EvE is Darkfall's superior on a multitude of levels.
Here's a thought: This could be your opinion, and other people may have different opinions. Isn't it great that we have games that appeal to different tastes? I quite enjoyed my time in Darkfall, although I probably won't go back until there are some changes.
Now, if only we could get someone to make Shadowbane 2, with better graphics, even more character customization, tweaked siege rules, and a much, much more stable game engine.....
I would never log out. Ever.
Wow, I love how you came in and out of all the right-winged posts you picked mine, when I was simply stating a fact clearly shown by the fact that EvE's tutorial is one of the most grueling, as well as its learning curve and the fact that it's been called Excel Online, and still features full-loot PvP and player freedom, and yet it STILL has more than 6x Darkfall's sub numbers.
Wanna argue with that?
EDIT: Let's put it this way, EvE has set a concurrent user record higher than Darkfall's total subs.
Why would I argue with your opinion? Maybe that's something you like to do, but it just seems kind of pointless to me.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems to me that you are saying:
Lineage 2 and Shadowbane win this thread. Best pvp games imo always will be until they make sequels to said games. Or make a game incredibly similar to them.
Shadowbane is definitely on the winner list.
Lineage 2's only strong point was probably PvP. I constantly hear horror stories about the grind, lol.
That's the funny thing. Private servers were probably more successful then retail. Retail was amazing if you played from the start leveling and trying to catch up was what killed it. But If you took all of L2's private servers (high and low rates) which people played purely to pvp the player numbers would probably rival Wow's community.
Why would I argue with your opinion? Maybe that's something you like to do, but it just seems kind of pointless to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems to me that you are saying: Longer tutorial + Steeper learning curve + More subs = Better game, therefore: [Your opinion] > [My opinion] If so, I do not follow this logic.
I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn.
You need credibility before you can shoot down someone elses credibility, and you're in short supply. Somewhere along the line some people got confused about the meaning of ganking... and somehow lumped it in which every type of PvP imaginable. I'm not going to debate what is or is not a sandbox. It's a retarded argument that leaves everyone huffing and puffing and nobody satisfied. And I'm certainly not going to argue that Darkfall is a better sandbox than Eve. I'm not even sure how the hell you got off to ranting about that point in the first place. Not only did I not indicate anything like that, it isn't even relevant to the point I was making... which is if you choose to ignore organized PvP elements, territorial control, political posturing, and everything else that comprises Darkfall's PvP as purely ganking... you have no business commenting on PvP oriented games. By the way, player developed organization in the otherwise chaotic nature of a "sandbox" is the ultimate feature. You create your paths, you don't walk on walks that are already prefrabricated for you by the developers. That's the ultimate appeal, a sense of freedom and world development. Both Eve and Darkfall have that freedom, and while Eve certainly has more of it... it also has a 6 year headstart.
Ah, misunderstood the EvE part. I reread. Sorry about that. Jumped the gun on that one.
Player organization happens, however, regardless of the type of game. More is demanded in a sandbox but organizing guilds and raids is still organization and is still a part of themepark games as well, and a big one at that.
Why would I argue with your opinion? Maybe that's something you like to do, but it just seems kind of pointless to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems to me that you are saying: Longer tutorial + Steeper learning curve + More subs = Better game, therefore: [Your opinion] > [My opinion] If so, I do not follow this logic.
I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn.
Ok, fair enough, I will show you how that is an opinion.
That EVE has a longer tutorial than Darkfall is a fact (Darkfall doesn't even have one). However, it is your opinion that a long tutorial is better than no tutorial at all. See how that works?
It is a fact that EVE has far more subs than Darkfall. It is your opinion that more subs must mean a better game.
Ok, fair enough, I will show you how that is an opinion. That EVE has a longer tutorial than Darkfall is a fact (Darkfall doesn't even have one). However, it is your opinion that a long tutorial is better than no tutorial at all. See how that works? It is a fact that EVE has far more subs than Darkfall. It is your opinion that more subs must mean a better game. Does that make it more clear?
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
Player organization happens, however, regardless of the type of game. More is demanded in a sandbox but organizing guilds and raids is still organization and is still a part of themepark games as well, and a big one at that.
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
As an example, I need 25 people to kill Arthas, cut and dry. I have predetermined healing requirements, predetermined damage requirements, and pretermined tanking requirements. However the amount of people I need to take an enemy castle in Darkfall is totally dicated by the players.... I may need only a handful, or I may need a massive army. The nature of the game changes as players choose to change it.
Player organization happens, however, regardless of the type of game. More is demanded in a sandbox but organizing guilds and raids is still organization and is still a part of themepark games as well, and a big one at that.
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
and you know what? MUDs, even, or perhaps even especially, those hosted by Iron Realms Entertainment do it better than both of those games.
Ok, fair enough, I will show you how that is an opinion. That EVE has a longer tutorial than Darkfall is a fact (Darkfall doesn't even have one). However, it is your opinion that a long tutorial is better than no tutorial at all. See how that works? It is a fact that EVE has far more subs than Darkfall. It is your opinion that more subs must mean a better game. Does that make it more clear?
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
That's hard fact. Not opinion.
You did in fact say that having a long tutorial is better, unless in your replies you are referencing the wrong text. I said:
Longer tutorial +
Steeper learning curve +
More subs =
Better game, therefore:
[Your opinion] > [My opinion]
If so, I do not follow this logic.
And then you followed it up with this:
"I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn."
By saying that, you were directly implying that a long tutorial is better. The only way to escape this is to claim that you were only referencing the part where I said "More subs = Better game." You did not say this, and as your comment stands, you were agreeing to my whole equation (quoted in green above).
If you are claiming that "More subs = Better game," then I must assume that you play much more WoW than you do EVE.
Player organization happens, however, regardless of the type of game. More is demanded in a sandbox but organizing guilds and raids is still organization and is still a part of themepark games as well, and a big one at that.
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
and you know what? MUDs, even, or perhaps even especially, those hosted by Iron Realms Entertainment do it better than both of those games.
So in effect, this argument is pointless. =p
MUDs do everything better than regular games outside of getting people to play them. Much like books to movies.
I still play Gemstone IV occasionally, although its awful hard justifying a $15 a month fee for a text based game that no longer has an active dev team. I mean seriously... how much money could it possibly cost to maintain a text based games hardware....bunch of bloody thieves... but anyway I'm getting way off track.
Ok, fair enough, I will show you how that is an opinion. That EVE has a longer tutorial than Darkfall is a fact (Darkfall doesn't even have one). However, it is your opinion that a long tutorial is better than no tutorial at all. See how that works? It is a fact that EVE has far more subs than Darkfall. It is your opinion that more subs must mean a better game. Does that make it more clear?
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
That's hard fact. Not opinion.
You did in fact say that having a long tutorial is better, unless in your replies you are referencing the wrong text. I said:
Longer tutorial +
Steeper learning curve +
More subs =
Better game, therefore:
[Your opinion] > [My opinion]
If so, I do not follow this logic.
And then you followed it up with this:
"I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn."
By saying that, you were directly implying that a long tutorial is better. The only way to escape this is to claim that you were only referencing the part where I said "More subs = Better game." You did not say this, and as your comment stands, you were agreeing to my whole equation (quoted in green above).
If you are claiming that "More subs = Better game," then I must assume that you play much more WoW than you do EVE.
Okay, most of that first part, especially the highlighted text completely misunderstood what I was getting at.
The sub numbers were comparing like games in different settings and judging which game obviously had better player reception.
WoW is a totally different beast.
The sub numbers were just proof that in DFO and EvE's realm, EvE won hands down.
As for what I play, currently I play Midkemia and Pirates of the Burning Sea most, ironically.
MUDs do everything better than regular games outside of getting people to play them. Much like books to movies. I still play Gemstone IV occasionally, although its awful hard justifying a $15 a month fee for a text based game that no longer has an active dev team. I mean seriously... how much money could it possibly cost to maintain a text based games hardware....bunch of bloody thieves... but anyway I'm getting way off track.
Lol, I made that same comparison.
and yeah, Gemstone IV is a pretty good game. However, they also do $15/month for all MUDs they have I thought? Maybe not. I didn't stay past the 30 day free trial, personally. Found something else to pay for then.
I play Midkemia for the reason that it's free...and that some players will trade real cash currency for in-game stuff if you really want the real cash items.
Great, now we can get somewhere with this discussion. Thank you for being more explicit. Now you are saying:
The sub numbers were comparing like games in different settings and judging which game obviously had better player reception.
WoW is a totally different beast.
The sub numbers were just proof that in DFO and EvE's realm, EvE won hands down.
It can be useful to compare games, but one has to be careful not to oversimplify the comparison. Darkfall and EVE are similar on some levels, but on others they are not. Obviously, the same could be said about any two games. I could write a long list of the differences and similarities between DF and EVE, but I don't think that is necessary, as your argument founders on another, more obvious, point. EVE does indeed have more subs than DF, but it would be fallacious to assert that this fact is evidence that EVE has had "better player reception." One could validly argue that the subs are a function of the amount of time since the games were released, rather than a function of which one gamers prefer. EVE was released several years ago; Darkfall was released less than a year ago. It could well be that in a few years Darkfall will have more subs than EVE has ever had. Only time will tell. If you have been following Darkfall, you will know that the developers are quite aggressive in releasing patches and new content, and this could very well attract more subs.
On the issue of whether players prefer sci-fi or fantasy settings, I would have to bet that there are far more people playing fantasy-based MMORPGs than sci-fi.
EvE is Darkfall's superior on a multitude of levels.
Here's a thought: This could be your opinion, and other people may have different opinions. Isn't it great that we have games that appeal to different tastes? I quite enjoyed my time in Darkfall, although I probably won't go back until there are some changes.
Now, if only we could get someone to make Shadowbane 2, with better graphics, even more character customization, tweaked siege rules, and a much, much more stable game engine.....
I would never log out. Ever.
Wow, I love how you came in and out of all the right-winged posts you picked mine, when I was simply stating a fact clearly shown by the fact that EvE's tutorial is one of the most grueling, as well as its learning curve and the fact that it's been called Excel Online, and still features full-loot PvP and player freedom, and yet it STILL has more than 6x Darkfall's sub numbers.
Wanna argue with that?
EDIT: Let's put it this way, EvE has set a concurrent user record higher than Darkfall's total subs.
john you are prodigiously spouting so much trash in here that it'd take an army of people with no life beyond continually hitting refresh on this thread to keep pointing out each bit of nonsense as you bring it up. i get the feeling YOU are the only one prepared to sit out the rest of the night actually DOING such things.
let your hatred for Darkfall have the rest of the night off why don't you.
there's some good heads in here enlightening you (or trying) on some of your most egregious errors, but letting ALOT of your crap slide. i'm gonna only point out a few things cuz you could be a bottomless pit of wasted time if i were to sit in here as long as you likely will on an anti-Darkfall crusade.
back to your 6x comparison. Darkfall has approximately 925,185x the haters that Eve does. case in point. you. i haven't seen any ardent Eve haters going around to every thread that starts talking about Eve and then laboriously spamming up the thread with Eve hate letters.
back to your 6x comparison again. how much longer has Eve been on the market than Darkfall? (you REALLY should only count from the time the American server came up,.....but hey, count it a full year if you want). get back to me on this subject after that many years and we'll see what happened. NOT THAT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR MUCH ANYWAYS. i'm just pointing how its ridiculous to use number comparisons like that, but only with PART of the story.
On the issue of whether players prefer sci-fi or fantasy settings, I would have to bet that there are far more people playing fantasy-based MMORPGs than sci-fi. Which is more fortitude towards the fact that EvE has broken its own chains and become something that other games can only strive to be. It has one of the highest sub rates of the P2P realm, currently. I still want Shadowbane 2 though. We all do, my friend.
Still ironic that I'm defending EvE when I'm a PotBS player...and PotBS is pretty much in direct competition of sorts with EvE...just...quite a bit more fun in the combat and crafting departments.
Well, I don't know how founded that statement is actually. They're only really all that alike in feature sets.
I, for one, am glad that EVE is around. I am happy that there are many thousands of people that have found a great game to enjoy. I am also glad that Darkfall exists, because it fills a different niche- those peple who prefer fantasy-based sandboxes with open PVP.
I can only hope that more developers will see that these games are modestly successful, and will create more games that are similar to them.
Look at that chart. EVE broke 60k subs 2 (TWO) years after relese. Comparing DF and EVE subs numbers is plain stupid now.
Also to anyone saying anything about tutorial in EVE. It was changed about 1.5 years ago. Before it was total disaster and everyone was whining about it.
let your hatred for Darkfall have the rest of the night off why don't you.
For the night? I give up on the cause.
Darkfall's soon going to become the Halo 3 of MMOs from what I hear so there's no point trying to argue.
Of course, however, I was one of those niche Gears of War players that didn't think Halo 3 took that much to really play and that it lacked depth and we know that its fans will defend it til the day they die, when by all means, we all know Gears had much more tactical depth.
I'm actually just trying to mull over the days until I get my lappy back from the Geek Squad and their slow as hell repair inquiries and I'll be back to PotBS and forgetting all about Darkfall rage again.
However, at least someone only a week old stands a chance against vets in PotBS. Maybe that's why I like it though. It's a really good amount of player skill. Then again, this goes back to the Gears vs Halo 3 comparison.
I also played a good deal more Rainbow Six than I did Halo 3.
For the night? I give up on the cause. Darkfall's soon going to become the Halo 3 of MMOs from what I hear so there's no point trying to argue. Of course, however, I was one of those niche Gears of War players that didn't think Halo 3 took that much to really play and that it lacked depth and we know that its fans will defend it til the day they die, when by all means, we all know Gears had much more tactical depth. I'm actually just trying to mull over the days until I get my lappy back from the Geek Squad and their slow as hell repair inquiries and I'll be back to PotBS and forgetting all about Darkfall rage again. However, at least someone only a week old stands a chance against vets in PotBS. Maybe that's why I like it though. It's a really good amount of player skill. Then again, this goes back to the Gears vs Halo 3 comparison. I also played a good deal more Rainbow Six than I did Halo 3.
I find it somewhat ironic, and perhaps a bit poetic, that your preferred game (PotBS) is at heart a PvP game that has, in my opinion, focused largely too much on PvE (grinding, crafting, aquisition of resources) which caused it core playerbase (PvPers) to leave the game because of the excessive amount of time they had to spend (doing tasks that didn't enjoy) to aquire ships to PvP with.
Basically the exact opposite of Darkfall, where the bar may be set high to be individually competitive... but it is rarely restrictive in nature at taking an active part. I think perhaps some of your seeded aggression towards DF is because it is successfull and growing while doing the opposite of what you think should be successful, while your preferred game is bleeding players badly while catering to your preferred type of gameplay.
Originally posted by comerb I find it somewhat ironic, and perhaps a bit poetic, that your preferred game (PotBS) is at heart a PvP game that has, in my opinion, focused largely too much on PvE (grinding, crafting, aquisition of resources) which caused it core playerbase (PvPers) to leave the game because of the excessive amount of time they had to spend (doing tasks that didn't enjoy) to aquire ships to PvP with. Basically the exact opposite of Darkfall, where the bar may be set high to be individually competitive... but it is rarely restrictive in nature at taking an active part. I think perhaps some of your seeded aggression towards DF is because it is successfull and growing while doing the opposite of what you think should be successful, while your preferred game is bleeding players badly while catering to your preferred type of gameplay. I'm just speculating though...
I'm fully aware it's bleeding players...but it was due to balance issues at launch, last I checked. I also hear talk that the bleeding is finally stopping with the pseudo-expansion they released. I don't know personally, just talk on the high seas. Not to mention, like I said, it has been said that you can be useful in PvP from level 15 (it took what...2 days for me to get to level 10?)which is about the time you could potentially have a fully unlocked skill set. If you want a fancy ship and all of that jazz, yeah, you're going to have to do PvE to reach that status. How is that any different from games like DAoC?
Personally, I don't mind any of the leveling in PotBS as the combat is pretty engaging.
Darkfall is far from that nature though. I only say this with quite a few people having said themselves here on the forum that the grind to become anywhere near useful in PvP is horrendous if you join currently. That's the last I'm saying about Darkfall.
Originally posted by johnmatthais Originally posted by comerb I find it somewhat ironic, and perhaps a bit poetic, that your preferred game (PotBS) is at heart a PvP game that has, in my opinion, focused largely too much on PvE (grinding, crafting, aquisition of resources) which caused it core playerbase (PvPers) to leave the game because of the excessive amount of time they had to spend (doing tasks that didn't enjoy) to aquire ships to PvP with. Basically the exact opposite of Darkfall, where the bar may be set high to be individually competitive... but it is rarely restrictive in nature at taking an active part. I think perhaps some of your seeded aggression towards DF is because it is successfull and growing while doing the opposite of what you think should be successful, while your preferred game is bleeding players badly while catering to your preferred type of gameplay. I'm just speculating though...
I'm fully aware it's bleeding players...but it was due to balance issues at launch, last I checked. I also hear talk that the bleeding is finally stopping with the pseudo-expansion they released. I don't know personally, just talk on the high seas. Not to mention, like I said, it has been said that you can be useful in PvP from level 15 (it took what...2 days for me to get to level 10?)which is about the time you could potentially have a fully unlocked skill set. If you want a fancy ship and all of that jazz, yeah, you're going to have to do PvE to reach that status. How is that any different from games like DAoC? Personally, I don't mind any of the leveling in PotBS as the combat is pretty engaging. Darkfall is far from that nature though. I only say this with quite a few people having said themselves here on the forum that the grind to become anywhere near useful in PvP is horrendous if you join currently. That's the last I'm saying about Darkfall.
After a week (working 40h a week) of play I'm already participating in PvP. Got archery (82) and sharpshooter (49). Just focused on it since it's easiest to rise at beginning. Already managed to kill one guy in group PvP that was running away (took his 25% hp alone). I played in EVE and jumped into 0.0 after 1 week of play also. Was tackler in small warfare PvP. People who said that you need to gring have never played such game. It's possible if you know how to play and don't have "must max to play" mentality.
After a week (working 40h a week) of play I'm already participating in PvP. Got archery (82) and sharpshooter (49). Just focused on it since it's easiest to rise at beginning. Already managed to kill one guy in group PvP that was running away (took his 25% hp alone).
I played in EVE and jumped into 0.0 after 1 week of play also. Was tackler in small warfare PvP. People who said that you need to gring have never played such game. It's possible if you know how to play and don't have "must max to play" mentality.
Aye, my point was simply that PotBS followed that and after only a few days, you could be fully well and able in PvP. You'll only have some slight equipment disadvantages, but most of it aesthetics. Cargo and other factors are based on the ship's size and such, not on your level.
On-foot battling is based on how well you can use the skills you have and simply knowing what you're doing. Higher level swords are better to a degree, but it's nothing exponential and nothing crippling if you're a good captain.
That's all I was getting at. Anyone that left PotBS over the "grind" to get to PvP really didn't play it that much. Sounds like they instantly wanted the best of the best of everything.
So you have Shadowbane with an engine that sucked bad, while DF's is very good (widely accepted).
Let me finish that sentence...
Widely accepted...among it's fans. To everyone else, everything about the game is an abomination. Have you heard the shit talk about the UI? That's part of the engine bud.
Don't get me started on the horrible optimization.
No it is widely accepted by people who actually play or played the game, while it is widely not accepted by people like you who didn't play the game and know nothing about it, but still like to talk non sense.
DF has the best engine of every game I played, both in stability and performance, I rarely hear players complaining about lag (apart when there are sieges) or the client crashing.
You won't believe it, but in 6 months of DF I never ever crashed once.
The only 2 times I got disconnected was because my ISP..............that's how reliable the engine and the netcode is.
AV did an amazing job with the engine, to be honest coming from a tiny indie developer in Greece, I would never ever expected they could build such a solid code, particularly because more "professional" and established developers seems like they are not able to build a cn engine crash proof.
Only WoW has the same level of stability, but even there I used to be kicked out every now and then.
Woah, woah woah, I love how people assume this every time. I played Darkfall. I hated it. It was a breath of fresh air for about a week and then straight back to the tedium with a community that doesn't know how to roleplay anything but gankers.
I understand it's a PvP game, but the point isn't to gank everyone. The point is to live a life in a world in the midsts of war. There aren't people going solo ganking untrained soldiers in real wartime.
Also, as far as the client goes, I got disconnected several times and not to mention the horrible special effects work where if you have shadows on in that game, it even has a nVidia 9800 down on its knees, all with not-nearly-impressive-enough-to-cause-that graphics.
While I mostly agree with you (although agnostic on DF performance) the highlighted portion is not 100% true.
Fresh off the boat non-veteran soldiers do get killed well behind their own lines. They get killed by snipers. Snipers will target anyone and killing a "newb" will inspire fear in other "newbs".
However, in general, snipers are elite soldiers and the job is very dangerous. It is stupid that any game that has factions that are in a hot or warm conflict would have what are essentially weenies running around kill newbs will nilly.
The counter argument is of course get your vets to take care of them. Well that is fine, except that is does not capture the design of some games. There are two major problems with this. First off this approach is more like a "Wild West" approach than a "full on War Approach". Second off something like a sniper does its job even with the presence of Vets around because of the nature of a sniper. Usually the best counter to a sniper is another sniper.
In a game like EvE, 0.0 space is meant to be like a "Wild West"/War combination. 0.0 is open, its FFA. However they also give ways to control a place and prosecute a war with lines of control of travel and supply. It is up to the players to enforce all these things though.
DF does not do this. DF is more like a full on Wild West. Something happens you form a posse and roam around. There is not a War. There are no lines and there is little facility to prosecute a true war. You can claim towns, siege and clan fight. DF has some facility for some things that EvE has but the zone controlling and supply controlling are fairly easily circumvented. So for the Newb DF is like Wild West. You never know when some bandito might gun you down and they can easily disappear and stay in the area even if a posse forms to get them. The posse may get them, they may not.
So what is the problem here? Why are people claiming a game like DF (and many others) are stupid or unrealistic. Well there are two major problems. One is expectations due to the way developers describe ther pretend worlds not because people are stupid. The other is game mechanics.
When people play a game like DF or EvE or most any other MMO. There is a whole element of NPC factions and a general backstory of conflict. Often they claim you are a soldier/freelancer in a greater war, Aion is an example of this type of setting. Yet the NPCs do nothing to create something that would create an atmosphere similar to a real war. People think its stupid that someone gets killed repeatedly with impunity far into freidnly terriotry. Same people who like FFA PvP respond with get soe friends or vets to help. That is a fine answer if this is a "Wild West" atmosphere, but its not. Its billed as a war and in a war such things are rare and if they do last then they are called a "battle". It IS stupid when put into context.
Consider the context for a moment. Say you are in a "starter" zone as a newb in a game with fixed zone control by an NPC faction (ie. a horde zone in WoW or an Elyos zone in Aion) and its billed as far behind the lines of battle and then are large group of red names show up and randomly kill people for an hour. In the context of a real war this is stupid. If you can insert yourself behind enemy lines and kill with impunity you don't cause grief to non factors. Fight a real battle and redraw the lines. If you had that kind of strength that you killed all comers over the course of an hour then you clearly have a superior force. Yet this is not the way the game is billed it is stupid. It simply does not fit in the context. Why isn't an army of soldier NPCs coming from that citadel right over that hill to come destroy this obvious threat? They don't because its basically BS to begin with.
Essentially in some contexts some PvPers are advocating that the game mix its metaphors that games that say they have an "Active War" also do things like a "Wild West". That strikes people as stupid, because well it is. Anything in a war situation that behaves like that is either a full on battle or a "No-Mand-Land". It is basically a contradiction in terms and the devs (in some cases for some games) have pre-defined the terms.
In some cases there are also problems of game mechanics, one of the biggest issues is respawn points. In a War you kill that nasty sniper and he is gone; forever. Not only did you releive the pressure he was putting on you, but you have denied your enemy a valuable and elite asset. This is not true in MMOs and even worse you may not even clear the area and if the person is psycho enough he may simply camp newb areas forever even if it takes him an hour or two to get back. DF suffers from this problem to some degree. It has some game mechanic issues with respawn points, although I think the devs would like to have it so that a person killed somewhere does get bumped far back. But it also suffers from the problem of pyschos. In real life you can simply get rid of them forever. In these games there are some people who are so pathetic they will simply came back forever for no other reason and with no other aim than to get the power trip of killing newbs. And in the end there is no real way to stop them in most MMO. You can temporarly remedy it but that is all.
The other part of this is the issue of what "should" players be doing? Ask yourself another question. How is it that a zone that is behind friendly lines maintain relative safety (as safe as a war gets)? The answer is that they do things like patrols and watches and are also constantly in the process of attacking which makes it dangerous for the enemy to attack highly protected areas. They divert forces to attack a protected place they may lose their own proteccted place.
In Eve or DF this is purposely left to the players for the most part. But think about it for a second. Patrol or watch duty is generally not considered "fun" by most soldiers. The good ones know it is vital but it is not a duty they want to do.
So should this be part of the game? A good game designer should understand that this will be a necessary part of a FFA game designed to have large scale conflicts. If they do not understand that guard stations and patrolling will be necessary then they are not competent to design such a game.
There is no set answer to this question. Some people will like the idea that mundane aspects of a War such as patrol and guard station are necessary and that this is more interesting when done by players. Other will not want these mundane aspects in a game.
This is essentially the same as crafting. There are many mundane chores involed in the real stuff in the creating of something grand like the Pyramids of Egypt there were tons and tons of mundane things that were essential. Thigns like baking bread for the workers etc.
For some people these mudane tasks are great, for some they just suck, and for some they are viewed as a necessary evil for a richer and more dynamic environment. On the other hand this sort of stuff is viewed as unfun and something that can take away from the ability to get instant action.
Everytime you take some task away from the Computer NPC world you will need to have a player doing it or that will be one more aspect of the environment that contributes to bad things for that "side". But many tasks are not fun.
Finally, IMO, the main problem with the current and former crop of sandbox games is they make a fundamental mistake. They assume that playuers should DO everything. This is not true. Player need only have control over things to make a good sandbox. It is not true that players need to do all PvP patrols. You could easily have something were players controlled where a respectable force of NPCs would patrol. That if a player clan captured a town they would then have a force of NPCs at their dispoable and be able to order them to various areas and to have various behaviors (defend, attack, heal, harrass etc). In games like Aion the abyss fort guards are coompletely static and dumb like any other PvE (and are farmed for PvP points because of it). Thus this is not really much of a sandbox even if control of the forts can change sides. And since the guards are easily farmable and predictable the only recourse is player patrols to supplement their crappiness. This is stupid. Why would professional soldiers stand idly by while their fellows are being slaughtered one right after the other? They don't. Its because this thinly vieled PvE and everyone knows it. But that does not mean therefore players should always be the "guards" of a forrt. If you could simply have the players controlling and supplementing that force of NPC guards you can relieve the burden of mundane tasks (just like computer app does) and still have sandbox effects.
I would like to jump in here and inject my opinion into the mix: Neither game had the best pvp in a RPG.
There, I said it. But why? Why would I think this? I enjoyed both games immensely. Simple. The best pvp has reason and motivation behind it. What do I mean by this? To clarify, lore driven pvp is the best. It creates the best player experience in my opinion. One of UO's problems was that anyone could just come up and kill you anywhere, any time for no damn reason. I dont consider this an optimal pvp field, you have no team, no affiliation unless you guild, no reason.
Therefore you have games like DAoC or WoW... game that say "here is the world, here is the affiliation you chose, now its on". You know who your enemies are, you know who your country men are, they might or might not help you, but at least you can feel safe in your own home. As a whole your side is motivated, through guild and faction to defeat your enemies. Its not one big anarchy run gank fest where you cannot trust anyone. If you had 4 kingdoms and you picked one, you would choose to fight for that kingdom against your enemies, the lore gives you the reason, you are not only helping your guild but the whole of your "race" or faction. Its multilayered, which is important and helps give your character a sense of identity.
This is a good pvp environment, RvR, faction vs faction, you have the arch-faction with guilds inside it, all working towards a global goal while also able to work in their individual goals. To me, this is more enjoyable than a FFA kill anyone you want just because you can fest. If i wanted that I would just load up unreal tournament in FFA mode.
Comments
Here's a thought: This could be your opinion, and other people may have different opinions. Isn't it great that we have games that appeal to different tastes? I quite enjoyed my time in Darkfall, although I probably won't go back until there are some changes.
Now, if only we could get someone to make Shadowbane 2, with better graphics, even more character customization, tweaked siege rules, and a much, much more stable game engine.....
I would never log out. Ever.
Wow, I love how you came in and out of all the right-winged posts you picked mine, when I was simply stating a fact clearly shown by the fact that EvE's tutorial is one of the most grueling, as well as its learning curve and the fact that it's been called Excel Online, and still features full-loot PvP and player freedom, and yet it STILL has more than 6x Darkfall's sub numbers.
Wanna argue with that?
EDIT: Let's put it this way, EvE has set a concurrent user record higher than Darkfall's total subs.
Why would I argue with your opinion? Maybe that's something you like to do, but it just seems kind of pointless to me.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems to me that you are saying:
Longer tutorial +
Steeper learning curve +
More subs =
Better game, therefore:
[Your opinion] > [My opinion]
If so, I do not follow this logic.
Shadowbane is definitely on the winner list.
Lineage 2's only strong point was probably PvP. I constantly hear horror stories about the grind, lol.
That's the funny thing. Private servers were probably more successful then retail. Retail was amazing if you played from the start leveling and trying to catch up was what killed it. But If you took all of L2's private servers (high and low rates) which people played purely to pvp the player numbers would probably rival Wow's community.
i do shit
I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Ah, misunderstood the EvE part. I reread. Sorry about that. Jumped the gun on that one.
Player organization happens, however, regardless of the type of game. More is demanded in a sandbox but organizing guilds and raids is still organization and is still a part of themepark games as well, and a big one at that.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn.
Ok, fair enough, I will show you how that is an opinion.
That EVE has a longer tutorial than Darkfall is a fact (Darkfall doesn't even have one). However, it is your opinion that a long tutorial is better than no tutorial at all. See how that works?
It is a fact that EVE has far more subs than Darkfall. It is your opinion that more subs must mean a better game.
Does that make it more clear?
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
That's hard fact. Not opinion.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
As an example, I need 25 people to kill Arthas, cut and dry. I have predetermined healing requirements, predetermined damage requirements, and pretermined tanking requirements. However the amount of people I need to take an enemy castle in Darkfall is totally dicated by the players.... I may need only a handful, or I may need a massive army. The nature of the game changes as players choose to change it.
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
and you know what? MUDs, even, or perhaps even especially, those hosted by Iron Realms Entertainment do it better than both of those games.
So in effect, this argument is pointless. =p
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
That's hard fact. Not opinion.
You did in fact say that having a long tutorial is better, unless in your replies you are referencing the wrong text. I said:
Longer tutorial +
Steeper learning curve +
More subs =
Better game, therefore:
[Your opinion] > [My opinion]
If so, I do not follow this logic.
And then you followed it up with this:
"I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn."
By saying that, you were directly implying that a long tutorial is better. The only way to escape this is to claim that you were only referencing the part where I said "More subs = Better game." You did not say this, and as your comment stands, you were agreeing to my whole equation (quoted in green above).
If you are claiming that "More subs = Better game," then I must assume that you play much more WoW than you do EVE.
If a group of players in <insert themepark> get together and kill <insert raid boss>....how does that affect anything? It doesn't. Its a prefabricated path thats effects nothing in the gameworld. There is no freedom, there is no player development of the gameworld. There is no conflict between opposing social stuctures that cause eachother to strive against one another, or risk obliteration. There is no polical overtones, these is no backstabbing, no spy games, no econonmic struggle(and yes, even Darkfall has an economic struggle, even if its not as developed as Eve).
This is why games like Darkfall and Eve appeal to a large number of people. Because you can make a difference. Because you effect the gameworld and the players around you. That is why player organization is the ultimate feature of these types of game.. The beautiful part is that its an indirect feature not dicated by the game, which is more than I can say of a themepark.
and you know what? MUDs, even, or perhaps even especially, those hosted by Iron Realms Entertainment do it better than both of those games.
So in effect, this argument is pointless. =p
MUDs do everything better than regular games outside of getting people to play them. Much like books to movies.
I still play Gemstone IV occasionally, although its awful hard justifying a $15 a month fee for a text based game that no longer has an active dev team. I mean seriously... how much money could it possibly cost to maintain a text based games hardware....bunch of bloody thieves... but anyway I'm getting way off track.
I never said that it having a long tutorial was better. I said that the fact that the 6x Darkfall's players have stuck through EvE's tutorial is testament to the fact that it's a damn good game.
I backed it up with other features, similar to Darkfall or that one would think would be detrimental to gameplay that are done fantastically.
That's hard fact. Not opinion.
You did in fact say that having a long tutorial is better, unless in your replies you are referencing the wrong text. I said:
Longer tutorial +
Steeper learning curve +
More subs =
Better game, therefore:
[Your opinion] > [My opinion]
If so, I do not follow this logic.
And then you followed it up with this:
"I don't get how that's an opinion. It goes to show that good gameplay over bloody action will still win in the realm of gamers who give a damn."
By saying that, you were directly implying that a long tutorial is better. The only way to escape this is to claim that you were only referencing the part where I said "More subs = Better game." You did not say this, and as your comment stands, you were agreeing to my whole equation (quoted in green above).
If you are claiming that "More subs = Better game," then I must assume that you play much more WoW than you do EVE.
Okay, most of that first part, especially the highlighted text completely misunderstood what I was getting at.
The sub numbers were comparing like games in different settings and judging which game obviously had better player reception.
WoW is a totally different beast.
The sub numbers were just proof that in DFO and EvE's realm, EvE won hands down.
As for what I play, currently I play Midkemia and Pirates of the Burning Sea most, ironically.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Lol, I made that same comparison.
and yeah, Gemstone IV is a pretty good game. However, they also do $15/month for all MUDs they have I thought? Maybe not. I didn't stay past the 30 day free trial, personally. Found something else to pay for then.
I play Midkemia for the reason that it's free...and that some players will trade real cash currency for in-game stuff if you really want the real cash items.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Great, now we can get somewhere with this discussion. Thank you for being more explicit. Now you are saying:
The sub numbers were comparing like games in different settings and judging which game obviously had better player reception.
WoW is a totally different beast.
The sub numbers were just proof that in DFO and EvE's realm, EvE won hands down.
It can be useful to compare games, but one has to be careful not to oversimplify the comparison. Darkfall and EVE are similar on some levels, but on others they are not. Obviously, the same could be said about any two games. I could write a long list of the differences and similarities between DF and EVE, but I don't think that is necessary, as your argument founders on another, more obvious, point. EVE does indeed have more subs than DF, but it would be fallacious to assert that this fact is evidence that EVE has had "better player reception." One could validly argue that the subs are a function of the amount of time since the games were released, rather than a function of which one gamers prefer. EVE was released several years ago; Darkfall was released less than a year ago. It could well be that in a few years Darkfall will have more subs than EVE has ever had. Only time will tell. If you have been following Darkfall, you will know that the developers are quite aggressive in releasing patches and new content, and this could very well attract more subs.
On the issue of whether players prefer sci-fi or fantasy settings, I would have to bet that there are far more people playing fantasy-based MMORPGs than sci-fi.
I still want Shadowbane 2 though.
Here's a thought: This could be your opinion, and other people may have different opinions. Isn't it great that we have games that appeal to different tastes? I quite enjoyed my time in Darkfall, although I probably won't go back until there are some changes.
Now, if only we could get someone to make Shadowbane 2, with better graphics, even more character customization, tweaked siege rules, and a much, much more stable game engine.....
I would never log out. Ever.
Wow, I love how you came in and out of all the right-winged posts you picked mine, when I was simply stating a fact clearly shown by the fact that EvE's tutorial is one of the most grueling, as well as its learning curve and the fact that it's been called Excel Online, and still features full-loot PvP and player freedom, and yet it STILL has more than 6x Darkfall's sub numbers.
Wanna argue with that?
EDIT: Let's put it this way, EvE has set a concurrent user record higher than Darkfall's total subs.
john you are prodigiously spouting so much trash in here that it'd take an army of people with no life beyond continually hitting refresh on this thread to keep pointing out each bit of nonsense as you bring it up. i get the feeling YOU are the only one prepared to sit out the rest of the night actually DOING such things.
let your hatred for Darkfall have the rest of the night off why don't you.
there's some good heads in here enlightening you (or trying) on some of your most egregious errors, but letting ALOT of your crap slide. i'm gonna only point out a few things cuz you could be a bottomless pit of wasted time if i were to sit in here as long as you likely will on an anti-Darkfall crusade.
back to your 6x comparison. Darkfall has approximately 925,185x the haters that Eve does. case in point. you. i haven't seen any ardent Eve haters going around to every thread that starts talking about Eve and then laboriously spamming up the thread with Eve hate letters.
back to your 6x comparison again. how much longer has Eve been on the market than Darkfall? (you REALLY should only count from the time the American server came up,.....but hey, count it a full year if you want). get back to me on this subject after that many years and we'll see what happened. NOT THAT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR MUCH ANYWAYS. i'm just pointing how its ridiculous to use number comparisons like that, but only with PART of the story.
---------------------------
Corpus Callosum
---------------------------
Still ironic that I'm defending EvE when I'm a PotBS player...and PotBS is pretty much in direct competition of sorts with EvE...just...quite a bit more fun in the combat and crafting departments.
Well, I don't know how founded that statement is actually. They're only really all that alike in feature sets.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I, for one, am glad that EVE is around. I am happy that there are many thousands of people that have found a great game to enjoy. I am also glad that Darkfall exists, because it fills a different niche- those peple who prefer fantasy-based sandboxes with open PVP.
I can only hope that more developers will see that these games are modestly successful, and will create more games that are similar to them.
Like Shadowbane 2.
On side note :
https://secure.eve-online.com/bitmaps/devblog/eyjolfur/Figure2.jpg
Look at that chart. EVE broke 60k subs 2 (TWO) years after relese. Comparing DF and EVE subs numbers is plain stupid now.
Also to anyone saying anything about tutorial in EVE. It was changed about 1.5 years ago. Before it was total disaster and everyone was whining about it.
For the night? I give up on the cause.
Darkfall's soon going to become the Halo 3 of MMOs from what I hear so there's no point trying to argue.
Of course, however, I was one of those niche Gears of War players that didn't think Halo 3 took that much to really play and that it lacked depth and we know that its fans will defend it til the day they die, when by all means, we all know Gears had much more tactical depth.
I'm actually just trying to mull over the days until I get my lappy back from the Geek Squad and their slow as hell repair inquiries and I'll be back to PotBS and forgetting all about Darkfall rage again.
However, at least someone only a week old stands a chance against vets in PotBS. Maybe that's why I like it though. It's a really good amount of player skill. Then again, this goes back to the Gears vs Halo 3 comparison.
I also played a good deal more Rainbow Six than I did Halo 3.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I find it somewhat ironic, and perhaps a bit poetic, that your preferred game (PotBS) is at heart a PvP game that has, in my opinion, focused largely too much on PvE (grinding, crafting, aquisition of resources) which caused it core playerbase (PvPers) to leave the game because of the excessive amount of time they had to spend (doing tasks that didn't enjoy) to aquire ships to PvP with.
Basically the exact opposite of Darkfall, where the bar may be set high to be individually competitive... but it is rarely restrictive in nature at taking an active part. I think perhaps some of your seeded aggression towards DF is because it is successfull and growing while doing the opposite of what you think should be successful, while your preferred game is bleeding players badly while catering to your preferred type of gameplay.
I'm just speculating though...
Then stop coming...his opinion...your opinion...what was that they say about assholes...oh wait no that's opinions...my mistake.
Getting old is mandatory...growing up is optional.
I'm fully aware it's bleeding players...but it was due to balance issues at launch, last I checked. I also hear talk that the bleeding is finally stopping with the pseudo-expansion they released. I don't know personally, just talk on the high seas. Not to mention, like I said, it has been said that you can be useful in PvP from level 15 (it took what...2 days for me to get to level 10?)which is about the time you could potentially have a fully unlocked skill set. If you want a fancy ship and all of that jazz, yeah, you're going to have to do PvE to reach that status. How is that any different from games like DAoC?
Personally, I don't mind any of the leveling in PotBS as the combat is pretty engaging.
Darkfall is far from that nature though. I only say this with quite a few people having said themselves here on the forum that the grind to become anywhere near useful in PvP is horrendous if you join currently. That's the last I'm saying about Darkfall.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
I'm fully aware it's bleeding players...but it was due to balance issues at launch, last I checked. I also hear talk that the bleeding is finally stopping with the pseudo-expansion they released. I don't know personally, just talk on the high seas. Not to mention, like I said, it has been said that you can be useful in PvP from level 15 (it took what...2 days for me to get to level 10?)which is about the time you could potentially have a fully unlocked skill set. If you want a fancy ship and all of that jazz, yeah, you're going to have to do PvE to reach that status. How is that any different from games like DAoC?
Personally, I don't mind any of the leveling in PotBS as the combat is pretty engaging.
Darkfall is far from that nature though. I only say this with quite a few people having said themselves here on the forum that the grind to become anywhere near useful in PvP is horrendous if you join currently. That's the last I'm saying about Darkfall.
After a week (working 40h a week) of play I'm already participating in PvP. Got archery (82) and sharpshooter (49). Just focused on it since it's easiest to rise at beginning. Already managed to kill one guy in group PvP that was running away (took his 25% hp alone).
I played in EVE and jumped into 0.0 after 1 week of play also. Was tackler in small warfare PvP. People who said that you need to gring have never played such game. It's possible if you know how to play and don't have "must max to play" mentality.
Aye, my point was simply that PotBS followed that and after only a few days, you could be fully well and able in PvP. You'll only have some slight equipment disadvantages, but most of it aesthetics. Cargo and other factors are based on the ship's size and such, not on your level.
On-foot battling is based on how well you can use the skills you have and simply knowing what you're doing. Higher level swords are better to a degree, but it's nothing exponential and nothing crippling if you're a good captain.
That's all I was getting at. Anyone that left PotBS over the "grind" to get to PvP really didn't play it that much. Sounds like they instantly wanted the best of the best of everything.
Check out the MUD I'm making!
Let me finish that sentence...
Widely accepted...among it's fans. To everyone else, everything about the game is an abomination. Have you heard the shit talk about the UI? That's part of the engine bud.
Don't get me started on the horrible optimization.
No it is widely accepted by people who actually play or played the game, while it is widely not accepted by people like you who didn't play the game and know nothing about it, but still like to talk non sense.
DF has the best engine of every game I played, both in stability and performance, I rarely hear players complaining about lag (apart when there are sieges) or the client crashing.
You won't believe it, but in 6 months of DF I never ever crashed once.
The only 2 times I got disconnected was because my ISP..............that's how reliable the engine and the netcode is.
AV did an amazing job with the engine, to be honest coming from a tiny indie developer in Greece, I would never ever expected they could build such a solid code, particularly because more "professional" and established developers seems like they are not able to build a cn engine crash proof.
Only WoW has the same level of stability, but even there I used to be kicked out every now and then.
Woah, woah woah, I love how people assume this every time. I played Darkfall. I hated it. It was a breath of fresh air for about a week and then straight back to the tedium with a community that doesn't know how to roleplay anything but gankers.
I understand it's a PvP game, but the point isn't to gank everyone. The point is to live a life in a world in the midsts of war. There aren't people going solo ganking untrained soldiers in real wartime.
Also, as far as the client goes, I got disconnected several times and not to mention the horrible special effects work where if you have shadows on in that game, it even has a nVidia 9800 down on its knees, all with not-nearly-impressive-enough-to-cause-that graphics.
While I mostly agree with you (although agnostic on DF performance) the highlighted portion is not 100% true.
Fresh off the boat non-veteran soldiers do get killed well behind their own lines. They get killed by snipers. Snipers will target anyone and killing a "newb" will inspire fear in other "newbs".
However, in general, snipers are elite soldiers and the job is very dangerous. It is stupid that any game that has factions that are in a hot or warm conflict would have what are essentially weenies running around kill newbs will nilly.
The counter argument is of course get your vets to take care of them. Well that is fine, except that is does not capture the design of some games. There are two major problems with this. First off this approach is more like a "Wild West" approach than a "full on War Approach". Second off something like a sniper does its job even with the presence of Vets around because of the nature of a sniper. Usually the best counter to a sniper is another sniper.
In a game like EvE, 0.0 space is meant to be like a "Wild West"/War combination. 0.0 is open, its FFA. However they also give ways to control a place and prosecute a war with lines of control of travel and supply. It is up to the players to enforce all these things though.
DF does not do this. DF is more like a full on Wild West. Something happens you form a posse and roam around. There is not a War. There are no lines and there is little facility to prosecute a true war. You can claim towns, siege and clan fight. DF has some facility for some things that EvE has but the zone controlling and supply controlling are fairly easily circumvented. So for the Newb DF is like Wild West. You never know when some bandito might gun you down and they can easily disappear and stay in the area even if a posse forms to get them. The posse may get them, they may not.
So what is the problem here? Why are people claiming a game like DF (and many others) are stupid or unrealistic. Well there are two major problems. One is expectations due to the way developers describe ther pretend worlds not because people are stupid. The other is game mechanics.
When people play a game like DF or EvE or most any other MMO. There is a whole element of NPC factions and a general backstory of conflict. Often they claim you are a soldier/freelancer in a greater war, Aion is an example of this type of setting. Yet the NPCs do nothing to create something that would create an atmosphere similar to a real war. People think its stupid that someone gets killed repeatedly with impunity far into freidnly terriotry. Same people who like FFA PvP respond with get soe friends or vets to help. That is a fine answer if this is a "Wild West" atmosphere, but its not. Its billed as a war and in a war such things are rare and if they do last then they are called a "battle". It IS stupid when put into context.
Consider the context for a moment. Say you are in a "starter" zone as a newb in a game with fixed zone control by an NPC faction (ie. a horde zone in WoW or an Elyos zone in Aion) and its billed as far behind the lines of battle and then are large group of red names show up and randomly kill people for an hour. In the context of a real war this is stupid. If you can insert yourself behind enemy lines and kill with impunity you don't cause grief to non factors. Fight a real battle and redraw the lines. If you had that kind of strength that you killed all comers over the course of an hour then you clearly have a superior force. Yet this is not the way the game is billed it is stupid. It simply does not fit in the context. Why isn't an army of soldier NPCs coming from that citadel right over that hill to come destroy this obvious threat? They don't because its basically BS to begin with.
Essentially in some contexts some PvPers are advocating that the game mix its metaphors that games that say they have an "Active War" also do things like a "Wild West". That strikes people as stupid, because well it is. Anything in a war situation that behaves like that is either a full on battle or a "No-Mand-Land". It is basically a contradiction in terms and the devs (in some cases for some games) have pre-defined the terms.
In some cases there are also problems of game mechanics, one of the biggest issues is respawn points. In a War you kill that nasty sniper and he is gone; forever. Not only did you releive the pressure he was putting on you, but you have denied your enemy a valuable and elite asset. This is not true in MMOs and even worse you may not even clear the area and if the person is psycho enough he may simply camp newb areas forever even if it takes him an hour or two to get back. DF suffers from this problem to some degree. It has some game mechanic issues with respawn points, although I think the devs would like to have it so that a person killed somewhere does get bumped far back. But it also suffers from the problem of pyschos. In real life you can simply get rid of them forever. In these games there are some people who are so pathetic they will simply came back forever for no other reason and with no other aim than to get the power trip of killing newbs. And in the end there is no real way to stop them in most MMO. You can temporarly remedy it but that is all.
The other part of this is the issue of what "should" players be doing? Ask yourself another question. How is it that a zone that is behind friendly lines maintain relative safety (as safe as a war gets)? The answer is that they do things like patrols and watches and are also constantly in the process of attacking which makes it dangerous for the enemy to attack highly protected areas. They divert forces to attack a protected place they may lose their own proteccted place.
In Eve or DF this is purposely left to the players for the most part. But think about it for a second. Patrol or watch duty is generally not considered "fun" by most soldiers. The good ones know it is vital but it is not a duty they want to do.
So should this be part of the game? A good game designer should understand that this will be a necessary part of a FFA game designed to have large scale conflicts. If they do not understand that guard stations and patrolling will be necessary then they are not competent to design such a game.
There is no set answer to this question. Some people will like the idea that mundane aspects of a War such as patrol and guard station are necessary and that this is more interesting when done by players. Other will not want these mundane aspects in a game.
This is essentially the same as crafting. There are many mundane chores involed in the real stuff in the creating of something grand like the Pyramids of Egypt there were tons and tons of mundane things that were essential. Thigns like baking bread for the workers etc.
For some people these mudane tasks are great, for some they just suck, and for some they are viewed as a necessary evil for a richer and more dynamic environment. On the other hand this sort of stuff is viewed as unfun and something that can take away from the ability to get instant action.
Everytime you take some task away from the Computer NPC world you will need to have a player doing it or that will be one more aspect of the environment that contributes to bad things for that "side". But many tasks are not fun.
Finally, IMO, the main problem with the current and former crop of sandbox games is they make a fundamental mistake. They assume that playuers should DO everything. This is not true. Player need only have control over things to make a good sandbox. It is not true that players need to do all PvP patrols. You could easily have something were players controlled where a respectable force of NPCs would patrol. That if a player clan captured a town they would then have a force of NPCs at their dispoable and be able to order them to various areas and to have various behaviors (defend, attack, heal, harrass etc). In games like Aion the abyss fort guards are coompletely static and dumb like any other PvE (and are farmed for PvP points because of it). Thus this is not really much of a sandbox even if control of the forts can change sides. And since the guards are easily farmable and predictable the only recourse is player patrols to supplement their crappiness. This is stupid. Why would professional soldiers stand idly by while their fellows are being slaughtered one right after the other? They don't. Its because this thinly vieled PvE and everyone knows it. But that does not mean therefore players should always be the "guards" of a forrt. If you could simply have the players controlling and supplementing that force of NPC guards you can relieve the burden of mundane tasks (just like computer app does) and still have sandbox effects.
I would like to jump in here and inject my opinion into the mix: Neither game had the best pvp in a RPG.
There, I said it. But why? Why would I think this? I enjoyed both games immensely. Simple. The best pvp has reason and motivation behind it. What do I mean by this? To clarify, lore driven pvp is the best. It creates the best player experience in my opinion. One of UO's problems was that anyone could just come up and kill you anywhere, any time for no damn reason. I dont consider this an optimal pvp field, you have no team, no affiliation unless you guild, no reason.
Therefore you have games like DAoC or WoW... game that say "here is the world, here is the affiliation you chose, now its on". You know who your enemies are, you know who your country men are, they might or might not help you, but at least you can feel safe in your own home. As a whole your side is motivated, through guild and faction to defeat your enemies. Its not one big anarchy run gank fest where you cannot trust anyone. If you had 4 kingdoms and you picked one, you would choose to fight for that kingdom against your enemies, the lore gives you the reason, you are not only helping your guild but the whole of your "race" or faction. Its multilayered, which is important and helps give your character a sense of identity.
This is a good pvp environment, RvR, faction vs faction, you have the arch-faction with guilds inside it, all working towards a global goal while also able to work in their individual goals. To me, this is more enjoyable than a FFA kill anyone you want just because you can fest. If i wanted that I would just load up unreal tournament in FFA mode.