the Klingon player gets his own PvE mission.
In this way I suppose people who want to see the outcome of their missions actually have an effect on the war could be satisfied.
I have seen people say in some threads that the various wars in the game are meaningless. Win or lose in combat missions, it doesn't matter. Nothing changes.
The thing is, how do you make a mission or series of missions that would have a significant affect on the outcome of a war when thousands of people are going to do them? The same thing applies to diplomacy type missions. Success or failure by individuals can't have any effect on the overall storyline / situation of the game.
So I had an idea.
I have never played the WW II Online: Battleground Europe game, but I understand in that game, successful actions / missions on your part have an affect on the overall situation. The front lines move depending on what happens between players. I suppose Cryptic could make some PvP sectors where the outcome of battles between Feds and Klingons determine who controls what planet, part of the sector, and so forth. If one side takes the sector, then one next to it becomes available for combat. The 'lines' could in theory move back and forth across numerous sectors.
There could also be specific sectors for PvE, where you do assigned missions and the situation changes depending on how well you succeeded (which means there would have to be a chance of complete failure). A downside to this is if a given sector is played mostly by one faction, the sector will fall to that side quickly. The PvE sectors could be set up so that, for example, a Fed player is doing a PvE mission to destroy an enemy shipyard. A few minutes later a KIlingon player enters the sector intent on doing a PvE mission. The Klingon player is informed of the presence of the Fed player and that he is currently engaged in a mission to destroy a shipyard. Then, If both sides agree, the Klingon can enter the mission which then becomes a PvP. If the Fed player isn't interested in doing PvP, he can decline the request and continue his PvE mission, and the Klingon player gets his own PvE mission.
In this way I suppose people who want to see the outcome of their missions actually have an effect on the war could be satisfied.
Just a thought.
Shards could be used in such away as to sequester the different outcomes away from each other. Problem is this could eventually open too many shards that could be used for population control. Still the chat system would remove from this effect as we would still be able to talk across the shards.
Another idea would be for the game to tag your toon with how you completed your missions. Like the current accolade system. Then the Devs could tailor the NPCs to have multiple responses based on how your toon is tagged. Kinda like a single player game like... da da daaa, Oblivion.
I'm all for an open PvP sector that changes depending on the outcome of the fight.
Activating/deactivating defenses and/or give/take away buffs to the winning/losing side.
And then you have to sign papers, get funding, blablabla... The public must vote yadayada.... and the line is moved.
The server would probably break down because of it.
As for PvE.
What you suggest does sound... Playable. Consenting PvP mixed with PvE.
Although I do hate to get PvP/PvE in my PvE/PvP.
I'm all for an open PvP sector that changes depending on the outcome of the fight.
Activating/deactivating defenses and/or give/take away buffs to the winning/losing side.
And then you have to sign papers, get funding, blablabla... The public must vote yadayada.... and the line is moved.
The server would probably break down because of it.
As for PvE.
What you suggest does sound... Playable. Consenting PvP mixed with PvE.
Although I do hate to get PvP/PvE in my PvE/PvP.
Aww man. I was only thinking of the PvE aspect when I wrote that. As always Chat here has to toss a monkey wrench into the spokes of the wheel in my mind. The Reeses reference was a sweet touch by the way.
My thoughts on persistent PvP was a reward system that had no effect outside of the PvP zone, or outside of PvP but a bonus against the opposite faction only for as long as your faction held influence over the zone. Of course there will be shards so influence would have to be factored by the averaged outcomes of all the shards moment to moment so that we do not have to wait 20 minutes to see who holds influence when one shard takes longer than the rest.
Still with so many players only playing Feds we know what the outcome will be from the start.
Aww man. I was only thinking of the PvE aspect when I wrote that. As always Chat here has to toss a monkey wrench into the spokes of the wheel in my mind. The Reeses reference was a sweet touch by the way.
I do try.
(was writing my post probably before and after you had posted yours. was busy in kitchen getting a sammich between typing and clicking submit)
My thoughts on persistent PvP was a reward system that had no effect outside of the PvP zone, or outside of PvP but a bonus against the opposite faction only for as long as your faction held influence over the zone. Of course there will be shards so influence would have to be factored by the averaged outcomes of all the shards moment to moment so that we do not have to wait 20 minutes to see who holds influence when one shard takes longer than the rest.
Still with so many players only playing Feds we know what the outcome will be from the start.
Well that is a problem with unlocking Klingons after having to play Federation for a while.
There is an upcoming game called Total War: Shogun 2, which will have a metagame for its multiplayer. You will have your ''avatar'', which will level up and unlock stuff. He is affiliated with one of the game's factions. As you do battles you are not only winning for yourself (to gain lvls and unlock stuff) but you are also gaining territory for your faction by winning battles (or losing by losing battles). And the progress shows on a map. There are also objectives to do (like doing battles in a specific map that have extra resources and etc).
Something similar to that could be implemented in Eta Eridani (or in a separate neutral zone sector if revamping Eta for open pvp is too complicated) where the PVP results could be displayed in a ''Battle log'' screen at the Eta Eridani space stations in the game and ESD and Qo'nos, too. The results would show which side is winning the war by way of weekly updates done to it. They could have special quests attached to this, too.
So if one faction won more pvp that week then they could gain control of the system (or systems) in that sector for a week (and those systems or stations could have special things and bonuses like having special Ferengi vendors that sell unique gear and such, which would give more use to gold-pressed latinum). Or the systems could hold a cache of anomalies where you could go and obtain them more frequently than by scanning them in exploration sectors. Depending on how much PVP one faction won you would obtain more stations or systems for that week. So the objective would be to win as much PVP as possible to retain (or regain) control of those systems and special vendors or etc.
Well that is a problem with unlocking Klingons after having to play Federation for a while.
Why thats still in the game... No idea.
Piwright adores Chat's brain. It's always so far outside of the box, it has no idea what inside the box means.
I do not think that the grind to Lt6 is the only reason why Klings are a minority. The series itself favors Feds, and that alone will impart a significant bias, that will lay to the Feds favor in a open PvP zone. Still in the interest of fairness the Devs may have to fudge the math a bit to keep the field level. No matter how you slice it Open PvP will be a challenge for Cryptic. Given the subtleties of the current PvP system's balance I have faith that DStahl's team can do it justice.
There is an upcoming game called Total War: Shogun 2, which will have a metagame for its multiplayer. You will have your ''avatar'', which will level up and unlock stuff. He is affiliated with one of the game's factions. As you do battles you are not only winning for yourself (to gain lvls and unlock stuff) but you are also gaining territory for your faction by winning battles (or losing by losing battles).
Something similar to that could be implemented in Eta Eridani (or in a separate neutral zone sector if revamping Eta for open pvp is too complicated) where the PVP results could be displayed in a ''Battle log'' screen at the Eta Eridani space stations in the game and ESD and Qo'nos, too. The results would show which side is winning the war by way of weekly updates done to it. So if Klingons won more pvp that week then they could gain control of that system (or systems) they won for a week (and those systems or stations could have special things and bonuses like having special Ferengi vendors that sell unique gear and such, which would give more use to gold-pressed latinum).
What really? I loved the first 'Total War: Shogun' to death. Simple yet brutal in it's strategic challenge. I can't wait for a follow on title.
Something similar to that could be implemented in Eta Eridani (or in a separate neutral zone sector if revamping Eta for open pvp is too complicated) where the PVP results could be displayed in a ''Battle log'' screen at the Eta Eridani space stations in the game and ESD and Qo'nos, too. The results would show which side is winning the war by way of weekly updates done to it. They could have special quests attached to this, too.
Detailed updates at a news terminal would add to the immersion, and would help interested players stay interested. Still would like to see an option for real time updates as to opposition raid activity that can be turned off and on via chat options. Something that scrolls across the top of the screen that lets you know when the other faction is up to no good.
So if one faction won more pvp that week then they could gain control of the system (or systems) in that sector for a week (and those systems or stations could have special things and bonuses like having special Ferengi vendors that sell unique gear and such, which would give more use to gold-pressed latinum). Or the systems could hold a cache of anomalies where you could go and obtain them more frequently than by scanning them in exploration sectors. Depending on how much PVP one faction won you would obtain more stations or systems for that week. So the objective would be to win as much PVP as possible to retain (or regain) control of those systems and special vendors or etc.
A latinum sink that is driven by faction success would help to motivate players and raise latinum's value as a currency in the game. Having vendors in system that will only deal with you if you are the controlling faction could be interesting but could lead to problems if one side achieves a functional monopoly of sector control. Might I suggest something that has been done in GT racing where consistent top winners get a weight handicap that allows less well funded teams to stay in the fight. Kinda like the limit break feature in fighting games. The longer a faction holds sector control the more of an attack bonus the other faction gets. Vice versa as well. When a faction achieves sector control the get a defense bonus that decreases over time. This way even if there is a numerical or technical advantage held by either side control is never guaranteed.
With the new crafting system the anomaly idea would be good as most PvPers do not seem to be as inclined to wander hither and tither to gather their samples. Also it increases lures other player types into the zone so they can try it, and allows you to get caught with your pants down once in a while if you solo out to gather resources.
I think all these points would add to the "feel" of the "war."
I think all these points would add to the "feel" of the "war."
Season 5 should be called: ''Season 5: Diplomacy'' and should feature both the exploration revamp, diplomacy rank functionality additions, and an open pvp zone with some (or many) of these suggestions implemented
I really don't get the idea that playing STO doesn't "feel like a war". Every time I go into a mission, there are baddies trying to kill me. Feels pretty warlike to me.
If Rosvik's suggestion was in it's own sector, then I have no problem with it. I don't participate in PvP and I don't want it affecting my PvE gameplay. This includes PvP updates flashing across my screen.
I really don't get the idea that playing STO doesn't "feel like a war". Every time I go into a mission, there are baddies trying to kill me. Feels pretty warlike to me.
If Rosvik's suggestion was in it's own sector, then I have no problem with it. I don't participate in PvP and I don't want it affecting my PvE gameplay. This includes PvP updates flashing across my screen.
Exactly why I said that the feature should be able to be turned off and turned on in chat options. trust you me I would not want to make a suggestion that would offend a hardcore PvE type with something I and other PvPers would enjoy.
RedneckTrek I really don't get the idea that playing STO doesn't "feel like a war". Every time I go into a mission, there are baddies trying to kill me. Feels pretty warlike to me.
Redneck is correct about STO feeling warlike. What I was addressing was the concern / opinion many people have is that the various wars seem pointless because nothing we as players do will have any affect on the outcome.
My idea is to have special sectors created for PvP and PvE where your success or failure does have an effect on the balance of power in those sectors.
If Rosvik's suggestion was in it's own sector, then I have no problem with it. I don't participate in PvP and I don't want it affecting my PvE gameplay. This includes PvP updates flashing across my screen.
Yes, I don't think my idea would be appropriate for existing sectors of space. I also proposed the possibility that someone wanting to engage in PvP could contact someone in a PvE mission to see if they want to engage. Someone who wants nothing to do with PvP would be able to set an 'Enable PvP Contacts" switch to OFF. Or, the sectors would simply be either PvP or PvE.
If I opened a can of worms with my original post, I had another idea that should be open up a 55 gallon drum.
What about the creation of a shard that contains an exact copy of the regular STO universe except that in this shard, success or failure of individual up to fleet actions do affect the balance of power in every sector?
Every so many hours you can access maps on the website that show the current balance pf power.
The nice thing about this is that since player actions affect the storyline, in this Shard you wouldn't have to worry about Star Trek Canon.
If one side eventually achieves complete and total victory, then I guess the winning side gets bragging rights, the scenario is reset to the original state, and you start again.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support an open PvP sector for those that like it. I'm not a PvPer, but the idea of a persistent, open PvP sector sounds kind of fun. I might even pop in from time to time, but it would never be the focus of my gameplay.
My only issue is that many of the ideas kicked around on the forums suggest that PvP somehow affect my PvE play. This is what I don't want to see, and it's why I post my opposition in these threads. Whether it's PvP status updates on my screen, dead vendors, graphical damage to ESD based on how the PvP war is going, Klingon ships constantly buzzing me in Sector Space to see if I'm flagged for PvP or whatever. I just want the powers that be to know that there are those of us out here that don't want PvP effecting our PvE.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support an open PvP sector for those that like it. I'm not a PvPer, but the idea of a persistent, open PvP sector sounds kind of fun. I might even pop in from time to time, but it would never be the focus of my gameplay.
My only issue is that many of the ideas kicked around on the forums suggest that PvP somehow affect my PvE play.
I think this is factually incorrect.
The main gist and the majority of PvP ideas all talk about strictly splitting PvP and PvE content. There are ideas like vendors within a Open PvP idea being affected by your current standing of your faction in that zone, but that doesn't effect PvE zones. But ideas that explicitely force PvE players to deal with PvP content are incredibly rare.
Don't worry. We won't take away the PvP free areas. Every PvP that doesn't get how problematic that would be will get shot down quickly by the rest of the PvP community.
It seems to me that all the Open PvP discussions always focus on this discussion "OMG, no forced PvP/gankfest!" instead of going into the gritty details of a decent (neatly segregated) Open PvP system.
But maybe there just isn't more to talk about it in the end. We can come up with the coolest ideas, but only Cryptic knows if it could be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. (e.g. within the next year?).
The best way would be to design a system like Tom Clancy's Endgame. Establish a persistent PvP zone with multiple systems offering different strategic advantages according to location.
The overall shape of this area takes would look like a diamond. The widest section of the area would be in the middle, tapering as one side got closer to the other's "base." To prevent one side from gaining an upper hand and spamming one system with bodies: a) systems can only open when a queue is met, b) the farther away from your base the system is, the longer the wait to jump in after completing a PvP match, c) when fighting in a PvP system adjacent to a base the "home team" gets a bonus to damage, d) at least two systems adjacent the opponents base must be controlled in order to attack it. To prevent gridlocking, systems that have one side fully queued for a certain amount of time will automatically fall to that side, so a notification system will be necessary to alert players when one system is about to fall due to inaction.
As players travel through this system, they should notice three things. First, that they will receive a movement debuff when moving through enemy-controlled territory and can be engaged by opposing players. Second, the line of advance will produce a "neutral zone" where all players can move freely, but is an open PvP area. Finally, players will be able to raid "supply lines" by sitting in shipping lanes (those weird lines from the old system space) in enemy territory for ten seconds at a time to farm for rare data. Once a supply line is raided, it shuts down for that player for an hour and has no effect on the PvP matches.
More on open PvP in this area: Players travelling in enemy territory will receive a 10% speed debuff and 5% turn rate debuff. Any enemy that approaches the player in enemy territory can select to engage them. Players in the neutral zone will only be able to PvP with players within five levels +/- their current level. A vice admiral can't initiate combat with a captain, nor a captain 3 with a RA LH. The player can not attack an opposing player in the opposing player's territory.
When attacking a base, the game takes the shape of a Fleet Action. The home team can spawn as many ships as it wants, but the attacking team can only bring up to twenty of its own ships. The objective is to weaken the enemy starbase (ESD for Feds, an as yet undesigned station for Klinks) and beam over away teams or prevent the other team from doing so. Causing damage to a a ship that is beaming over an away team does not cause interrupts unless you destroy the ship. Individual attackers take a one minute cooldown after beaming an away team over. The defender wins if it can reach a fifty kill count. The attacker wins if they can successfully beam 50 away teams to the station.
Comments
Shards could be used in such away as to sequester the different outcomes away from each other. Problem is this could eventually open too many shards that could be used for population control. Still the chat system would remove from this effect as we would still be able to talk across the shards.
Another idea would be for the game to tag your toon with how you completed your missions. Like the current accolade system. Then the Devs could tailor the NPCs to have multiple responses based on how your toon is tagged. Kinda like a single player game like... da da daaa, Oblivion.
I'm all for an open PvP sector that changes depending on the outcome of the fight.
Activating/deactivating defenses and/or give/take away buffs to the winning/losing side.
And then you have to sign papers, get funding, blablabla... The public must vote yadayada.... and the line is moved.
The server would probably break down because of it.
As for PvE.
What you suggest does sound... Playable. Consenting PvP mixed with PvE.
Although I do hate to get PvP/PvE in my PvE/PvP.
Aww man. I was only thinking of the PvE aspect when I wrote that. As always Chat here has to toss a monkey wrench into the spokes of the wheel in my mind. The Reeses reference was a sweet touch by the way.
My thoughts on persistent PvP was a reward system that had no effect outside of the PvP zone, or outside of PvP but a bonus against the opposite faction only for as long as your faction held influence over the zone. Of course there will be shards so influence would have to be factored by the averaged outcomes of all the shards moment to moment so that we do not have to wait 20 minutes to see who holds influence when one shard takes longer than the rest.
Still with so many players only playing Feds we know what the outcome will be from the start.
(was writing my post probably before and after you had posted yours. was busy in kitchen getting a sammich between typing and clicking submit)
Well that is a problem with unlocking Klingons after having to play Federation for a while.
Why thats still in the game... No idea.
I'd call it something besides a piercing but it definitely looks like a breast and an engorged areola.
Something similar to that could be implemented in Eta Eridani (or in a separate neutral zone sector if revamping Eta for open pvp is too complicated) where the PVP results could be displayed in a ''Battle log'' screen at the Eta Eridani space stations in the game and ESD and Qo'nos, too. The results would show which side is winning the war by way of weekly updates done to it. They could have special quests attached to this, too.
So if one faction won more pvp that week then they could gain control of the system (or systems) in that sector for a week (and those systems or stations could have special things and bonuses like having special Ferengi vendors that sell unique gear and such, which would give more use to gold-pressed latinum). Or the systems could hold a cache of anomalies where you could go and obtain them more frequently than by scanning them in exploration sectors. Depending on how much PVP one faction won you would obtain more stations or systems for that week. So the objective would be to win as much PVP as possible to retain (or regain) control of those systems and special vendors or etc.
Piwright adores Chat's brain. It's always so far outside of the box, it has no idea what inside the box means.
I do not think that the grind to Lt6 is the only reason why Klings are a minority. The series itself favors Feds, and that alone will impart a significant bias, that will lay to the Feds favor in a open PvP zone. Still in the interest of fairness the Devs may have to fudge the math a bit to keep the field level. No matter how you slice it Open PvP will be a challenge for Cryptic. Given the subtleties of the current PvP system's balance I have faith that DStahl's team can do it justice.
What really? I loved the first 'Total War: Shogun' to death. Simple yet brutal in it's strategic challenge. I can't wait for a follow on title.
Yes. And its epic. Multiplayer campaign, this metagame for the general multiplayer too. Great graphics. 56,000 man battles. Definitely buying it :P.
But lets stick to the subject. Perhaps comment on the rest of my post?
Detailed updates at a news terminal would add to the immersion, and would help interested players stay interested. Still would like to see an option for real time updates as to opposition raid activity that can be turned off and on via chat options. Something that scrolls across the top of the screen that lets you know when the other faction is up to no good.
A latinum sink that is driven by faction success would help to motivate players and raise latinum's value as a currency in the game. Having vendors in system that will only deal with you if you are the controlling faction could be interesting but could lead to problems if one side achieves a functional monopoly of sector control. Might I suggest something that has been done in GT racing where consistent top winners get a weight handicap that allows less well funded teams to stay in the fight. Kinda like the limit break feature in fighting games. The longer a faction holds sector control the more of an attack bonus the other faction gets. Vice versa as well. When a faction achieves sector control the get a defense bonus that decreases over time. This way even if there is a numerical or technical advantage held by either side control is never guaranteed.
With the new crafting system the anomaly idea would be good as most PvPers do not seem to be as inclined to wander hither and tither to gather their samples. Also it increases lures other player types into the zone so they can try it, and allows you to get caught with your pants down once in a while if you solo out to gather resources.
I think all these points would add to the "feel" of the "war."
Season 5 should be called: ''Season 5: Diplomacy'' and should feature both the exploration revamp, diplomacy rank functionality additions, and an open pvp zone with some (or many) of these suggestions implemented
If Rosvik's suggestion was in it's own sector, then I have no problem with it. I don't participate in PvP and I don't want it affecting my PvE gameplay. This includes PvP updates flashing across my screen.
Exactly why I said that the feature should be able to be turned off and turned on in chat options. trust you me I would not want to make a suggestion that would offend a hardcore PvE type with something I and other PvPers would enjoy.
Thank you...
Redneck is correct about STO feeling warlike. What I was addressing was the concern / opinion many people have is that the various wars seem pointless because nothing we as players do will have any affect on the outcome.
My idea is to have special sectors created for PvP and PvE where your success or failure does have an effect on the balance of power in those sectors.
Yes, I don't think my idea would be appropriate for existing sectors of space. I also proposed the possibility that someone wanting to engage in PvP could contact someone in a PvE mission to see if they want to engage. Someone who wants nothing to do with PvP would be able to set an 'Enable PvP Contacts" switch to OFF. Or, the sectors would simply be either PvP or PvE.
What about the creation of a shard that contains an exact copy of the regular STO universe except that in this shard, success or failure of individual up to fleet actions do affect the balance of power in every sector?
Every so many hours you can access maps on the website that show the current balance pf power.
The nice thing about this is that since player actions affect the storyline, in this Shard you wouldn't have to worry about Star Trek Canon.
If one side eventually achieves complete and total victory, then I guess the winning side gets bragging rights, the scenario is reset to the original state, and you start again.
Again, just an idea.
My only issue is that many of the ideas kicked around on the forums suggest that PvP somehow affect my PvE play. This is what I don't want to see, and it's why I post my opposition in these threads. Whether it's PvP status updates on my screen, dead vendors, graphical damage to ESD based on how the PvP war is going, Klingon ships constantly buzzing me in Sector Space to see if I'm flagged for PvP or whatever. I just want the powers that be to know that there are those of us out here that don't want PvP effecting our PvE.
The main gist and the majority of PvP ideas all talk about strictly splitting PvP and PvE content. There are ideas like vendors within a Open PvP idea being affected by your current standing of your faction in that zone, but that doesn't effect PvE zones. But ideas that explicitely force PvE players to deal with PvP content are incredibly rare.
Don't worry. We won't take away the PvP free areas. Every PvP that doesn't get how problematic that would be will get shot down quickly by the rest of the PvP community.
It seems to me that all the Open PvP discussions always focus on this discussion "OMG, no forced PvP/gankfest!" instead of going into the gritty details of a decent (neatly segregated) Open PvP system.
But maybe there just isn't more to talk about it in the end. We can come up with the coolest ideas, but only Cryptic knows if it could be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. (e.g. within the next year?).
The overall shape of this area takes would look like a diamond. The widest section of the area would be in the middle, tapering as one side got closer to the other's "base." To prevent one side from gaining an upper hand and spamming one system with bodies: a) systems can only open when a queue is met, b) the farther away from your base the system is, the longer the wait to jump in after completing a PvP match, c) when fighting in a PvP system adjacent to a base the "home team" gets a bonus to damage, d) at least two systems adjacent the opponents base must be controlled in order to attack it. To prevent gridlocking, systems that have one side fully queued for a certain amount of time will automatically fall to that side, so a notification system will be necessary to alert players when one system is about to fall due to inaction.
As players travel through this system, they should notice three things. First, that they will receive a movement debuff when moving through enemy-controlled territory and can be engaged by opposing players. Second, the line of advance will produce a "neutral zone" where all players can move freely, but is an open PvP area. Finally, players will be able to raid "supply lines" by sitting in shipping lanes (those weird lines from the old system space) in enemy territory for ten seconds at a time to farm for rare data. Once a supply line is raided, it shuts down for that player for an hour and has no effect on the PvP matches.
More on open PvP in this area: Players travelling in enemy territory will receive a 10% speed debuff and 5% turn rate debuff. Any enemy that approaches the player in enemy territory can select to engage them. Players in the neutral zone will only be able to PvP with players within five levels +/- their current level. A vice admiral can't initiate combat with a captain, nor a captain 3 with a RA LH. The player can not attack an opposing player in the opposing player's territory.
When attacking a base, the game takes the shape of a Fleet Action. The home team can spawn as many ships as it wants, but the attacking team can only bring up to twenty of its own ships. The objective is to weaken the enemy starbase (ESD for Feds, an as yet undesigned station for Klinks) and beam over away teams or prevent the other team from doing so. Causing damage to a a ship that is beaming over an away team does not cause interrupts unless you destroy the ship. Individual attackers take a one minute cooldown after beaming an away team over. The defender wins if it can reach a fifty kill count. The attacker wins if they can successfully beam 50 away teams to the station.
That's my idea, anyway...