I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
Wait, so Eve and Shadowbane were really RvR games, but the players conspired to ensure they were always known as FFA PvP games focusing on Alliane/Guild v Alliance/Guild?
Or maybe you should just accept the term RvR is limited to games like DaoC with developer controlled factions so we can distinguish that mechanic from FFA PvP.
I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
You fail to understand that you do not define what "realm" is, it has been defined already, Here is the LINK. So, do players define those "realms"? Do they set up kingdom borders? Does the world change once the owner of the city changes? NO
The realm is static and defined by the developers. The only thing that is dynamic is the ownership of the city/hamlet and the layout of it. Everything else is static and no player can change anything. When people engage in PvP, they do not engage as "realm" members (as in Dark Elfs vs Dwarves) but as guild/alliance members.
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region. The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be. -Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system. -You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself. -You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall. -Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
individual guilds dont hold much all by themselves in most any of these types of games.
just looking at the map you can see the major alliances all only give a bit of land to each member guild.
so alliance vs alliance is very accurate.
Alliance consists of guilds, guilds do not consist of alliances, therefore a guild is the smaller denominator. Alliances will not exist without guilds, guilds will exist without alliances. I prefer to use the smaller denominator here, but its a personal preference. Agree to disagree.
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region. The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be. -Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system. -You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself. -You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall. -Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
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
I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
Wait, so Eve and Shadowbane were really RvR games, but the players conspired to ensure they were always known as FFA PvP games focusing on Alliane/Guild v Alliance/Guild?
Or maybe you should just accept the term RvR is limited to games like DaoC with developer controlled factions so we can distinguish that mechanic from FFA PvP.
Exactly!
If you try to pigeon-hole DarkFall as a RvR game... then what distinguishes it from DaoC or WAR?
By definition if DarkFall is a FFA PvP MMO (like EvE, or ShadowBane was)... then it is open to whatever forms of PvP that it's players can imagine and come up with.
Sure there are players in DarkFall that can play their PvP in a RvR manner... that doesn't make DarkFall an RvR MMO though.
Just like when players play DarkFall in a PvE manner that it doesn't make it a PvE MMO.
DarkFall is a FFA PvP MMO.
That is what it is... I'm not sure why Trench thinks that is something to shy away from?
Don't try and pigeon-hole it into something it isn't. Really, all it does when a person tries to tell everyone that it is something that everyone knows it's not... is make a person look foolish.
Only one person seems to be confused... hmm... wonder who that could be?
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region. The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be. -Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system. -You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself. -You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall. -Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region. The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be. -Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system. -You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself. -You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall. -Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
-You have no clue what you're talking about. The consequence of killing alliance members is that you get kicked, and thus become KoS for an entire region. The benefit of being in an alliance is that you can go about your business in an entire region without having to worry about the locals killing you, your only concern is for incursions and raids by neighbors into your territory. This is all player driven and dynamic, as it should be. -Wrong. Devs don't step in to force people to play one side versus another in a static game. DAoC was chronically filled with imbalanced sides. In Darkfall it's actually more balanced because of the dynamic player driven system. Numbers are self correcting out of self preservation, if an alliance becomes to big or too much of a threat then they gain more enemies and former enemies will band together to defend themselvs. Players have no ability to dynamically adjust like this in a dev enforced system. -You're still wrong, as I've seen with my own eyes a smaller but better organized alliance defeat a much larger one in sieges. You're also wrong to insist that numbers meaning something is only a factor in dynamic alliance games. You also fail to recognize that it is entirely within the power of the players to address any numbers imbalance through strategy and politics, that the only limitation is yourself. -You are still trying to nitpick periphery issues instead of recognizing the central fact that calling it player dictated RvR is essentially an accurate description of what happens in darkfall. -Again you're ignorantly trying to insist that RvR can only be defined by artificially dev dictated racial conflict, when in truth the real RvR is dynamic and is player driven; Something that is far superior to an artificial forced racial system. Something that most games aren't free enough to pull off even if they wanted to.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
Heh... you don't know Kyleran do you?
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300 it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
Heh... you don't know Kyleran do you?
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
Yup. Those who don't visit these forums on a regular basis just don't know what they are missing.
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
The movie was actually based on real historic facts so it's not completely fictional but both in the movie and in the real battle the 300 Spartans had the same ending ( ultimately they died) so basically Kyleran's point stands
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
The movie was actually based on real historic facts so it's not completely fictional but both in the movie and in the real battle the 300 Spartans had the same ending ( ultimately they died) so basically Kyleran's point stands
Historically, things are not that simple.
Leonidas took a small army out, true, He held a choke point and stalled the progress of one spearhead force. As far as tactics goes that is a brilliant battle. For a good drama, the excuse of defeat is betrayal. Common sense, if they really are 300, they are dead one way or another.
What they did fight against won't be the entire Persian army. Logistic and strategy considerations, no persian commander will bring a full army down just 1 route. If you are going to attack Greece, you would hit multiple points for variour strategic considerations. Hitler has 3 spearheads when he hit Russia, and never has he deployed his entire Babarossa force in the front.
Also historians are still debating as to the actual size of the Persian Army that actually lands on Greek soil. General consensus, the romantic movies and stories are way exaggerating the size.
I will think that the 300 vs a million kind of romantic heroism is way overblown. If the Persians actually have 100k, each throwing a rock would bury the 300 in static defense position.
From my College days, I remember professors talking about half a haivarabam, or something like 5.000 men, against Leonidas. The Persian army was fighting in several different places at the time, so the forces were scattered a bit.
I called it Player Dictated RvR. There's no other way to define player dictated RvR other than a system of free form alliances that results in solidified realms. If you were able to comprehend the concept of what it means to have a realm fighting another realm, instead of getting mired in semantics and arbitrary trappings like race forced alliances, you would wouldn't be having trouble right now.
Dude, wake up!
Darkfall is nothing more than a Clan -vs- Clan Online FPS game... it's not even close to being a MMORPG. Battlefield 2142 has more depth, strategy and interplay than Darkfall. You new to gaming or something?
Darkfall is the furthest thing from Realm Vs Realm... rotflmao!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
Comments
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
Wait, so Eve and Shadowbane were really RvR games, but the players conspired to ensure they were always known as FFA PvP games focusing on Alliane/Guild v Alliance/Guild?
Or maybe you should just accept the term RvR is limited to games like DaoC with developer controlled factions so we can distinguish that mechanic from FFA PvP.
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
You fail to understand that you do not define what "realm" is, it has been defined already, Here is the LINK. So, do players define those "realms"? Do they set up kingdom borders? Does the world change once the owner of the city changes? NO
The realm is static and defined by the developers. The only thing that is dynamic is the ownership of the city/hamlet and the layout of it. Everything else is static and no player can change anything. When people engage in PvP, they do not engage as "realm" members (as in Dark Elfs vs Dwarves) but as guild/alliance members.
I am the type of player where I like to do everything and anything from time to time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor - pre-WW2 genocide.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
individual guilds dont hold much all by themselves in most any of these types of games.
just looking at the map you can see the major alliances all only give a bit of land to each member guild.
so alliance vs alliance is very accurate.
Alliance consists of guilds, guilds do not consist of alliances, therefore a guild is the smaller denominator. Alliances will not exist without guilds, guilds will exist without alliances. I prefer to use the smaller denominator here, but its a personal preference. Agree to disagree.
I am the type of player where I like to do everything and anything from time to time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor - pre-WW2 genocide.
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
"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
Its not RvR because players from 2 or more races can join in a guild and play side by side against other guilds from the same or not race. So this is Guild (or clan if you want) vs Guild or Alliance vs Alliance is also acceptable I suppose. I think Guild vs Guild is more accurate because Alliance is a group of guilds.
That's like saying PvP is defined as a game where combat only takes place within the confines of a development dictated arena - Just because that's how most games implement PvP doesn't mean it IS PvP. That's an example of getting semantics of design choices mixed up with higher concepts such as the nature of a game being competitive player vs player.
Darkfall is functionally a game with player dictated RvR, where players define what the terms of what it means to be a realm - Thus the definition. You fail to understand this concept because you continue to insist that only developers are allowed to define what a realm is, but it's not true. By definition a game that were player dictated RvR would have a system whereby the players to get control every aspect of what a realm is and what it's boundries are, what it's rules and objectives are - Which is exactly what darkfall is.
Wait, so Eve and Shadowbane were really RvR games, but the players conspired to ensure they were always known as FFA PvP games focusing on Alliane/Guild v Alliance/Guild?
Or maybe you should just accept the term RvR is limited to games like DaoC with developer controlled factions so we can distinguish that mechanic from FFA PvP.
Exactly!
If you try to pigeon-hole DarkFall as a RvR game... then what distinguishes it from DaoC or WAR?
By definition if DarkFall is a FFA PvP MMO (like EvE, or ShadowBane was)... then it is open to whatever forms of PvP that it's players can imagine and come up with.
Sure there are players in DarkFall that can play their PvP in a RvR manner... that doesn't make DarkFall an RvR MMO though.
Just like when players play DarkFall in a PvE manner that it doesn't make it a PvE MMO.
DarkFall is a FFA PvP MMO.
That is what it is... I'm not sure why Trench thinks that is something to shy away from?
Don't try and pigeon-hole it into something it isn't. Really, all it does when a person tries to tell everyone that it is something that everyone knows it's not... is make a person look foolish.
Only one person seems to be confused... hmm... wonder who that could be?
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
Heh... you don't know Kyleran do you?
agreed 100%
also if anybody still thinks a large alliance owns a smaller organized alliance...go watch 300
it's all about tactics and strategy people
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
Heh... you don't know Kyleran do you?
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
Er you do realize that 300 was a total work of fiction and in general, 300 does not beat 15000, not even in most other fantasy settings?
you are just being negative, use your brain and tactics and you won't believe the things you could pull off with a small well organized group
never played shadowbane or uo or eve much did you
Heh... you don't know Kyleran do you?
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
Yup. Those who don't visit these forums on a regular basis just don't know what they are missing.
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
The movie was actually based on real historic facts so it's not completely fictional but both in the movie and in the real battle the 300 Spartans had the same ending ( ultimately they died) so basically Kyleran's point stands
Iiii-iiiiiit's.... me!!! *Hooray*
You have to admit the guy is quite amusing though. To prove a point, he tells people to go watch a fictional movie. Then proceeds to put his foot in his mouth, about Kylerans Eve experience. Priceless.
The movie was actually based on real historic facts so it's not completely fictional but both in the movie and in the real battle the 300 Spartans had the same ending ( ultimately they died) so basically Kyleran's point stands
Historically, things are not that simple.
Leonidas took a small army out, true, He held a choke point and stalled the progress of one spearhead force. As far as tactics goes that is a brilliant battle. For a good drama, the excuse of defeat is betrayal. Common sense, if they really are 300, they are dead one way or another.
What they did fight against won't be the entire Persian army. Logistic and strategy considerations, no persian commander will bring a full army down just 1 route. If you are going to attack Greece, you would hit multiple points for variour strategic considerations. Hitler has 3 spearheads when he hit Russia, and never has he deployed his entire Babarossa force in the front.
Also historians are still debating as to the actual size of the Persian Army that actually lands on Greek soil. General consensus, the romantic movies and stories are way exaggerating the size.
I will think that the 300 vs a million kind of romantic heroism is way overblown. If the Persians actually have 100k, each throwing a rock would bury the 300 in static defense position.
From my College days, I remember professors talking about half a haivarabam, or something like 5.000 men, against Leonidas. The Persian army was fighting in several different places at the time, so the forces were scattered a bit.
Reality rarely makes for good fiction.
Dude, wake up!
Darkfall is nothing more than a Clan -vs- Clan Online FPS game... it's not even close to being a MMORPG. Battlefield 2142 has more depth, strategy and interplay than Darkfall. You new to gaming or something?
Darkfall is the furthest thing from Realm Vs Realm... rotflmao!
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
In reality they were more than 300,more like 2000.