Interview with Age of Conan producer Gaute Godager

[Trippy]

From GameSpy: Age of Conan -- Separate Tracks with Gaute Godager

Detailed discussion with the producer about some of the major game systems including our favorite subject: PvE and PvP gameplay.

[stray]

Hmm, I think this has popped back on my radar. The last time I read up on their ideas for large scale battles/seiges, pvp was an afterthought and sketchy at best (a more retarded prospect than the idea of having no pvp at all). It seems now that some of their ideas are being more fleshed out though.

[stray]

a more retarded prospect than the idea of having no pvp at all

Err....This didn't come out right. Just in case it was misunderstood, I just meant that it's better to not have any pvp than it is to have pvp tacked on as an afterthought, i.e. something made in the light of existing pve mechanics, etc...

[schild]

Player towns clinched all the anticipation I can possibly muster up for online games these days.

Edit: And a little later they upped the bar by starting me as a slave. I've been waiting for an MMOG to start me as a slave since the idea of levels began. Bravo, you historically heartless bastards, you've made an MMOG without worrying about how people feel about a past they weren't a part of. Now make it fun.

Edit 2: Just had to quote it.

Players will begin Age of Conan as level one galley slaves without a specific class. At level five players will get an "archetype" based on the way they're playing. As they continue to go through the single-player portion of the game, they'll specialize more and more. Once they've reached level 20 and have finished the single-player part of the game, they'll get a prestige class as well as the choice of specialization classes including crafter. Crafters can create weapons, armor, potions, siege weapons, houses/walls, PvP specialist equipment, or weapon and armor enhancements.

Yes, yes, YES. Make the fucking normally boring part of the game a streamlined single player experience. Who would've thought Funcom would nail that part? Though, the levling system reeks of EQ2 at launch, it's still better if they make it a tight single player experience. Also, I suppose it guarantees solo content, but saying that is so profound it actually hurts.

Edit 3: I can't believe he kept me til the end of the piece.

Crafting will have a separate 20-level tier system and five levels of item quality. While everyone can craft, the highest quality items will be reserved for guild crafters with a town. Interestingly, players don't get experience for creating items. Instead, each level is achieved by going on a quest. "We didn't want players to have to grind crafting," Godager said. "Everything the player builds should be for sale or to support a guild, town, or battlekeep."

Jesus. This is Conan? They've managed to make a mythos about a single kickass barbarian into a compelling online game?

Fuck.

[Slayerik]

Bar fights ?  WOOOO

Least they are thinking outside the box a little. Looks like Conan moved up a notch in my book.

[stray]

This is Conan? They've managed to make a mythos about a single kickass barbarian into a compelling online game?

It's basically an amalgam of medieval and bronze age history....That's it's mythos. Conan is just the vehicle to explore it.

[edit] For some reason, I feel like an asshole for posting that....

[Merusk]

This is all talk.  I've seen this talk before.  Hell, I saw this talk about SWG before beta.  Until someone is able to speak about it sans-NDA, or I can get my mitts on it, it stays at the "meh" level.

[Arthur_Parker]

I stopped reading at this point.

Funcom wants more PvE players (who greatly outnumber PvP players) to at least try the other side of the game.

From here https://www.wow-europe.com/en/serverstatus/

Sorry for no graph.

WoW Europe has

67 PVE servers 4 showing high population & 6 showing low
107 PVP servers 34 showing high population & 12 showing low

[Velorath]

That's a pretty fucking stupid reason to stop reading an article you were apparently interested in enough to click on in the first place.

[Strazos]

I stopped reading at this point.

Funcom wants more PvE players (who greatly outnumber PvP players) to at least try the other side of the game.

From here https://www.wow-europe.com/en/serverstatus/

Sorry for no graph.

WoW Europe has

67 PVE servers 4 showing high population & 6 showing low
107 PVP servers 34 showing high population & 12 showing low

It's the comeplete opposite on the western side of the pond. I'm not going to dig up stats, but just take my word for it. Hell, some people on PvP servers are still carebears and perfer to play there. Other players might as well be playing on PvE, becasue they're horrible at PvP.

[Arthur_Parker]

That's a pretty fucking stupid reason to stop reading an article you were apparently interested in enough to click on in the first place.

For future reference what is a good reason to stop reading an article I was interested enough to click on?

[Velorath]

That's a pretty fucking stupid reason to stop reading an article you were apparently interested in enough to click on in the first place.

For future reference what is a good reason to stop reading an article I was interested enough to click on?

If it's poorly written, longer than you have time to read, about something other than what you thought it was about... all probably decent enough reasons.

If it's because a minor statement that really has very little to do with the article as a whole conflicts with your knowledge of European WoW servers, well like I said that's just fucking stupid.  Especially when it probably took you more time to go to the server page and count up the number of PVE and PVP servers than it would have taken to finish the article.  Next time make some pie charts and graphs too.

[Arthur_Parker]

Strazos I know PVE is more popular in the US but maybe not by as much as thought. 

I can't find the US version of the EU realm status but from here http://www.warcraftrealms.com/realmstats.php

PVE Servers 74
PVP Servers 82

There are more PVE characters though.

WoW PVE servers have PVP battlegrounds anyway, EQ isn't top dog anymore.

Velorath, *shrug* The pvp verus pve numbers clearly interested me more than the article, people are different.

[Zane0]

For the record, Gaute Godager was also the producer for Anarchy Online at one point in time, and oversaw its controversial expansion, Shadowlands.  Controversial mostly because it was buggy as hell, and also because Gaudager was a professed EQ fan and gave it a lot of EQ-ish elements- zone keying, long grinds, rare mobs to camp for all of the really good stuff, etc.

We'll see what he does here.  In any case, if you want to be loudly cynical, this would be a good direction to take!

[Velorath]

Even if there are more PVPers, the whole point of his statement was just that he wanted to get more PVEers to at least try a little PVP.

[Merusk]

There are more folks who will pick Pure PvE over pure PvP out there.  WoW's PvP is a nice hybrid that you lose nothing in, and it's initial fanbase is already predisposed towards PvP from WC3/ SC/ Diablo.  If all games took the same tack dowards their PvP, you could probably release with the majority of servers being PvP and a few being PvE and not get much grief from your playerbase.

Myself, I won't bother with PvP servers in a level-based game anymore.  The one attempt we made on the PvP-RP server told me that, yes, I in fact hate "open" level-based PvP that uses PvE as its measuring stick.  It wastes my time and my money having to dick around with other folks I have 0 chance of killing (and yes, a Level 30 has 0 chance of killing 2 level 50s unlike in SB.) corpse camping me.  I know that's a personal preference thing, though, and I'm not about to make a mass-market call on it.

[ahoythematey]

The key to remember is that Anarchy Online had a lot of good ideas going for it at the time of it's release, but reformatting your hard-drive was not one of them.  That's what I will remember while I watch Conan's developement.

[Arthur_Parker]

Even if there are more PVPers, the whole point of his statement was just that he wanted to get more PVEers to at least try a little PVP.

It's nice that you are giving ground and all but we weren't having a debate about anything, this is just the first post with you actually on topic.

[Morat20]

There are more folks who will pick Pure PvE over pure PvP out there.  WoW's PvP is a nice hybrid that you lose nothing in, and it's initial fanbase is already predisposed towards PvP from WC3/ SC/ Diablo.  If all games took the same tack dowards their PvP, you could probably release with the majority of servers being PvP and a few being PvE and not get much grief from your playerbase.

Myself, I won't bother with PvP servers in a level-based game anymore.  The one attempt we made on the PvP-RP server told me that, yes, I in fact hate "open" level-based PvP that uses PvE as its measuring stick.  It wastes my time and my money having to dick around with other folks I have 0 chance of killing (and yes, a Level 30 has 0 chance of killing 2 level 50s unlike in SB.) corpse camping me.  I know that's a personal preference thing, though, and I'm not about to make a mass-market call on it.

That shit still happens -- I had some Hordie (Stone Guard versus my Knight) chain some mobs on me when I was soloing in the Plaguelands. Since it was a PvE server, and I wasn't flagged, it was all he could do to grief me. I think he was pissed that I beat him to a mithril deposit. *shrug*. In a PvP server he would have ganked me -- and had he kept it up, I'd have probably reported him (that's harassment on a PvE server). But once or twice? Eh, just someone being a dick.

I won't play on PvP servers, however, because being a dick requires less effort -- so more people do it, which means I get to experience how much of a dick people can be on a much more frequent basis. I've tried it, it bores me to tears.

WoW's success lies in realizing most players want their PvP and PvE to be fairly segregated (sometimes they want to quest, sometimes they want to PvP) and even their PvP servers have mechanisms to make this workable. In the end, it just means players have a greater variety of choice on when and how they PvP.

[Slayerik]

There are more folks who will pick Pure PvE over pure PvP out there.  WoW's PvP is a nice hybrid that you lose nothing in, and it's initial fanbase is already predisposed towards PvP from WC3/ SC/ Diablo.  If all games took the same tack dowards their PvP, you could probably release with the majority of servers being PvP and a few being PvE and not get much grief from your playerbase.

Myself, I won't bother with PvP servers in a level-based game anymore.  The one attempt we made on the PvP-RP server told me that, yes, I in fact hate "open" level-based PvP that uses PvE as its measuring stick.  It wastes my time and my money having to dick around with other folks I have 0 chance of killing (and yes, a Level 30 has 0 chance of killing 2 level 50s unlike in SB.) corpse camping me.  I know that's a personal preference thing, though, and I'm not about to make a mass-market call on it.

That shit still happens -- I had some Hordie (Stone Guard versus my Knight) chain some mobs on me when I was soloing in the Plaguelands. Since it was a PvE server, and I wasn't flagged, it was all he could do to grief me. I think he was pissed that I beat him to a mithril deposit. *shrug*. In a PvP server he would have ganked me -- and had he kept it up, I'd have probably reported him (that's harassment on a PvE server). But once or twice? Eh, just someone being a dick.

I won't play on PvP servers, however, because being a dick requires less effort -- so more people do it, which means I get to experience how much of a dick people can be on a much more frequent basis. I've tried it, it bores me to tears.

WoW's success lies in realizing most players want their PvP and PvE to be fairly segregated (sometimes they want to quest, sometimes they want to PvP) and even their PvP servers have mechanisms to make this workable. In the end, it just means players have a greater variety of choice on when and how they PvP.

Carebear.

[Arthur_Parker]

WoW's success lies in realizing most players want their PvP and PvE to be fairly segregated (sometimes they want to quest, sometimes they want to PvP) and even their PvP servers have mechanisms to make this workable. In the end, it just means players have a greater variety of choice on when and how they PvP.

Carebear.

More choice is good, I don't want to play on a server that Morat20 would like and I'm positive that he wouldn't like my lord of the flies type either.

[Velorath]

Myself, I won't bother with PvP servers in a level-based game anymore.  The one attempt we made on the PvP-RP server told me that, yes, I in fact hate "open" level-based PvP that uses PvE as its measuring stick.  It wastes my time and my money having to dick around with other folks I have 0 chance of killing (and yes, a Level 30 has 0 chance of killing 2 level 50s unlike in SB.) corpse camping me.  I know that's a personal preference thing, though, and I'm not about to make a mass-market call on it.

My bad experiences on that server were few and far between and I did a lot of soloing, but I also stayed away from areas there were known to be gankfests.  And I did get a lot of entertainment that I wouldn't have normally gotten on PVE servers.  On the other hand I've often thought that things probably would have gone a lot worse for me if that had been my first character and I was trying to learn the game in a PVP ruleset.  Anyway it sounds like with Conan at least they're trying to keep things more balanced by giving equipment different stats for PVP.

It's nice that you are giving ground and all but we weren't having a debate about anything, this is just the first post with you actually on topic.

I'm not giving any ground.  I still think you just as fucking stupid as I did earlier.

[Toast]

The developer seems to get "it", and the experience with Anarchy Online will be useful.

The little touches like the bar fighting system will be pretty popular and unique.

As always, words are easy, and implementation is hard.

[HaemishM]

The key to remember is that Anarchy Online had a lot of good ideas going for it at the time of it's release, but reformatting your hard-drive was not one of them.  That's what I will remember while I watch Conan's developement.

Yes. That article makes it sound lovely, but it's also promising a whole helluva lot. He's talking about a full questing and crafting system, on top of an SB-like town capture system.

He has my interest, but not my faith.

[WindupAtheist]

Rather than sword battles and duels to the death, players will instead swig mugs of ale and smack each other over the head with cups and broken table legs.

Win!

There will even be separate equipment tables for PvP and PvE weapons and armor.

Doesn't this pretty much encourage grief PK by ensuring that anyone out doing PvE will not be equipped for PvP?

The second element in the game will be traditional battleground-style environments where players try to achieve particular goals against an equally matched opposing team.

So stuff popularized by WoW is already "traditional" huh?

"We're actually going to have separate PvP and PvE servers, although our initial plan was not to have special rule sets." According to Godager, the decision was the result of intense lobbying by players, not a result of their game design.

Unless you're an indie company that lacks even the resources to support two rulesets, or unless your game is WW2 Online or Shadowbane or something, there is no reason not to have separate PvE and PvP servers.  This is one of those things that has always been around, but which WoW served to make "standard", and which players will apparently no longer do without.

It's important, but they believe that if their third tier of gameplay comes off the way they plan, it won't be used all that much. "There will always be a few players who try to make others miserable," Godager says, "but so much of the griefing that goes on in MMOs is the result of bored players with nothing else to do. If you give them a way to channel their gameplay, the problems get reduced."

I hear the voice of Koster, and am filled with unease.

More than that, though, player towns will also attract enemies. Monsters will begin hiving near player towns, creating a mirror town that will gradually be added to over time. Once the monster town grows large enough (after three or four weeks), it will start launching raids on player towns.

Motherfucking win.  I love this sort of shit.

"We didn't want players to have to grind crafting," Godager said. "Everything the player builds should be for sale or to support a guild, town, or battlekeep."

Win also.  I hope items all wear out with time and use.

Anyway, it's definitely on the radar.  I'll remain skeptical of their PvP design until it's fleshed out better, but if they keep the PvP death penalty low-to-nonexistant ala WoW and toss some PvE servers in there, who really cares?

[Nija]

Don't take this literally because it won't make sense.

But

WoW PVP doesn't really count as PVP.

[stark]

There will even be separate equipment tables for PvP and PvE weapons and armor.

Doesn't this pretty much encourage grief PK by ensuring that anyone out doing PvE will not be equipped for PvP?

By different tables I'd assume that means each piece of gear would have pvp and pve stats.  So my breastplate of uber is 9 ac pve, but 13 ac pvp.

[WindupAtheist]

I know a few guys who are gonna want to play this, and they'll want to play it on a PvP server.  I'll go with them, but I'm gonna be cranky if I have to lose items.

[Morat20]

Don't take this literally because it won't make sense.

But

WoW PVP doesn't really count as PVP.

Unless there's an AI controlling the idiot rogue I just wasted (and let me assure you, if it was an AI trying to sneak up on me despite the glaring Hunter's Mark on his HEAD, I'd fire the mob AI department), I wasted another player, in which case it most certainly IS "PvP".

PvP = "Player versus Player." That's it. You might like a particularly STYLE of PvP, but don't try that "it's not real PvP" bullshit. It's PvP if the pixel-bag that I just killed or just killed me was controlled by a person, and not an AI.

Once again, for the record --- I play EVE. A lot. I avoid PvP servers in WoW because I play that game for a PvE/raiding experience with PvP on the side. PvP-zones and PvP while questing isn't something I want when I'm playing WoW. By offering me that choice, they got themselves another sub they wouldn't ordinarily have. By having that choice, if I get bored I can create a toon on a PvP server and they'll retain a sub. Good business call.

[Nija]

You took it literally. You do know what I mean though, so I'm not going to AW you.

[Velorath]

The second element in the game will be traditional battleground-style environments where players try to achieve particular goals against an equally matched opposing team.

So stuff popularized by WoW is already "traditional" huh?

I wouldn't say it was popularized by WoW really.  The example he gave was capture the flag, which is something you can do in several FPS games and some strategy games like Myth.  WoW did popularize putting goal-based battle grounds into MMO's I don't that that's what he was referring to when he said "traditional".

[Arthur_Parker]

I'm not giving any ground.  I still think you just as fucking stupid as I did earlier.

You aren't my type, stop humping my leg.

[Morat20]

You took it literally. You do know what I mean though, so I'm not going to AW you.

Of course I took it literally. How else would I take it? I know what you meant --- which was that WoW PvP is risk free. Indeed it is. So is their PvE. But then again -- Counterstrike is risk free. Halo is risk free. Unreal Tournament, Quake -- all the FPS's are risk free. All the popular PvP systems are risk free -- or close to it.

People don't take risks without rewards, and the more intangible the reward, the fewer willing to take the risk. EVE's PvP is risky as shit -- and the rewards are uncertain one on one, although a bit more permanent in fleet battles. (Controlling a star system or a mini-empire is a tangible reward).

People prefer certain, immediate, and positive stimulus. It's why we speed -- we'll almost always get there faster, and tickets or accidents are uncertain and negative (and the certainity of a ticket sooner or later is long-term) -- so the positive, certain, and immediate wins.

Risk free PvP or risky PvP -- it's all PvP. Play what you like, but it helps -- at least from a designer's end -- to understand WHY and WHEN PvP is appealing. (And it explains why gankers work the way they do, and couldn't be stopped by social controls. The rewards of ganking someone were immediate and positive, and the risks were easily controlled and long-term).

[Nija]

You've got it for the most part.

Think of mass multiplayer games as stuff you'd do during recess in the 3rd grade. Would you like someone to invent something like football, dodgeball, baseball, or basketball? Would you rather see a new variation of red rover?

[WindupAtheist]

The second element in the game will be traditional battleground-style environments where players try to achieve particular goals against an equally matched opposing team.

So stuff popularized by WoW is already "traditional" huh?

I wouldn't say it was popularized by WoW really.  The example he gave was capture the flag, which is something you can do in several FPS games and some strategy games like Myth.  WoW did popularize putting goal-based battle grounds into MMO's I don't that that's what he was referring to when he said "traditional".

Look at the quote.  Traditional "battleground-style" environments.  That was totally a WoW reference.

Also, I smell the beginnings of 30-page uberthread greatness.  The SWG and UO threads are gone, let's get this one going.  :-D