Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 39

Thread: vote: pvp daily quests in AoC(world pvp on Crom)

  1. #1

    Post vote: pvp daily quests in AoC(world pvp on Crom)

    much discussion if Funcom should go forwards with enabling world PvP in various areas on Crom once a week. D-Drago posted a similar poll in the monthly dev letter thread.

    1. Go forwards with the PvP Festival week as presented in the March dev letter.
    2. Only keep the open world daily quests events for Fury.
    3. Yes for both but only in the already known pvp zones on Crom.*+
    4. pvp popup before zoning.*
    5. add new play fields, work content and systems around them

    *If you vote for either 3 or 4, do you think the quests should be 1 week a month or 'full-time'.
    +For option 3, if some quests could only be completed on Fury is that ok.

    See next post for my take on the most likely consequences on each option.

    *edit* added option 5, proposed by kurt
    Last edited by barbaricwildcat2; 3rd April 2014 at 07:43.

  2. #2


    Foreseeable consequences:
    --Frustration /incomprehension by newcomers and pvers to pve on Crom for the span of a week in some some instances.
    --Maintained segregation of PvP communities, Fury can be expected to further dwindle unless Funcom has a solid marketing plan to sway interest from other MMOs to AoC.
    --increases content offered on Crom, sustaining more gamestyles. However limits it to only once a week, making it hard for a PvPer to fully commit to the game on Crom. The PvP events would therefore be a sample that would likely lose significance with time.

    --Increased significance on the role of Fury as an open world PvP server, with a system in line with the rule set. A clear statement of Fury as the only server to have open world PvP would likely lead to an increase of PvPers on the server that are scattered on the 3 servers.
    --Considering the declined importance of Fury for PvE, an expected difficulty for players that want to participate in every aspect of PvE and PvP of the game on a single character to have a server to play on.

    --Similar consequences to the first option; however, possibly less damaging to PvErs. This limits the area--and possibly the quest diversity--of PvP on Crom.

    --Probably the most costly option, we are getting close to single server tech with consensual open world PvP along the lines of GW2 and ESO

    --even costlier then option 4.
    --potentially sprays the player base furthermore; risky if AoC's population stagnates to current levels.

    *** in my opinion trying to balance PvE and PvP on Crom will make it impossible for a pvp-centric player to enjoy himself in Age of Conan.
    Last edited by barbaricwildcat2; 3rd April 2014 at 07:46.

  3. #3


    id vote option 2

    but start the patch with 1 week of having the open world quests in the pvp enabled areas of Crom, and then enabling free transfers for 1 month

    I don't think Funcom can satisfy PvPers and PvErs on a single server, therefore if they try i think AoC will further dwindle because of persistent discontempt. I think that splitting Fury and Crom progression systems is in this game's best interest.

  4. #4


    I think 1 would be fair and ok for most.
    BUT I vote 2, because.
    Water is my bubble
    __________________________________________________ ____
    Religolibri (10) Ranger, trying something else
    Amtihotep (10) Hox, Using copy paste poss/gen feat

  5. #5


    I'd think suddenly having open world pvp where there was never any before without being absolutely sure people were warned beforehand would end very badly.

    I can only offer my viewpoint on it of course. If the thought is to give people a taste of pvp to get them interested in it then it's not going to work on me. I burnt out on pvp a long time ago and especially am not interested in grinding pvp gear and doing the amount of research and studying of the classes and builds, not to mention practice, to be effective at it. It's too much like work.

    That said I don't do raids or 6 mans either for the same reason.

    Personally I'm indifferent to it as it's described in the letter. But I'll know which zones to avoid or to expect to be attacked if I go there. I just don't want to see the game take a shot to the nuts over this.

  6. #6

    Default Vote 1

    Mostly because I would like to try it without having to transfer to Fury. I am sure there are others on Crom who feel the same way. However, I can live with any decision - it is just a game after all and I will have fun no matter the server/scenario.
    Stygian...the best!

  7. #7


    Quote Originally Posted by barbaricwildcat2 View Post
    4. pvp popup before zoning.*

    *If you vote for either 3 or 4, do you think the quests should be 1 week a month or 'full-time'.
    I vote for 4., pvp quests one week a month on all servers. I think (might be wrong) that the it would be not fair if only people on Fury get this quests. Some may transfer to Fury, but I don't think that this quests will be a valid argument for the majority of pvpers on Crom to transfer.

    Can you please explain why you think this option is the most expensive? Fact is, they can enable pvp in specific areas (otherwise the hole pvp quests will not work on Crom), they can create new pop ups (done with unchained and solo dungeons). Question is, can they en/disable pvp in the same zone in different instances at the same time? Or maybe add a slightly different copy of a zone for the pvp quests (like halloween quest zone, Connarch at night). As fare as I can think of there is no reason why this option should cost more.

    To say something ist "most costly" without any proof is kind of pushing people to vote for your favorite solution.

  8. #8


    I would be fine with anything but 1.
    Preferably i'd go for option 4, since it allows for the most options and longevity in the future, but if this is not technically possible, option 3 (or option 5: add new maps, that can be changed each month on both servers with unique quests for open world pvp, representing any open warzone between maybe future old world factions even).

    Option 5 would be more aggressive copies of existing content with warring factions (players can choose to temporarily join one untill there are real factions), like conalls, border range, thunder river, eiglo etc.. The ruleset would be more like rage and since it is seperate, could be easily adjusted or balanced, without messing with the rest of the game (this aspect can be combined with option 3, too). But good and popular rules could be added globally to other open world zones later. New maps could be old single player maps or revisited instances. Reachable through an NPC, it could be controlled and achieveable with reasonable dev amount (less than an unchained instance, same handling on pvp and pve servers, future investment) and would not replace any existing content. Disadvantages would be like option 3, but with less limitations on the pvp side.
    Last edited by Kurt2013; 3rd April 2014 at 06:13.

  9. #9


    And what will happen with Rage Server? My Char is rotting there.

  10. #10


    i think the best option would be n. 4, and to have the quest just 1 week every month. but i would be fine with all of those options...
    "in the depths of a mind insane fantasy and reality are the same"

    Yawgmoth (Ranger) - Nyxathid (Necro) - Yixlid (HoX) - Kaltas (DT) - Heung (BS) - Teysa (HoX) - Gatzu (Guard) - Krovax (Ranger) - Hurkyl (Barb) - Vedalken (PoM)

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts