Annual AoC Fan Faire or Fan Convention in Vegas

Venacier wrote: »

Are there any plans to hold an annual Fan Faire or Convention in some place like Las Vegas, NV once game is active? It would be a great way to meet new friends we only met online, and new ones in person...I know my clan would go every year!!

a fun idea but..we dont want another DVP in AOC XD

Depraved wrote: »

Venacier wrote: »

Are there any plans to hold an annual Fan Faire or Convention in some place like Las Vegas, NV once game is active? It would be a great way to meet new friends we only met online, and new ones in person...I know my clan would go every year!!

a fun idea but..we dont want another DVP in AOC XD

Sorry, my text/chat vernacular is apparently deficient. What is DVP? Dev vs. Player?

Venacier wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Venacier wrote: »

Are there any plans to hold an annual Fan Faire or Convention in some place like Las Vegas, NV once game is active? It would be a great way to meet new friends we only met online, and new ones in person...I know my clan would go every year!!

a fun idea but..we dont want another DVP in AOC XD

Sorry, my text/chat vernacular is apparently deficient. What is DVP? Dev vs. Player?

google l2 dvp incident xd

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

Nerror

Or, lean into it and have RL cage matches between players at the convention! Nothing can go wrong with that.

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Most people that I've talked to that have played both have said that EVE was *far* more competitive than L2 ever was - and EVE has a convention without any issues.

That said, I played EVE for a year, and despite it being a "cooperative" game, EQ2 was far more competitive than anything I saw in EVE (though there were none of the major battles in that year). EQ2 was also far more competitive than Archeage ever was.

While I'm sure L2 was competitive in it's own way, competitiveness does not require PvP, and cooperation does not preclude competitiveness.

Thus any statement about competitiveness has no real need for mention of cooperation - as all cooperation means is that you work with some people against some other people - a situation I am fairly sure existed in L2 as well.

Diamaht

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Nah, Eve does it every year and it's fine.
And nothing is more hostile in game than Eve.

The players love Fan Fest. It would be amazing for ashes to do this. San Diego or Vegas would be perfect

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Most people that I've talked to that have played both have said that EVE was *far* more competitive than L2 ever was - and EVE has a convention without any issues.

That said, I played EVE for a year, and despite it being a "cooperative" game, EQ2 was far more competitive than anything I saw in EVE (though there were none of the major battles in that year). EQ2 was also far more competitive than Archeage ever was.

While I'm sure L2 was competitive in it's own way, competitiveness does not require PvP, and cooperation does not preclude competitiveness.

Thus any statement about competitiveness has no real need for mention of cooperation - as all cooperation means is that you work with some people against some other people - a situation I am fairly sure existed in L2 as well.

cooperative = other players arent an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).
competitive = other players are an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Most people that I've talked to that have played both have said that EVE was *far* more competitive than L2 ever was - and EVE has a convention without any issues.

That said, I played EVE for a year, and despite it being a "cooperative" game, EQ2 was far more competitive than anything I saw in EVE (though there were none of the major battles in that year). EQ2 was also far more competitive than Archeage ever was.

While I'm sure L2 was competitive in it's own way, competitiveness does not require PvP, and cooperation does not preclude competitiveness.

Thus any statement about competitiveness has no real need for mention of cooperation - as all cooperation means is that you work with some people against some other people - a situation I am fairly sure existed in L2 as well.

cooperative = other players arent an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).
competitive = other players are an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).

In that case, I've never played a cooperative MMORPG.

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

With all the games and developers that have anual conventions and such, the fact that a "bad thing" happened at one isnt reason to not carry on having them.

true but other games are more cooperative. wars in l2 were next level and aoc is basically l3
some fked up russian or latino is gonna take it too seriously

Most people that I've talked to that have played both have said that EVE was *far* more competitive than L2 ever was - and EVE has a convention without any issues.

That said, I played EVE for a year, and despite it being a "cooperative" game, EQ2 was far more competitive than anything I saw in EVE (though there were none of the major battles in that year). EQ2 was also far more competitive than Archeage ever was.

While I'm sure L2 was competitive in it's own way, competitiveness does not require PvP, and cooperation does not preclude competitiveness.

Thus any statement about competitiveness has no real need for mention of cooperation - as all cooperation means is that you work with some people against some other people - a situation I am fairly sure existed in L2 as well.

cooperative = other players arent an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).
competitive = other players are an obstacle to beat the game (or the encounter, or challenge, or dungeon, etc).

In that case, I've never played a cooperative MMORPG.

well, you dont need to defeat other players when you are in a dungeon in wow, you just need to get to the end and beat the boss. im sure you have done that.

did you have to pvp in eq for bosses?

i also forgot to mention cooperative-competitive = you need to cooperate with your team to defeat other players (the enemy players are the obstacle to beat the game, challenge, etc, imagine a basketball or soccer video game or a 3v3 arena in wow).

also, note that one game may contain different modes, depending on the activity.

Depraved wrote: »

well, you dont need to defeat other players when you are in a dungeon in wow, you just need to get to the end and beat the boss. im sure you have done that.

In EQ and EQ2 you don't need to PvP others to kill bosses, but you do need to compete with them. This is why these games are so competitive - you have all the competition of a game like Archeage or EVE (or presumably L2), but are lacking the easy path of open PvP to facilitate that competition.

If you want a sporting analogy, a game like L2 may be something like football of basketball where each side is directly attempting to prevent the other from winning, while attempting to win themselves. A game like EQ2 is more akin to a cycling race, where you are supposed to be focusing on yourself and your race, you aren't supposed to be hindering your opposition directly. In both cycling and EQ/EQ2 though, everyone knows there are many means to do exactly that.

A game like WoW is perhaps more akin to something like ski jumping or various contests within gymnastics. Sure, each team may be competing in isolation, but that doesn't mean there isn't competition between competitors.

Saying cycling or EQ/EQ2 (or WoW, ski jumping or gymnastics, for that matter) aren't competitive just because each side isn't supposed to be trying to directly prevent the other team from winning seems to me to be forgetting what the actual meaning of competition as a term really is. This whole point applies to the entire field of athletics - there is no race at the olympics where competitors are trying to tackle the other competitors, yet the vast majority of athletics is incredibly competitive.

Your original statement only works if you are mistakenly of the opinion that competition requires direct conflict - something that is demonstrably not true.

Noaani wrote: »

Depraved wrote: »

well, you dont need to defeat other players when you are in a dungeon in wow, you just need to get to the end and beat the boss. im sure you have done that.

In EQ and EQ2 you don't need to PvP others to kill bosses, but you do need to compete with them. This is why these games are so competitive - you have all the competition of a game like Archeage or EVE (or presumably L2), but are lacking the easy path of open PvP to facilitate that competition.

If you want a sporting analogy, a game like L2 may be something like football of basketball where each side is directly attempting to prevent the other from winning, while attempting to win themselves. A game like EQ2 is more akin to a cycling race, where you are supposed to be focusing on yourself and your race, you aren't supposed to be hindering your opposition directly. In both cycling and EQ/EQ2 though, everyone knows there are many means to do exactly that.

A game like WoW is perhaps more akin to something like ski jumping or various contests within gymnastics. Sure, each team may be competing in isolation, but that doesn't mean there isn't competition between competitors.

Saying cycling or EQ/EQ2 (or WoW, ski jumping or gymnastics, for that matter) aren't competitive just because each side isn't supposed to be trying to directly prevent the other team from winning seems to me to be forgetting what the actual meaning of competition as a term really is. This whole point applies to the entire field of athletics - there is no race at the olympics where competitors are trying to tackle the other competitors, yet the vast majority of athletics is incredibly competitive.

Your original statement only works if you are mistakenly of the opinion that competition requires direct conflict - something that is demonstrably not true.

when i said defeat other players, i didnt specify how you defeat them. defeat can simply mean reach the finish line first (in the case of a race), or score more points because you performed better (in the case of a gymnastics or ice skating competition). i never said that you have to hinder other players

for example, and i mentioned this before in another thread, you dont have open world pvp in ragnarok online, but you are competing against other players. whoever does the most damage to a boss will get the loot, plus the top damage dealer will get extra loot called the mvp loot. you also have to compete for regular mobs as well. other players can take the mos from you leaving you with nothing. if you want xp and loot, you have to perform better or you dont progress (or go to another map, in which case, you lost).

in wow, you can stay inside a dungeon and get to max level and gear. you dont have to defeat other players to do that. it doesnt matter if you took 30 mins to do the dungeon and i took 29, im not beating you. im not preventing you from winning. so the nature of the design isnt competitive. sure players can make up their own competitions, time trials, etc. but that doesnt mean the game itself is of competitive nature.

for example, i can take the game of basketball (or shooting a ball into a hoop) and change the rules to make it either cooperative, solo, competitive, cooperative - competitive.

1- solo: you have to shoot 10 times (same rules about running, dribbling, out of bounds, etc apply) from the 3 points line or the free throw line. if you get more than 20 points, you get a prize. you also have to grab the rebounds and dribble back to where you have to shoot from. if you dont grab the ball and it goes out of bounds, you lose. if you shoot 10 times and score less than 20 points, you lose. you can even ad a timer of 2 minutes. if the time runs out before your 10 shots, you lose.

2- competitive: same as before but after your turn shooting, another player will have his turn. whoever scores more points wins.

3- competitive: same as before but both players play at the same time on different sides of the court without interfering with one another. if you get disqualified (ball goes out of bounds) the other player automatically wins. if you score more points when the timer reaches 0, you win. if both players score the same amount of points, whoever finished their 10 throws faster wins.

4- competitive: both players are interfering with each other. they try to take the ball from the other player, block, etc. just a 1v1 basketball game.

5- cooperative: same as the first solo example, but now you have 4 other players with you doing their 10 shots taking turns. if the team scores more than 100 points, they win a prize, if not, they lose.

6- cooperative - competitive: a combination of the first 2 examples with teams of 5.

7- cooperative - competitive: same as 3 with teams of 5.

8- cooperative - competitive: same as 4 with tams of 5. just your regular 5v5 basketball game.

the question is, which type of games are more fun to play or to watch for the majority of people? and the answer is cooperative - competitive games.

bottom line, you can grab basketball and make it a solo or cooperative only game, but doesnt mean the official game with the official rules is a solo or cooperative only game. the same way you can grab a cooperative game and add competition to it, but doesnt mean the official game with the official rules is. the same way you can grab wow and add a meta game to it. player made competitions of whoever finishes the dungeon faster wins something (maybe some gold or cash price or whatever). doesnt mean the official game with the official ruleset is competitive. other players arent an obstacle to clear the dungeon and kill the boss. you dont need to beat any other player in any way, shape or form or dps faster or heal more or take less damage than other players doing the same dungeon in a different instance to beat the boss and get the loot. doesnt matter if you parse the highest dps in the world or not, you are sitll beating the boss and getting the loot, even if you parse the lowest dps in the world. its not a real competition.

im nto sure how it is in eq, i suppose you are inside an open world dungeon killing mobs and other players will try to kill the same mobs. whoever does the most damage gets the loot and most of the exp. in that case, which is like ragnarok, then yes, the game has a competitive element.

Depraved wrote: »

2- competitive: same as before but after your turn shooting, another player will have his turn. whoever scores more points wins.

In my experience, this describes WoW better than any if the others you discussed.

The point of WoW is to be first - world or server. The competition to be first is real.

Sure, some people dont participate in this competition, but many do, and the game facilitates it (along with third party websites).

WoW instances are as competitive as most games that have a ranking system.

EQ and EQ2 have examples similar to WoW above, but also have top end content that dont quite fit in to any of your examples.

If I were to give a description of it following what you've done above, it would be - teams of 5 shoot balls at the hoop from the half way line, the first person to get one in then has their team remain on the court, and everyone else leaves. That remaining team then needs to make 100 consecutive shots each from that half way line in order to win. If any one of them misses one shot they then all have to run around the court three times, and all other teams are free to start from that first shot again while they are running. The team that missed the shot can rejoin once they have run around three times if no one else has managed to get a ball in the basket by that stage - however, they start their count again from 100 each should they get back on the court.

While a team is taking their shots, no other team is allowed on the court. However, anything else at all is fair game. Anyone from any of the other teams, or even just spectators if they like, can move the basket, cover it up, take away the backboard, deflate the ball, turn the lights off, what ever - you just can't be on the court.

Where would you rate that in terms of competitive/cooperative?

CROW3

Vegas makes sense: RNG loot.

Well, people can be stupid anywhere...for any reason or no reason, that should not preclude the fan base from having an option to meet up. I know back in the prime of EQ2 I loved going there and meeting my guildies IRL.
Due to meeting IRL, some of these guildies are still my friends I will talk to today, even though I haven't been in EQ2 in years. One is in England, which makes it a fun trip to swing by on vacation.
Anyway, there is no logical reason to not have this. I will make it happen in my guild one way or another, but it would just that much more fun if AoC wide to meet new ppl outside my server.
Vegas is great, as it has easy cheap travel from anywhere in the world, and lots to do outside the convention.
I like how Steven said he took his guild officers to Hawaii and chartered a boat

... I wouldn't pay for all the tickets, but I would charter a boat

Anyway... STEVEN SHARIF...make it happen in VEGAS!!!! post launch is kewl 2

Theplague4u

Why not San Diego, CA where the studio is at? Vegas sucks.

I was born in San Diego...it has a lot of traffic, and crime....and besides the beaches and parks...like zoo, sea world etc...there isn't anything to do, but I would still go. There is Fiesta Island..but it is a non-official party spot for singles...I wouldn't jet ski there anymore.
For travel and lodging from ppl around the US...not sure getting to and staying in SD is a better option. Besides, the AoC team could use a vacation as well. Having it in their own town, makes it just another day for them.