| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (21)

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 3:12PM Shadanwolf said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
When this site decides to delete registered member posts, as it has.....some players will "delete" their post before posting them.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 3:22PM SWILK3RS said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Best PVP mini game. Zero rangers. Period.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 4:07PM Nymic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think with the addition of the Blood and Glory servers, we will see another merge between the remaining servers.

In the US, I wouldn't be surprised to see a merge between Set & Wicca, and Cimmeria and Tyranny.

Perhaps there isn't enough population to support four (regular ruleset) servers, and this would be a means to downsize while keeping populations high on the three servers that allow multiple characters per account.

Who knows, just a guess.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 5:06PM Vagrant Zero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've heard that Cim and Tyr are going to be merged but they're waiting for Wic and Set to lose a few more players before they do it.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 6:15PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, Jef, I don't see this as "more servers = healthy game" as much as trying out a new direction to keep it's player numbers high/consistent and drawing new players in. I do think the AoC devs are more PvP friendly than they let on (the whole game was more initially focused on it during launch than PvE).

I also see some server mergers and moving around players, either during or after these servers are introduced.

Even in your "good" section, you point out some bad things. While I have heard about the class imbalances, I would think it would be more a top-priority to fix those before such a server is launched (but I don't think Funcom is listening as much; They seem to only selectively listen to certain things, not all). I don't see class or crafting balances coming before these servers come online (but they may surprise me). Like you said, I also don't see many long-time players devoting a single character to this unless some form of server transfer is implemented (or some level/item bump for long-time players).

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 8:25PM thedoommarine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
They need to do something about tryanny and cimmeria. I would suggest shutting them down, they are going to die if this happens. The only people left on tryanny right now is the hardcore PvPers any ways.

Let us transfer to Wicannia or set. That would be the best thing to do because tryanny only has 45 people online average at any given time.

Plus this would spice up the PvP in other servers and make the endgame on those servers actually good.

I walked around tryanny last months without ever encountering another person out in the world. The server is dieing, throw a huge battle and let us go out with a bang.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 8:53PM Aodhkin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
its a great idea in theory for the hardcore pvp fans.
But look at funcoms track record with server with diffrent or odd rule sets,namely the culture pvp.
Now i was on the eu c-pvp server and i must say all problems aside one of the best servers i have been on.

But so many problem,we couldnt raid because of a bug where we would hurt each other,c-pvp didnt get to start raiding till 2-3 weeks after everyone else.
There was problems with pvp like a healer would heal the same race as himself,even if the healer is in a group with you,and you are killing the person.

Now instead of trying to fix these problems or fixing the ruleset they left the server there to die and ignored all the people on it.

So what i am saying here is i would worry that if they ran into any odd problems or major ones on these new servers they might jsut ignore it because it could be to hard to fix.

Posted: Feb 27th 2011 10:45PM Thorqemada said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well, this experiment is a surprise but Funcom can only learn of it and it can not hurt AoC anyway but the kind of angry PvP Population that has now to show if all their talk was true.
I really do not think they have to add new hardware, some load balancing should work quite well.
My guess is that these Servers (why not a single server for all the world?) will show exactly the same behavior than any other AoC-PvP-Server in a 3 months time after they have opened!
If not FC has a really good idea to manage the gap that opens up over the time and divides the few winners and many losers...

Good luck for it!

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 12:25AM Lateris said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damned if you do, damned i f you don't.

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 12:28PM Poordevil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Lateris
Exactly so
Reply

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 8:51AM fullhalfcake said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I guess this one more time FC failed to address players. Players asked for more pvp contents, players asked to remove Bori, players asked to nerf pvp gears and levels as they are OP. FC answered with another cheap and easy solution, adding pvp server with no guards which already exist pre patch 1.05. Anyway, it's FC's habbit to address with cheap and easy solution which always create more mess after.

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 3:17PM mechanicalturk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@fullhalfcake

Why not go with the cheap and easy solution? A cheap and easy solution is not mutually exclusive from an effective solution. Seems that one of the biggest drivers for AoC losing members was the new PVP ruleset that added infamy and guards. Aside from the quick test to gauge player interest, it keeps their dev resources free to work on new content, etc. Start with the low-hanging fruit, test the effectiveness, and then move on to bigger and better things to improve the game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 12:55PM Liltawen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A great idea. I think everyone should have at least 1 server like this. LOTRo should especially have one.

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 3:12PM abc6789 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Will the new server be available for those playing the unlimited free trial? if so, I expect people to create many accounts so they can have multiple toons for Tortage PVP.

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 3:24PM Chiren said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I liked AOC a lot when I tried it. As much as people like to gripe about Tortage, it really is one of the best "20 hours" of "new MMO" gameplay one could experience. In contrast even though I love it to death, FFXI probably has the ****WORST**** first 20 hours of gameplay if you're a new player.

If you haven't played AOC - definitely give the free trial a try.

I don't care for PvP so the article does little for me. I don't want PVP Servers or F2P for Age of Conan. I just want more areas like Tortage. I know that's a bit of a tall order because of the level of polish Tortage has compared to the other zones - but that's what I want, and I'm sure all the people who first played AOC when it first came out expected and wanted the same.

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 3:57PM Poordevil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Chiren I don't really see Tortage as being so much more polished than the other zones. There are more voice overs from the NPCs in Tortage.

Old Tarantia, Conarch Village, Wild Lands of Zelata, Field of the Dead, Conall's Valley, Eiglophian Mountains, Thunder River, Atzel's Approach, the expansion zones, these are all on par with Tortage for graphical detail, great music, and are impressive interpretations of Hyboria bringing the REH Conan stories to life.
Reply

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 6:31PM abesworth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I tend to generally agree with Jef Reahard's opinions concerning Age of Conan, I have to disagree with parts of his latest post.

Bear in mind I have not been subscribed since November (although I started at launch), but I have little doubt that the problems that caused me to leave are much the same. Also please note that I am primarily a player interested in the player versus player aspect of mmos in particular, but also in online games in general.

I do not see this new server turning out well or causing me to want to resub. If I am terribly wrong and it turns out well, then I could imagine myself resubscribing.

Returning to the points raised in the article:

First, while Mr. Reahard takes additional servers as good thing, I have to disagree. One of my major problems with Age of Conan for the past year or so of my subscription was the abysmal population. My friends who still play AoC tell me that it has only gotten worse since then (on Tyranny at least); however, even the largest servers are not exactly booming. I can not imagine how adding another server will help that problem.

Second, while Mr. Reahard sees the recent developer posted polls as a sign that Funcom will be listening to player feedback, I am skeptical. Not only is it relatively simple to throw a poll up on a message board (particularly in comparison to meaningfully implementing player feedback), but we have not seen any action on behalf of Funcom yet.

In a similar situation (Shrines of Bori), we saw the developers take it off Testlive for 3-4 months while they were making "tweaks" and "responding to player feedback", yet it was released in an identical state after "listening" to feedback and suffered the fate that many of us predicted. Call me jaded, but I will believe Funcom is listening to player feedback it when I see it.

Perhaps more worrisome is the fact that developers seem all too eager to disregard popular forum opinion, perhaps rightfully so, on the grounds that it is not very representative of player opinion. With the new server polls, almost everything appears up or grabs. We see polls on all sorts of picayune details. It makes me wonder what thought processes could have possibly motivated that.

Third, while features like no guards, lowbie pvp, player looting and one character per shard sound interesting, they also appear largely cosmetic. It does not seem like a reason to come back and start a new character on what will probably be the least populated server.

Guards were a minor annoyance, but never really an issue. Sure most pvp'rs would have liked to have seen them removed, but they also helped to facilitate pvp away from the rez pads.

Whitesands and Underhall pvp was interesting at times, but I think everyone realized it was detrimental to the game health. Back when AoC supported a descent population, certain lowbie/alt guilds dominated these areas and it really discouraged new players. What I think shocked many players, is that the feature was removed long after these guilds left. It seemed kind of pointless at that point.

Player looting sounded kind of interesting too, but then Craig was quick to point out that "no drop" items were off the table for looting. To me it sounds like basically everything you wear at the end game will not be looted. Why should the hardcore pvp gods be able to loot lesser players with impunity, but not suffer the same consequence? That just does not sound well thought out.

Concluding, I think that Mr. Reahard correctly points out that many of the underlying concerns and problems players have with AoC will just be replicated on the new shard: the grind, the post 1.05 combat. While I am not sure if players need to start looking at Team Fortress or Age of Chivalry instead of an mmo (at one point - I think that AoC managed to strike a nice balance between fast paced action game and an mmo), I do think many players have begun to look at other games in general.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 11:13AM Jef Reahard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@abesworth

You raise some good points. I also interviewed Morrison over the weekend and he touches on a few of your concerns, pretty directly I might add. Look for that piece to go live today or tomorrow.
Reply

Posted: Feb 28th 2011 7:12PM spamero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
...3 years too late... that ship has sailed long time ago -.-

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 1:28AM Poordevil said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@spamero Which ship would that be? Three years too late for what? I just jumped on board here recently and find the game pretty entertaining. Haven't done much PvP, just some on White Sands, but the game is okay; more than okay, I think it's a very worthy Conan MMO.
Reply
| 1 | 2 |

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: September 14 - 20, 2014

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 6:00PM

Perfect Ten: Terrible, terrible MMO names

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 3:00PM

The Stream Team: Anchors aweigh in ArcheAge!

Posted on Sep 20th 2014 1:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW