Age of conan, Open beta: May 1st 2008.

[Signe]

I thought I left for the restroom 10 minutes ago but it appears I'm still at my desk where I started. I sense that Funcom is about to invade my life again. 

Uh oh.  Is there a puddle?

[Brogarn]

Uh oh.  Is there a puddle?

I was spamming the pee button while lagging, so unfortunately... 

[Draegan]

You have regular exp and PVP experience.  I believe the current ratio for PVP experience is 1:3 so for every PVP death you lose 3 PVP kills.  You can not lose regular pve experience.

I thought the idea was that everyone in a group gets full credit for a PvP kill. So if you are in group of six, and kill one opponent, the group as a whole it credited with six kills. Two people in the group  have to die before  the group as a whole is behind on the K/D ratio. That generates a huge incentive to be in group. And not to be in the most easily killed class.

Maybe I misread that though?

I never heard that, but it's not to say it isn't true.  There are many mysteries in the game design.

[Nija]

It's not as bad as people say.  Each zone has multiple rez points and you can chose any of them each time you die so you don't keep going to the same one.

Oh c'mon they've had GMs policing the level 20ish respawn areas to keep bored level 80 guys from camping there. A single high level guy can shut down an entire respawn for an infinite amount of time. Not as bad as people say - you're either deaf or not talking to the right people.

[Sir T]

Am I just silly or is a flag saying you cant attack someone say 5 levels below or above you not actually a terrible idea.

Or am I just too clueless in game design mechanics to appreaciate the fun and artistry of a level 80 14 year old in mortal honourable  hand to hand combat with a 4 level character

[Merusk]

No, you're just not HARDCORE (note the emphasis) enough to deal with it, you damn dirty carebear pussy.

 

[Nebu]

Am I just silly or is a flag saying you cant attack someone say 5 levels below or above you not actually a terrible idea.

If they did this in WoW there would be almost no world pvp on the pvp servers.  I think it's a very good idea.  If you're hardcore enough to be on a pvp server, at least be hardcore enough to actually fight people that have a chance to beat you. 

[Viin]

And thus the inherent problem with trying to add PvP to a level-based character progression system. I wonder what road AoC will take after it all shakes down ..

[Register]

ANGER!!! HAEMISH SMASH FUNCOM stuff

You can still engage in PvP on the PvE servers.

It's not even remotely the same.
In fact, if you ask a PVPer about it, he/she'll tell you that it's not PVP unless you can do it wherever you want in the game world.
This is all old by the way. There's a reason why they are called PVP servers (not zones).

If you can gank (or be ganked) then it's PVP.
If you can go into a specific zone to engage in some skirmishing with other players then it's CounterStrike/Team Fortress, or Trammel.

It goes back to DAoC actually. Why DAoC players used to think of themselves as PVP players beats me.

Erm DAOC did have FFA PVP servers - i.e. Modred, Andred.

On the FFA server, the only safe spots are the capital cities of each realm. Once you zone out of the capital city, anyone not in your guild or your group can attack you, and vice versa.

Also, there is no guard protection at villages and quest hubs. Lowbie players below lvl 10 are flagged immune though. Once you ding pass you are immediately open to pvp - it's not uncommon for people to be ganked right upon dinging in the lowbie zones.

[Falconeer]

Erm DAOC did have FFA PVP servers - i.e. Modred, Andred.

I know that. And clearly those are not the DAoC players I was referring to.
In fact, I was talking with some guy who played DAoC for like 4 years (it was his first MMORPG) and sold himself to me as this huge nasty and skilled PVP player for all this time. Then we started talking about PVP servers and the possibility to join one in AoC and he went exactly like that: "Ugh! PvP servers? I tried that on DAoC. I was ganked 2 seconds after I left the safe zone and I quit for good 1 minute later. Sorry, but that is stupid!".
Meh...

[Mantees]

WOW! 18 pages of discussion.

But is it fun?

[Falconeer]

Hey Mantees, fella!

Yes, it is fun. It's just "a little" buggy and unpolished, as usual.

[Mantees]

Good to hear!

And are the setting, the world, the quests deep and interesting a la EQ2, completely uninspired like in WOW or something in the middle?
You know, I am of the very few remaining MMORPG players who enjoys reading good storylines and quest texts 

[Falconeer]

I dare to say storytelling is, at least for the first portion of the game, maybe the strongest point of the game. Thanks to "interesting" voice acting, cutscenes and a certain gritty Conan feeling.

I think EQ2 is still the best on the quest/storytelling department, but Conan learned that lesson pretty well judging from what I saw.

[Xerapis]

You know, I am of the very few remaining MMORPG players who enjoys reading good storylines and quest texts 

GET BACK IN YOUR CLOSET! 

[Simond]

Rumour has it that the much-touted siege warfare is capped at 48 vs 48. Enjoy your Alterac Valley clone! 

[Xilren's Twin]

Hey Mantees, fella!

Yes, it is fun. It's just "a little" buggy and unpolished, as usual.

FWIW, "little buggy" could range from generally playable except for server issues, plus the usual broken quests, skills, etc, all the way to "can't run the successfully on my machine no matter what".  After fooling with 4 sets of Nvidia drivers i was able to play maybe a grand total of 5 hours, and could never even complete the beach tutorial due to crashing.  Oh yeah, i did try the FFA pvp bit for like 10 mins but after being killed at the spawn point twice i stopped wasting my time.  I think my longest play session lasted maybe an hour before crashing out for one reason or another.  This is on a system that should be able to run it with middle of the road settings.

Im holding off on this based on my lack of faith in Funcom's technical competance and some questionable design choices.  The underlying game might be fun, I just couldnt tell.  Having to pick left center or right for attacks was a little different but not exactly earthshattering and the PVP i would steer well clear of just based on what I've read.  Like plenty of others, I predict launch woes and lamentations of fanbois.

 

[stray]

Is there any semblance of seige warfare in Alterac Valley? Or WoW at all?


Anyhow, 48 v 48 would already be a pain in the ass as it is. Performance wise, and cooperatively speaking. It isn't a sparse, easily loadable world like Eve, nor is it full of passive combat.

[Falconeer]

Yes, Xilren's pretty much right.

Let's fix that: if it works on your computer, and that is totally random, then it's fun.

[Fordel]

Is there any semblance of seige warfare in Alterac Valley? Or WoW at all?

The Bridge. It's about the only thing in the entire game that requires 'sieging'. Mostly because almost every other defensive structure is purposefully designed to be anything but (defensive).


WoTLK is supposed to 'fix' that with its new PvP area, but very much a 'we shall see' thing. Breath holding not required, nor recommended.

[Rasix]

Is there any semblance of seige warfare in Alterac Valley? Or WoW at all?

The Bridge. It's about the only thing in the entire game that requires 'sieging'. Mostly because almost every other defensive structure is purposefully designed to be anything but (defensive).

Hah.  Stupid bridge is only impediment because of stupid Horde.  I really need to make a macro that says "Ride past, there's no magic wall there."  I said something to that effect yesterday when a bunch of horde were just plucking at allies from range as I rode by straight into the north tower and capped it.  Just a little while later people seemed to have gotten the hint and the south tower and AS were capped in succession. 

It's amazing that people who have been playing a game for years still have no idea at how to win (or just stubbornly refuse to).  Other day in WSG, I capped the flag three times while being #1 in healing.  My gear SUCKS, but everyone else was just fighting in pockets around the field and ignoring the ghost wolf running around the edges of the map.

[Merusk]

Playing battlegrounds in Wow makes me realize why some field commanders shoot their men.  It also makes me realize why some men shoot their field commanders.

It's very zen like that.

[Fordel]

It's amazing that people who have been playing a game for years still have no idea at how to win (or just stubbornly refuse to).

Lots of people just like fighting over that silly bridge. It really is the only siege point in the entire PvP game and it can be really fun to use. It's the only area in AV where you defend by defending, instead of defense via attack. It's fairly unique as things are, game play wise. The only similar areas are the valley road leading to SPGY and the Horde GateRamp between the two FW towers, but neither is a true siege/choke point due to alternate routes.

With the bridge, there is really only one way and that way is through.

[jpark]

A thread I started on the AoC forums:  http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=89027

My favorite quote so far: 

if you played all these games you say you have then you should have played Shadowbane and you knw every server was FFA pvp no rules with inventory looting. and the ONLY reason that game is not popular today is because of the glitches and not the game play.

... sometimes I wonder why F13 people stay here, when 95% of us could find some random MMO board and become its undisputed intellectual powerhouse.   

Bugs aside, my mates and I considered this a super game.  And yes, we enjoyed the FFA pvp, usually being outnumbered and moderately successful.  To each his own though - I realize it's not for everyone.

Our old shadowbane guild is gearing up at this moment for AoC.

I enjoy the comments on F13 - but put me in the "retard" category - I rarely agree with anything on these boards anymore.

[Falconeer]

I am starting to get nervous AND confused.

We barred off the PVP server because it's meaningless carnage with the hiddos hitting on my guildees nerves to the point of mental insanity.
Then, it's PVE server. But now I am seriously uncertain about the kind of PVP you can embark on on a PVE server.

I got that you have the minigames (pass). Then you have the huge sieges if you are in a big enough guild to be able to compete for that. Then, the towers, which are supposed to be smaller targets for smallish guilds. What it's not clear from the many documents I read, and my beta experience, is:

On the PVE server, is the BORDER KINGDOM a free-pvp zone?
I can't find this information anywhere and wherever I look I can only find information about battlekeeps sieges and towers conquest, nothing about random skirmishing in the open field.

I am afraid I lost something in translation and don't really want to fall on a server where there is NOT even an inch of free-worldly (well, zone-ly) PVP. 

[Mrbloodworth]

I got that you have the minigames (pass). Then you have the huge sieges if you are in a big enough guild to be able to compete for that.

Optionally, when a siege is about to happen, the guilds involved can set aside money, and request mercenary's to help fill the ranks, the mercenary's are other players from anywhere, guilded or not. So it is open to everyone. I don't know if there are requirements the asking guild can make for enlistment.

On the PVE server, is the BORDER KINGDOM a free-pvp zone?

Yes, on a PvE server, the border kingdoms are PvP. In fact, the towers, and massive PvP all happen there. Is it also an adventure area? not sure.

Here is some reading.

[Falconeer]

Thanks, Mr. Bloodworth.

But that link is exactly the one that confused me. In fact I scanned it deeply and couldn't find anything that specifically says that you can attack anyone, anytime, freely in the Border Kingdom zones.

[Miasma]

I imagine it would have to be guild versus guild.  You wouldn't be able to harm anyone in your own guild.  I don't know if they have an alliance system like in DAoC.

The talk about small guilds being able to fight over towers is preposterous though, those will just be easy targets for big guilds.  Unless they put in some screwy system that doesn't let you fight "x" yards near a tower if your guild has too many people in it.

With the FFA PvP stuff in the open beta I really don't think Funcom understands PvP very well.

[Mrbloodworth]

Thanks, Mr. Bloodworth.

But that link is exactly the one that confused me. In fact I scanned it deeply and couldn't find anything that specifically says that you can attack anyone, anytime, freely in the Border Kingdom zones.

I know you can enter another guilds area anytime you want (you just can't walk into the city if they have the gates closed, if they don't have gates....well then  )...so in that regard, i assume, yes (?) It is. But i think all the adventure area stuff (NPC/quests ETC..) are not in that area, mostlikely to make room for large numbers of players (server load ETC..).

I suspect you could walk in, and start stabbing people in that zone. This is all speculation on my part, but thats my take from stuff i have been reading. Theres nothing saying this IS NOT the case...so, YMMV.

I think the scheduling of attacks is really only for burning down, and control changing.


EDIT: i found this link

[Nija]

If the game is good, I'll put up with the bad parts of absolutely open PVP servers. There are some unquestionably bad things that can happen on PVP servers, I will not argue that.

I'll put up with those things if the game is worth it.

You won't see me in Conan.

Also, keep reading up about the guild vs guild stuff, because that's all the info available to anyone at the moment. Yes, you read that right, and you can read into that however far you wish.

[Signe]

I had gathered from reading the fourms, that the border areas were PvP, even on PvE servers.  If I don't get more info, especially about sieging, I won't stay past the initial month's sub.  Maybe they're trying to get what they can out of this and plan on doing a runner in a couple of months.  I don't understand the lack of info on the bits of the game that they're trying the hardest to sell.  Are we SURE this isn't the Darkfall beta?

[Simond]

I am starting to get nervous AND confused.

We barred off the PVP server because it's meaningless carnage with the hiddos hitting on my guildees nerves to the point of mental insanity.
Then, it's PVE server. But now I am seriously uncertain about the kind of PVP you can embark on on a PVE server.

I got that you have the minigames (pass). Then you have the huge sieges if you are in a big enough guild to be able to compete for that.

48 vs 48 is not huge.
XBOX is hueg, AoC sieges are AV+8 people per side.

[Falconeer]

Oh, about the 48v48 thing:

[EDIT from Tarib: Sorry about the confusion here. Threads about this topic have been removed by moderators as they were unsure if this is actually a break of the NDA or not. I have now merged them together in this thread and put them back up so the community can discuss the topic.

One thing that is important to know about this is, that these are not final numbers (48 vs 48 in siege battles) but rather something we are still tweaking and will continue to tweak even after launch to ensure the performance in siege battles is at a level that makes it playable for all players involved.

Thanks!
Oliver 'Tarib' Kunz]

Tarib is the Community Manager if I remember correctly.

[Mrbloodworth]

yeah, i figured they were being conservative and would ramp it up as things progress. Cant fault them for that. I have heard they have done tests of 200 Vs. 200, true or not, i don't think the cap is arbitrary.

[Signe]

I blame them for everything now, even that weird rash on my toe.