Okay, so as I've been surfing the Suggestions forum today, I've realized, we really need to get around to one of the most important, and apparently missing aspects of the game, the Itani/Serconian Conflict.

A lot of players have said that this conflict should be a defining part of the gameplay, and the idea of this eventually entering play has become a central part of suggestions, from ships, to systems to stations.

FOR MORE DETAILS: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/8/18178#227298
I propose that we visit the idea of starting an NPC based war between the Itanis and the Serconians.
Already in game, the sectors are marked as Guarded and on the Navigation window sectors are marked as though the war is an actual occurance in space.

Since players want to see combat, I propose an entire series of new missions, based in an NPC war-zone, and once CapShips are working, introduce them into an NPC Fleet and let the ships fight each other.
The new missions would put players in the field leading combat wings of their nation into battle with objectives to destroy certain targets, or run certain cargoes through the warzone for Intelligence Purposes.
Example: "Lead Attack on Itani cruiser "Fury"
Breifing: "You will lead an attack wing of Vultures against the Itani cruiser Fury in (whatever system/sector) and destroy it. Then return to base, we will have more work for you."

The cruisers and other capships introduced into the game could have NPC turrets, to allow a more combat oriented fight, and once fully integrated, full capital ship battles. Players could still board Capships and operate turrets, but in the absence of players, NPC's would allow the ship to fight back at least.

The number of successful missions, as well as the number of destroyed enemy ships and capships could be kept in a running tally (similar to the old Capture the Flag tally), and it would be used as a marker of which side was "winning" the war.
One Example:
---------------------------------------------------------
---------Total Losses--Ships Lost--Capships Lost----Kills
Serco:......200.......178.............22...........149
Itani:......150.......139.............11...........195
UIT:.........12........12..............0.............6
---------------------------------------------------------

I think that putting the war into the game in a tangible way will improve the feedback on the game, and really put a reason for players to bother fighting their way up the licenses to the best equipment possible. The war would also act as a catalyst to a whole series of new improvements to the game.

What'd I Miss?
--------------
Mission Ideas So Far:
-Lead Strike
--Aim to destroy an enemy nation capital ship
--Aim to destroy an enemy nation fighter group
--Aim to destroy an enemy supply convoy
-Defend Against
--Defend & Destroy against a certain enemy capital ship
--Defend & Destroy against a certain number of enemy fighters
-Retrieve Intelligence Data
--Fly behind enemy lines and scan certain ships
--Fly behind enemy lines land on a station and retrieve cargo
-Fly Support
--Escort war supply convoy to frontlines
--Escort war supply convoy to <Nation> (UIT Mission Only)

Invisioned Fleet Design:
-Capital Ship(s)
--Vulture/Warthog Fighters (docked and deployed?)
-Supply Ships (Moths/Centaurs)
-Support Ships (Valkyries/Prometheus, Rags)
---------------------------------------------
Presently, the UIT faction would be handicapped as a nation in the combat/defense action, but individual players, depending on their standing could choose to support a side. Perhaps earning points for escorting certain war supply convoys across the UIT/<nation> border, and with the right standing, engage in Combat/Defense actions as well.

sounds like border skirmish with a point

you know that you can board an man turrets on cappies already?

Roger that Spuck, but the problem is that cappies can't fight unless they're manned. I ran into a hostile UIT one yesterday and basically cozied up next to it for about 15 minutes.
I think cappies need to fire back no matter what, otherwise, whats the point? There's rarely enough players online to fully man 2 capital ships and still leave a fighter force in play.

And while it might exist mainly as a large scale border skirmish, grey-space could become a warzone, and Itani and Serco could always launch raids deep inside the others space, making actual invasionary moves, so the war isn't just some out of the way skirmish, but an actual war.

that's strange. they usually fire automatically at everything that's hostile. are you actually hated by uit? ..or did you just shoot at it and it turned red.

if you haven't already try border skirmish in geira... it really seems to be a simple version of what you describe and the other cappies definitely fired at me last time I did it.

Im neutral with UIT (+12) and the ship was already red when I entered system, but it had recently been under fire, as the turrets were damaged, I dunno.

Another idea I thought of shortly after I posted the original thread is an extension of the idea of raiding.
Stations in sectors that were invaded can be turned "off" for a certain period of time due to "battle damage".
During this "off" time, ships would be unable to dock at the station, and the station could broadcast a destress call.
Ships set to "home" at the station would be reset, temporarily to either the nearest inhabited allied system, or to the faction home system. (Applied for KIA'd pilots)
To avoid the problem of players being unable to launch, the station will work one way, allowing ships to undock and "flee" but not able to land. (Applied to players just logging in)

Stations could also be set to turn off a certain number of docking ports, leaving only one or two on. This would give the image of severe damage to the station (smoke effects could also be used perhaps?) but still the leave the station active.

The station would be set as off for perhaps an hour, during which it would conduct "repairs" and broadcast "This is station <x>. We have suffered severe damage in an enemy attack. Currently conducting repairs, please return later."

To further give the allusion of war (and just to add some complexity to this idea) if a station were turned "off", an allied nation Support Fleet could arrive to assist in life-saving measures or whathaveyou, allowing allied ships that absolutely need to dock, for repairs or the like, to dock for basic service needs.

I suggest you "put your money where your mouth is", and join the PCC. You would be surprised at the number of war missions in development.

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/20

One of the big issues, is that Deneb needs to be re factored into a war zone. For PCC developers, this is currently a wait and see issue that Incarnate has mentioned it being addressed in the faction rework thread.

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/15706#198265

Mad_Max reporting for duty.

Love the idea Psyra, but I have practically no designing talent, only the idea making ability.
So, I'd be happy to make idea contributions, but I'll leave the deep stuff to people that know what they're doing and won't foul it up.

Oh, and the first link you published is a limited access link that I (and I suspect anyone not in PCC) cannot activate. I'm interested to see the combat missions enter the game when they're fully prepared though.

There's a thead somewhere for PCC ideas that aren't in the making. Probably in the PCC forum. I'll go check. But yes, the war between Itani and Serco is not to be entered into lightly. Alot of coolness can be shaved off if done incorrectly. Considering the backstory, it sounds like the Itani have a mainly defensive stance. There's mention of the Goliath cannons which are immobile, but blast the heck out of incoming Cappies. On the Serco side, they've developed huge carrier technology, capable of excursions into enemy territory. The Serco are far more likely to raid than the Itani, and truthfully I don't think the Itani would ever find it in them to enter Serco territory with the intent to kill.

The Akanese however, a splinter group from the Itani are a different story. Aggressive tactics is right up their alley, and in fact they've nuked the Serco Capital before. But the Akanese aren't even in the game yet, and nobody really knows anything about them, except they're mysterious, a bunch of badasses, and wear black.

So if done right, with accordance the already incredible backstory, and maybe with a few gameplay changes such as capturing stations, there could be something really cool on hand. Otherwise we could have pepped up version of Border Skirmish, yeah. I would like to see the former soon and the latter soon(tm).

One thing we could enter as an idea to Itani raiders is the idea of creating certain dedicated squadrons inside each military, controlled largely by NPCs to utilize the backstory appropriately.

Creating certain squadrons or factions inside the nation (by faction I do not mean an actual FACTION like TPG, Corvus, etc), that would work in a way similar to their backstory characters.

I agree that the implementation of the Itan/Serco war could go very wrong if it's not treated with the utmost respect in design and care to agree with the backstory.
The one idea that has been suggested before that I'm not entirely sure about is the idea of captureable stations.

Stations are critical in the war, granted, but there is presently no way to really defend a station, relegating the capture/recapture idea to a slugfest.
I'd like to see some sort of "control point" style method of capturing a station. Perhaps placing certain points (similar to wormhole points now) that would have to be held all at once to successfully capture a station. This would allow for effective defense/offense play for the station.
Im just not too sure how station captures could really work well into a largely ship based space game.

Oh the Devs have mentioned capturable stations. I feel certain they've got some sweet ideas alright. The fact that you've been able to deduce already some of the ideas they've had just from playing the game and thinking what would be cool shows that Vendetta's on the right track.

This is a 5-page (print) summary of the ideas expressed thus far. Please check it out. It covers everything, and several ideas each, and it's a lot easier to read as it covers one concept at a time instead of jumping around.

http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/8/18178#227298

From Pyroman_Ace

"Love the idea Psyra, but I have practically no designing talent, only the idea making ability.
So, I'd be happy to make idea contributions, but I'll leave the deep stuff to people that know what they're doing and won't foul it up."

There really is no "deep stuff" in the mission editor. The PCC basically has a web interface that handles all the event, trigger, objectives, etc. We don't get into code at all. Not even open LUA plugins, because that would require patches to the main game so all players had the plugin code, massive testing on multiple levels, and therefore much more Incarnate time spent on mission approval. Basically the mission editor lets us try to tell a story within the confines of the VO universe.

What holds things up is editor/game limitations, and the fact that every mission that makes the final cut, goes through several re-writes after Incarnate critiques them. I myself have at least a dozen mission under development that ran into mission editor limitations that could not be worked around. They wait for the upgrades that we all know are coming.

This again is exasperated by the limited time he has to dedicate to each task in running the company. My own mission that is under review is on iteration 3, and has been in review for almost a month now. I would also call this mission very basic, and not as complex as some of the others I have planned.

From the changes made over the last two weeks to the mission editor (they are very substantial), and the fact that all the new missions he has put in use recently, (Ultra light, widow maker) use this tool rather than some of the deeper level things he certainly could do, indicates that the goal of getting more PCC content in game is high on the list.

The simple fact of the matter is that everyone who joins the PCC has their own mission ideas. Most of us are not looking for an idea man. We have to spend hours and hours on building and testing our missions, and I am certain that none of us would spend that kind of time on an idea that was not our own, or was not incredibly unique and engaging.

Occasionally we attempt to coordinate specific missions, but for the most part its very lone wolfish right now. I suspect that once the changes to FF and Deneb are made, we may see more War mission co-ordination, but for now the limitations of the mission management functionality keep us from working effectively together.

Not sure how to close this, other than with the same thing I said before. If you want to see things in this game, "put your money where your mouth is".

How old is that summary? The original frigate was mainly geared with anti-fighter weaponry, i.e laz0rs, and then later gatling. Now it's the Heavy Assault Cruiser, and comes with a figher bay and those extra big gauss cannons. The TPG frigate on the other hand is brimming with neuts and gatling, what I'd call anti-fighter weaponry. Then it has those hellfire rockets which do a hell of a job taking down other Caps. It's a solid ship, barring the fact that a fighter with stingrays can take down most of it's turrets in a couple of passes. But I can't recall any frigate that had poor anti-fighter guns unless you're calling the current HAC by its old name.

Additionally, what would make the war really kick off isn't a bunch of contrived single player missions handled by a random number generator, that would magically invent ships for its purpose.

The ships should come from somewhere, either taking time, or resources, or *something*. There needs to be some way to commit enough violence on the other side to where they have less ships available than otherwise, or else it'll be a very slow war. The missions ought to articulate with the other side, as Border Skirmish sort of does. As in, if the Serco decide to launch a sortie against the Itani, once/if its detected an Itani mission will pop up to defend. That sort of thing would require more functionality in the mission editor. But most of all the war needs some sort of purpose, and hopefully a derived purpose. Whether it's capturing stations, resources, or a tactical position, there needs to be some reason why your nation would decide to divide up its forces other than to satisfy the playerbase's boredom.

(Also, I'd like an idea man. That one about scouting for an enemy attack fleet makes me happy, and I want to try to make a mission out of that sometime.)

The summary I just drew up last night based on my own thoughts and other ideas that had been expressed by players both on this thread and others about what they'd like to see and how it would fit into a war.
Relating to the Frigate/Heavy Assault Cruiser, I was looking at it in it's current version (but using the old name) with the heavy weapons aboard, and based on it's weaponry and size, it would be hard to really introduce ships larger than that and see them actually do battle as fleets.
By preserving the basic size classifications from smallest to largest (Corvette, Frigate, Cruiser, Battleship/Carrier) it would prevent these ultra-massive ships from clogging an entire sector.

And I agree that there should be some manner of resource loss or something when military assets of a nation are destroyed. The idea to have the ships simply "appear" was drawn from the current appearance of NPC mining drones in game. Once destroyed they will be replaced by new drones warping in.

One thing though is that the war should not be able to be lost really. Based on the backstory and the needs of the game, this war has lasted a very long time, and there's really no end in sight. Additionally, if a particular side was allowed to win the war in game, it could have a negative effect on the universe by eliminating a side, dropping the primary nations to 2 which the Devs and players will both not-go for.
Because we can't have an actual win/lose war, and still conform to everything, thats were the old CTF scoreboard comes in. Instead of it being a single campaign, the scoreboard would keep a running tally for a set period of time, or simply an ever-running tally of losses and kills to give an allusion of winning or losing. (More Kills & Less Deaths = Winning)

I agree that the game should eventually have a Attack/Counter-Attack style activation, where a mission will popup to defend against a player from an assault mission.
For now what I thought would be easier to start with would be the same idea as from the "recon/spy" missions, where the mission would utilize already existing ships in the system, or create extra ships in the target system acting as defenders. The number of defenders would depend on the type and relative difficulty of the mission, and the defenders would have to be defeated or attackers killed. Eventually though player vs player led combat missions would be very interesting to have.

Relating to your mention of not using a random number generator to create ships for the sides, and instead using a "place", I think I have an idea about how you could combine both weakening a nation's production, and this idea.
-If a nation's fighter craft were to come from the "Barracks" stations, with each station having a set number of fighters it can produce per hour, then there would be a finite number of ships in space. Additionally, if stations were capturable, then the production of fighters for these stations would be turned to the current owner. For example, if SkyCommand can produce 18 Vultures, 12 Centurions, and 8 Warthogs per hour for the Serco Military, and SkyCommand is then captured by the Itani, then those 38 fighters being produced are instead Itani owned fighters, rather than Serconian.
Each station could produce a different number based on station size, military significance, whatever.
Making the stations do this could be difficult to work in though, and it's reliant on the ability to capture stations.

Capital ships it seems come primarily from UIT yards, and some are assembled by each nation. If actual shipyard designs were made and introduced, that could allow for the "destruction" of shipyards (turning them off for a set time period, or until they are recaptured) and each shipyard could turn out a certain number of capitals per hour, based on the same requirements as a station turning out fighters.

The primary drawback to this is that once a fleet is destroyed, it's destroyed until the time frame passes, so missions relating to the destruction of capital ships would need to be based on the number of enemy capital ships or fighters remaining. OR the missions could create NPC variants in an out of the way, uninhabited sectors, and the NPCs would be trapped there, not governed by a "War NPC" Brain.

Relating to your method of drawing up ships to be created for each side, I can do you one better.

Every item in the universe would inevitably somewhere along the line come from raw ore. Miners would mine the stuff, traders would ship it, and the right factories would fabricate a series of increasingly complex widgets, one day ending up as your ship and equipment. That's where VO is headed, if I remember the details right. It's not for lack of ideas that it's not there yet. I say join the PCC, you. Turn your energy into something corporeal.

If one were interested in becoming involved in PCC, how would one go about that?

Pyroman, my entire PCC development work has been centered around developing the Serco/Itani war story. I've got several missions from the Itani standpoint, and PsyRa has done several from the Serco standpoint, from what I've heard.

But yeah, lots of effort has gone into this, and we're just waiting to see what the "powers that be" have to offer.

You can get more information about joining the PCC here (i guess, i know it's somewhere around here).