test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Starbase vs. Starbase PVP revisted...
dark4blood
Member Posts: 1,192 Arc User
*******Revisited********
It would be epic and really bring some light to PVP.
*1.) Match Starbase Level so everyone can participate, 0 VS. 0, 1 vs. 1, etc. However allow Starbases to challenge one up or one down for increased or reduced rewards...this will give newbie teams a chance to fight more experienced teams without being smashed.
*2.) Unique system where each ship is has fixed weapons and you unlock ships of that generation until you level up your Stabase lvl for the next generation...most likely starting with Discovery era or Enterprise era. This is a major point as it stops OP builds and makes PVP about strategy not Pay to Win.
*3.) Special Bridge Officers that can only be obtained through new PVP Reputation system, First MK II BOF skills (Veteran Unlocks)
*4.) First new type of Drop called "Unique" Pink Color similar to Dev Forum posting. Randomly drops 'Unique" MK II for winning Tier 0 base battles to MK XII for Tier 5 space battles that are unlocked for the entire fleet as your fleet gains PVP experience.
*5.) Unlock new Starbase skins to make each base feel unique to each fleet...Fed and Klingon only since we don't have separate factions for others...
Any other ideas are welcome, but it would be cool to see even just Starbase vs. Starbase PVP, the other stuff gives Cryptic an idea on how to make money from it. I think this would bring the endgame to the forfront, and make the "WAR" feel like a war since it seems we have returned to the days where we are fighting the Klingons again.
Here were the old requests...they are old and needed some updating.
It would be epic and really bring some light to PVP.
1.) Match Starbase Level so everyone can participate, 0 VS. 0, 1 vs. 1, etc.
2.) Unique Crafting rewards like the upgrade of the Aegis set to MK XII from PVP mark rewards(defense and attack).
3.) Special Bridge Officers that can only be obtained through new PVP Reputation system, First MK IV BOFF skills.
4.) First new type of Drop called "Unique" Yellow Color similar to Dev Forum posting. Randomly drops 'Unique" MK XII for winning base and MK X for losing base.
5.) Fleet versions of "Unique" Items available through fleet, but only after obtaining from PVP battle.
It would be epic and really bring some light to PVP.
*1.) Match Starbase Level so everyone can participate, 0 VS. 0, 1 vs. 1, etc. However allow Starbases to challenge one up or one down for increased or reduced rewards...this will give newbie teams a chance to fight more experienced teams without being smashed.
*2.) Unique system where each ship is has fixed weapons and you unlock ships of that generation until you level up your Stabase lvl for the next generation...most likely starting with Discovery era or Enterprise era. This is a major point as it stops OP builds and makes PVP about strategy not Pay to Win.
*3.) Special Bridge Officers that can only be obtained through new PVP Reputation system, First MK II BOF skills (Veteran Unlocks)
*4.) First new type of Drop called "Unique" Pink Color similar to Dev Forum posting. Randomly drops 'Unique" MK II for winning Tier 0 base battles to MK XII for Tier 5 space battles that are unlocked for the entire fleet as your fleet gains PVP experience.
*5.) Unlock new Starbase skins to make each base feel unique to each fleet...Fed and Klingon only since we don't have separate factions for others...
Any other ideas are welcome, but it would be cool to see even just Starbase vs. Starbase PVP, the other stuff gives Cryptic an idea on how to make money from it. I think this would bring the endgame to the forfront, and make the "WAR" feel like a war since it seems we have returned to the days where we are fighting the Klingons again.
Here were the old requests...they are old and needed some updating.
It would be epic and really bring some light to PVP.
1.) Match Starbase Level so everyone can participate, 0 VS. 0, 1 vs. 1, etc.
2.) Unique Crafting rewards like the upgrade of the Aegis set to MK XII from PVP mark rewards(defense and attack).
3.) Special Bridge Officers that can only be obtained through new PVP Reputation system, First MK IV BOFF skills.
4.) First new type of Drop called "Unique" Yellow Color similar to Dev Forum posting. Randomly drops 'Unique" MK XII for winning base and MK X for losing base.
5.) Fleet versions of "Unique" Items available through fleet, but only after obtaining from PVP battle.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
It doesn't hurt to dream though.
It's time to break the cycle of a timer based pseudo-afk end game where a lot of people spend more time in the tailor tweaking their outfit instead of making good use of their vast inventory of weaponry.
I'm sure this concept will receive widespread acclamation from the silent majority. Don't be deterred from this vision from the vocal minority.
To be fair to those that enjoy ground though, I'd like to propose that both both the Starfleet and Klingon Academies be converted into 'weapons hot' zones, as nobody really uses them for much anyways and they are easily accessible.
It would also make grinding down doffs far more exciting.
Short version: Not likely to happen.
Maybe if we had a "I want to PVP" flag to enable it, with PVPers sent to their own instance that's invisible to the rest of us, and without any NPCs (no shooting Worf for you!)
As a bonus, PVPers would get a Mark of Gideon experience, though sans Odona - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mark_of_Gideon
Seems you've garnered some interest...
The mention of 'shot down'... it's almost Freudian. They make all these fancy ships, traits, abilities, and weapons work great in PvE... Shirley it would be simple to add some PvP gear? This is creative brilliance... a perfect name for new PvP rep rewards. No Odona?
A 'Jolly Roger' flag might work to indicate that you've RNG'd yourself into an 'evolved' instance?
I think you may have answered the question posed in the 'Next Year's Story Arc To "Change The Face Of The Game" thread'. The return of PvP via a story arc intro involving the collapse of the 'Alliance'. Fascinating.
Try to stay on topic and with the spirit of the discussion. Everybody agrees that shooting Worf is off limits. Marks of Gideon experience is receiving widespread acclamation. A Jolly Roger flag and RNG component is up for discussion with respect to introducing players to 'evolved content'.
We need you to put your enviable intellect into fine tooning (pun intended) this conceptual thread so that Cryptic receives timely input into what may very well be (or not) something they're already working on.
For example: Jolly Roger flags are usually black. This could make it somewhat hard to see against certain backgrounds. I think this is a plus as it means there's a higher chance that some players won't notice it. This could increase the spontaneity factor (see - my post above). Others may be of the opinion it should be more brightly colored such as the subnuc flag. What color do you think it should be?
It's not actually required that every single game out there cater to your bloodlust.
For me this is a hard NO. The only way I would ever throw my support behind anything like this would be if it included an option to opt out of it completely and never touch it or have to hear about it again. Neither myself or most of the folks in my armada have any interest in pvp. If I wanted to play pvp I would go play a game where pvp is the main focus. Any kind of anything where you can be forced into pvp is a big fat no-go in my book, and if implemented I would be gone tomorrow. No one should ever be allowed to force their style of gameplay on another person and a pvp system without some type of opt out does exactly that.
If you want to clear the game out and kill it completely then implement something like this. In every game I've ever seen, the only reason people gank is they're not capable of competing with people of a similar level and gear level. Because one guy wants to camp someone with no hope of ever fighting back, that person now is unable to progress their toon because one guy wants to be a tool. Far as I'm concerned any system that allows that kind of thing to happen is a cancer to modern gaming. If folks want their pvp then fine, but leave me and everyone else out of it. If you want to gank there are more games out there that will cater to that than having to bog this game down with it.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
Oh, this is going to be a delicious topic to sink teeth into. Perhaps I should feel bad for punching down on carebears who contributed to ruining the Competitive Wargames reputation. Alas, I don't. I fully expect to get the @ruinthefun or @patrickngo or @mattjohnsonva treatment after this. But at least I'm honest.
Cryptic has said that very few people have a care of PvP. No scheisse. You don't say. When Gozer was "wished well on his future endeavors," when EVERY effort has been made by the company to neglect or abuse or run it into the ground(such as when Geko went on record to insult PvPers), when Borticus was on record of being clueless to how at the time to counter Temporal abilities(that only Feds really had access to), when the power creep balloons out of control, of course the hearts of PvPers will be crushed. When the higher ups drop lawn fudge on the PvPers, of course the care for PvP is going to dwindle. You want to talk about the "cesspool of toxicity" when referring to a group of players. That anyone who wants to "PvP in modern gaming is subhuman or abhuman." As though PvPers are "deplorables." Though as you said, you looked at forum threads of people screeching about how they were "pigeonholed into some sort of 'PvP' to complete a reputation that was focused on it. If you want toxicity, look at how those whiners and the PvE exclusive crowd poisoned the well by complaining about having to do the "competitive" content for certain gear. Poisoned the well so much, that the reputation marks were added to spoilmark reward boxes(and you may want to deny it, but the spoil in spoilmark is true. The lazy and lowest common denominator was spoiled. In a game that caters to the lowest common denominator.) in RAs and events. Castrating a whole reputation because of their failure to adapt. If you don't want to do the content for the items, that's because of a choice that you make. And as such, you shouldn't have access to the items if you're not willing to work for them. Shame on you and your projections regarding toxicity.
Yeah, because anyone who ganks something in any kind of game is someone who has no skill/gear/level. Thieves/rogues in D&D, Mandrakes in Warhammer 40k, or anyone who uses Ambush or Phasic Shroud, or a cloaking device in STO. The Elf armies(Dark/Wood/High) in Total War: Warhammer 2. Or the jungler player for TSM in League of Legends. He must have no skill, brings nothing to the team, according to you. You must not get out much, if you're going to crash the salt market like Geko did after his "Klingon Killer" Excelsior ship got popped like a pimple. There are multiple reasons to gank someone. To apply pressure to a team(doesn't even have to be a successful kill) and/or disrupt. Or as part of a specific game plan. To push people off territory you want to take and hold. To deny them an objective or resource. Or to kill the other team. If you were thinking of the proper word with your rant, that would most likely be "griefing." If you still think it's ganking, or that fights should solely be lined up with soldiers like the redcoats, and just volley exchanges, your grasp of combat, conflict, tactics, warfare is found lacking. Shame on you a second time.
Following your example, of whipping out the PvP experience dingle-dangle, I too served my time in WoW PvP. As a 2hnd enhancement shaman back in the old days of vanilla and TBC, when our only crowd control was crafted(goblin engineer or master mace smith), or a raid drop. I remember the night elf panther druids and the enemy rogue players. SWTOR, Everquest 1, Warhammer Online, Fallen Earth, Mortal Online, The Secret World, LOTRO(Monster Play and duels), DCUO, to name a few MMORPGs. Among other games. We can do this dance for a long time. In each game that I participated in with PvP, I took my beatings, and improved. I played horrible early on, and got pounded a lot, but accepted that I needed to struggle and work to get better. I learned how to play, how to get my senses better(such as paying attention to detail with hearing). I adapted. I got better, against not only the predictable, scripted AI, but also the dynamic opponent in other players.
WoW wasn't a pvp focused game. Neither was SWTOR. It didn't even force PvP unless YOU made the choice to roll a character on a PvP or RP/PvP server. It was a PvE game that made sure to not urinate all over PvPers by offering them something that wasn't half-baked and halfassed.
It's funny how people will throw the gatekeeping around as something that shouldn't be done. Yet I've seen moderators and forummites(including @jonsills up there with his post and you even. I'm surprised that a particularly vocal anti-PvP player who goes out of her way to thump her chest about how she doesn't PvP, has not visited this thread.) doing the same thing. With the "keep the pvp ideas out of this game. Go somewhere else if you want to quench your bloodlust" remarks. Your masks are slipping, and showing an ugly side. I admit that I'm ugly, but I also don't wear a mask or makeup to hide it. Shame on you for a third time. Shame...Shame...Shame...
The OP and others who want PvP to grow, are trying to come up with ways to expand the game, because after the Foundry got shut down, the game became a lot smaller. When certain zones are reduced in population cap(such as DS9's population cap being cut by 1/3rd), the game became smaller. Offering ideas for PvP would expand the game. Hiring people who aren't anti-PvP, and retaining them, without restraining them or corrupting them for starters, would help expand PvP and the game.
At least @dark4blood and @protoneous are trying to suggest ideas to grow the game, possibly grow the dwindling player base, and show the PvPers that they as players do matter as well.
When your only suggestions are larger slaughter arenas to drive away anyone who isn't "on your level", you're not making suggestions to expand the game - you're making suggestions to shrink the playerbase even more drastically than has already happened. And if the only opinions you want to hear are favorable ones, I recommend discussing this in PMs with those who agree with you, because one of the funny things about public forums? Anybody is allowed to use them. Even me.
Please note that nothing I've posted here was even a disguised attempt at trolling or causing discord in these forums. It was merely a response, in humor, to the second poster in the thread who conjured up 'mark of gideon' xp.
But I guess you took my proposal to convert both faction's academies into open PvP areas seriously. Even the Jolly Roger flag? Wow.
Please consider googling the term "stick in mud".
Now I understand why even some of the better PvE'rs are reluctant to post in these forums.
As someone who has tried his best to support the studio and new players both publicly and in-game since he was a much younger man, I find this sort of reaction both profoundly disappointing and disturbing regardless of my intent.
The majority of the playerbase have little-to-no interest in PvP
The whole 'Wargames' idea would be great story-wise. Maybe even have it hosted by the Zakdorn (TNG episode 'Peak Performance')
But there really isn't enough player interest to warrant them putting resources into development of it.
I've made huge write ups on different ideas to make PvP viable in STO, but alas, I never posted them.
This is the reaction I knew it would receive.
You are just dealing with a firmly set PVE playerbase
Honestly, I get tired of fighting the NPCs too
when this happens, I just go play Overwatch
If you honestly meant it to be sarcastically then I apologize for the misreading of the post and misunderstanding you. Thus is one reason why pure text communication is sometimes a hindrance more then a benefit. With that said I stand by my other statements.
I have an extremely low tolerance for gankers and people like that. Any system that allows one person to force their preferred style on another person, pvp in this instance, and completely halt the progress or gameplay of another person is a bad system. I play to enjoy the game, not to deal with certain people who want to be tools. If they truly want pvp as they claim, then they have options available. What I often find is they don't want real pvp but want to camp lower level players and then call it pvp, thus ruining the game for other people. I can't tell you the number of times I've had to put my questing and playtime on hold to stand guard along with several others in certain zones because a select few wanted to be tools and ruin it for everyone else. I get annoyed very easily with this pvp stuff because I've seen it devolve into that sort of thing far far too many times along with several other bad experiences with it. If folks want their pvp I don't fault them for that, just leave me and everyone else that want nothing to do with it out of it.
I find it ironic that you accuse others of gatekeeping and me of "projecting toxicity" yet open by referring to those who opposed the Competitive Wargames rep as "carebears."
I'm not going to speak on the comments of Geko, Borticus or the others as I'm not privy to their comments. Even then they're entitled to their opinion like anyone else.
First off I never referred to modern pvp as subhuman, those are words you have attempted to put in my mouth and are not mine. What I did say was more often than not the pvp scene turns into a cesspool that attracts the wrong people. I stand by that statement as more often than not that's what I've seen happen. Far too many instances of "well you just suck because your rating isn't at X." Then there's the collection of dudes that loved to claim that myself and others weren't real men if we didn't do pvp. Then there's the guy's that pop up out of the blue anytime myself or a couple others post something to youtube or wherever, "this would never last in pvp," even though none of us mentioned pvp. Oh and let's not forget the guy I had known since childhood who I had to stop being friends with after a pvp match in WoW. Myself, his brother, and then him were all a 3s team. We came against another team one night and were simply outplayed. Of course he was having none of that and starts launching into this temper tantrum of a rant about how me and his own brother screwed up, while taking no responsibility himself. When I called him out for talking to us like we were dogs I was basically told "go suck at another game and class" even though I was the last one alive on our side. He and I haven't spoken in years. So I said it usually devolves into a cesspool with actual reasons in mind. That's not always the case, but I hear more negative coming from PVP than I do actual good. I could keep listing the all the bad things I've seen and read about over the years but it would require a further wall of text that would make all the books on Trek combined look like a 2 page essay.
Secondly Cryptic's own data shows not many people play the pvp aspect of the game or get involved with it. This isn't a new development but has been the state of things for years. Cryptic tried to test the waters with Competitive Wargames and it wasn't that well received from everything we've all seen. So with that not being well received and not that many people playing PVP anyways, what exactly is their motivation to include more pvp centric stuff? Why would they invest the time, manpower, and resources to develop it if it won't be used? Beyond that I'm not going to debate the "spoilmark" comment as that's a moot point.
If you've really played as much pvp and especially WoW pvp as you claim, then you should know there is a HUGE difference between actual pvp and ganking. What you described in this second quote is people of a similar level and gear fighting it out. Ganking is someone attacking and repeatedly killing someone else who has a snowball's chance in Grethor of actually fighting back and preventing them from actually getting to play the game. The first is normal and to be expected that teams will go after the biggest threat first. The second is some guy being a tool in the name "world pvp" or whatever they want to call it.
I'm actually a founder in SWTOR and have been there since closed beta. I was one of the few who was killing sith sorcs before they were nerfed, and I was doing it as a tank. SWTOR is a game I know very well. You're right about one thing, we could keep going round and round over some of the details. At the same time there is a major distinction that you've missed.
In your scenario above discussing people fighting it out and meeting objectives, they signed up for that pvp, the person being ganked didn't. The person who is getting ganked had no say in the matter and they had no recourse of action save to log off or pray the person gets tired of it and moves on. The first one is cool as he signed up for it, the second one is not as the gankee has no say or choice.
The big reason WoW did away with the whole pvp, rp/pvp and such server types is because they realized more often than not it wasn't actual pvp, but just people ganking and griefing other folks just because they could. In addition they also gave the folks who want pvp their own instances where others are flagged for pvp, as well as having the ability to queue for pvp battles and such. So I'm not sure where this idea of it having been half baked is coming from.
No one here is gatekeeping. What myself and others have done is explain why the OP's suggestions are likely to not happen. We've explained that Cryptic's own data shows now many play it, and it would be alot of work for something that would see very minimal use. No company is going to expend alot of time, resources, and manpower for something that will see them little to no return on. If you want to call that gatekeeping then that's your opinion.
As to "dwindling playerbase", according to what figures is this playerbase dwindling? I have a feeling I know where you're going to go with that one but I'll see.
Lastly the devs are under no obligation to like pvp in order to be hired or in general, nor are they obligated to do develop anything pvp centric. If they like pvp and want to develop something pvp centric that's cool. If a particular newly hired dev doesn't like pvp that doesn't mean they've been "corrupted" by any stretch of the means. They're not obligated to like pvp like you or someone else might.
Finally I will end my wall o text with this. I don't fault folks for liking pvp or hoping to see stuff added because of that. If that's their cup of tea then more power to them, leave me and the other non-PVPers out of it. If I want to play pvp i will sign up for it or go play something like CoD, Smite, or something else. Otherwise all folks have done is point out why these changes will most likely never happen.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
PvP should be voluntary. Not forced. Not everyone can do PvP. And it shouldn't be used as a carrot on a stick to coax players to get better by letting people who are much stronger have the ability to attack others. That opens the door to harassment and Trolling to a degree we haven't seen in STO. If someone happens to have a vendetta against someone else who is starting out, they will hunt down that player and attack, effectively blocking the victim from progressing because they are constantly respawning. And for the Trolling angle... well... like any MMO we do have certain elements who thrive on causing chaos. While they haven't been as active lately (as far as I am aware) they do exist.
Forced PvP will always get a negative response in STO. Its why the Competative Rep wasn't well accepted. Core Assault forced direct PvP. I personally prefer Twin Tribulations as there is no direct PvP. Just a race to the finish. Problem is... its not as popular so it doesn't pop as often as Core Assault.
STO is casual friendly. Instituting a form of forced PvP will drive away those people who enjoy the casual side of the game.
With that said I stand by my principles. When a game gets narrower in scope it's rarely a good thing imho. A broader scope usually means a greater number of players... a larger community doing a variety of different things with these different choices in no way having any effect on others who've made a different gameplay choice.
Others may celebrate the loss of certain groups. I don't.
Others may engage in what could possibly be described as drama to excess whenever certain topics are brought up... a 'group quench' or 'death by wall of text" so to speak. So be it as it is a forum and people are entitled to their opinions. Not all of us necessarily want to be a part of a collective hive mind though.
I really don't think this is currently the case. It's easy to say though isn't it?
Thanks for sharing your experience with other games.
You don't support something for years, the community leaves, and the numbers support that they've left. The lack of support continues so it's of little wonder that few get involved with it as there's nothing to get involved with. I could expand this trend to other areas of the game but I won't.
Yet many people are enjoying their competitive engines and space sets. Won't go there either.
You've certainly made your stance clear ad nauseam despite the OP suggesting no such thing and after having it pointed out that any references you're rambling about were completely in jest.
The thing is, there are different people with different tastes in the world. And there are games for almost all of them. You want a cozy environment? Play HallelujaDingDongHappyHappy. Forced PvP? There's Bloody Gankfest 2000. Now BG2000 may do better than HDDHH because of that - just more players are into it. But does that mean that HDDHH should take up forced PvP? No, it doesn't necessarily. People who like BG2000 already have that game to play. At the same time, those playing HDDHH will leave in droves because they wanted the game to be as it is.
STO has a 9 year tradition of no forced PvP and even voluntary PvP being more of a side note. If you were to change that and intoduce open world PvP, or "voluntary" PvP with some important rewards not available elsewhere, many of those here will likely be rethinking whether they want to continue this game. Some will like it as an additional layer, some won't mind, but some will. And they will go and it is in my opinion improbable that such a change will bring in new players in large enough quantities to compensate for the loss.
I also don't like the idea of "fleets caring about their prowess" to be number 1. That's not how the fleet I am in works. Sure, you'll get tips, building advice and so on, but in the end if we do a friendly PvP, it doesn't matter if you suck, we're having fun together. There's no need to "git gud" to not draw your team down. STO is not competitive in nature and thus has not created a playerbase which is.
I personally would certainly leave if PvP would be able to be forced on me. I had my experience with the player base in Ker'rat, the first time when the respective tutorial mission is given to you, and let's just say I got ganked and also a good load of toxicity by those doing so.
Another friend will sometimes go in to prove to them that their ganking attacks don't always work. He has a build that can survive those and then turn around and blow them out of space. His accounts of the whining were an amusing read.
I would also not play STO if PvP could be forced upon me. I don't play the game to fight other players, I come to relax and enjoy my style of play.
It may, however, involve Mark of Gideon XP and a Jolly Roger flag
And oddly, it's not the first time I've seen such a suggestion. I've also seen it proposed that Sector Space should be such a free-for-all, and "noobs" should just stick to ESD.
The problem with your logic is that by that standard, anyone advocating for anything would be considered to be forcing their playstyle on another individual. In saying I shouldn't have what you called "absolutist stances" you contradict your own logic. Thus would be forcing your own stance on me, which you basically said I shouldn't be doing to others.
xyquarze pretty much hit the nail on the head. Since the start of the game we've never had forced PVP. Those that want to pvp could sign up for it and have their own parts of the game they could go to. Some folks like it, some folks don't. This has been a core portion of the game from the start and that way it's always been. For those that don't like STO there are other games out there. Per my case I despise the thought of forced pvp and as I said I consider it a cancer to modern gaming. If folks enjoy that sort of thing and want the ability to gank and such then more power to them. Just because one game allows forced pvp does not mean that STO needs to allow it either. If I wanted to play Bloody Gankfest 2000 per the example that we're now using, I would go play BG2000. Per the example, if STO adopted the mechanics of BG2000 then it would cease to be the game I enjoyed playing and would be a knockoff of BG2000.
The thing is we have data on the playerbase for STO. Even when STO did more with pvp it still wasn't used by that many folks. It's been that way for years. With years of data to back it up showing that the general populace of STO doesn't care that much for pvp, why would they put the time, manpower, and resources into creating something that won't give them a return on the investment? Point being we know it wouldn't do well for STO as we've seen by the data and reactions to things like Core Assault. Folks are free to try to convince people to give pvp a try all day long. At the end of the day however folks simply aren't going to play something they don't want to play. The general populace of STO has shown they don't want pvp. If they were to implement something like a forced pvp system, the populace that has no interest in it would leave. For that matter so would I. The data shows that they would lose more people than they would hope to recruit and retain and would not be able to make up for it. Perhaps down the road that might change, but for now the numbers are the numbers.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator