Gear won't matter anymore?

[Monkeyy]

Are you having fun?
If not, the time is wasted.
If yes, the time isn't.

If one is playing a game for any other reason than having a good time, one needs to rewire ones priorities.

Its not really that simple.

I go to gym to look good. I dont really have fun but it feels good. I will have a better chance of scoring a nice looking girl. If it turned out that girls dont like guys with muscles I would not continue my subscription at the gym.

[Hedge]

The "unchained" minis should have the old queuing system, i.e. you can sign as a team, so you can play with friends. If someone gets farmed then, it is not because of gear but only because of skill (and teamplay).

On top of that people need some motivation like extra outfit, stats, etc.

I'm hoping for the "right" implementation of the unchained minis. And then I am actually looking forward to it!

[Rathothis]

And what now? You give people another easy way to play minis. No more raiding, Khitai or minis itself (or even digging!) are required. Cool! There is SO MUCH MOTIVATION around Hyboria for PvP. Why would anyone care about PvP levels and PvP gear turning into pumpkins? Oh wait... farming PvP levels and gear WAS almost the only motivation for PvP in Hyboria... That awkward moment when you realize that your lead PvP designer is a retard...

Wait, did you just argue that (i) all of FC's design choices making pvp a grindfest are bad, but that (ii) making pvp less of a grindfest would also be bad?

Truth is, some people who are competitive only because they have grinded would probably be unhappy with the new, optional "Unchained" queue.

On the other hand, the new system would benefit
(i) hardcore PvPers who view PvP as something like an esports competition;
(ii) casual players who'd like to engage in pvp now and then, but don't want to invest the time which is currently required to become competitive;
(iii) new and returning players who (irrespective of whether they are "hardcore" or "casual") face a very significant gear / AA gap as things stand now.

It's a tough choice, I know

[Rathothis]

Its not really that simple.

I go to gym to look good. I dont really have fun but it feels good. I will have a better chance of scoring a nice looking girl. If it turned out that girls dont like guys with muscles I would not continue my subscription at the gym.

It probably doesn't make sense to look at time spent in an MMO with hindsight since there will always have been better things that you could have done with your time.

You could have spent that time on your job or education to earn more money. You could have spent that time looking for a nice lady, or doing something nice with her if you have already found her.

The bottom line is... if you're not enjoying a game while you are playing it, slap yourself in the face and stop.

[Cromathaar]

Well removing any sense of other rewards to not be exploited by teams farming one another killed tournament mode.Yes,Fun is top priority but people also want to get a sense of progression along the way.

Tournament mode with no ranking,no gear to get and the tokens to be farmed to buy the pvp gear were just the worst combination possible...

The problem is that there's totally *no* PvP content in the game that one can play with 1-3 friends except Bori. Bori in its turn is not really a PvP content, it's mining content.

As I said above we *do* live with all those changes somehow. But how does *this* change help? Instead of separating 80s minis in several brackets according to PvP level (at least two: 1-3 and 4-10) easing newcomers' life greatly, Funcom is making very strange and very arguable decisions which definitely will lessen current imgame population (many already talk about leaving AoC forever after Unchained minis get live).

I'd like to remind that AoC was positioned to be PvP-oriented game back in 2008 and over 1 million boxes were bought by players. Now thanks to Mr. Morisson it's one of the most PvE-oriented games around (even WoW is more PvP oriented with all these arenas, competitions and a great variety of battlegrounds) and number of subscribers is rediculous compared even to LotRO.

What Mr. Bylos wants to achieve, as I see it, is another merge of last two PvP servers with Crom (EU region). That's how FC is going to achieve this "single-server" feature.

[Cromathaar]

Wait, did you just argue that (i) all of FC's design choices making pvp a grindfest are bad, but that (ii) making pvp less of a grindfest would also be bad?

Truth is, some people who are competitive only because they have grinded would probably be unhappy with the new, optional "Unchained" queue.

On the other hand, the new system would benefit
(i) hardcore PvPers who view PvP as something like an esports competition;
(ii) casual players who'd like to engage in pvp now and then, but don't want to invest the time which is currently required to become competitive;
(iii) new and returning players who (irrespective of whether they are "hardcore" or "casual") face a very significant gear / AA gap as things stand now.

It's a tough choice, I know

Wow, that would be a great sport when you have 3 "casuals" and 2 "returning players" in your team. What you should understand is that it's totally not about sport. It's about easing life of "casuals" and "returners". But why the hell is their life being eased on account of more experienced players? They are not "veterans" just because they look at Conan's poster on a wall for three hours a day. They play, they spend their time, they improve their skills (human skills like understanding of the game, reaction, etc.), they pay their money for subscription, so on. And one day a new GD comes and says that those last loyal AoC supporters spent their time and money for nothing? It's MMO - who plays more gets more. If you want "all-equal" gameplay buy Forge or any other session-based game.

Again, I'm not against unchained minis themselves. I'm against removing almost the only meaningful PvP content from the game (even if it is a grindfest, grindfest is better than nothing, agree?) without giving a better ot at least equal alternative. PvP levels are stupid, PvP gear is stupid, even minis are stupid, but it's the last stronghold this game has left in case of meaningful PvP.

Be a realist, how long will you wait for ppl to sign up for minis if there would be not only 6 maps but also two modes for each of them? Especially when no "casual" or "returner" or "slacker" would sign up for a classic mini 'cause they would have much better chances in unchained. Classic minis will die as fast as group-based minis did after FC has released so called "tournament" mode.

[Rathothis]

As I said above we *do* live with all those changes somehow. But how does *this* change help? Instead of separating 80s minis in several brackets according to PvP level (at least two: 1-3 and 4-10) easing newcomers' life greatly, Funcom is making very strange and very arguable decisions which definitely will lessen current imgame population (many already talk about leaving AoC forever after Unchained minis get live).

A few people have been threatening to leave because of latency issues if FC goes for cross-atlantic server infrastructure hosted in the US. By contrast, the feedback on the Unchained queue has been quite positive.

Also, Joel's plan is not so different from the queue separation which you are proposing, and which has been discussed at length in these forums. Two points:

(i) Both a split by pvp level and a split between "regular" and "Unchained" minis could lead to longer wait times for minigames. But compared to a fixed system where people may only sign up for the pvp level bracket which their toon forms part of, this risk is lower with Joel's system as it allows players to choose between queues.

(ii) Joel's system also makes more sense in terms of levelling the playing field. It's not hard to imagine full T4, but low pvp level soldiers and casters farming new / casual players in case a split by PvP level is implemented. Given the immense gear gap in PvE, a mere split by PvP level just doesn't do the trick.

So the choice between these options is rather simple, and Joel's "Unchained" mode wins on every count.

[Cromathaar]

A few people have been threatening to leave because of latency issues if FC goes for cross-atlantic server infrastructure hosted in the US. By contrast, the feedback on the Unchained queue has been quite positive.

Also, Joel's plan is not so different from the queue separation which you are proposing, and which has been discussed at length in these forums. Two points:

(i) Both a split by pvp level and a split between "regular" and "Unchained" minis could lead to longer wait times for minigames. But compared to a fixed system where people may only sign up for the pvp level bracket which their toon forms part of, this risk is lower with Joel's system as it allows players to choose between queues.

(ii) Joel's system also makes more sense in terms of levelling the playing field. It's not hard to imagine full T4, but low pvp level soldiers and casters farming new / casual players in case a split by PvP level is implemented. Given the immense gear gap in PvE, a mere split by PvP level just doesn't do the trick.

So the choice between these options is rather simple, and Joel's "Unchained" mode wins on every count.

There's always a person on the forums who always says that every FC's decision wins on every count. The result is clearly seen even without binoculars: servers are merged and merged and merged, people do leave and leave and leave. Or will you maybe tell us about other 24 secret AoC servers where thousands of satisfied people play?

[Rathothis]

I'm against removing almost the only meaningdul PvP content from the game (even if it is grindfest, grindfest is better than nothing, agree?) without giving a better ot at least equal alternative. PvP levels are stupid, PvP gear is stupid, even minis are stupid, but it's the last stronghold this game has left in case of meaningful PvP.

I don't agree that a grindfest is better than nothing. If I can choose between a grindfest and a level playing field, I will choose the latter.

Also, neither of those two models is "content". Content is something that gives PvP structure and meaning. Examples are a ranked arena system, a PvP factions system, a (minigame or open world) map with a set objective, e.g. capture the flag, last man standing, zone control, etc etc.

All of this content can be implemented both in grind-focused games and in games trying to provide for a level playing field. The choice between those two models really just comes down to player motivation. But if you think that grinding will keep players happy and motivated, why do you bash Funcom for the design decisions they took during Craig's "reign"?

There's always a person on the forums who always says that every FC's decision wins on every count. The result is clearly seen even without binoculars: servers are merged and merged and merged, people do leave and leave and leave. Or will you maybe tell us about other 24 secret AoC servers where thousands of satisfied people play?

I have been rather critical of many decisions taken by Funcom but this one I just happen to like. Some of Joel's other plans are a lot more ambivalent (e.g. the decision to merge servers). Happy now? Ahh but no, you didn't really want to have a rational discussion anyway, otherwise you would have bothered to come up with actual arguments...

[Cromathaar]

I don't agree that a grindfest is better than nothing. If I can choose between a grindfest and a level playing field, I will choose the latter.

Grindfest is any MMO's core even if it is masked. Are you against tons of quests that you had to do until you reached level 80 and still have to do after? Are you against of continuous raiding in order to get an item set? Are you against dungeons, bosses, maybe experience itself? You should play another type of games then. A single-player Conan maybe?

It's not really my priority to spend my time in arguing to a person who doesn't really understand wthat game he is playing and what fundamental rules and laws form a basement of the genre. No offence.