[darknessjw]

double post

[darknessjw]

Originally Posted by Silirrion Possible yes, but that would then be at the expense of PvE content and we have to provide both. Also you have the challenge that adding more maps on a regular basis is not always a good thing, possibly more of a rotation thing (as WAR tried with their instanced PvP) so that you force some variety in and avoid people only using one map. So there would be other considerations there as well.

Not trying to be an ass here i try make constructive post with negative feedback

"we have to provide both" did i read right? I cant believe my eyes . We have to provide both, in 4 years

PvP
- 1 minigame map
- failed bori
- Combat broken, player loss, content loss
- Gear has effect. Content loss, player loss
- Guards to annoy players
PvE
- T2/T3/T4
- Expansion
- 100 dungeons with NM/HM
- Tons of new gear
- Dumbed down combat to help simpler people
- Future plans
- I forgot something, i know it
- Guards to protect them
- AA
RP
- Guild City rp games
- Tons of social gear
- Horse racing
- Dumbed down combat to help simpler people
- Guards to protect their fairy tales

We have to provide both, yeah right

[Misy]

Sil, with all the respect.

From long time, Aoc get 90% PVE and 10% PVP.

No balance between PVP and PVE, and including Crom a lot of players love pvp, so we can see the population.

[-wahaha-]

Originally Posted by silirrion possible yes, but that would then be at the expense of pve content and we have to provide both.

9/10
nice one, Sil

[Vehl]

Originally Posted by Silirrion The 'give purpose / persistence to outdoor PvP' is a huge, complex, and difficult challenge. We all saw how even the best-intentions type attempts, as with the Shrines, falls foul of those challenges, due to the complications that arise from the game not being faction based. That is why in the interim we have focused on the instanced mini-game content. It is easier to do, and is more popular with players.

I wanted to react on this. Sure mini-games are more popular in the sense that you can join them 24/7 even if you don't have much time whereas all outdoor content needs more organisation.
Mini-games are fast-foods, smartly thought open-world content would be haute cuisine !

Both are needed to have a balanced game but currently, pvp-wise, Age of Conan misses more evolved challenges guild related. You might plan to solve this with the faction system you are talking about... It's easier to do with clearly defined factions but it could also be done by encouraging, a lot, guild related challenges and competition i guess.

EDIT: Ah in the meantime, while waiting for more PvP content you could try and see if by giving more power to Game Masters players couldn't organise PvP events with their help. That would be terrific.

[Silirrion]

Apologies if the wording offended anyone, not the intention.

It's the age old content vs system debate.

I don't think we have ever denied that the primary focus for the game has been the PvE content. That is clearly evidenced by the content we have produced. That however doesn't mean we also aren't dedicating some resources towards PvP, just not as many resources as we do creating game-play content. PvP also inherently doesn't require the same amount of resource (or rather a different type of resource) because it as much a system itself as it is a collection of content, so even if we did focus on it evenly, the split would still not be 50/50, and lean more towards 75/25 purely in terms of locations. That is just an aspect of the way PvP functions in the game. It is simply not the same as PvE content production and shouldn't be judged on a directly relatively scale.

So trying to commit to a 'map every six months', as was the context of the original question, would be hard to commit to, and have it work that way (even if, as questioned above, it was actually the right thing to do) due to all of the factors that I've discussed at length in this thread.

Also, committing like that would also reduce the likelihood of other forms of PvP being considered (open world, arena, etc) if the players always expected a new map twice a year regardless. I would rather be more flexible and allow us the room to eventually explore other systems as well.

At a fundamental level of course it touches on what I fully understand is the hot button issue for you guys, and that is that overall priority. That hasn't changed, and PvP is the secondary focus behind the PvE in terms of actual content creation. On the other side of that it is still important to the game (and we are right in the middle of making a ton of changes to help support it better with the revamped sprinting, new multi-specification systems, class changes and integration with the new crafting system), so on one hand it hogs the system work done in most years, but it will likely never have more content produced for it than the pure content creation that is needed to keep up with the PvE demand.

Now, as time goes on, and the game evolves, that changes, you reach a saturation point for content for newcomers and veterans alike. At that juncture you can always focus a little more again on PvP (for example with Anarchy Online we did a PvP focused expansion, Lost Eden, in year five / six), that time will also come for AoC. I think that is a natural life cycle of an MMO title, features and systems become much more attractive once you have reached a good saturation of game-play content.

It might be that it's a similar cycle for AoC and we will start to focus much more on those kind of supportive systems in the coming years. As I have mentioned in this thread, there are lots of intriguing possibilities, from the Faction systems, through revamping sieges, to a full on Arena system. The beauty of the MMO life cycle is that what was once not possible, can often become possible a little later down the line.

[Touchii]

@ Craig, let me say it diffrent, why not one map each year? I know that the main focus is pve, but come on I mean one lousy map each year with objectives, like the call.

[tafale]

Originally Posted by Silirrion Possible yes, but that would then be at the expense of PvE content and we have to provide both. Also you have the challenge that adding more maps on a regular basis is not always a good thing, possibly more of a rotation thing (as WAR tried with their instanced PvP) so that you force some variety in and avoid people only using one map. So there would be other considerations there as well.

There is nothing wrong with prioritizing pvp a lot more, even making pvp by far the most important topic the next 10 months would be great (free pvp adventure pack instead later this year but that is too late now). Like pvp factions, making T1 lvl 0 and "free", more gear, bori revamp, arena, etc. would be huge upgrade pvp wise and would also bring back a lot of old pvp guys.

We already have a lot of pve content and the last two T4 bosses will take several months to crack and farm (everyone in raid getting 2+ main pieces). All that would be needed for the PvE crowd would be a bit of new insignificant new AAs and some new and good Khitai pieces (not armour sets) you can buy from the same old factions in a few months.

Three T4.5 bosses (complete and new set) could in return be released in Q2 2013 and release a few T5 bosses at the end of 2013 and a big pve adventure pack (between Turan and Khitai in size: two playfields, six instances and four factions) would suffice.

[Sidar]

@Sill

Thank so much for replying, sometimes the engaged player gets off as aggressive its very impressive that we know, we are heard nonetheless.

Its very easy to demand and criticise,(as you must know), and its fairy brave of you to reply to that in such a elegant manner

I am here however just to give my little piece of input, I believe that Age of Conan has the possibility to Hold the Absolute best pvp game play of ANY MMO out there. However due to some BORIng content and the sign-ups change, the most vital part of any healthy pvp as gone missing, the team-play.

I know that Funcom has other priorities, however My suggestion is simple:

• Make Weekly ladder for teamsignups (premades). Guildbased ofc.
• Make Weekly ladder for teamsignups per player.
• Make Daily quests for teamsignups with conquest trophies rewards (bypass bori).

The minigame point system is already in place, its works for Siege attacking rights, I have all the confidence in Funcom to copy and adjust something that already exists.
This I believe would Make guilds/teams fight for bragging rights. the dedication/time spent in pvp, guild OR player based, would be visible in a much cleared way compared to Glory.

In conclusion

Tier4 bosses comming out,tons of pve, some new epics (you should do more of this tbh, Wis based dmg ring anyone ?), I believe its time to dedicate sometime to a sustainable PVP system.

Also would like to give your developing guys a challenge, And I know ALOT will hate this. You wrote on Monthly that in a new expansion you are considering building a new mini map ?
My challenge to you is this:
Try and replicate a MOBA environment teamplay. players start with zero, have to earn money, destroy/capture objectives. Something different.

wanted to be short and concise, and this is what happens.... oh well

[Sidar]

Originally Posted by Touchii @ Craig, let me say it diffrent, why not one map each year? I know that the main focus is pve, but come on I mean one lousy map each year with objectives, like the call.

More maps just create more problems due to population, people (i think) really dont care about maps, PVP ? its all about recognition and bragging This is what matters.