Game Director Letter – March 2014 Discussion

[xiulo88]

We hope to be able to run some focused tests of these events on the Test Live server sometime in the not too distant future.

I love this lvl of precision "not too distant future",could be one month or 3 years. But still, thanks for let us now there is someone doing something.

PD: Does this post mean that Cetriss and crafting is in the distant future?

[-tomhet-]

new pvp content once per month on Crom or daily on Fury...no, you know what, some just *might* want to go back to Fury

i play all aspects of this game, crafting, dungeons, solo play, raids, group pvp(sieges & minigames), pvp duels.

does it make sense in current days to have separated low population on all servers or have one server wich allows access to all players to all content.

its ofc a rethoric question and in my view the answear is obviously one single server with epic revamped to pvp mode with slight adjustments:

.pvp mode only accessible to premium members, main justification all the non paying pvp players.

.pvp daily hunting player quests on these zones

.lvl80 exclusive zones to end the stupid criminal system and remove all guards from game and make pvp endgame content

.zones should work like border kingdoms, on dying you can choose all the available rez points, restricted exit points and no access to using paths/teleports, body parts/pyre system, no guards anywhere, no local travelers and no dungeon doors( so people cant fight near entrances and enter to avoid a death).

.only access to zone is by npc's at hub cities and when using any teleport you will zone into normal(pve) zone


it simply makes no sense to have separated server anymore specialy with the extreme low population of fury&rage, right now the bulk of pvp players in this game is on crom pve server, so given that give at least 1 repeatable daily quest for border kingdoms.

[Kurt2013]

i play all aspects of this game, crafting, dungeons, solo play, raids, group pvp(sieges & minigames), pvp duels.

does it make sense in current days to have separated low population on all servers or have one server wich allows access to all players to all content.

I think this was the idea behind "one server tech", but i don't think they did intend it to work out so literally...

.pvp mode only accessible to premium members, main justification all the non paying pvp players.

Strong no, until you can permanently unlock zones accountwide for a reasonable price. There will be always the same or no people to "hunt" or play with this way. Unless you all of the sudden make open pvp VERY attractive, especially for the loosing side.

.pvp daily hunting player quests on these zones

.lvl80 exclusive zones to end the stupid criminal system and remove all guards from game and make pvp endgame content

.zones should work like border kingdoms, on dying you can choose all the available rez points, restricted exit points and no access to using paths/teleports, body parts/pyre system, no guards anywhere, no local travelers and no dungeon doors( so people cant fight near entrances and enter to avoid a death).

.only access to zone is by npc's at hub cities and when using any teleport you will zone into normal(pve) zone

these sound doable, i miss the "choose ress" after a pvp kill everyone had in 2009. Still there should be more incentives to play there than just those you listed. For example:
- pvers should have an incentive to go there and quest with risk, rewards could be listed to players active in the zone (so no one can abuse the system easily). Or special ingredients or rewards could only be gained in pvp zones.
- there could be changeable rules to each zone and faction camps or objectives. This could be changed every month and represent state of war, insurgency, hidden ops etc. to make the world feel more alive (and again give pvers a reason to be there too)
- there needs to be a renown/consequence system and a lot of more stats (visible or not, maybe dependand on factions etc.).
- the whole pvp system should be evaluated, with the current latency in mind. Including answers to questions like learning curve, grind, power progression curve and balance. Combat formulas, Hitboxes, speed buffs, oneshotting, exploits and cheats need to be looked at to make pvp fun for all, too.
- the achievement system you mentioned in another thread could work very well with such a change, too

So actually quite a list, imo. And the less they do, the longer it will get and the harder to do
But on a positive side, you can add these points step by step and think many of them out IN THEORY before you start messing with code or bother the programmers.

[Phil77]

Strong no, until you can permanently unlock zones accountwide for a reasonable price. There will be always the same or no people to "hunt" or play with this way. Unless you all of the sudden make open pvp VERY attractive, especially for the loosing side.

there is this thing called subscription. gives you access to everything. everything unlocked.
why should pvp'ers play for free and pve'ers carry all the weight?

[Kurt2013]

Because it isn't so. Even now you either need to HAVE BEEN subbed or have to pay a lot of real life money to be even competetive in pvp. And most don't pvp all the time, many want to do some pve on the side as well...and here all can profit from population (f2p or sub).

A pure f2p can not troll global, he can not follow victims everywhere, he has no logistics without vetran paths, he has access to less gear combinations etc. etc.. He could in theory grind Bori gear and pvp levels, but then he still would have to grind a lot and not do pvp successfully (even with a flavor of the month class, his kd and winloss ratio in minis will be bad). Even then he would still lack the AAs. In this i assumed someone never paying anything to funcom, as soon as you buy RotGs, sub a month and then go f2p, buy Turan or shop items, you are a paying customer in my eyes.

But i wanted to add another NO: Taking rights away from one (or two) whole server types would be really really stupid. If you go for normal pve, epic pve, normal pvp and epic pvp as standard options, you could make the epic zones premium only.
Still you should offer reasonable permanent unlocks, because else you throw away a huge advantage of the f2p model in the garbage bin and loose out on profit.

Otherwise i agree. This discrepancy is just not solved by strengthening sub or limiting or removing content from f2p, but rather making the f2p model more attractive and giving more options to "sub".

You can similar ask:
Why should i pay a monthly sub, if i use just a fraction of the content and i am not sure i even like that part for my whole sub period? Even worse, why should i play then even?

[-tomhet-]

if funcom already stated they will revamp epic for pvp mode for festival events, why is it so hard to accept the natural next step:

1 single server with pvp&pve adventure zones.

as a paying custumer for a long time i want to see pvp'ers having to pay for the game, if i need to pay for accessing hm's & unchained dungeons+raids, then pvp'ers should natuarly have to be subscribed or pay in item shop for access to new t4 pvp armors and new open world pvp content wich me and others have payed for.

@kurt2013 , i definitly feel that f2p should have access to all adventure zones in kithai once they buy rotgs, feels inadquate they only have access to gateway to kithai.
now to get in a dungeon or raid should be made easier in item shop to buy daily access to pve, but likewise pvp'ers should be made to pay for at least lvl80 minigames, especialy when they finaly bring promised unchained minigames they should be payed access!!!

further more as a paying custumer im still waiting to see more vanity items to purchase on item shop, especialy old world armors.
even would like to buy 3d print of my characters and even some 3d printed weapons or genuine replicas of ingame weapons in real wood/leather/steel, funcom is genuinely not concerned in seeling me stuff apart from a monthly sub.

i miss the "choose ress" after a pvp kill everyone had in 2009. Still there should be more incentives to play there than just those you listed. For example:
- pvers should have an incentive to go there and quest with risk, rewards could be listed to players active in the zone (so no one can abuse the system easily). Or special ingredients or rewards could only be gained in pvp zones.
- there could be changeable rules to each zone and faction camps or objectives. This could be changed every month and represent state of war, insurgency, hidden ops etc. to make the world feel more alive (and again give pvers a reason to be there too)
- there needs to be a renown/consequence system and a lot of more stats (visible or not, maybe dependand on factions etc.).
- the whole pvp system should be evaluated, with the current latency in mind. Including answers to questions like learning curve, grind, power progression curve and balance. Combat formulas, Hitboxes, speed buffs, oneshotting, exploits and cheats need to be looked at to make pvp fun for all, too.
- the achievement system you mentioned in another thread could work very well with such a change, too

the deliveryboy quest is pve and rightfully gd already said it will give pve rewards, just hoping its worth it.
i remember reading idea for new nodes in new crafting is they randomly spawn in a adventure zone, seems only fitting they should only happen in pvp mode areas .

i realy look foward for achievements, just hoping they arent the generic dumbass ones to grind a 1000 serpents and unlock serpent killer achivement, should be more lore friendly i hope.

but ultimatly a revamp to useless guild city renown to be transformed into pvp rankings is the ultimate candie everyone realy wants and would along with new open world pvp systems be a cheerie on top of this win.

maybe one day have multiple factions working in open world but should never be forced system every player should make his own story in hyboria.

but in my eyes i realy enjoyed the pvp events organized in testlive and i would love to be able to gank ingame every single developer and gm and foas they could have some raidboss god buff and take a full siege to kill and shiit some funcom points, that would be awesome pvp content and would be great to see ingame and playing the guys who code the game so they walk in my shoes and know what i know is fair class ability and what is and overwhelming noob one trick hit this button and win skill

i would imagine no player would aid gm's & devs but easily imagine Sezmra would get her own rp army of protectors :P

[Kurt2013]

Not hard for me
You just have to make sure they make it a transition without losses, enabling the styles possible on two server types now on one server type.
Just see the options you'll get, once this is technical possible (which actually i think it is already, looking at the database merge, the oneserver preparations and the structure of the instances).

@Tomhet: I would rather like the guild renown work for guilds similar to players. E.g. you have an allies and foe list, pve and pvp levels and renown to factions (i would not play any content forcing me into a faction, just because i am stygian or in guild a, b or c. but overrideable renown might be fine. for example player y, in a guild with a lawless criminal reputation might compensate that by personal deeds)...all with according options.

[barbaricwildcat2]

does it make sense in current days to have separated low population on all servers or have one server wich allows access to all players to all content.

yes it does

in aoc's history never has merges done any good

spending time merging, compromising is bad. developping content to justify the servers is way better

[Redd]

Im totally supporting what Tomhet said, separated rule sets are totally outdated concept that is hurting the game, there is absolutely no objective reason to keep PvP only or PvE only servers...

[Moaner]

We can not merge servers. We need Fury to be server of choice for pvp.

I will be moving one of my characters to Fury. I would urge more of us to transfer 1 character to Fury and embrace the open world pvp.