The issue hasnt changed: Design Decisions based on BALANCE. Rather than FREEDOM. Thats how it is because they cant afford one or a group of players destroying the game for other consumers. Everyone has to be equal, nice and happy, "everyone is a hero" mechanics. Thats why you dont see "a game where you can show who is the boss", because the 99% of those who are not the boss as soon as they find themself in the low scale of the balance, they whine and quit without even trying.
People cannot face consequences, they do not take responsabilities. They think its a game where everyone can win and everything has to be spoonfed to them.
They would never concede that they are being owned due to the fact that players are different, they always complain about as if they were superior but they blame their characters and the company for having to balance things for them. Wich is impossible, balance is an ilusion.
The solution was invented a decade ago. Stop treating your costumers as criminals.
Balance is Freedom.
In Game A, fireballs are twice as effective as sword swings. Players are forced to cast fireballs.
In Game B, fireballs are equal to swords. Players are free to choose whatever.
In a game with balanced decisions, everyone has a chance to be the boss -- assuming they make the right decisions. In a game without balance, a prison warden dominates their gameplay: some opposing character (player or NPC) who dictates what they can or can't do.
In the type of game you seem to want, there's a certain exclusivity to content which for many players means a lot less freedom.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
And that's why most people who played Darkfall are unable to enjoy the PvP of other games.
Before people jump on me, I said "most." :P
More interesting is that you say 'played'...
Imho, PVP in Darkfall is bad. It is a twitch based FPS with dumb PVP system leaving the game with nothing else but this dumb PVP. The game is overall empty but I guess that is supposed to target specific audience.
If they made CoD Modern Warfare 2 in persistant world with some NPC to grind your skills up, you would get Darkfall just much better done. As it is now, not my cup of tea, though.
I have no idea how you can compare EVE to Lineage...
Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
And that's why most people who played Darkfall are unable to enjoy the PvP of other games.
Before people jump on me, I said "most." :P
More interesting is that you say 'played'...
Imho, PVP in Darkfall is bad. It is a twitch based FPS with dumb PVP system leaving the game with nothing else but this dumb PVP. The game is overall empty but I guess that is supposed to target specific audience.
If they made CoD Modern Warfare 2 in persistant world with some NPC to grind your skills up, you would get Darkfall just much better done. As it is now, not my cup of tea, though.
I have no idea how you can compare EVE to Lineage...
Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
I would like to second this /signed
If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
I would like to second this /signed If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
Well I joined a decent-sized city and put a solid 2 months into the game, but applying the criteria from my earlier post (#16, not the other guy you two were criticizing) Darkfall's PVP isn't actually that great. It's mostly dominated by non-skill factors, with verticle progression and open PVP (which allows drastically uneven teams.)
I don't know that I'd agree with the other guy's claim that Darkfall's PVP was bad. Underneath all the muck, Darkfall's PVP system is actually pretty fun. If they'd only remove the cruddy layers that cover up and prevent fun PVP fights, they'd have had an awesome game imo. A medieval Planetside would've been frickin awesome:
3 preset factions, with motivating reasons for players to want to join the underdog.
Continents to fight over, but with population caps to keep most fights fair. Caps would be quite large (DF's engine can probably handle 250-per-faction). With multiple cities per continent, this creates warfare where the strategic division of forces is necessary to maintain control over everything.
Removal of verticle progression -- replaced by lateral progression where you pick a subset of abilities that you can use at any given moment.
Removal of overly redundant abilities. Between this and lateral progession, a more sane number of hotkeys would be required by the game (instead of the ridiculous number which are currently needed to be competitive.)
Removal of bad gathering/economy -- possibly replaced by building-centric economy (control blacksmith = gradual automatic production of armor..instead of an economy which requires players to do a lot of AFK-gathering.)
Basically it'd be a game truly focused on PVP, with a strong focus on player decisions and skill...rather than the messy approach they have now.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think there necessarily needs to be balance in PvP. Now here me out before i get tarred and feathered.
I played RoM which wasn't balanced at all because a mage was the best dps by far to the point where the tank classes had a negligible advantage and that was bad. Cuz the mages owned every aspect of PvP.
But there doesn't necessarily have to be I wouldnt' mind a game where based on the class you choose you have different skill sets. Here's my ideal PvP setup.
It's a game that has 3 factions.
The factions control areas centered around a castle/main city whatever. Close to the city there are crap loads of NPC uber guards who will crush any people from the other faction (think of concorde in EVE). As a player moves farther away the guard presence gets less to the point where venturing into these zones means you can get ganked at will. Then there will be unassociated zones where it is a free-for-all, and then zones which guilds can fight over, then there will be arenas and battlegrounds (instanced PvP).
I wouldn't have full loot, i'd have the ability to take an ear or have a list of who was killed like in RoM. THere would also be weekly siege events and/or castle events or whatever.
Also, within this game will be areas that are high level but have heavy NPC guard presence so the people that dislike PvP can level in piece and then the free-for-all or less guarded areas can have the adrenaline of watching your back.
This setup allows people who want to PvP to setup raiding parties into enemy territories and also have defense raid parties riding around on fast moving mounts. I'd also hvae that certain factions have access to geographical mounts that are faster on their hometurf.
Getting back to lack of balance, if a character is going to play a healing class, no way should it be able to stand up 1v1 vs a rogue or warrior class. A mage who gets ambushed by a melee class should be cut down in seconds and a melee class that gets ambushed by a mage should be cut down in seconds. I'm okay with some classes having limited PvP abilities while having good group abilities, healers, leadership classes etc and PvP classes sucking in groups a.k.a gladiator in lineage 2 or rogue in WoW.
The only thing is that it isn't balanced when a melee class can get jumped by two mages and survive or vice versa. If you are PvE alone on a border area and you get ganked by a raiding party . . . well, don't go out alone. If you a lone ganker (something i would do) and you get caught by the defensive party, so be it.
Cryomatrix
Catch me streaming at twitch.tv/cryomatrix You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Cryo, healers always losing in 1v1 is a completely arbitrary decision. Without some class-switch mechanic, it makes no sense for there to be any class counters in combat, because combat basically shouldn't be predetermined based on a decision made at character creation.
All sorts of class-switch mechanics can solve that problem (making class counters doable):
FFXI (from what I understand) let you switch between jobs.
Planetside let you learn many skills at any given time (and you could respec which skills for free once a day,) but you were limited on how many of those skills you could use at any given moment (power armor can't pilot vehicles; when you're in a vehicle you don't have access to your infantry weapons; when you're infantry, inventory space caps out how many weapons you're able to effectively use.)
...which was similar to EVE, where you can learn all of the 'roles' for ships but only pilot one particular ship+loadout at any given moment.
TF2 simply lets you swap classes on respawn (which would make sense in a Battleground-style PVP game.)
But without these types of mechanics, class counters are a pretty bad idea and you need a combat system where the more skilled player wins the fight between Class A and B.
With those types of mechanics, balance becomes slightly less crucial to a game because players can freely shift to what works. However as I said before: balance is freedom. The more classes which are balanced with each other, the more viable choices will be available to players.
As for "Leadership" classes, they tend to walk a very narrow line where it's easy for them to be overpowered or useless. It's possible to make them useful without being dominating (or useless), but it's a rather narrow line and I'd rather the developer apply their balancing muscle over a broad range of classes (rather than constantly having to tweak a leader class to keep it where it needs to be.)
As for 2v1 battles, it makes a little sense not to allow that sort of thing. As a skilled player, I'm actually a huge fan of games where my skill lets me take on tons of enemies (in games like Natural Selection and Planetside, I could sometimes take on 10 enemy players at once and gradually kill them all, usually with divide-and-conquer style tactics; skill is extremely important in dealing damage and surviving in these games.)
But as a game designer, I realize that skilled players are going to dominate in kills enough as it is, and that it will result in higher aggregate fun if skill doesn't enable runaway success. So while I'd love games where skill reigns supreme (and would love to find a new one, actually) I understand the reasons why that sort of game isn't common.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Agree with what Axe said, though my only contention would be against EVE, but that's more because I personally don't think omni-skill systems where you can "learn everything" with no cap's are good.
Realistically though, it all depends on the combat systems being used. If the games combat can lean more towards FPS/Twitch style reactions, balance is actually easier imho, because you're really seeing more player-ability vs player-ability. In Fallen Earth, my weapon skill level means something, but not tons, and regardless of that value, if I can't properly aim/attack, I won't hit anything.
With a heavy internal-dice system, this all goes out the window, because even if two players are equal in progression/personal-ability, player A gets a random streak of crits and player B gets a random streak of misses, neither of which really demonstrate any skill/ability, just bad rolls. Then we get itemization which all it does is start to skew roll %'s and chances and never anything that could accurately demonstrate personal-ability at the game.
For the OP, one of your reasons is the reason PvP is how it is today. As people have already commented, most players don't like being "lorded" over in-game.
Sure, the idea sounds good in concept, but now, take that same concept, but oh, you will never have that position of power/prestige/etc because someone has beaten you to it and is able to retain that power. And no, they won't let you be their friend, and in fact, you're now the new whipping boy for their organization.
UO proved this with Trammel. People didn't want to pay 12/mo for the chance at cyber-dickery and losing 2-3hrs of effort. They wanted to pay to play a game and enjoy themselves. This isn't to say there's no place for PvP, but any PvP/politicing that genuinely enables one player to "lord" anything over another is just bad, self-centered design.
Hell, even in the realm of PvE, it's why we'll never see old EQ style 1-per-server raids again. Why should I pay my monthly fee for the chance to be denied content just because a bigger guild is able to occupy the zone and dictate who's even getting a shot at the boss kill. Sure, 9-12mo down the road its easier to do, but by then, it's also not current-content relevant.
And to some ends, the idea of "Balanced, Meaningful MMORPG PvP" is about as realistic as "World Peace and Universal Racial Tolerance". They sound great on paper, but human nature and personal opinions soon spoil it all.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Agree with what Axe said, though my only contention would be against EVE, but that's more because I personally don't think omni-skill systems where you can "learn everything" with no cap's are good.
Everyone doesn't seem to get that there *is* caps, once you hit rank 5 of every skill that is going to matter for a certain rig. To completely max everything you could possibly need on a frig could take a matter of months, beyond that, maybe a year or two, but at some point you run out of options and have to start investing in things that don't give an edge in combat; like mining, and most science skills.
How can so many people hate on a system it seems none of them even understand?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
RvR is the way to go. What works best is an odd number of factions, like 3 from DAoC. I'd love to see a game with 5 factions.
The reason RvR works best is because you can ad great PvE as well. People can PvE and concentrate on that without getting ganked. OR, they can PvP, so it's the best of both gaming styles. They can even PvE in the PvP area if they choose to do so.
I don't like FPS combat in an RPG setting, I especially don't like "use it to improve it' skill systems which I think promote repetitive acts to get skills up, and macros, so Darkfall is out, plus DF has crappy PvE.
I like this idea. Let players create a "realm". So it's RvR like DAoC, but without set realms. If players form a guild, and meet certain conditions however, they can form a "realm".
The 5 realm faction RvR PvP is a great idea. I would just add to it an open world that has zones, areas, or points of interest that can be fought over, claimed and conquered for strategic purposes.
Is there an important keep that guards the mountain pass into a zone rich with resources? Whoever controls that keep is at an advantage. Administrating small trading villages can have bonuses with vendors, especially if you keep the trade routes open, which are under constant attack of course by the other factions. Likewise controlling the entrance to a dungeon that contains "epic loot" obviously works in the interest of the faction who controls access to that dungeon.
Allowing the ability to form limited alliances would deepen the political side even further providing opportunities for sharing of resources, fighting a common enemy, or ultimately betrayal. Perhaps befriending an NPC faction of elves in the forest means you can't gather certain natural resources, but can call on them for aid during battle. Or vice versa, all your faction choices would have larger PvP repercussions in the greater factional war.
Is your faction not strong enough to take down the citidel guarding the portal a distant zone? What if there were a deep quest chain in which your faction could awaken a slumbering dragon to rise up and fight the occupants of said citadel? That faction then has a dynamic opportunity to rally the troops and fight off an epic dragon boss and either keep or lose the citadel. See, PvP (or asymetric factional warfare) without actual 1on1 PvP combat even.
There are so many possibilities in a system like this, which adds a real strategic and political element to PvP, and not just some horrible and pointless gankfest.
There is a good reason it mostly sucks, you can't make a MMO with good PvP unless PvP is the entire focus of the game, and if you are gonna do that you might as well be playing a FPS. Why? Because you can't simply group players of MMO's into one style of player or another. MMO's have all types of players, some interested in PvP others not at all, some like Casual PvP, others are just Casual Players all the way around. There are too many variables to fully balance any MMO so that it's PvP system is fair when it comes to the entire scope and range of the player base.
There is a good reason it mostly sucks, you can't make a MMO with good PvP unless PvP is the entire focus of the game, and if you are gonna do that you might as well be playing a FPS. Why? Because you can't simply group players of MMO's into one style of player or another. MMO's have all types of players, some interested in PvP others not at all, some like Casual PvP, others are just Casual Players all the way around. There are too many variables to fully balance any MMO so that it's PvP system is fair when it comes to the entire scope and range of the player base.
wow...I so disagree with this statement.
FPS is a style of gameplay that not everyone likes. A lot of people like the 3rd person style.
Also you can have free form PvP and still have really heavy PvE for the people that like it. Prime example is EVE, where there is FFA PvP yet everything you can buy is made by players. You even have huge PvE only corporations and they can enjoy the game just as much as the pure PvPers.
What is beautiful about EVE is you can be a PvE guy that hires a mercenary to protect you from a pirate (AKA PvP guy), while in the meantime you and you other PvE buddy are mining and transfering ore for your latest industry project.
How did EVE accomplish this? Simple they give freedom of choice. Also having safe areas helps. Having said that even on day 1 you can go to dangerous areas and do your thing you just have to be extra extra careful.
Current Games: EVE, WoW Have Played: EQ1, EQ2, CoH, CoX, MXO, GW, Silk Road, WAR, AoC, Anarchy Online, UO, DDO
Originally posted by Evasia Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
I would like to second this /signed
If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
Just because I prefer clever, balanced and interesting combat system over twich based clunky FPS I must have not played or failed in the game, right?
Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
I would like to second this /signed
If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
Just because I prefer clever, balanced and interesting combat system over twich based clunky FPS I must have not played or failed in the game, right?
There's far more to Darkfall combat than simple FPS mechanics, man. It is, after all, and MMORPG.
You'd be amazed at the tactics and skill involved....both on the level of the individual, and especially in goups, including entire armies.
Darkfall is the best simulation of medieval warfare that you'll find. There's no way you can even scratch the surface of that in your first month of play, and especially if you don't find a decent clan.
On the "Infinite Timeline" of an MMO players existence in-game, there are no caps. Yes, to be most effective in one single aspect, there are caps. Specific skill trees do terminate, but give an account 2-3yrs time, and a single character could go from a mining ship, to a frig to a crusier etc, and in each specific ship class, be fully maxed out. That is possible, and that is what I don't like.
Think along the lines of Street Fighter, you choose a character, fight begins. Round 1 plays out, but the guy who just lost doesn't get the option of choosing a new character until the end of the match. You play round 2 with the same move set you used in round 1.
When I'm attacking your starbase in EVE, regardless of account-active time, if you're playing the ECM/ECCM war-jammer style and your ship blows up, that if you rejoin the fight, you'll be filling that same role, and not let you just jump into some droned-out point-defense battleship or long-range missile boat with anything close to the same level of functionality and compotency as the ECM/ECCM gameplay.
Open-ended, classless skill systems rock, but I feel there should be overall hard-limits on what can ever be learned by a character, and not just what can be situationally applied from a massive skill pool.
And on the topic of PvP/PvE dispersion, there is no true FFA PvP in EVE, just the illusion of it. Try this:
Mass a giant armada, say 800+ heavy ships capable of just steamrolling through a mining outpost, sensor stations, the works.
Fly into 1.0 space and attempt to occupy by force the sector for more than a few hours. See how many of the special CCP "police" ships you can drop before you've all been dropped.
Sure, you'll get some kills in, but the system is inheretly built against that.
Now, yes, you can still make the attack, but in no way can you assert anything close to what the OP was implying as being "The Boss" because if you were that good, you'd find a way to actually lock down the sector through some crazy death-of-lord-brittish-eqsue master-sploit that only works once since it's seen on such a crazy scale.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul There's far more to Darkfall combat than simple FPS mechanics, man. It is, after all, and MMORPG.
You'd be amazed at the tactics and skill involved....both on the level of the individual, and especially in goups, including entire armies. Darkfall is the best simulation of medieval warfare that you'll find. There's no way you can even scratch the surface of that in your first month of play, and especially if you don't find a decent clan.
I say it again in case you just overlooked what I wrote and not ignoring it on purpose:
clever, balanced and interesting combat system
There is as much skill and tactics involved as in any FPS game where 2 teams play against each other.
I know what territorial warfare and politics is, I play EVE for that matter, but it does not supplement and makes me ignore poorness of the game mechanics Darkfall has got.
It might be sufficient for you but it not sufficient for me, because I expect more than just content less FFA PVP with crap FPS combat and nothing else left.
Originally posted by Haegemon Because I hate on systems I fully understand?Open-ended, classless skill systems rock, but I feel there should be overall hard-limits on what can ever be learned by a character, and not just what can be situationally applied from a massive skill pool.
I don't really understand what your beef with EVE skill system is, really.
The game is not about skill points. Every ship in EVE is just a tool, like you use spoon to eat soup and fork and knife to eat your steak.
What EVE does is to offer you large variety of tools, skills only say how well you can work with that tool.
I understand what it offers, and offering the massive "toolbox" isn't my issue. I do like that. But I don't like the idea that one single-character can eventually master all tools. Though this is more a progression/advancement-systems qualm more than a PvP-systems qualm.
In contrast, I play Fallen Earth because of those imposed limitations. I'm free to choose my progression, but if I don't specialize in something, I won't be that effective. And even though they have a Level system in-game, all that really boils down to is "I Have X minimum AP earned/potentially spent on my character" with a large pool of additional points to earn.
But again, different aspect of the design than the core PvP issue, which again, I feel gets summarized by the idea that people do not want to actively play a game where any key feature of the game can be "lorded" over them by other players.
I will say while not true-FFA-PvP, EVE does balanace this well enough, though take the recent BoB internal sabotage. While it was really an amazing thing to see happen, in the 6mo surrounding the incident, just how many of those members canceled (even if only for 2-3mo) their account due to that? They may come back later, but it most likely won't ever be to that same prominence they had before the fall.
Either way, the ship-combat was never EVE's PvP strong point to me. It was mostly that its the best economic-terrorisim simulator available to the public, and shows how the right play of the social-meta-game of things can bypass just about any coded game mechanic.
Great in concept, volitile in application, and more often than not, tend to make the games much more insular and dependant on the long-time playerbase than potentially finding new players.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Originally posted by Haegemon For the OP, one of your reasons is the reason PvP is how it is today. As people have already commented, most players don't like being "lorded" over in-game. Sure, the idea sounds good in concept, but now, take that same concept, but oh, you will never have that position of power/prestige/etc because someone has beaten you to it and is able to retain that power. And no, they won't let you be their friend, and in fact, you're now the new whipping boy for their organization.
And that is why open PVP with no drawbacks is something i consider bad. L2 is a great exsample of when polics function as they should. Just having fully open kill anyone as you want without any penalty PVP pretty much kills the purpose of politics.
In EVE you had the choice of highsec 1-0.5, lowsec(safe.. kinda) 0.4-0.1(gateguns) 0.0 (lawless) which gave you a choice of how you wanted to play the game and higher risks hold bigger rewards.
Alliances and advanced player driven PVP isnt really possible if its just a big slaughter fest as i see it. Especially if your enemies are already chosen by the game and no communication is possible.
Originally posted by Haegemon I understand what it offers, and offering the massive "toolbox" isn't my issue. I do like that. But I don't like the idea that one single-character can eventually master all tools. Though this is more a progression/advancement-systems qualm more than a PvP-systems qualm.In contrast, I play Fallen Earth because of those imposed limitations. I'm free to choose my progression, but if I don't specialize in something, I won't be that effective. And even though they have a Level system in-game, all that really boils down to is "I Have X minimum AP earned/potentially spent on my character" with a large pool of additional points to earn.
I know what you mean. I do like 'classes' since it adds to your choices and makes the game more interesting BUT... You can't avoid it. While you can be capped with skill points to distribute, you can log in another character of yours that will have the skills you need.
Did you consider this pioint of view?
Originally posted by Haegemon
But again, different aspect of the design than the core PvP issue, which again, I feel gets summarized by the idea that people do not want to actively play a game where any key feature of the game can be "lorded" over them by other players. I will say while not true-FFA-PvP, EVE does balanace this well enough, though take the recent BoB internal sabotage. While it was really an amazing thing to see happen, in the 6mo surrounding the incident, just how many of those members canceled (even if only for 2-3mo) their account due to that? They may come back later, but it most likely won't ever be to that same prominence they had before the fall. Either way, the ship-combat was never EVE's PvP strong point to me. It was mostly that its the best economic-terrorisim simulator available to the public, and shows how the right play of the social-meta-game of things can bypass just about any coded game mechanic. Great in concept, volitile in application, and more often than not, tend to make the games much more insular and dependant on the long-time playerbase than potentially finding new players.
BoB disbanding is very unfortunate and happened due long critized and ignored weak mechanics but that's another story...
Thank god EVE is not 'true' FFA PVP. This basicaly does not go well with sandbox since FFA PVP limits your options, not expands them.
Every game is 'depending on long-time playerbase' since you would run out of players at some point
Great about EVE is that it can accomodate wide variety of playstyles which is what makes it so complex.
I actually prefer that multi-character approach because both characters do not concurrently occupy the same physical space.
If your base is under attack, your ECM/ECCM gets killed, but you had your missle-boat char at the same station, then it makes sense to see that drastic switchup. Now, that missle-boat gets destroyed and all you're left with is a heavy frigate-char, but he's 20min away from the battle.
You always have control over where you're spreading your characters out to, but you'd still be limited in what functional-roles you can fill based on which character you are using. It makes choice/consequence a little more meaningful than just being gifted a heavy frig from the corp that was never yours in the first place, but it was docked at the base thats under attack.
As for the BoB situation, it was more just to illustrate how a system of un-patchable mechanics, inter-personal-social-engineering, can easily break/bypass the game systems, and it can never be corrected by developers, because you can't apply a patch to a human being.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
In my opinion.. Most PvP action now a days are so dumbed down, they lack any teamwork and challenge.. I'm not much of a fan of PvP games, basically cause I hate getting ganked by 3 or 4 others and then having my corpse camped.. That is a game breaker to me.. However, There have been some PvP that I loved and took fun in for hours on end..
I enjoy PvP that requires atleast 10 plus or more.. Some of the best PvP I enjoyed was Wintergrasp and Couterstrike Source.. This is why:
Wintergrasp because it was a large land are where you have multiple roles to play, multiple targets to attack, and all that requires teamwork and communications. I didn't care for the arena stuff, or the small bg's.. but WG, AV and IoC I enjoyed..
Counterstrike: Again same mechanics. If you wanted to win you had to defend or attack multiple targets and goals.. need to communicate and work as a team..
So for me.. I like large numbers, with a large map allowing multple paths to travel around, and have multiple targets to achieve.. Make it complicated to a degree, and the fun will come.. I used to love it in AV or WG yelling out, 'Someone take out that damn tower".. etc etc.. or "Can someone take out this sniper, im pinned down", while a teammate calls back.. "OMW, I'll come around to his back"..
Originally posted by Haegemon You always have control over where you're spreading your characters out to, but you'd still be limited in what functional-roles you can fill based on which character you are using. It makes choice/consequence a little more meaningful than just being gifted a heavy frig from the corp that was never yours in the first place, but it was docked at the base thats under attack.
As for the BoB situation, it was more just to illustrate how a system of un-patchable mechanics, inter-personal-social-engineering, can easily break/bypass the game systems, and it can never be corrected by developers, because you can't apply a patch to a human being.
1) There is little to no difference between managing your characters or your ships. At the end, you will always need some ship to fly.
However, it is all fine, you do not have to justify your opinion. I am just not getting it
2) I figured that you are not very familiar with EVE Online. Here is what I wrote about BoB disbanding before:
Originally posted by Gdemami Alliances were released long before any sovereignty and their purpose was to forge formal agreements into game mechanics.As a security/political mechanics, there was a support declaration to outvote current executive corporation. At that time, the mechanics might have been considered sufficient because alliance executor could not do much harm, except losing alliance name in case of disbanding :)And into this mechanics, serving absolutely different purpose, they graft sovereignty which changed formalized pact into entity holding enormous power with far less security control than Audit Log Container...
It is not true that it is un-patchable. You can't control player behavior, but you can effectively control the impact and choices the player will have.
There's far more to Darkfall combat than simple FPS mechanics, man. It is, after all, and MMORPG.
You'd be amazed at the tactics and skill involved....both on the level of the individual, and especially in goups, including entire armies.
Darkfall is the best simulation of medieval warfare that you'll find. There's no way you can even scratch the surface of that in your first month of play, and especially if you don't find a decent clan.
I say it again in case you just overlooked what I wrote and not ignoring it on purpose:
clever, balanced and interesting combat system
There is as much skill and tactics involved as in any FPS game where 2 teams play against each other.
I know what territorial warfare and politics is, I play EVE for that matter, but it does not supplement and makes me ignore poorness of the game mechanics Darkfall has got.
It might be sufficient for you but it not sufficient for me, because I expect more than just content less FFA PVP with crap FPS combat and nothing else left.
And I'll say again, Darkfall is not an FPS. It has an FPS aiming system....that is IT. I'm willing to bet that you never played past your first month (if you ever have even actually played the game) if you think that there is nothing to Darkfall combat but "FPS skill".
But hey, whatever, man. Hating on DF is the cool, trendy thing to do these days.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul And I'll say again, Darkfall is not an FPS. It has an FPS aiming system....that is IT. I'm willing to bet that you never played past your first month (if you ever have even actually played the game) if you think that there is nothing to Darkfall combat but "FPS skill". But hey, whatever, man. Hating on DF is the cool, trendy thing to do these days.
Seriously, can you make a difference between a GAME and COMBAT SYSTEM ?
I am talking about combat system which is FPS based more than anything else. That is how twich based combat works - the responsibility for output is weighted more into player hands instead of mechanics(ie. dice rolls, drawback mechanics, character build, etc.)
Naked fights, anyone? Yes, the game improved quite a bit since but it is still miles away from anything with depth - especialy the combat system which is still kind of the same as naked fights.
Comments
Balance is Freedom.
In a game with balanced decisions, everyone has a chance to be the boss -- assuming they make the right decisions. In a game without balance, a prison warden dominates their gameplay: some opposing character (player or NPC) who dictates what they can or can't do.
In the type of game you seem to want, there's a certain exclusivity to content which for many players means a lot less freedom.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
More interesting is that you say 'played'...
Imho, PVP in Darkfall is bad. It is a twitch based FPS with dumb PVP system leaving the game with nothing else but this dumb PVP. The game is overall empty but I guess that is supposed to target specific audience.
If they made CoD Modern Warfare 2 in persistant world with some NPC to grind your skills up, you would get Darkfall just much better done. As it is now, not my cup of tea, though.
I have no idea how you can compare EVE to Lineage...
Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
More interesting is that you say 'played'...
Imho, PVP in Darkfall is bad. It is a twitch based FPS with dumb PVP system leaving the game with nothing else but this dumb PVP. The game is overall empty but I guess that is supposed to target specific audience.
If they made CoD Modern Warfare 2 in persistant world with some NPC to grind your skills up, you would get Darkfall just much better done. As it is now, not my cup of tea, though.
I have no idea how you can compare EVE to Lineage...
Your sir have never played Darkfall thats clear dont talk bullshit if you have no clue how a games pvp is.
I would like to second this /signed
If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
Well I joined a decent-sized city and put a solid 2 months into the game, but applying the criteria from my earlier post (#16, not the other guy you two were criticizing) Darkfall's PVP isn't actually that great. It's mostly dominated by non-skill factors, with verticle progression and open PVP (which allows drastically uneven teams.)
I don't know that I'd agree with the other guy's claim that Darkfall's PVP was bad. Underneath all the muck, Darkfall's PVP system is actually pretty fun. If they'd only remove the cruddy layers that cover up and prevent fun PVP fights, they'd have had an awesome game imo. A medieval Planetside would've been frickin awesome:
Basically it'd be a game truly focused on PVP, with a strong focus on player decisions and skill...rather than the messy approach they have now.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think there necessarily needs to be balance in PvP. Now here me out before i get tarred and feathered.
I played RoM which wasn't balanced at all because a mage was the best dps by far to the point where the tank classes had a negligible advantage and that was bad. Cuz the mages owned every aspect of PvP.
But there doesn't necessarily have to be I wouldnt' mind a game where based on the class you choose you have different skill sets. Here's my ideal PvP setup.
It's a game that has 3 factions.
The factions control areas centered around a castle/main city whatever. Close to the city there are crap loads of NPC uber guards who will crush any people from the other faction (think of concorde in EVE). As a player moves farther away the guard presence gets less to the point where venturing into these zones means you can get ganked at will. Then there will be unassociated zones where it is a free-for-all, and then zones which guilds can fight over, then there will be arenas and battlegrounds (instanced PvP).
I wouldn't have full loot, i'd have the ability to take an ear or have a list of who was killed like in RoM. THere would also be weekly siege events and/or castle events or whatever.
Also, within this game will be areas that are high level but have heavy NPC guard presence so the people that dislike PvP can level in piece and then the free-for-all or less guarded areas can have the adrenaline of watching your back.
This setup allows people who want to PvP to setup raiding parties into enemy territories and also have defense raid parties riding around on fast moving mounts. I'd also hvae that certain factions have access to geographical mounts that are faster on their hometurf.
Getting back to lack of balance, if a character is going to play a healing class, no way should it be able to stand up 1v1 vs a rogue or warrior class. A mage who gets ambushed by a melee class should be cut down in seconds and a melee class that gets ambushed by a mage should be cut down in seconds. I'm okay with some classes having limited PvP abilities while having good group abilities, healers, leadership classes etc and PvP classes sucking in groups a.k.a gladiator in lineage 2 or rogue in WoW.
The only thing is that it isn't balanced when a melee class can get jumped by two mages and survive or vice versa. If you are PvE alone on a border area and you get ganked by a raiding party . . . well, don't go out alone. If you a lone ganker (something i would do) and you get caught by the defensive party, so be it.
Cryomatrix
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
Cryo, healers always losing in 1v1 is a completely arbitrary decision. Without some class-switch mechanic, it makes no sense for there to be any class counters in combat, because combat basically shouldn't be predetermined based on a decision made at character creation.
All sorts of class-switch mechanics can solve that problem (making class counters doable):
But without these types of mechanics, class counters are a pretty bad idea and you need a combat system where the more skilled player wins the fight between Class A and B.
With those types of mechanics, balance becomes slightly less crucial to a game because players can freely shift to what works. However as I said before: balance is freedom. The more classes which are balanced with each other, the more viable choices will be available to players.
As for "Leadership" classes, they tend to walk a very narrow line where it's easy for them to be overpowered or useless. It's possible to make them useful without being dominating (or useless), but it's a rather narrow line and I'd rather the developer apply their balancing muscle over a broad range of classes (rather than constantly having to tweak a leader class to keep it where it needs to be.)
As for 2v1 battles, it makes a little sense not to allow that sort of thing. As a skilled player, I'm actually a huge fan of games where my skill lets me take on tons of enemies (in games like Natural Selection and Planetside, I could sometimes take on 10 enemy players at once and gradually kill them all, usually with divide-and-conquer style tactics; skill is extremely important in dealing damage and surviving in these games.)
But as a game designer, I realize that skilled players are going to dominate in kills enough as it is, and that it will result in higher aggregate fun if skill doesn't enable runaway success. So while I'd love games where skill reigns supreme (and would love to find a new one, actually) I understand the reasons why that sort of game isn't common.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Agree with what Axe said, though my only contention would be against EVE, but that's more because I personally don't think omni-skill systems where you can "learn everything" with no cap's are good.
Realistically though, it all depends on the combat systems being used. If the games combat can lean more towards FPS/Twitch style reactions, balance is actually easier imho, because you're really seeing more player-ability vs player-ability. In Fallen Earth, my weapon skill level means something, but not tons, and regardless of that value, if I can't properly aim/attack, I won't hit anything.
With a heavy internal-dice system, this all goes out the window, because even if two players are equal in progression/personal-ability, player A gets a random streak of crits and player B gets a random streak of misses, neither of which really demonstrate any skill/ability, just bad rolls. Then we get itemization which all it does is start to skew roll %'s and chances and never anything that could accurately demonstrate personal-ability at the game.
For the OP, one of your reasons is the reason PvP is how it is today. As people have already commented, most players don't like being "lorded" over in-game.
Sure, the idea sounds good in concept, but now, take that same concept, but oh, you will never have that position of power/prestige/etc because someone has beaten you to it and is able to retain that power. And no, they won't let you be their friend, and in fact, you're now the new whipping boy for their organization.
UO proved this with Trammel. People didn't want to pay 12/mo for the chance at cyber-dickery and losing 2-3hrs of effort. They wanted to pay to play a game and enjoy themselves. This isn't to say there's no place for PvP, but any PvP/politicing that genuinely enables one player to "lord" anything over another is just bad, self-centered design.
Hell, even in the realm of PvE, it's why we'll never see old EQ style 1-per-server raids again. Why should I pay my monthly fee for the chance to be denied content just because a bigger guild is able to occupy the zone and dictate who's even getting a shot at the boss kill. Sure, 9-12mo down the road its easier to do, but by then, it's also not current-content relevant.
And to some ends, the idea of "Balanced, Meaningful MMORPG PvP" is about as realistic as "World Peace and Universal Racial Tolerance". They sound great on paper, but human nature and personal opinions soon spoil it all.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
Everyone doesn't seem to get that there *is* caps, once you hit rank 5 of every skill that is going to matter for a certain rig. To completely max everything you could possibly need on a frig could take a matter of months, beyond that, maybe a year or two, but at some point you run out of options and have to start investing in things that don't give an edge in combat; like mining, and most science skills.
How can so many people hate on a system it seems none of them even understand?
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
RvR is the way to go. What works best is an odd number of factions, like 3 from DAoC. I'd love to see a game with 5 factions.
The reason RvR works best is because you can ad great PvE as well. People can PvE and concentrate on that without getting ganked. OR, they can PvP, so it's the best of both gaming styles. They can even PvE in the PvP area if they choose to do so.
I don't like FPS combat in an RPG setting, I especially don't like "use it to improve it' skill systems which I think promote repetitive acts to get skills up, and macros, so Darkfall is out, plus DF has crappy PvE.
I like this idea. Let players create a "realm". So it's RvR like DAoC, but without set realms. If players form a guild, and meet certain conditions however, they can form a "realm".
The 5 realm faction RvR PvP is a great idea. I would just add to it an open world that has zones, areas, or points of interest that can be fought over, claimed and conquered for strategic purposes.
Is there an important keep that guards the mountain pass into a zone rich with resources? Whoever controls that keep is at an advantage. Administrating small trading villages can have bonuses with vendors, especially if you keep the trade routes open, which are under constant attack of course by the other factions. Likewise controlling the entrance to a dungeon that contains "epic loot" obviously works in the interest of the faction who controls access to that dungeon.
Allowing the ability to form limited alliances would deepen the political side even further providing opportunities for sharing of resources, fighting a common enemy, or ultimately betrayal. Perhaps befriending an NPC faction of elves in the forest means you can't gather certain natural resources, but can call on them for aid during battle. Or vice versa, all your faction choices would have larger PvP repercussions in the greater factional war.
Is your faction not strong enough to take down the citidel guarding the portal a distant zone? What if there were a deep quest chain in which your faction could awaken a slumbering dragon to rise up and fight the occupants of said citadel? That faction then has a dynamic opportunity to rally the troops and fight off an epic dragon boss and either keep or lose the citadel. See, PvP (or asymetric factional warfare) without actual 1on1 PvP combat even.
There are so many possibilities in a system like this, which adds a real strategic and political element to PvP, and not just some horrible and pointless gankfest.
There is a good reason it mostly sucks, you can't make a MMO with good PvP unless PvP is the entire focus of the game, and if you are gonna do that you might as well be playing a FPS. Why? Because you can't simply group players of MMO's into one style of player or another. MMO's have all types of players, some interested in PvP others not at all, some like Casual PvP, others are just Casual Players all the way around. There are too many variables to fully balance any MMO so that it's PvP system is fair when it comes to the entire scope and range of the player base.
wow...I so disagree with this statement.
FPS is a style of gameplay that not everyone likes. A lot of people like the 3rd person style.
Also you can have free form PvP and still have really heavy PvE for the people that like it. Prime example is EVE, where there is FFA PvP yet everything you can buy is made by players. You even have huge PvE only corporations and they can enjoy the game just as much as the pure PvPers.
What is beautiful about EVE is you can be a PvE guy that hires a mercenary to protect you from a pirate (AKA PvP guy), while in the meantime you and you other PvE buddy are mining and transfering ore for your latest industry project.
How did EVE accomplish this? Simple they give freedom of choice. Also having safe areas helps. Having said that even on day 1 you can go to dangerous areas and do your thing you just have to be extra extra careful.
Just because I prefer clever, balanced and interesting combat system over twich based clunky FPS I must have not played or failed in the game, right?
I would like to second this /signed
If you have indeed played Darkfall before you must not have made it out of your first month. If you even put half an effort into this game the PvP takes its shape and becomes unmatched by anything out there. Try joining a clan too, starter cities don't count as playing the game.
Just because I prefer clever, balanced and interesting combat system over twich based clunky FPS I must have not played or failed in the game, right?
There's far more to Darkfall combat than simple FPS mechanics, man. It is, after all, and MMORPG.
You'd be amazed at the tactics and skill involved....both on the level of the individual, and especially in goups, including entire armies.
Darkfall is the best simulation of medieval warfare that you'll find. There's no way you can even scratch the surface of that in your first month of play, and especially if you don't find a decent clan.
Because I hate on systems I fully understand?
On the "Infinite Timeline" of an MMO players existence in-game, there are no caps. Yes, to be most effective in one single aspect, there are caps. Specific skill trees do terminate, but give an account 2-3yrs time, and a single character could go from a mining ship, to a frig to a crusier etc, and in each specific ship class, be fully maxed out. That is possible, and that is what I don't like.
Think along the lines of Street Fighter, you choose a character, fight begins. Round 1 plays out, but the guy who just lost doesn't get the option of choosing a new character until the end of the match. You play round 2 with the same move set you used in round 1.
When I'm attacking your starbase in EVE, regardless of account-active time, if you're playing the ECM/ECCM war-jammer style and your ship blows up, that if you rejoin the fight, you'll be filling that same role, and not let you just jump into some droned-out point-defense battleship or long-range missile boat with anything close to the same level of functionality and compotency as the ECM/ECCM gameplay.
Open-ended, classless skill systems rock, but I feel there should be overall hard-limits on what can ever be learned by a character, and not just what can be situationally applied from a massive skill pool.
And on the topic of PvP/PvE dispersion, there is no true FFA PvP in EVE, just the illusion of it. Try this:
Mass a giant armada, say 800+ heavy ships capable of just steamrolling through a mining outpost, sensor stations, the works.
Fly into 1.0 space and attempt to occupy by force the sector for more than a few hours. See how many of the special CCP "police" ships you can drop before you've all been dropped.
Sure, you'll get some kills in, but the system is inheretly built against that.
Now, yes, you can still make the attack, but in no way can you assert anything close to what the OP was implying as being "The Boss" because if you were that good, you'd find a way to actually lock down the sector through some crazy death-of-lord-brittish-eqsue master-sploit that only works once since it's seen on such a crazy scale.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
I say it again in case you just overlooked what I wrote and not ignoring it on purpose:
clever, balanced and interesting combat system
There is as much skill and tactics involved as in any FPS game where 2 teams play against each other.
I know what territorial warfare and politics is, I play EVE for that matter, but it does not supplement and makes me ignore poorness of the game mechanics Darkfall has got.
It might be sufficient for you but it not sufficient for me, because I expect more than just content less FFA PVP with crap FPS combat and nothing else left.
I don't really understand what your beef with EVE skill system is, really.
The game is not about skill points. Every ship in EVE is just a tool, like you use spoon to eat soup and fork and knife to eat your steak.
What EVE does is to offer you large variety of tools, skills only say how well you can work with that tool.
Can't see anything wrong with that.
I understand what it offers, and offering the massive "toolbox" isn't my issue. I do like that. But I don't like the idea that one single-character can eventually master all tools. Though this is more a progression/advancement-systems qualm more than a PvP-systems qualm.
In contrast, I play Fallen Earth because of those imposed limitations. I'm free to choose my progression, but if I don't specialize in something, I won't be that effective. And even though they have a Level system in-game, all that really boils down to is "I Have X minimum AP earned/potentially spent on my character" with a large pool of additional points to earn.
But again, different aspect of the design than the core PvP issue, which again, I feel gets summarized by the idea that people do not want to actively play a game where any key feature of the game can be "lorded" over them by other players.
I will say while not true-FFA-PvP, EVE does balanace this well enough, though take the recent BoB internal sabotage. While it was really an amazing thing to see happen, in the 6mo surrounding the incident, just how many of those members canceled (even if only for 2-3mo) their account due to that? They may come back later, but it most likely won't ever be to that same prominence they had before the fall.
Either way, the ship-combat was never EVE's PvP strong point to me. It was mostly that its the best economic-terrorisim simulator available to the public, and shows how the right play of the social-meta-game of things can bypass just about any coded game mechanic.
Great in concept, volitile in application, and more often than not, tend to make the games much more insular and dependant on the long-time playerbase than potentially finding new players.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
And that is why open PVP with no drawbacks is something i consider bad. L2 is a great exsample of when polics function as they should. Just having fully open kill anyone as you want without any penalty PVP pretty much kills the purpose of politics.
In EVE you had the choice of highsec 1-0.5, lowsec(safe.. kinda) 0.4-0.1(gateguns) 0.0 (lawless) which gave you a choice of how you wanted to play the game and higher risks hold bigger rewards.
Alliances and advanced player driven PVP isnt really possible if its just a big slaughter fest as i see it. Especially if your enemies are already chosen by the game and no communication is possible.
Well thats how i see it.
I know what you mean. I do like 'classes' since it adds to your choices and makes the game more interesting BUT... You can't avoid it. While you can be capped with skill points to distribute, you can log in another character of yours that will have the skills you need.
Did you consider this pioint of view?
BoB disbanding is very unfortunate and happened due long critized and ignored weak mechanics but that's another story...
Thank god EVE is not 'true' FFA PVP. This basicaly does not go well with sandbox since FFA PVP limits your options, not expands them.
Every game is 'depending on long-time playerbase' since you would run out of players at some point
Great about EVE is that it can accomodate wide variety of playstyles which is what makes it so complex.
I actually prefer that multi-character approach because both characters do not concurrently occupy the same physical space.
If your base is under attack, your ECM/ECCM gets killed, but you had your missle-boat char at the same station, then it makes sense to see that drastic switchup. Now, that missle-boat gets destroyed and all you're left with is a heavy frigate-char, but he's 20min away from the battle.
You always have control over where you're spreading your characters out to, but you'd still be limited in what functional-roles you can fill based on which character you are using. It makes choice/consequence a little more meaningful than just being gifted a heavy frig from the corp that was never yours in the first place, but it was docked at the base thats under attack.
As for the BoB situation, it was more just to illustrate how a system of un-patchable mechanics, inter-personal-social-engineering, can easily break/bypass the game systems, and it can never be corrected by developers, because you can't apply a patch to a human being.
Lets Push Things Forward
I knew I would live to design games at age 7, issue 5 of Nintendo Power.
Support games with subs when you believe in their potential, even in spite of their flaws.
In my opinion.. Most PvP action now a days are so dumbed down, they lack any teamwork and challenge.. I'm not much of a fan of PvP games, basically cause I hate getting ganked by 3 or 4 others and then having my corpse camped.. That is a game breaker to me.. However, There have been some PvP that I loved and took fun in for hours on end..
I enjoy PvP that requires atleast 10 plus or more.. Some of the best PvP I enjoyed was Wintergrasp and Couterstrike Source.. This is why:
Wintergrasp because it was a large land are where you have multiple roles to play, multiple targets to attack, and all that requires teamwork and communications. I didn't care for the arena stuff, or the small bg's.. but WG, AV and IoC I enjoyed..
Counterstrike: Again same mechanics. If you wanted to win you had to defend or attack multiple targets and goals.. need to communicate and work as a team..
So for me.. I like large numbers, with a large map allowing multple paths to travel around, and have multiple targets to achieve.. Make it complicated to a degree, and the fun will come.. I used to love it in AV or WG yelling out, 'Someone take out that damn tower".. etc etc.. or "Can someone take out this sniper, im pinned down", while a teammate calls back.. "OMW, I'll come around to his back"..
1) There is little to no difference between managing your characters or your ships. At the end, you will always need some ship to fly.
However, it is all fine, you do not have to justify your opinion. I am just not getting it
2) I figured that you are not very familiar with EVE Online. Here is what I wrote about BoB disbanding before:
It is not true that it is un-patchable. You can't control player behavior, but you can effectively control the impact and choices the player will have.
I say it again in case you just overlooked what I wrote and not ignoring it on purpose:
clever, balanced and interesting combat system
There is as much skill and tactics involved as in any FPS game where 2 teams play against each other.
I know what territorial warfare and politics is, I play EVE for that matter, but it does not supplement and makes me ignore poorness of the game mechanics Darkfall has got.
It might be sufficient for you but it not sufficient for me, because I expect more than just content less FFA PVP with crap FPS combat and nothing else left.
And I'll say again, Darkfall is not an FPS. It has an FPS aiming system....that is IT. I'm willing to bet that you never played past your first month (if you ever have even actually played the game) if you think that there is nothing to Darkfall combat but "FPS skill".
But hey, whatever, man. Hating on DF is the cool, trendy thing to do these days.
Seriously, can you make a difference between a GAME and COMBAT SYSTEM ?
I am talking about combat system which is FPS based more than anything else. That is how twich based combat works - the responsibility for output is weighted more into player hands instead of mechanics(ie. dice rolls, drawback mechanics, character build, etc.)
Naked fights, anyone? Yes, the game improved quite a bit since but it is still miles away from anything with depth - especialy the combat system which is still kind of the same as naked fights.