The UO comparison keeps being thrown around by from what I can see are a bunch of people that never played UO.
Some of you UO "experts", tell me when you got ganked and lost everything just how long did it take to replace things? My memory is less then an hour to be fully equipped again due to nothing being worth a damn thing and being readily avaliable.
Is that true for Darkfall? I don't really know since I can't find any up to date information from the Devs on anything. I think it is all conjecture by all you fawnbois and you don't have a friggin clue either.
I would vote that this game will never get a geo-political structure that can establish order and just like every other FFA PK game there will be rules imposed by the devs to keep the game operating. They are subtle changes but it always happens otherwise your game servers become a wasteland and you fail due to lost subs.
I don't care because it will be so thrillingly intense and brutal that it will be utterly boring. Player-created culture and rules sound great, until you remember who are the players for the most part. If players were really so creative as to make a compelling cultural arc happen in a game...but they are not. Eve is fascinating only to those who have been there long enough to have significant capital in game. The truth is that not much is really going on. It's all battles over ISK. No replacement for writing in my book.
On another level, it really is kind of disturbing how many gamers have an intense craving for murderous anarchy, a wish to be huddling together for protection and power. Human culture is almost entirely a reaction to that horrible state of affairs, a millenia-long effort to avoid precisely that way of life. It is not fun. The folks who think that it is a fun state of mind... well, hope you don't try to date my kid. To those who will say that all games are about killing... ah yes, but we know there is a difference, otherwise why are scripted, "theme park" games so unsatisfying to this crowd? It's domination of other "real" people that turns them on. To those who say "carebear" as if it was an insult... I'll take it. I hope I never for one second forget that other players are people, and that I'd rather be cooperating with them than controlling and limiting their freedom of action. That is in fact the real world, the one that functions to provide everything you have. "Realism" is not the word for a game which is utterly based in raw power.
The entire world is about games of power and dominating others in some form or another. To think other wise is either naieveity or wishful thinking. The world is chaotic,politics and power games give humans a sense of order, and control is an illusion we have all created. The reason people like these games is because we can act out politics in a game world, it simulates the power struggel that many of us can't in get in the real world.
The reason we throw around the word "carebare" is because most people who love "themepark" games don't PvP or only like very limited and controlled PvP where they can chose when not to get attacked, or die. In FFA, you have to be on your toes 24/7 and it makes the endless grind a little more fun.
As much as the real world might be about "games of power and dominating others", this is a game. Even if we discount what your position means for noble endeavours like the United Nations (since it's so easy to jump from pointing out they're futile to saying they shouldn't exist), life forces me to take part in this struggle; in Darkfall's case, as with all other games, I always retain the choice to cancel.
Perhaps you've heard about this other "game of power" -- the free market? With every loser gone, and the winners themselves perhaps starting to get bored, how is Aventurine to keep on paying the bills?
The minute we "start seeing structure to the chaos of open PvP", we will know that the beginning of the end for Darkfall has started. It will mean that power will have been concentrated within a few hands, and that the rest of players are just losers in various stages of eradication. The downtrodden will leave, followed by those who want to quit while they're ahead so they can still save face. Then you're left with your "winners" and their Pyrrhic victory over a now dead server.
We can predict it from Day One who's going to win this -- the pre-formed large guilds. But give it a month post-release before that starts sinking in.
Look at AoC Tyranny and Cimmeria servers. Both have gone through their chaos phases and are now in the moonlight phase where players are generally getting along, although we all hate each other. Both of these servers are FFA PvP, and are focused around BK battles. Once a guild loses their BK the affect is evident, they are weaker in PvP and have low morale. And you want to know what? These are the two most active servers of the game in NA.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are either liberal or a woman. Neither of these are bad things, but they do explain way you believe game world like this inherently don't work and all fail. But they don't. These games go through a mini society evolutionary phase that our own society has gone through (no surprise) one of chaos, to a little bit more organized, to a cold war, and finally an open world that we have to day were the gankers are terrorist and the rest are trying to carve out their place in the world.
I stopped playing AoC in late June at level 40, but as I had heard so many exploitable things about the design that I only played on PvE servers to avoid them. Boring as hell, but that saved me all that predictable camping of resurrection points and of the usual strategic spots. What I do recall is that when the first siege took place, both sides (professional guilds and assorted cronies) were busy demonstrating their leetness by accusing one another of cheating. A high water mark in the history of gaming. Still, kudos for defending AoC; it never struck me as being as bad as its critics said it was.
I'm no woman, and the term "liberal" in your American sense displeases me because it's become almost derogatory (and vague) instead as being a genuine ideological qualifier. I would describe myself as a social democrat (but not, as is sometimes implied, a socialist). I'm all for civil liberties, but I am wary of economic libertarianism (which seems to be quite in vogue among gamers).
As for the political struggle, I have a litmus test that I like to call the Luxembourg Question: "In this game, will I be allowed to play the equivalent of Luxembourg (i.e. a small, peaceful nation, respectful of its neighbours) without being crushed for no more of a reason than the fact that I exist?" Please answer this for me.
I think you are wrong. In AoC a geo-political world was established before the devs set up the murder system. although it was guild centric. When a person got ganked/grifed they would call in 5 80s who woul in turn stop the grife/gank the gankers and as was well. The reason the devs put in the system was because of carebares and the solo gamer who could do this. its the reason the majority of the fan base got pissed about the criminal system because it hindered guild wars.
But what you forgot was that DF already has a control system in place: Guards and alignment points. Both of these will help prevent uninhibited ganking.
Edit: the quoting system of this forum is horrible.
The UO comparison keeps being thrown around by from what I can see are a bunch of people that never played UO. Some of you UO "experts", tell me when you got ganked and lost everything just how long did it take to replace things? My memory is less then an hour to be fully equipped again due to nothing being worth a damn thing and being readily avaliable. Is that true for Darkfall? I don't really know since I can't find any up to date information from the Devs on anything. I think it is all conjecture by all you fawnbois and you don't have a friggin clue either. I would vote that this game will never get a geo-political structure that can establish order and just like every other FFA PK game there will be rules imposed by the devs to keep the game operating. They are subtle changes but it always happens otherwise your game servers become a wasteland and you fail due to lost subs.
RF online was korean based mmorpg that was pvp like what DF sounds like it's going to be, i had lots of fun on RF, and they had Gank Guilds, constant greifing and killing of afk miners... the only problem i had that it had too many safety zones, i'm hoping DF won't suffer from "saftey zone" or any "safety net" rules... this game will not be RF, it will not be the new UO, it will not be a clone of WoW... like it or not, this will be all DF
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are either liberal or a woman. Neither of these are bad things, but they do explain way you believe game world like this inherently don't work and all fail. But they don't. These games go through a mini society evolutionary phase that our own society has gone through (no surprise) one of chaos, to a little bit more organized, to a cold war, and finally an open world that we have to day were the gankers are terrorist and the rest are trying to carve out their place in the world.
*Cough* While I thought that Vetarnias' first post didn't quite explain enough the reason behind his perspective on open pvp, the followup post he made I think justified a lot of his thoughts and gave clear reasons for them. While I have a different and more positive outlook on the type of environment open pvp with looting will create, I think given the nature of the interactions he prefers (smaller and more personal) , that his 'fears' make sense and are not entirely unjustified.
I don't believe those fears are at all different from the same fears people have in real life. The struggle of the few vrs the many has long been cliche. How many games and movies have a central focus of small groups of people against innumerable enemies, and overcoming them? The notion that this is the way things should be is practically beat into us from birth. Whether a game should be designed to make it possible for this to always happen, for the loner to always overcome impossible odds, I think is a matter of preference. Whether the loner overcomes everything or the group does, really just two different playstyles to cater to. I don't know if its fair to say either one is more deserving of success than another.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are either liberal or a woman. Neither of these are bad things, but they do explain way you believe game world like this inherently don't work and all fail. But they don't. These games go through a mini society evolutionary phase that our own society has gone through (no surprise) one of chaos, to a little bit more organized, to a cold war, and finally an open world that we have to day were the gankers are terrorist and the rest are trying to carve out their place in the world.
*Cough* While I thought that Vetarnias' first post didn't quite explain enough the reason behind his perspective on open pvp, the followup post he made I think justified a lot of his thoughts and gave clear reasons for them. While I have a different and more positive outlook on the type of environment open pvp with looting will create, I think given the nature of the interactions he prefers (smaller and more personal) , that his 'fears' make sense and are not entirely unjustified.
I don't believe those fears are at all different from the same fears people have in real life. The struggle of the few vrs the many has long been cliche. How many games and movies have a central focus of small groups of people against innumerable enemies, and overcoming them? The notion that this is the way things should be is practically beat into us from birth. Whether a game should be designed to make it possible for this to always happen, for the loner to always overcome impossible odds, I think is a matter of preference. Whether the loner overcomes everything or the group does, really just two different playstyles to cater to. I don't know if its fair to say either one is more deserving of success than another.
i was very close to reporting him myself... that line about "liberal .. .woman" didn't sit to well with me... i felt a bit nauseated when i first read that ...
I stopped playing AoC in late June at level 40, but as I had heard so many exploitable things about the design that I only played on PvE servers to avoid them. Boring as hell, but that saved me all that predictable camping of resurrection points and of the usual strategic spots. What I do recall is that when the first siege took place, both sides (professional guilds and assorted cronies) were busy demonstrating their leetness by accusing one another of cheating. A high water mark in the history of gaming. Still, kudos for defending AoC; it never struck me as being as bad as its critics said it was.
I'm no woman, and the term "liberal" in your American sense displeases me because it's become almost derogatory (and vague) instead as being a genuine ideological qualifier. I would describe myself as a social democrat (but not, as is sometimes implied, a socialist). I'm all for civil liberties, but I am wary of economic libertarianism (which seems to be quite in vogue among gamers).
As for the political struggle, I have a litmus test that I like to call the Luxembourg Question: "In this game, will I be allowed to play the equivalent of Luxembourg (i.e. a small, peaceful nation, respectful of its neighbours) without being crushed for no more of a reason than the fact that I exist?" Please answer this for me
Oh wow! Please don't take offense to this but wow a real liberal and not some idiot American, and one that knows politics to boot. Sorry, probably shouldn't of assumed. Guess saying nither of those are bad was enough hu.
First, the PvP servers weren't as bad as everyone made them out to be. The ones that complained the most were people who were either used to faction PvP, carebares, or solo players who weren't in a guild and thus couldn't get players to help them. I played on Tyranny (NA most populated PvP server) since June and while I did get spawn camped from time to time it wasn't that bad because multiple zones existed (could move to a new instance of the same zone) or switch res pads to get away from the gankers. If that failed or my group was grinding I just called my guildies and we PvPed them until they got bored and left.
Luxembourg Question: I do believe you'll be able to be a guild that does this; however, I think the guild would have to have a trade to prevent it tho. The reason being is that when you have many friends, just like in RL, it hard to please everyone and one false move will lead to someone hating you and wishing to extract revenge upon you. If; however, the guild has a trade that is indispensable such as high crafters, bounty services, traders, ect then they will have a buffer to prevent jealousy from arising.
Comments
The UO comparison keeps being thrown around by from what I can see are a bunch of people that never played UO.
Some of you UO "experts", tell me when you got ganked and lost everything just how long did it take to replace things? My memory is less then an hour to be fully equipped again due to nothing being worth a damn thing and being readily avaliable.
Is that true for Darkfall? I don't really know since I can't find any up to date information from the Devs on anything. I think it is all conjecture by all you fawnbois and you don't have a friggin clue either.
I would vote that this game will never get a geo-political structure that can establish order and just like every other FFA PK game there will be rules imposed by the devs to keep the game operating. They are subtle changes but it always happens otherwise your game servers become a wasteland and you fail due to lost subs.
The entire world is about games of power and dominating others in some form or another. To think other wise is either naieveity or wishful thinking. The world is chaotic,politics and power games give humans a sense of order, and control is an illusion we have all created. The reason people like these games is because we can act out politics in a game world, it simulates the power struggel that many of us can't in get in the real world.
The reason we throw around the word "carebare" is because most people who love "themepark" games don't PvP or only like very limited and controlled PvP where they can chose when not to get attacked, or die. In FFA, you have to be on your toes 24/7 and it makes the endless grind a little more fun.
As much as the real world might be about "games of power and dominating others", this is a game. Even if we discount what your position means for noble endeavours like the United Nations (since it's so easy to jump from pointing out they're futile to saying they shouldn't exist), life forces me to take part in this struggle; in Darkfall's case, as with all other games, I always retain the choice to cancel.
Perhaps you've heard about this other "game of power" -- the free market? With every loser gone, and the winners themselves perhaps starting to get bored, how is Aventurine to keep on paying the bills?
The minute we "start seeing structure to the chaos of open PvP", we will know that the beginning of the end for Darkfall has started. It will mean that power will have been concentrated within a few hands, and that the rest of players are just losers in various stages of eradication. The downtrodden will leave, followed by those who want to quit while they're ahead so they can still save face. Then you're left with your "winners" and their Pyrrhic victory over a now dead server.
We can predict it from Day One who's going to win this -- the pre-formed large guilds. But give it a month post-release before that starts sinking in.
Look at AoC Tyranny and Cimmeria servers. Both have gone through their chaos phases and are now in the moonlight phase where players are generally getting along, although we all hate each other. Both of these servers are FFA PvP, and are focused around BK battles. Once a guild loses their BK the affect is evident, they are weaker in PvP and have low morale. And you want to know what? These are the two most active servers of the game in NA.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are either liberal or a woman. Neither of these are bad things, but they do explain way you believe game world like this inherently don't work and all fail. But they don't. These games go through a mini society evolutionary phase that our own society has gone through (no surprise) one of chaos, to a little bit more organized, to a cold war, and finally an open world that we have to day were the gankers are terrorist and the rest are trying to carve out their place in the world.
I stopped playing AoC in late June at level 40, but as I had heard so many exploitable things about the design that I only played on PvE servers to avoid them. Boring as hell, but that saved me all that predictable camping of resurrection points and of the usual strategic spots. What I do recall is that when the first siege took place, both sides (professional guilds and assorted cronies) were busy demonstrating their leetness by accusing one another of cheating. A high water mark in the history of gaming. Still, kudos for defending AoC; it never struck me as being as bad as its critics said it was.
I'm no woman, and the term "liberal" in your American sense displeases me because it's become almost derogatory (and vague) instead as being a genuine ideological qualifier. I would describe myself as a social democrat (but not, as is sometimes implied, a socialist). I'm all for civil liberties, but I am wary of economic libertarianism (which seems to be quite in vogue among gamers).
As for the political struggle, I have a litmus test that I like to call the Luxembourg Question: "In this game, will I be allowed to play the equivalent of Luxembourg (i.e. a small, peaceful nation, respectful of its neighbours) without being crushed for no more of a reason than the fact that I exist?" Please answer this for me.
I think you are wrong. In AoC a geo-political world was established before the devs set up the murder system. although it was guild centric. When a person got ganked/grifed they would call in 5 80s who woul in turn stop the grife/gank the gankers and as was well. The reason the devs put in the system was because of carebares and the solo gamer who could do this. its the reason the majority of the fan base got pissed about the criminal system because it hindered guild wars.
But what you forgot was that DF already has a control system in place: Guards and alignment points. Both of these will help prevent uninhibited ganking.
Edit: the quoting system of this forum is horrible.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher
RF online was korean based mmorpg that was pvp like what DF sounds like it's going to be, i had lots of fun on RF, and they had Gank Guilds, constant greifing and killing of afk miners... the only problem i had that it had too many safety zones, i'm hoping DF won't suffer from "saftey zone" or any "safety net" rules... this game will not be RF, it will not be the new UO, it will not be a clone of WoW... like it or not, this will be all DF
*Cough* While I thought that Vetarnias' first post didn't quite explain enough the reason behind his perspective on open pvp, the followup post he made I think justified a lot of his thoughts and gave clear reasons for them. While I have a different and more positive outlook on the type of environment open pvp with looting will create, I think given the nature of the interactions he prefers (smaller and more personal) , that his 'fears' make sense and are not entirely unjustified.
I don't believe those fears are at all different from the same fears people have in real life. The struggle of the few vrs the many has long been cliche. How many games and movies have a central focus of small groups of people against innumerable enemies, and overcoming them? The notion that this is the way things should be is practically beat into us from birth. Whether a game should be designed to make it possible for this to always happen, for the loner to always overcome impossible odds, I think is a matter of preference. Whether the loner overcomes everything or the group does, really just two different playstyles to cater to. I don't know if its fair to say either one is more deserving of success than another.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
*Cough* While I thought that Vetarnias' first post didn't quite explain enough the reason behind his perspective on open pvp, the followup post he made I think justified a lot of his thoughts and gave clear reasons for them. While I have a different and more positive outlook on the type of environment open pvp with looting will create, I think given the nature of the interactions he prefers (smaller and more personal) , that his 'fears' make sense and are not entirely unjustified.
I don't believe those fears are at all different from the same fears people have in real life. The struggle of the few vrs the many has long been cliche. How many games and movies have a central focus of small groups of people against innumerable enemies, and overcoming them? The notion that this is the way things should be is practically beat into us from birth. Whether a game should be designed to make it possible for this to always happen, for the loner to always overcome impossible odds, I think is a matter of preference. Whether the loner overcomes everything or the group does, really just two different playstyles to cater to. I don't know if its fair to say either one is more deserving of success than another.
i was very close to reporting him myself... that line about "liberal .. .woman" didn't sit to well with me... i felt a bit nauseated when i first read that ...
Oh wow! Please don't take offense to this but wow a real liberal and not some idiot American, and one that knows politics to boot.
Sorry, probably shouldn't of assumed. Guess saying nither of those are bad was enough hu.
First, the PvP servers weren't as bad as everyone made them out to be. The ones that complained the most were people who were either used to faction PvP, carebares, or solo players who weren't in a guild and thus couldn't get players to help them. I played on Tyranny (NA most populated PvP server) since June and while I did get spawn camped from time to time it wasn't that bad because multiple zones existed (could move to a new instance of the same zone) or switch res pads to get away from the gankers. If that failed or my group was grinding I just called my guildies and we PvPed them until they got bored and left.
Luxembourg Question: I do believe you'll be able to be a guild that does this; however, I think the guild would have to have a trade to prevent it tho. The reason being is that when you have many friends, just like in RL, it hard to please everyone and one false move will lead to someone hating you and wishing to extract revenge upon you. If; however, the guild has a trade that is indispensable such as high crafters, bounty services, traders, ect then they will have a buffer to prevent jealousy from arising.
Games:
Currently playing:Nothing
Will play: Darkfall: Unholy Wars
Past games:
Guild Wars 2 - Xpiher Duminous
Xpiher's GW2
GW 1 - Xpiher Duminous
Darkfall - Xpiher Duminous (NA) retired
AoC - Xpiher (Tyranny) retired
Warhammer - Xpiher