Most definitely The more the devs feel comfortable to tell us about their plans and ideas the better. I can understand that a big part of why they don’t is that people will then treat it as ‘going to happen’ and start demanding dates, no matter how clear they are that it’s ideas and aims not a fixed timetable. But I certainly wish it wasn’t that way, and that they could feel more comfortable doing so.
Absolutely. And similarly, one of the biggest challenges for getting PVE right and adding interesting things is not to ruin PVP in the process. Balancing the different needs of the game modes has got to be one of the hardest things. I was more suggesting that I see a danger in the devs thinking down such separate lines. It’s easy enough for them to say ‘x, y and z are off limits because of other game modes’ and then try to focus on a single game mode to establish a plan - but I see this as risking missing the potential side-effects of the things they do suggest. It’s not so much the intended changes, as the little knock on effects.
To try to present an example - the new 8 second bleed timer - on the surface this was a change intended to improve PVP, while attempting to preserve the value in PVE - the devs even stated it more or less that way in the patchnotes, if I recall correctly. For the most part that seems to work. But against a croc boss, the 8 second timer is considerably more difficult to maintain a bleed stack if they do their spin/tail lash attack - the attack simply takes long enough that 8 seconds is cutting it far closer than the previous 20 seconds. Not to the point of impossibility certainly, but just another increased difficulty/character nerf. Obviously killing a croc boss is not especially difficult (or even important) - but maybe it gives a clearer idea of what I’m trying to get at?
So yes, I too want all the design info - I just worry about the tunnel vision that can be created by any attempt by the devs at focusing in too much on a single game mode, no matter how well intentioned.
FYI, raiding PvP and pve-c are 2 different things completely. PVP as conan servers define are raid. And in 3 years NOTHING has been done for those players. God’s, bombs, that is it from day 1. Rarely Pve-c happens because offline is sooooooo much easier.
Dude, c’mon, you’re kidding right? You think it’s PVE players that have been calling for nerfs to Yog’s Touch, Lifeblood Spear, Healing Waterskin, Sword of Crom etc etc Or PVE players that wanted food healing nerfed, dodges nerfed, stamina altered, bleed altered, mounts nerfed, pets and thralls nerfed. Going right back to basics, it is for the sake of PVP that placeables have to be spaced unnaturally far apart, messing with PVE and RP decoration options and preventing the DLC chess set from even being possible to set without the use of mods. Aside from the new crafting stations (which are a whole 'nother argument), most of the 2.x releases have been filled with changes explicitly aimed at PVP.
Those changes may not work, or they may not be things you (or even any PVP player) actually wanted or see any improvement from - they may not fix the problems of PVP. All of those would potentially be fair criticisms to make. But this narrative that Funcom doesn’t even try to do things for PVP is getting really old. If Funcom truly wasn’t trying to do things for PVP (however unsuccessful these efforts may be in their results), then PVE would feature a lot fewer compromises and concessions to the needs of PVP.
No aggression intended dude. You just claimed ‘PVP as conan servers define are raid’ - if that’s how PVP is defined, that’s fine. I 'm just disagreeing with the following statement, which says that ‘nothing has been done for those players’ - if raid is how PVP is defined, then you appear to be saying that nothing has been done for PVP players - if that’s not what you mean, no worries. But it looks a lot like the same old claim that gets made time after time, claiming that ‘funcom never does anything for PVP’ - which I provided evidence to show is an incorrect claim. That wasn’t combative, that was merely defining an argument and offering evidence to counter it.
This is very reasonable I feel. But it would be best, in my opinion, to make it it’s own category of PvP
I’m not sure how often new servers are added, when I started it was happening a lot on console, but that was at the launch of Siptah and the game hitting gamepass so I’m sure that skewed the numbers a fair amount
If they were to add more servers making a portion of the PvP servers into wipe specific servers would be interesting, maybe they could call it PvP-HC or something like that.
That could be a good way to test the waters and see if more of the community is interested in it than they were during EA
Again, pvp servers settings have building damage. And show me where there were was actually real effort in making raids servers better. But, tbh, I am just growing my list
And I’m in the camp that people should just be required to pay for their own servers and have DLCs be strictly revenue for development. Didnt feel that way before, but people have been incredibly vocal that officials servers should be catered to their exact needs and only their way is the correct way. So…
People here are incredibly vocal about many things. That doesn’t mean we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. The devs are big girls and boys, they know they don’t have to listen to the “the game is dead and the only thing that can save it is if you do what I say” crowd
Among my peers in the states who interface with the public, there is an increasing tension due to obvious stresses. Many professionals are severely beaten down already, and now it’s becoming a state of “he who yells loudest gets service.” It’s insidious, and we must work to repel such behavior as a community.
Multi’s idea has been bandied about before, but we always get stuck on the moniker “Official Server.” I would absolutely order and run a server as long as it could be Official.
This is my first time actually posting on a topic, so lets wade headfirst into a controversial topic.
I believe that server wipes should be an integrated into official servers with the following considerations:
All existing servers should be left alone, this is too big and controversial change.
The server wipe should be a setting that is added to the server settings for the following reasons:
a. With the current system, if you favorite a server that wipes, it gets removed from your favorites. As a community grows around that play style, being able to favorite the server would help keep the community together instead of having to remember your server number.
b. It would allow for varying durations, some servers could be set to wipe every 3 months, others every year, allowing for differing experiences.
New official servers should be added with these settings in place. In response to people who say that it would be an expensive, it is no more expensive then adding yet another server (likely PVP) that the population dies on but Funcom has to keep paying to maintain it. I would be willing to bet that it would most likely be most cost effective.
Transfers to these servers should not be allowed as it breaks the design of starting everything fresh.
My reason for why official servers with wipes should exist are the following.
A consistent player base asking for this means that there is interest in this play style.
It would improve trust among players on those servers as even if a glitch gave older players an advantage in the past, it would have no effect on the current cycle.
My counter arguments to other points.
PVE players are tired of PVP balancing. All MMOs that cater to both play styles has to deal with this. While lately there have been many changes that are more PVP focused, other design elements such as RNG and massive mob health are PVE elements that effect PVP. People may dispute me on this, but in my experience, most PVP games tend to be more static and mobs, when present, are usually faster to die.
Private servers fill this role. As someone else pointed out, Funcom doesn’t make any money on private servers, but they also lose money on official servers unless those servers increase sales by attracting new players. The goal is to increase the player base in order to make more money from sales. I personally think this would likely be a net-zero change at the worst as the increase in players would likely balance out the cost of adding servers as converting old servers would likely lose more players then it would gain.
PVP Servers are toxic. This would actually help that toxicity. If you know you are going to lose everything after a certain time, you are less angry when you lose it early and know that after the reset, you are on a level playing field to get your revenge.
Devs are too focused on PVP. If the Devs are focused on PVP, it might mean that the PVE communities are doing fine and they are trying to help the struggling communities. Just like when a teacher focuses more attention on the student that is failing then the one that is succeeding. It is always a balance to make sure that you don’t hurt one community more then you help another, but in business terms, if you have maximized your potential in one market, the only way to expand is to branch into another market. PVE is likely doing very well in their eyes and PVP needs assistance.
Anyways these are my thoughts on the matter. While I want official servers that wipe so I don’t have to rely on private servers for that kind of game play, I also don’t want to detrimentally effect any existing players’ accomplishments on current servers.
Oh, that? I thought he was saying that we should get rid of free official servers and only have paid private servers.
On the other hand, if Funcom introduced premium official servers – paid through subscription model – alongside free official servers, that would be pretty neat.
Another idea that I think would be pretty nice: Funcom could add a special category to the server browser for “endorsed” servers. The idea is that a private server could apply for endorsement and Funcom would have staff that would review that server. If the server passes review, it gets added to the endorsed server category for a time.
Both, really. Just tired of people demanding official servers be catered to exactly their needs while not caring about others (those people should just run a freaken private server, game has more then enough options to adjust the player experience to their liking.) And tired of official server people constantly griping about moderation when they aren’t actively paying for it. Not sure why people who play official servers think they deserve 5000% more attention then any other player, but they do. Not like they pay extra for that type of attention.
So, premium official servers, private servers paid for by people who choose, and no more free official servers. Then the people who want their every 1 month/3 month/6 month/whatever month wipes can have their wipes, on private servers. Sounds good to me. I’ll be less rigid about said opinion when I see people be less rigid about their own (not holding my breath anymore).
Don’t think this is a particularly good idea, but we’ve all seen pay models changes with some game before. But I don’t think having people pay for premium official servers will decrease that 5000% you noted up there.
But it is also 3am and maybe I’m not seeing a premium official server being anything but a private server with a middle man with people now even more invested on what happens to that server
Well, you say that. But I feel you may be forgetting a certain loud troll that yelled enough about the karmic effect that Funcom mistook that for player desire to remove the karmic effect…
I would certainly hope that you are correct, but I’ve been wondering about this point a fair bit - I think it may come down to the very human point that a small team can’t really read every post in the forums and remember every name that posted each comment, so it’s quite easy to see a high volume of posts in one direction and view that as popular demand, irrespective of how many are actually making the demands.
Similarly, I certainly hope the devs realise that part of the reason the forums always seem so negative after a patch is because many people don’t think to visit forums unless/until something goes wrong - those that are happy, tend to just play the game - but I imagine it must still get tiring to see.
If that’s intended in response to my post pointing out all the attempts Funcom has made recently to ‘fix’ PVP, then I guess my point didn’t come across properly. I was responding to yet another claim that ‘Funcom does nothing for PVP’ and showing that actually they have made a lot of attempts to do so (successful or not, what people want or not). It was not a claim that they ignore PVE and only focus on PVP. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim that (but I’ll concede, it may have been claimed and I just missed it). But I don’t believe I have seen a single patch released that didn’t receive at least one claim the ‘PVP is being ignored’, which is patently false (and I already covered some examples to show how that is false).
I’ll agree that RNG and mob health might be intended as PVE elements (we may not like them, or think they’re good, but that’s the same point as with the PVP changes). Likewise the new benches can certainly be argued as PVE, whether or not they were wanted. But like I say, it isn’t that nothing is being done for PVE, it’s that the more direct focus has been on PVP for a while (possibly, as you say, because it needs it) and the claims that ‘PVP is ignored’ are ridiculous and somewhat insulting to those of us who accept the compromises to our game that are made to fix PVPs problems, without then claiming to be ignored.
The more the devs feel comfortable to tell us about their plans and ideas the better. I can understand that a big part of why they don’t is that people will then treat it as ‘going to happen’ and start demanding dates, no matter how clear they are that it’s ideas and aims not a fixed timetable. But I certainly wish it wasn’t that way, and that they could feel more comfortable doing so.
.
