Re: Tactical Gamer Age Of Conan Guild will be supporting two servers: PVP & PVE!

**Gambit7** · 05-14-2008, 01:20 PM

The first few folk who are on during the early release get to decide which servers TG is ultimately on (since they're the only ones who will actually SEE the servers). As done with the open beta, it will most likely be a low population server [NOT the very first server you see] to fight server lag (this is especially important on the PvP server). Server locations are usually EITHER set in the eastern zone or central zone. Eastern zone is nice for the many overseas people that play with TG (and the majority of players) and gives the guild a late-night contingent. Central of course is nice for Americans as it more easily links all time-zones. We shall see if we have these choices.

Once this is done, it gets posted up on the forums (this is why we have forums). If you want to know which server to choose... check the forums, or ask on TS. Until the game opens, we wont know obviously.

As for the pvp/pve argument. Every smart guild in most every MMO fields a guild on each type of server (our WoW guild did/does). As time goes on, one guild tends to rise to the top and the decision is made naturally. When players get bored, many times they'll flip to the other side just for fun... OR someone with "vision" comes along and bolsters the weaker guild into a powerhouse (ideally). It's fruitless to argue about it, because all bases are covered here.

No one should be worried about lack of numbers. If there's a lack of numbers, that'll be due to lack of recruitment within the TG ranks as well as outside. In Tabula Rasa we probably had only about 10 active TGers playing, but within 2 weeks probably had 50 different recruits come through the door - without much advertising. It's not hard... and not really an issue. We still have apps coming in today for a now defunct game (due to AoC coming out). Many of these recruits are still TGers even though the game wacked out.

Give the game some time and it'll iron itself out. It's not an instantaneous process. The most important thing in the beginning, though, is that we all get to play together and no one dies alone.

**Zoopy** · 05-14-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

Consider the resources involved, especially with AoC. Guilds can build their own cities, and each of these cities requires their own instance on a server somewhere. More guild cities = more strain on the server hardware and network equipment. Imagine 500 one-man guilds, each of those with their own cities; that's 500 extra server instances to deal with. Compare that to the (likely) average of guilds with 50-100 members, needing only 5-10 server instances.

Now cities are expensive, and I'm sure they have their own requirements that will make it hard for 1-person guilds to make a city. However, you should never underestimate the determination some of these solo players have. Even if they can't make cities, there's still other resources involved in guild tracking, such as member and pvp stats, that you don't want servers spending power on frivolously.

It just seems a very messy and ill-fated thing to do.

You need a certain amount of people in a guild to make a city. I think its either 10 or 40. I cannot find a source for either. Would take a single person a long time to gather all the recourses themself, methinks.

EDIT: Never mind, the requirement for a city is 24+ members. Source

**Humvee** · 05-14-2008, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Gambit7

The other thing is, we'll now need 2 Guild Leaders and probably 2 sub-forums. Who will now lead which server?

Keep in mind the guild leaders should be the ones who are playing the most and who level up the fastest. Point being- The guild leader must be level 40+ to place a city. Whether or not there is a way around this, nobody knows yet. (Such as handing down leadership to a level 40+ and then giving it back).

Maybe it's not one of your goals to level up the quickest, but it should be your goal for the guild to be one of the first to place a city.

**fldash** · 05-14-2008, 02:37 PM

Everyone covered the guild thing for me already. A one man guild will never be able to build a city. The only requirement to create a guild is to be level 20. It was even possible in the PvP Mayhem event during the open beta.

Gambit is entirely correct. It matters not how many current TG members we have starting the game, recruits will arrive and fill the ranks, bringing more people to TG, and possible even more TG supporters. It's a win/win situation.

As for server selection, I agree with what's been said already. However, if you get online right when the server opens, it's going to be impossible to tell which server is 'low' pop wise. And if all the servers that were up are high, then more will be added later.

I played on a low pop server in WOW and it sucked. I'd much rather be on a medium to high server assuming its not laggy (and with the instances in AOC, I don't think that'll be an issue). I would just have everyone in Vent on the and whoever is in first can announce the server and post it here.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 05-14-2008, 02:37 PM

We don't as of yet have the 24+ player requirement for city building. I'm hoping we will see an upswing in player interest where meeting that number won't be an issue.

**Unload** · 05-14-2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

We seem to have a few die-hard either way. Personally, I still think that the PvE server will offer all that we need to both player types. To paraphrase what Humvee said over in the server poll thread, PvP players can survive well enough on PvE servers, but PvE players will not be very happy on a PvP server. I also honestly wouldn't be surprised if some of the PvP players get frustrated along the way on a PvP server; always having to group, needing to stick to schedules just to level up, etc.

.

Tarpan and Humvee have very valid points here.

Speaking from experience, PvP servers generally have more players with a lower maturity level than on a PvE server. But I think everyone needs to look past the image of a PvE server. That doesn't mean there will be worse PvP or not as fun PvP, it simply means you can quest without getting ganked. If no one else is on or no one available to group with, and you would rather not group with someone that possibly has a low ability to play the game, what are you going to do? Solo in an environment where you could be killed by a group of players, or maybe even other solo players? As I understand from reading and skimming AoC materials, after level 20 there is no way to solo in a protected fashion, doing quests or just trying to get to another place, correct?

I love to PvP in MMORPGs, Dark Age of Camelot in my opinion best matches the siege warfare/outer kingdom approach AoC is taking (unless you count the Shadowbane failure), and the most fun servers weren't the PvP servers, they were the normal servers (PvE) where the only PvP was to enter the realm frontiers. The battles are bigger and more epic because you had to run in a group of at least 8 people, sometimes running with 3 groups of 8 or more. You know you entered a realm to do PvP but you have no idea where the enemy is.

Don't get me wrong, I voted for a PvP server, simply because I believe TG has what it takes to be such a dominant force. I also believe the way Funcom made the game will enhance the experience of a PvP server, since the classes appear to all have some type of hybrid aspect. I just hope Funcom gets the PvP server right, because it could be amazing and more fun than a PvE server.

**daithi1** · 05-14-2008, 04:42 PM

I really like the idea of two servers. I don't think a lack of members should be a problem once we are organised from the word go. That way we will be one of the first guilds around so by the time both cities are ready to build we would have a solid player base.

I personally will be starting on the PvP and hopefully eventually making a toon on the PvE. It's nice to know that I have somewhere to go if I decide I don't like PvP or it's broken.

As for managing things goes possibly a guild leader for each server could be appointed and then someone managing the whole thing. The two guild leaders would probably people who could devote lot's and lot's of time to the game and would always be one of the best in the guild i.e. one of the first to 40 to get working on the city etc. While the overall leader made sure there was communication between the two guild leaders and was always looking for new things todo that one of the guild leaders wouldn't have time to do.

This is only and idea and possibly a far-fetched one but I think it has possibilities.

Originally Posted by fldash

Would you care to enlighten me about what's 'counter-productive' about it? This is not the first time I've been 'called out' on these forums for simply voicing my opinions and thoughts. I was the one that originally suggested TG split into PvE and PvP servers to make everyone happy.

I believe Guardian was referring to the issue you raised about the guild name. I also personally think that it is counter-productive given that the name is already chosen and we have two threads about it already.

Also I personally couldn't care less if you were an SM or not.

**fldash** · 05-14-2008, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by daithi1

I believe Guardian was referring to the issue you raised about the guild name. I also personally think that it is counter-productive given that the name is already chosen and we have two threads about it already.

It was made mostly in jest as I've made it known I disliked naming the guild 'Tactical Gamer'. In addition, I thought I recalled most of those supporting PvP were the ones supporting other names while those wanting PvE were wanting the 'Tactical Gamer' name. However, I could be wrong.

**TheFatKidDeath** · 05-14-2008, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by fldash

It was made mostly in jest as I've made it known I disliked naming the guild 'Tactical Gamer'. In addition, I thought I recalled most of those supporting PvP were the ones supporting other names while those wanting PvE were wanting the 'Tactical Gamer' name. However, I could be wrong.

The name of the main Guild is Tactical Gamer. If we move in the direction of having two sub guilds we could certainly choose a different name for those server guilds. For example, PVP could be The Barbarians, PVE - The Picts. Or whatever name we choose.

**SmokingTarpan** · 05-14-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

The name of the main Guild is Tactical Gamer. If we move in the direction of having two sub guilds we could certainly choose a different name for those server guilds. For example, PVP could be The Barbarians, PVE - The Picts. Or whatever name we choose.

By the way, just a word of caution on guild naming. From the sticky on the forums:

http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=39756

For the purposes of naming your guild, our policy on lore, currently:

You can use things like places, so, for example, Stygia, Hyboria, etc., without it being a problem. Something like "Guardians of Hyboria" would be fine.

If you use an order/group/organization already in the lore, you will probably be name-changed, especially if it's a faction/order/etc. that's in the game.

I know there was some talk of using the name of some mercenary groups or kingdoms in the books. Just a heads up that if you go in that direction, you might end up having to re-name the guild later.

**Humvee** · 05-14-2008, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

The name of the main Guild is Tactical Gamer. If we move in the direction of having two sub guilds we could certainly choose a different name for those server guilds. For example, PVP could be The Barbarians, PVE - The Picts. Or whatever name we choose.

Lets not confuse people now! I thought we settled on Tactical Gamer? lol

Im all for naming our city something that resembles the lore of Hyboria.
But the name in brackets under my name I would like to stay Tactical Gamer. Isn't that what we settled on?

**TheFatKidDeath** · 05-14-2008, 10:09 PM

Originally Posted by Humvee

Lets not confuse people now! I thought we settled on Tactical Gamer? lol

Im all for naming our city something that resembles the lore of Hyboria.
But the name in brackets under my name I would like to stay Tactical Gamer. Isn't that what we settled on?

Yes, the main Guild name is Tactical Gamer. Use that name. That name covers the entire Guild.

If we have both a PVP and PVE sub Guild then we will use Tactical Gamer inconjuction with whatever name we can brain storm. For example, TG-The Barbarians (for the PVP server), etc.

**Turbinator** · 05-14-2008, 10:52 PM

oops dble post, check the next post

**Turbinator** · 05-14-2008, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by Gambit7

The first few folk who are on during the early release get to decide which servers TG is ultimately on (since they're the only ones who will actually SEE the servers).

hmmm, does not sit well with me. It would suck for me to play on PvP server should TG go PvE like it happened with WoW.

Originally Posted by Gambit7

As for the pvp/pve argument. Every smart guild in most every MMO fields a guild on each type of server (our WoW guild did/does). As time goes on, one guild tends to rise to the top and the decision is made naturally. When players get bored, many times they'll flip to the other side just for fun... OR someone with "vision" comes along and bolsters the weaker guild into a powerhouse (ideally). It's fruitless to argue about it, because all bases are covered here.

TG guild in WoW(at release) was only on PVE server for more then a year, that I know of.

Originally Posted by Gambit7

Give the game some time and it'll iron itself out. It's not an instantaneous process. The most important thing in the beginning, though, is that we all get to play together and no one dies alone.

Hear hear!!! Salute!!!

**Gambit7** · 05-14-2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Yes, the main Guild name is Tactical Gamer. Use that name. That name covers the entire Guild.

If we have both a PVP and PVE sub Guild then we will use Tactical Gamer inconjuction with whatever name we can brain storm. For example, TG-The Barbarians (for the PVP server), etc.

I are confused...
Each guild on each server will have to act independently and BOTH would be named "Tactical Gamer." Any "sub-guild/squad" within each main guild on each server would be similar to WoW's squad system... but purely aesthetic, because there's no ingame squad system in AoC. It'd be simply a moniker gaming cliques can go by (in forums and TS), like our current TG in-house squad model.

The city name(s) will of course be related to Conan Lore.

There are no "Clan Tags" as far as I know in AoC, therefore no special characters like (-, _, *, etc.) either. We ran into similar problems in TR and ended up sticking with simply "Tactical Gamer," instead of TG-5th etc.

Until we have enough people, breaking into sub-guilds/squads probably isnt good at release. After time, naturally many people will want to stick to people they know and may perhaps form their own guild under the TG banner... like the merc guild (if there is/was one). Ideally though, everyone would stick together.

One hint I have also, having tried the "squad method" before... is that guilds typically like to do things on their own. There USED to be a grand plan on TG to make MMO support "squad"-based, where we'd have many different guilds under the TG banner all brought together. This never seems to work though. Ive seen it tried on WoW as well as TR and both times ultimately failed. And those squads that form initially separate from TG always end up leaving the nest entirely at some point.

Anyways, I'm rambling... I just wanna play already

Thread Tools

Display