Game Director Letter – March 2014 Discussion

[barbaricwildcat2]

Fair point, we could probably enable some sort of additional local travel for that week too though, e.g directly into the lobbies or to the entrance with Shield of the Risen running.

meh they arent really up for the open world pvp, has to be instanced on crom

[lok502]

Not particularly fond of the pvp in pve playfield rules. Could these new pvp for week zones serve as a testing ground for a future server merge with mixed ruleset? I hope not.

[miamie]

Fair point, we could probably enable some sort of additional local travel for that week too though, e.g directly into the lobbies or to the entrance with Shield of the Risen running.

So you give every one a way to bypass the PVP and then how do the others ever get their quests done?

Forcing people on a PVE server to PVP will only drive them away. They are on the PVE server for a reason.

Let the PVP crowd transfer back to the PVP server.

[cins]

In terms of difficulty, Palace of Cetriss will be a natural progression for tier 4 raiders, but we are working on a new loot solution for Age of Conan that will change the way we think of the tier system.

This looks pretty important. T4 gear already shat all over the PvE difficulty with stupidly high stats. I'm kinda hopeful that you're already aware of this judging from the tone here.
Also I would be a lot happier if you can refrain from using PRwhorephrases like "x solution" in the future.

12 player content: It was wanted as an alternative to 24 player raiding and the reason was because guilds were having trouble filling up all those raid spots. This doesn't seem to address that.

Also to PvE exclusivers: You're a bunch of snot nosed brats. We got everything for years while PvPers didn't even get the short end of the stick. There's news of a new raid and dungeon, yet you're whining that people who want to PvP occasionally might maybe get something?

[zeuss]

Stop Crying already these events will get a warm welcome in Crom from many players if you dont want to get involved dont go in these zones while they are active.

[Kurt2013]

So you give every one a way to bypass the PVP and then how do the others ever get their quests done?

Forcing people on a PVE server to PVP will only drive them away. They are on the PVE server for a reason.

Let the PVP crowd transfer back to the PVP server.

You should make it optional and not enforce content. You had this problem with world bosses and now you create another. Again, the basic idea is nice and would be a good addition to a PvE Server, too. But the emphasis is on ADDITION. Now you are replacing content again (if only temporarily).

WHat hinders you from adding it like suggested above, e.g. a pvp mode for instances like epic or normal? A third option, with a different ruleset. Obviously you CAN change rulesets of zones individually, so why not work (or test out) a system that could be added permanently or be a solution once you have to merge fury with crom? (UNless of course this is your testing, if you can change rulesets of instances individually and you already plan all that)

[Phil77]

world pvp on a pve server is a bad idea.

[Kurt2013]

Actually open world pvp is not as gamebreaking, but it can be an annoyance, if you are not used to it at least. It will depend a bit on how the quests are designed, if we see wild lands or the other zones full of rangers during that week or if it will be actually possible to avoid pvp.
Flagging or additional instance choice, all are working solutions to avoid any trouble you'll get by putting open world pvp on a pve server. Fast travels or more guards on the other hand will most likely be abused by the gankers more than others.

[Bibik]

It's not game breaking, just server-breaking ^^ Look at how ended Fury and Rage population-wise

[Brazza]

Brilliant PVP content intent, facepalm execution.


DO NOT PLACE PVP CONTENT ON THE PVE SERVER!