Darkfall alliances - Player dictated RvR

Trenchgun

http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/map/

You want RvR, try RvR where the players pick their sides and locations, and politics can change them.

pwnzorellOr

Originally posted by Trenchgun


http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/map/
You want RvR, try RvR where the players pick their sides and locations, and politics can change them.

 

hey, you could use that as another sandbox argument ! and it's even better rvr than daoc, it's the next generation, groundbreaking, sandboxOring RvR mmo.

 

i must buy it.

xzyax

Originally posted by Trenchgun


http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/map/
You want RvR, try RvR where the players pick their sides and locations, and politics can change them.

 

Really?

So they changed the forced racial alliances? 

Humans can decide to ally with Alfar and be enemies with Dwarves and Mirdain instead?

Alfar can decide to ally with Orks instead of being enemy to all?

Once I decide on which alliances I want, I'll then be able to walk through the new alliances starter cities... right?

 

Cool!  I always hated that decision for a  MMO billed as the ultimate in player freedom.  It's about time they let every player pick their own racial alliances from the beginning.  About time they came to their senses. 

If there is something I can't stand it's a MMO billed as a sandbox game making decisions for me. 

 

Now all they need to do is let me build a city or house where I want. 

Orthedos

Originally posted by parrotpholk

Originally posted by Trenchgun


http://darkfallinfo.com/pmap/map/
You want RvR, try RvR where the players pick their sides and locations, and politics can change them.

 

Its not RvR, its clan vs clan. Period end of story with nothing worth doing outside of that. Nice PR campaign you have going lately.

 

Somehow I notice a very funny tendency here.  A few new handles, many with only a few posts, all trying to sell this game in various methods.  While many DF fans like their own game, and praise them, they seldom resort to near shameless spinning to explicitly sell this game.  At least until after the so called NA server.

Do I smell serious financial crisis in AV?

Kyleran

Looks more like the 0.0 map in EVE rather than DAOC.

But it is true, players dictate who may travel safely in their terrirory and who may not.

 

xzyax

Originally posted by Kyleran


Looks more like the 0.0 map in EVE rather than DAOC.
But it is true, players dictate who may travel safely in their terrirory and who may not.
 

 

Not really.

 

Considering the size of the "territory" and the lack of population... there are plenty of holes one can slip through. 

True there are "watering holes" so to speak with the desired spawn points, and since they are static if one wants to farm those spots you could probably control those particular points.

 

But actually stopping someone who wants to cross from one side of the map to the other?  Not going to happen.   Not without hacks at least. 

throckmorton

The beautiful thing is that maintaining ridiculously large alliances is nearly impossible, so you don't see them for long.

Also if you are in one of these "RvR" scenarios, and you get bored, you can always start killing alliance members.

steamtank

at least call it what it is.

 

its not rvr.

its cvc or AvA.  their is a difference.

 

 

and holy fuck get a better color code system.

 

i like the idea, and what you are trying to promote has merit...... if you actually promote it for what it really is.

Trenchgun

It amazes me the lengths the haters go through on these boards to try and deny all the valid high points of darkfall, especially when most don't even play.

They act like darkfall raped them, and for that it can never be forgiven and can never be allowed any form of praise. You haters need to move on with your life.

 

Trenchgun

-The racial alliances have no impact on the actual RvR, they are merely a tool of behavior modification to make some areas safer for newbs and for that they are essential. There are no restrictions on what guilds can ally together, and that is where the real RvR takes place in the form of territorial alliances.  These realms situate themselves in strategic sections of the map and exert control over their area, expanding through conquest. Walking through an enemy alliance controlled sector is even more dangerous than walking through a racial enemy sector.

-RvR or AvA, it's just semantics when the fact is that alliances start to function like an RvR system but in a completely dynamic way. Why would you want a static RvR system like warhammer/DAoC; forced, unchanging, dev dictated; when Darkfall's AvA is dynamic, player driven, subject to the forces politics, economics, strategic strength, etc,  Darkfall's way is better, and pointing out that it functions essentially like an RvR system as massive blocks of allied players fight to one up each other is to point out an aspect of the game that not many know exist until they get into a good clan that is a part of one of the major alliances. Unlike static RvR, the dynamic AvA of darkfall doesn't require the devs to put in artificial incentives like skills or special items to force you into conflict with other players; It's a natural part of the game as guilds seek to protect and expand their positions, economic base, and infrastructure.

-Alliances do control who has access to hunting spots and resource nodes, and traveling through brings a lot of risk. Simply doing anything other than running through is asking to be killed. You don't want to hunt or gather in enemy territory because it's only a matter of time before someone comes across you. Of course it's possible to get through the territory without getting spotted, but it's a sign of desperation to try and nitpick that point in an attempt to deny that real RvR dynamics grow out of the AvA player dictated system.

 

 

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun


-The racial alliances have no impact on the actual RvR, they are merely a tool of behavior modification to make some areas safer for newbs and for that they are essential. There are no restrictions on what guilds can ally together, and that is where the real RvR takes place in the form of territorial alliances.  These realms situate themselves in strategic sections of the map and exert control over their area, expanding through conquest. Walking through an enemy alliance controlled sector is even more dangerous than walking through a racial enemy sector.
This is exactly why DFO can not be considered RvR, there are no restrictions for ARC's and being a murderer really. The Racial alliance thing is something that was done half arsed and generally gets ignored past the newb cities.
-RvR or AvA, it's just semantics when the fact is that alliances start to function like an RvR system but in a completely dynamic way. Why would you want a static RvR system like warhammer/DAoC; forced, unchanging, dev dictated; when Darkfall's AvA is dynamic, player driven, subject to the forces politics, economics, strategic strength, etc,  Darkfall's way is better, and pointing out that it functions essentially like an RvR system as massive blocks of allied players fight to one up each other is to point out an aspect of the game that not many know exist until they get into a good clan that is a part of one of the major alliances. Unlike static RvR, the dynamic AvA of darkfall doesn't require the devs to put in artificial incentives like skills or special items to force you into conflict with other players; It's a natural part of the game as guilds seek to protect and expand their positions, economic base, and infrastructure.
RvR and AvA are far more than just semantics in this case. In RvR you generally have an even playing field by your own doing or by Dev intervention. AvA in DFO's case means, you're either the larger Alliance or you try to be the larger alliance. You do this by any means necessary, sale out friends, hire mercs, backstab your current alliance, etc. etc. etc. point is you are either the bigger alliance or the losing alliance. That really isn't what RvR is to me I guess.
-Alliances do control who has access to hunting spots and resource nodes, and traveling through brings a lot of risk. Simply doing anything other than running through is asking to be killed. You don't want to hunt or gather in enemy territory because it's only a matter of time before someone comes across you. Of course it's possible to get through the territory without getting spotted, but it's a sign of desperation to try and nitpick that point in an attempt to deny that real RvR dynamics grow out of the AvA player dictated system.
 This is also a double edged sword. You're either part of the bigger alliance, or you simply do not have access to the hunting spots and the resource nodes of an area. While it is good for the bigger alliance, all others are simply SoL.
 

And no, not hating. Just stating the other side of the coin. If you are trying to give people new insight on DFO give them the good and the bad. Otherwise it isn't an informed decision, and simply looks like your a shill. I didn't say you were, I am simply stating that it may make you look like one.

Trenchgun

-You are thinking too one dimensionally. There ARE consequences in place for killing your alliance members but it's player enforced, and there is a very strong deterrent not to get yourself kicked out of a major clan because you need them. You are about as safe in an alliance city full of alliance members as you would be in any dev sectioned realm of a static RvR system.

-Static RvR is only as even as the players make it through their number distribution and organization. The side with the most players and the most organized/largest guilds is going to win even in a static setup that tries to be balanced otherwise  In darkfall all the players have access to the same potential, thus no issues with class or realm imbalance, and each clan has the potential to control the same areas as any other; so it's actually more of an even playing field than any static RvR game because the only variable in the system is the players themselves, and that is how it should be. Darkfall's AvA in truth is far more closer to what RvR ultimately strives to be but is unable to achieve because they lack the incentives and consequences to make it happen. Only EVE also achieves it because it is much like darkfall in that respect.

-You're also patently wrong. Smaller but more well organized and skilled alliances can an do defeat larger ones, sometimes easily. And they don't need treachery to do it, but having the option is part of what makes the sandbox AvA system far more compelling than static arena-style RvR.

-You can't complain about how the political aspects can suddenly change alliance dynamics, because by definition that is what a player dictated RvR game looks like, and that is what I described darkfall as.

-Now you're back straining to nitpick the system instead of just giving darkfall credit where credit is due, which is ignorant hatery. It's not a double edged sword that the alliance system functions as intended, leading to large scale war that is like player driven RvR and control over entire regions as an incentive. Complaining that you need to be in an alliance at some point as a clan is like complaining that at some point you need to be in a clan instead of soloing.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun


-You are thinking too one dimensionally. There ARE consequences in place for killing your alliance members but it's player enforced, and there is a very strong deterrent not to get yourself kicked out of a major clan because you need them. You are about as safe in an alliance city full of alliance members as you would be in any dev sectioned realm of a static RvR system.
With a Clan city no there are not any consequences in place for killing your racial alliance (This is of course assuming you were trying to respond to what I said about the RvR and not trying to twist it into alliances period). The lack of penalties for ARC clans has been a constant concern for many that have and do play DFO. Sorry, you are simply incorrect here.
-Static RvR is only as even as the players make it through their number distribution and organization. The side with the most players and the most organized/largest guilds is going to win even in a static setup that tries to be balanced otherwise  In darkfall all the players have access to the same potential, thus no issues with class or realm imbalance, and each clan has the potential to control the same areas as any other; so it's actually more of an even playing field than any static RvR game because the only variable in the system is the players themselves, and that is how it should be. Darkfall's AvA in truth is far more closer to what RvR ultimately strives to be but is unable to achieve because they lack the incentives and consequences to make it happen. Only EVE also achieves it because it is much like darkfall in that respect.
When one side in the RvR MMO's has to many players versus another the Devs generally step in so no, you are incorrect here as well. DFO's AvA is no where near what RvR is meant to be. Real vs. Realm or Race vs. Race is about giving meaning to the PvP as is full loot. Oddly enough, meaning in the PvP is one thing DFO is lacking. So again you are simply incorrect. But this is just my opinion.
-You're also patently wrong. Smaller but more well organized and skilled alliances can an do defeat larger ones, sometimes easily. And they don't need treachery to do it, but having the option is part of what makes the sandbox AvA system far more compelling than static arena-style RvR.
This is incorrect as well. In DFO the age old question of "Does size matter?" is answered with a resounding yes. I was part of Hyperion prior to the fall and size alone was the factor for it's success. When many of us left and Hyperions enemies outnumbered Hyperion, it fell. Simple as that. In AvA in darkfall the largest wins. Smaller clans may be able to strategically defend and sometimes succeed but not on the offensive side unless they do the attack when the other alliance simply isn't on (Ninja sieges) and when they do that, for the moment they are the largest of the two alliances. So again you are simply incorrect.
-You can't complain about how the political aspects can suddenly change alliance dynamics, because by definition that is what a player dictated RvR game looks like, and that is what I described darkfall as.
I did not complain about anything lol. I was simply stating what you either intentionally left out or haven't played enough to know.
-Now you're back straining to nitpick the system instead of just giving darkfall credit where credit is due, which is ignorant hatery. It's not a double edged sword that the alliance system functions as intended, leading to large scale war that is like player driven RvR and control over entire regions as an incentive. Complaining that you need to be in an alliance at some point as a clan is like complaining that at some point you need to be in a clan instead of soloing.
I have given DarkFall where credit is due. The world looks great, the combat is a step in the right direction. Full loot and FFA PvP are always nice. The RvR aspect of the game though is not where it deserves credit. The RvR side of the game was something completely over looked and neglected. I played Alfar to be part of the most hunted races. It depressed me that I was being invited to clans with all races. Alfar only clans almost all went ARC as did almost every other clan and alliance in the game. I am not sure why or how you see the game as an RvR masterpiece when the RvR is one of DFO's biggest failings. Truly mind boggling. If  you wish to tout the game as AvA then by all means do so, for that is what it is and all that it is lol. I am not denying that DFO is soley an alliance vs. alliance game. I was merely stating the negatives that come with that.

 

One of us is guilty of "Ignorant hatery" as you so eloquently put it, but I can assure you it is not me.

Kyleran

Originally posted by parrotpholk

Originally posted by Trenchgun


It amazes me the lengths the haters go through on these boards to try and deny all the valid high points of darkfall, especially when most don't even play.
They act like darkfall raped them, and for that it can never be forgiven and can never be allowed any form of praise. You haters need to move on with your life.

 

 

And some like you act as if it made passionate love while sticking around for some spooning after. The truth is in the middle which means it is still just average. And on this RvR topic you are still wrong. Its clan vs clan period quit making it more than it is.

 

I'd call it more alliance vs alliance, which is very EVE like.  And yes, there are many holes to slip through, happens even in EVE, and it has natural choke points at the gates but you just can't cover all of them in a major way.

Also true, large alliances always come apart at some point and reform into new ones, that's the beauty of it. Former friends become enemies, and DF can only benefit from the dynamic.

 

StrixMaxima

It's amazing how even the most eloquent and mild-mannered post is quickly dismissed as ignorant hate. The inability (or impossibility) of discussion some show in this forum is astounding.

I agree with pretty much everything GrayGhost 79 said above, and I've stated some of what he/she said in previous posts. There is definitely a lack of clear goals and that rewarding feeling in DFO's PVP. So much could change (for the better) with some simple changes in the City/Race/Alliance mechanism.

JGMIII

How is the NA server doing?

That alliance map reminds me of the Eve sov map.

Ar there enough players in the game to actually have massive wars between alliances?

 

Majinash

I think EVE and Lineage2 did it far better.  you don't see people running around nekkid with newbie weapons avoiding the death penalty in PvP.

Trenchgun

Originally posted by JGMIII


How is the NA server doing?
That alliance map reminds me of the Eve sov map.
Ar there enough players in the game to actually have massive wars between alliances?
 

 

NA server is doing very well. Population numbers seem high, the in-game community is vibrant.

While clans are still building up so there haven't been a lot of sieges, there has been a lot of alliance conflict, mass raiding, and political manuevering. Recently I was part of a huge alliance vs alliance siege over control of a strategic location that involved a couple hundred.

Trenchgun

@grayghost

 

-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region.  The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be.

-Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system.

-You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself.

-You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall.

-Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.

 

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun


@grayghost

 
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region.  The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be.
-Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system.
-You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself.
-You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall.
-Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
 

 

Last attempt lol.

Realm vs. Realm would be Humans, Mirdain and Dwarves as one realm, Alfar as another and Mahirim and Orc as yet another. Making it a 3 way RvR situation. Again what you see in DFO is an Alliance vs. Alliance design. The RvR aspect of DFO has been sorely neglected and hasn't been seen or heard from again since 2 days after launch. DFO was meant to have RvR but it does not, and doesn't look like it ever will. We get alliance vs. alliance which is closer to EvE which others have so kindly pointed out. Don't start foaming at the mouth, simply correcting you on this point. Many were a bit ticked that the RvR aspect was left to the wayside.

Now the rest of your points, h/e you see it is fine. I know my experience and you know yours. When transfers come and you have a 100 man alliance facing down a 2k man alliance I want you to tell me how well that small group did. I can already tell you now if you'd like. It's like a Soda can trying to hold back a steam roller. Believe me when I say many are waiting on transfers. Then you get to see what we saw. Small clans and alliances are going to be assimulated or destroyed just as they were on EU. Zerg is the end all be all tactic in DFO and I really should know considering I helped build the first and helped bring it down.

As far as Devs not stepping in in RvR games......... hate to break it to you but yeah, they do. I have experienced several types of  Dev intervention in RvR games. One type is to add bonuses to the less populated realms (Has happened numerous times), another is to simply quit allowing people to join the more populated realms until things balance out (Has happened many times). So yeah lol, Devs step in.

Believe me or don't, your choice. I am simply speaking from a great deal of experience on the subject. DFO I have played since beta till shortly before NA server. You have been playing DFO since NA. RvR MMO's I have played for a very long time, I grew up on UO and DAoC and have been playing MMO's since. So yes, I at least have some clue as to what I am talking about.

DFO is an Alliance vs. Alliance game and I've already given you that. Calling it RvR though isn't going to fly because thats one of the things that some have been upset about. It truly was supposed to be an RvR type of MMO lol, sadly that got left on the cutting room floor for some reason.

Again RvR would be

Alfar vs. Humans, Mirdain, Dwarves vs. Mahrim, Orcs vs. Alfar.

What we have is an Alliance vs. Alliance thing, something more akin to what EvE has to offer. For those that have played RvR MMO's yeah there is a difference.

WSIMike

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun

As far as Devs not stepping in in RvR games......... hate to break it to you but yeah, they do. I have experienced several types of  Dev intervention in RvR games. One type is to add bonuses to the less populated realms (Has happened numerous times), another is to simply quit allowing people to join the more populated realms until things balance out (Has happened many times). So yeah lol, Devs step in.



Mythic did this with WAR, offering incentives to get people to roll on the under-populated sides. I believe they took the xp bonus approach.

 

Orthedos

Originally posted by Trenchgun


It amazes me the lengths the haters go through on these boards to try and deny all the valid high points of darkfall, especially when most don't even play.
They act like darkfall raped them, and for that it can never be forgiven and can never be allowed any form of praise. You haters need to move on with your life.

 

 

It amazes me also the constant need for you to bomb in and rage when people talk about DF.  If you do not agree with what they said, lay down your points and move on.

This is like a pub.  Everyone can talk about anything short of insults.  If you do not agree with the ideas thrown around the bar table, provide your idea and then move on.  You do not need to know why people talk about what.  None of your business.  You just shar the bar table.

As for why you do not understand the general consensus against DF, oh well, if everything thinks one way and a few thinks the other, both are sides right.  That is the beauty of freedom.  There is no need to convert people to your side, and there is no guarantee that you can.  You just have to live with it.

Orthedos

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun

As far as Devs not stepping in in RvR games......... hate to break it to you but yeah, they do. I have experienced several types of  Dev intervention in RvR games. One type is to add bonuses to the less populated realms (Has happened numerous times), another is to simply quit allowing people to join the more populated realms until things balance out (Has happened many times). So yeah lol, Devs step in.



Mythic did this with WAR, offering incentives to get people to roll on the under-populated sides. I believe they took the xp bonus approach.

 

 

Mythic did that during DAoC days.  In DAoC, you have 3 sides, and quite often than not 1 of the 3 is underdog.  To encourage and help the underdog, new player creating alts in the underdog side starts at level 30.

In DAoC, there is a dungeon named Darkfall, which is owned by the side controlling the most border keeps.  During the odd hours, the underdog of the Percival server (hib) would sometimes miraculous enjoy control of darkfall for a few hours.  People suspect that it is the work by GM or something.  Control of Darkfall dungeon means access to one of the most lucrative farming spot.

DAoC is true RvR.  That and the Imperial vs Rebel of SWG truly captures the spirit of one ongoing war.

WSIMike

Originally posted by Orthedos

Originally posted by WSIMike

Originally posted by GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun

As far as Devs not stepping in in RvR games......... hate to break it to you but yeah, they do. I have experienced several types of  Dev intervention in RvR games. One type is to add bonuses to the less populated realms (Has happened numerous times), another is to simply quit allowing people to join the more populated realms until things balance out (Has happened many times). So yeah lol, Devs step in.



Mythic did this with WAR, offering incentives to get people to roll on the under-populated sides. I believe they took the xp bonus approach.

 

 

Mythic did that during DAoC days.  In DAoC, you have 3 sides, and quite often than not 1 of the 3 is underdog.  To encourage and help the underdog, new player creating alts in the underdog side starts at level 30.

In DAoC, there is a dungeon named Darkfall, which is owned by the side controlling the most border keeps.  During the odd hours, the underdog of the Percival server (hib) would sometimes miraculous enjoy control of darkfall for a few hours.  People suspect that it is the work by GM or something.  Control of Darkfall dungeon means access to one of the most lucrative farming spot.

DAoC is true RvR.  That and the Imperial vs Rebel of SWG truly captures the spirit of one ongoing war.

That too :-p. I played DAoC a bit, but not enough to really get into the RvR much... and I played it well into its "decline", when the populations were pretty low.

Trenchgun

 

-Your idea of what constitutes the definition realm vs realm is one dimensional, focused on semantics rather than substance. RvR as a higher concept of players dividing themselves into regions, sides, and warring exclusively against others for the gain of their whole alliance is something you can't grasp. Functionally darkfall has a dynamic player driven RvR system, as I originally said. You've got your dick so far up the ass of the idea of racial dev enforced PvP that you are unable to see it is unnecessary and irrelevent in darkfall, as we've got something far better.

-You're wrong. Devs involve themselves but are unable to truly effect any lasting change. Static RvR games like DAoC and RF Online are always a failure at some level because one side becomes the underdog and stays that way.

-It's also a periphery irrelevent issue because your assertion is that darkfall can't be balanced without dev interaction, and that is patently stupid. Darkfall is, in fact, more balanced because the alliance system is very flexible and dynamic able to adapt and respond to changes in the balance of power rapidly

-You fail to realize again that describing the AvA system as a dynamic player driven RvR is essentially true. Putting it in such terms helps people understand what it's like to be a part of giant region vs region warfare in darkfall, that it's not just about clan vs clan.

GrayGhost79

Originally posted by Trenchgun




 
-Your idea of what constitutes the definition realm vs realm is one dimensional, focused on semantics rather than substance. RvR as a higher concept of players dividing themselves into regions, sides, and warring exclusively against others for the gain of their whole alliance is something you can't grasp. Functionally darkfall has a dynamic player driven RvR system, as I originally said. You've got your dick so far up the ass of the idea of racial dev enforced PvP that you are unable to see it is unnecessary and irrelevent in darkfall, as we've got something far better.
-You're wrong. Devs involve themselves but are unable to truly effect any lasting change. Static RvR games like DAoC and RF Online are always a failure at some level because one side becomes the underdog and stays that way.
-It's also a periphery irrelevent issue because your assertion is that darkfall can't be balanced without dev interaction, and that is patently stupid. Darkfall is, in fact, more balanced because the alliance system is very flexible and dynamic able to adapt and respond to changes in the balance of power rapidly
-You fail to realize again that describing the AvA system as a dynamic player driven RvR is essentially true. Putting it in such terms helps people understand what it's like to be a part of giant region vs region warfare in darkfall, that it's not just about clan vs clan.

 

"Realm versus Realm (RvR) is a type of Player versus Player gameplay in Massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) where the player base is divided over multiple preset realms that fight each other over game assets. This differs from normal Player versus Player combat in that Realm versus Realm usually depicts a game that is centralized around this combat, as opposed to a game where sporadic Player versus Player combat occurs. [1][2]

This concept is also referred to as Race versus Race, Nation versus Nation, or Faction versus Faction depending on the specific implementation in the game under discussion. Contrast with "Guild versus Guild" or GvG games, such as Shadowbane or Age of Conan, in which players organize themselves into factions of their own creation and design rather than realms which are prebuilt by the game developers."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm_versus_Realm