Home › Game Forums › Darkfall
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Darkfall Community Expansion
Introducing DF's 4th "spiritual" expansion.
To voice your support, head over to:
http://forums.darkfallonline.com/showthread.php?p=4075471#post4075471
Comments
Read it all and I agree with most of it... DF would be even better after this additions
Man, that is a seriously impressive list of fixes/changes. As a potential player, it definitely has my support as well.
Prax
I support these fixes, AV get this show on the road.
advanced specializations? YES!!!!!!!!
I love the ability to try out all forms of combat, being able to skill up in everything BUT I do not want to be a "fighter/archer/mage" forever.
I want to be SOMETHING a bit different than the next guy. I want to be, for example, a spell caster. I want people to know i not only put the effort to skill up the necessary skills to be a skilled spellcaster but i took it to another level that not every tom, dick, & harry can do.
This list is a wishlist, so let's head on over to DF forums and voice our opinion. They can ignore one or two people, but together we CAN make these changes happen.
Amusing. New to the world of Aventurine are we? They are the masters of ignoring people, they'll build what they want.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Is there any plans to introduce a brutix into the game yet? OMG if they do I am so here. Armor made of tritanium, boots of 'suicidal situations' and a breastplate made of old man star......
Jam is sticky.
It looks like a nice patch. However, I really hate how they continue to add gold incentives. Most of those additions would be great without them. Leave the gold dropping to mobs.
I still would like to see some sort of Regional Economy being added to the game.
Wow!
-------------------------------------------------------------
"I have no idea what''s going on." - Tasos Flambouras
FIRST OFF THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION OR OFFICIAL PATCH THIS IS A LIST OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS AV TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE LIST HAS BEEN SENT INTO TASOS PERSONALLY AND WILL BE LOOKED AT.
but I support this whole list
Pretty solid.
I agree with a few things but 99% of it is just ridiculous in my opinion and much just contradicts itself and one change defeats the purpose of another. If all of this was implemented DFO would just be an utter mess full of shit mechanics and I'd quit for sure.
For example this thread moans about empty cities and lack of PvP then later asks for bindkicking to be nerfed so that clans can't counter attack raids. Well what do you want? PvP or some cake walk where you kill a naked and run away after emptying the mine?
Also the inevitable stat whine is hidden at the bottom, I suspect this whole thread was created so someone could ninja in thier QQ for faster stat gains.
"Increase Base Stat Gains by 5x
Stat gains are far too slow presently, making new players have to grind for months to reach a state of becoming competitive. To fix this, base stat gains should be increased by 500%."
and
"Increased Skill Gains
When you reduced the magic grind and increased the skill gains on mobs, you took a huge step in the right direction. Many people came back to the game for that reason specifically. Take it a step further, and increase the magic schools, spells, and melee gains on mobs even more. By doing this, newer players will be more combat ready at an early stage, and will enjoy the game a lot more."
Yay let's all play WW2Online!
Alot is just carebear whining for easy mode and example,
" This makes it such that anyone who accidently falls within range of an NPC city is as good as dead considering it is impossible to escape the range of a tower before dying once it beings hitting you."
This is 100% false and just someone QQing because they suck at DF. Just 30 mins ago I was under attack from guard towers whilst on foot at an NPC city when I attacked a player called "Zero Cool". The towers hit me for about 50 damage so I got my mount out and ran. How is this possible? Am I halucinating?
Some suggestions I agree with but like the specializations suggestions (Vampire spec is more WoW than DFO!) it's just moronic and this,
"Implement Group Leaders
Make it such that whoever first starts a group is the group leader. He will have the sole ability to remove people from the group."
Why bother? You can do this if your clan alliance is worth a little more than dogshit anyway!
"Implement Raid System
Make it such that Group Leaders could create raid groups and invite other group leaders to the raid. The group leader who initially started the raid group would be the raid leader and would have the sole ability to invite and remove groups from the raid."
Again this is silly, bringing in rules that a half decent clan does by default anyway!
"Implement Raid Waypoints
To address the need for group to properly communicate waypoints between each other and other groups, implement a raid waypoint. This waypoint could only be dropped by group leaders within the raid. The raid waypoint would be blue as opposed to the red waypoint presently displayed by group waypoints."
Same again, why bother? Decent clans do this anyway.
"Implement a group/raid map
Add a group mini map by which party members and raid leaders could write on. Group members, Group leaders, and the raid leader should each be given a different color on the map, with the ability for players to toggle on/off different writings (Group member, group leader, raid leader) at their leisure."
This is the hight of idiocy. If you think a little map you can scrawl on is going to make your raid better then you must blow in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong but quite frankly any clan worth its salt doesn't need these features. It all looks like a crutch for the weak. If it were all optional then fine by me.
Then this in the sieging,
"Clan banks should not be accessible by hostiles
As of now, whether it is a siege or a raid, attackers have access to easy banking within an enemy city, allowing people to gain easy access resource nodes and the easy banking of enemy gear. This problem can be easily fixed however by making banks only accessible by allies.
Attacking bank
Attackers are heavily disadvantaged in the current siege system as they have no access to a bank upon respawn, leaving with no ability to re-gear. This issue is further complicated by attackers being unable to access enemy banks. To fix this, attackers should be able to spawn a bank within 30 meters of their siege stone. This would allow attackers to re-gear and join the fight after they have been killed."
Am I the only one scratching his head thinking "WTF?"? I really don't get it, you want to stop attackers using an enemy bank which I would agree to trying out. But then have a spawnable bank so that they can do a zerg attack on the city? Seems kind of lame to me and pointless. I'd rather there be one bank and a fight for control of it, I mean have these people ever been in a siege? Again it seems like someone wants AV to hand out crutches for the lame.
Most of the suggestions are unneccessary if people playing have a higher IQ than a glass of water, most is just pretty lame crap for those that want hand holding though I agree with a few ideas like new mounts and 4 legged running, house furniture.
However in my opinion most is just trash so that theme park players that suck can be happy for about 2 weeks before crying for more silly stuff like this. That's just my opinion on it though,
peace to all in Agon,
Agricola
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
cities are empty because you can simply bindkick, there's no need to actually live there, anyone who has played since launch would support getting rid of bindkicks why? cause PvP was a lot better when it was more regional when you actually had to rely on intelligence to know when the enemy is moving and where and intercept them.
HERE is an example of how it was before instant travel everywhere we were tracking that army via spies and scouts for about 25 minutes playing cat and mouse before we had that battle and that's what made the game fun back then.
Bindkicks create empty cities cause all you need to do is kick yourself there empty the resources and then go back to your main city, when bindkicks get fixed (which they will I promise you that) then people would be forced to live in the cities.
I do somewhat agree with your overall assessment. If many of these suggestions were to be implemented it would essentially be the " WOW Version " of PvP games. Not so much the easiness, but the fact that the game would indeed be only about PvP. Crafting is already a second fiddle and with many of these changes DF would no longer hold a pseudo-sandbox title.
It is not a bad thing, but the game would entirely be about PvP.
Did I mention that I can not believe the community did not mention anything about adding something to make an actual economy?
cities are empty because you can simply bindkick, there's no need to actually live there, anyone who has played since launch would support getting rid of bindkicks why? cause PvP was a lot better when it was more regional when you actually had to rely on intelligence to know when the enemy is moving and where and intercept them.
HERE is an example of how it was before instant travel everywhere we were tracking that army via spies and scouts for about 25 minutes playing cat and mouse before we had that battle and that's what made the game fun back then.
Bindkicks create empty cities cause all you need to do is kick yourself there empty the resources and then go back to your main city, when bindkicks get fixed (which they will I promise you that) then people would be forced to live in the cities.
At launch you had a much larger playerbase, if the playerbase were the same size or larger then I'd agree with localizing features such as this. However in my opinion until there is a larger playerbase you're still going to end up with raiding empty cities localized bindkicking or not.
I think they will localize it in the future when/if the playerbase increases to a point that it's a viable option without pissing people off. Just that to do it now in my opinion would have a more negative than positive effect and would not increase city populations but just make travel times longer with certain cities that have large populations remaining so.
So I agree in principal just that I disagree on the timing.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
You are generally a pretty sharp cat Agricola, but I think you need to wrap your mind around some of the suggestions are little more. I think you zoned in on the stat bit (which has valid arguments both ways) and let your nerd rage get the better of you.
Bindstone kicking is a valid(and serious) problem. Globalization is a valid problem. Both promote zergs and hurt small guilds... something I think everyone can agree is a very bad thing, even with a fairly small playerbase Cities are not occupied because players have no true ties to localized areas when they can port all over the map at the drop of the hat. The changes would go a long way towards making player cities an actual home, instead of just another asset to port to.
A hundred small wars are far more interesting and promote a far healthier game and a better immersion experience than constant global zergs. It's the reason Eve moved in the direction they did... and they have a fair bit of experience.
Swish it around in your mouth. Give it a little more indepth thought. I think you'll understand what the OP is trying to accomplish.
You are generally a pretty sharp cat Agricola, but I think you need to wrap your mind around some of the suggestions are little more. I think you zoned in on the stat bit (which has valid arguments both ways) and let your nerd rage get the better of you.
Bindstone kicking is a valid(and serious) problem. Globalization is a valid problem. Both promote zergs and hurt small guilds... something I think everyone can agree is a very bad thing. Cities are not occupied because players have no true ties to localized areas when they can port all over the map at the drop of the hat. The changes would go a long way towards making player cities an actual home, instead of just another asset to port to.
Swish it around in your mouth. Give it a little more indepth thought. I think you'll understand what the OP is trying to accomplish.
It wasn't all nerd rage against stat whining, though I confess to my blood simmering when I read it (and I knew it would be hidden in there). I understand the bindkicking thing and I do agree with localizing just that I think it would be the wrong time to implement it now. You need a larger playerbase for localizing things and DFO doesn't have it, the reason it is the way it is now is due to the population nothing else. We need to wait on it.
As for the rest I stand by my opinion that it's mostly crutches for the lazy and weak or horrible ideas borrowed from mainstream themepark games which everyone who plays DFO is trying to get away from. There are literally a few good ideas but the rest will be dismissed by Aventurine hopefully.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
It's the same concept as the portable rez stones in Aion. The idea is that you create a staging ground of your own, that is also destroyable. Instead of a singular point of contention (ie the city bank) it creates multiple points of contention. This opens up tactics for the defensive side to mount an offensive flanking attack (surprise or otherwise) that can seriously hamper the efforts of their enemy, and also gives cause for the offensive side to protect the staging ground... as opposed to a full on singular front attack.
It adds complication to a siege, and its a good thing.
You are generally a pretty sharp cat Agricola, but I think you need to wrap your mind around some of the suggestions are little more. I think you zoned in on the stat bit (which has valid arguments both ways) and let your nerd rage get the better of you.
Bindstone kicking is a valid(and serious) problem. Globalization is a valid problem. Both promote zergs and hurt small guilds... something I think everyone can agree is a very bad thing. Cities are not occupied because players have no true ties to localized areas when they can port all over the map at the drop of the hat. The changes would go a long way towards making player cities an actual home, instead of just another asset to port to.
Swish it around in your mouth. Give it a little more indepth thought. I think you'll understand what the OP is trying to accomplish.
It wasn't all nerd rage against stat whining, though I confess to my blood simmering when I read it (and I knew it would be hidden in there). I understand the bindkicking thing and I do agree with localizing just that I think it would be the wrong time to implement it now. You need a larger playerbase for localizing things and DFO doesn't have it, the reason it is the way it is now is due to the population nothing else. We need to wait on it.
As for the rest I stand by my opinion that it's mostly crutches for the lazy and weak or horrible ideas borrowed from mainstream themepark games which everyone who plays DFO is trying to get away from. There are literally a few good ideas but the rest will be dismissed by Aventurine hopefully.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the population thing. My opinion is that players will naturally generate their own points of contention, and that they don't need easy travel and bright neon signs pointing to the battle. Kinda falls into your "lazy cruches" comment imo. Like I said, multiple small conflicts with meaningful territorial conflicts are far more intrisicate to world building than massive zerg battles.
And I disagree that borrowing organization tools are "weak or horrible ideas". Tools are tools. They help people coordinate. You can take advantage of them, or you can choose to not take advantage of them. But the don't win fights for you, they don't aim your shots or call for a calvary charge. They are just tools. Nice to have, and in no way do they detract from anything.
Your arguments basically amount to "well you can do that anyways." Well i can cut down a tree with a knife, but I'd damn sure rather have an axe. Ultimately your aruging against improvements and additional tools that enhance the experience and effectiveness of the "raid leader" for no redeemable reason.
It's the same concept as the portable rez stones in Aion. The idea is that you create a staging ground of your own, that is also destroyable. Instead of a singular point of contention (ie the city bank) it creates multiple points of contention. This opens up tactics for the defensive side to mount an offensive flanking attack (surprise or otherwise) that can seriously hamper the efforts of their enemy.
It adds complication to a siege, and its a good thing.
I agree with you on paper but in practice I don't see it happening because I'm not an idealist more of a hardened skeptic. Already you have siege stones which are portable bindstones for the attackers. A bank would serve little purpose in my opinion all it would do is give more stuff to the enemy. Very few sieges are well balanced in my experience and most are decided in the initial stages.
If you actually needed that bank to rearm dead fighters then you've lost because,
A: the siegestone and portable bank would have to be far away from the fighting
B: not everyone dies at once and runs back in
C: if they did then the enemy would re arm and wait and in all likley hood anhiliate you again as they did the first time
Really if you're siegeing a city and can't take control of the enemy bank with your forces and hold it down you aren't going to win and some portable bank miles away isn't going to make a difference in my opinion. When the clan stone goes live you have what one hour to take it? Enough time to reorganize all your forces that already got wiped, get them geared and travel all the way back and take it? And that's assuming the guys that just PWNed you haven't moved in on your siege stone and bank in the meantime and are raping the guys getting geared!
In my opinion it's a waste of time and money and really just some idea that a guy thought would help them win. However if someone wants to purchase a portable bank, fine I say. Go for it and have AV waste time on a cash sink that won't do anything in reality. Because if we're sieging a good clan/alliance we don't use the siege stone for the most part, a crap clan/alliance we still don't but I suppose we could but why bother? A bank would be pointless, if you're organized and have your shit together this is all just not needed. However if the lame want to donate more gear let them have it!
Just my opinion though.
Agricola
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
In no way does it prevent you from taking control of the enemy bank. It simply prevents you from taking the bank and using it as a forward staging ground. Preventing the enemy from using their bank is still a worwhile tactic. The difference is that if you now take the enemies bank, you are still vulerable to having it taken back.
The result of moving the staging ground to a distant location gives some leverage back to the defenders, which is something the games in need of. And obviously, if you were able to push them off their bank then you as the attacker are already at an advantage.
Now the defenders have the option of pushing your siegestone/bank and destroying your staging ground. You have to make a choice of holding their bank at the cost of potentially losing your staging area. If you lose your staging area your at risk of being whittled away at. That really isn't an issue now, because once you have the bank you have a nearly invincible forward staging area and you've pretty much won... makes things pretty dull.
hmm...
Sorry, but i can't agree with most of your suggested changes.
However, some of them will help.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the population thing. My opinion is that players will naturally generate their own points of contention, and that they don't need easy travel and bright neon signs pointing to the battle. Kinda falls into your "lazy cruches" comment imo. Like I said, multiple small conflicts with meaningful territorial conflicts are far more intrisicate to world building than massive zerg battles.
And I disagree that borrowing organization tools are "weak or horrible ideas". Tools are tools. They help people coordinate. You can take advantage of them, or you can choose to not take advantage of them. But the don't win fights for you, they don't aim your shots or call for a calvary charge. They are just tools. Nice to have, and in no way do they detract from anything.
Your arguments basically amount to "well you can do that anyways." Well i can cut down a tree with a knife, but I'd damn sure rather have an axe. Ultimately your aruging against improvements and additional tools that enhance the experience and effectiveness of the "raid leader" for no redeemable reason.
I see it more as I can cut down a tree on my own with an axe, so why pay a bunch of guys with chainsaws to do it for me? I argue against the "improvements" because I don't believe they are improvements, I just think they'll end up being unused features that get in the way. If you can turn them off completely then fine, I just don't want to see it introduced to the detriment of the players that don't need or want them.
And yes I agree to disagree, it's not about changing peoples minds or having an argument. There's nothing wrong with discussing the different points of view for a change without someone taking it personally that you don't agree with them.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
I'm not sure how features, even unused ones, can get in the way. Either you use them or you don't. If players find that verbal communication is a preferrable method, I can assure you they will use that method.
The reality is that some people will use them, and some people won't. I can guarentee you that some (probably many) people will use some of the features listed. For the people that use them, it will be benefitial. For the people that don't... well, what the hell do they care?
Now I understand that maybe you won't use them, but thats a silly reason to argue against something that otherwise doesn't effect you. As an example... I don't use any of that gambling crap they implemented in FE... but I certainly don't begrudge it as a bad idea. It's an addition to the game, and there are people getting enjoyment out of it.
I suppose I wouldn't be against things like portable banks and those group features (I still think they're lame!) put in for a probationary period to try them out. They're the kind of thing that wether used or not wouldn't break the game or really change it that much in my opinion.
So even though I disagree with them I wouldn't be against putting them in to try them out, since I have known to be wrong (that last comment was tongue in cheek).
Just I read alot of that thread and start thinking it looks more like AoC than Darkfall, and if I wanted that I'd still be playing AoC!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis