Pvp Additions.

[Felken]

I recall participating in PVP in odd places like bespin, at a spot we called the Alamo, and at theed palace. One faction would take up defensive positions while the other would attack. Thinking about that had me think it would be cool to add in temporary structures. Things bought with faction and used in open world pvp away from faction bases.

For example, a defensive turret. More along the lines of a small gatling gun, it would be on its own stronger than any handheld weapon but perhaps not as strong as a base turret. It could be weak versus rocket launchers in particular to add some stratagem.

Portable walls as well, low walls to keep people at range, they can be shot down/melee'd but again have a weakness to rocket launchers, because it makes sense.

And of course faction flags. I would recommend they be bought with faction points, come as a schematic to various professions providing them with new content too. And as an extra thought 'cortosis-weave embankment' a super expensive schematic for a portable wall that has lightsaber resistance. Perhaps for that one a new mining material that's rare, cortosis. I think with these things added in it would help provide pvp anywhere and enhance that game style.

Also, these things should disappear once the person who placed them logged off so we don't get clutter or trolls in major cities.

Thoughts?

[beowulfchauffeur]

I don't really see the value of adding these types of things, just broadly speaking. Base turrets are already little more than a nuisance most of the time, and place-anywhere walls would probably get used more for trolling and griefing than anything else - but if they were placed using the same grid placement that harvesters and houses use, and were slightly smaller than the grid space they occupied, I wouldn't see much problem.

These type of structures definitely shouldn't be placeable in NPC cities. There's a good reason you can't place harvesters and houses within an NPC city's limits. Aside from that point, I don't really see any particular downside to adding this type of thing, but I also don't really much see the point.

[AScic1]

In the NGE they actually made pvp fun by introducing city control sieges. The defending faction would have artisans that crafted packs to give to the players (this counted for the artisans gcw score) and they could use the the packs to build walls and turrets in specified places on the ground. The attacking faction would take the same kind of packs from their artisans to build siege vehicles like an AT ST.

This event only lasted for 30-45 mins and rotated around the galaxy every two hours or so that any one city wasnt completely inaccessible throughout the day. But it was a very fun way to introduce an objective to pvp instead of mindless ganking and death squads.

[Felken]

Seems fun, I think I had quit nge before that happened. I was considering a similar thing though.

What if we added pvp weeks? Every week a different major city becomes contested with objectives for control. For example: Theed becomes contested and is imperially aligned, the rebels will complete objectives to take it over while the imps have counter objectives. Let's say to control the star port the rebels must assassinate a very high level very tough imperial leader. 5hey they must slice the terminals and biolocks and all that other good stuff they do in base assaults to lock the imps out of the system. The rebels would now control the star port receiving npcs for support and of course flags, while the imperial would maintain the rest of the city including the palace.

To counter this the imps might have the objective to slay x rebel special forces and prevent the capture of the star port, once the port is lost the imps would gain the objective to recapture the port. So on and so forth with more important structures in the city. It would go until the end of week whereupon the side who holds the entire city wins, or if neither has full control then whoever completed the most objectives wins. The city would become that factions until it becomes contested again and the other side can wrest control away. It adds the galactic back into the gcw.

Importantly the battle should not hinder not pvp enabled players, the cantina and med center should be untouched, with no part of the city shutdown or destroyed.

I also think special quartermasters to each city could be fun to consider. So that when Mos Eisley is contested each side receives a quarter master that sells schems for new armor sandtrooper armor and others (please think of a less cliche name) perhaps new skins for current weapons that be crafted by ws.

Just a thought to bring the gcw back up to speed without bring restuss back as has been said, I think we take the rest us idea and adapt it to something better.

[Anlbrd]

I think if the PVP events DID impact on all players, including non-aligned/covert non-PVP players it would still be fine. So long as interplanetary travel wasn't taken out for more than an hour at a time or not taken out at all - losing access to those individual cities would be a minor inconvenience at best anyway.

[Felken]

I'd leave the intergalactic travel functioning. At the most extreme the side in charge during the conflict could do security screens on everyone who lands there to make it impactful on who controls it. But if not that I wouldn't think the star port needs to be shut down