Darkfall "Released"

[Kageru]

--have a game play style built around the concept of griefing: turn griefers into actual encounters in your world with a benefit for winning (or even losing, although I personally don't like that idea). Can be anything here, from having players that like this play style spawning as randomly placed mobs, to having "grief quests" where they are given objectives (camp a town for an hour, kill 10x enemy resource gatherers, etc.), and most importantly make sure the "other side" is aware of these quests as well "We have reports of an incoming raid, we have reports of enemy brigands in our mines", etc.).

Conflict is mandatory for these games....but there is zero reason to automatically make all of these conflict scenarios negative.

You should try Estiah (browser based games) or to a lesser extent the west. They both have reasonably open PvP with the advantage that the attacker has to pay something (action points) and the defender has a chance to at least do some damage (the west) or actually come out ahead from the exchange. I think the trick is to have close to parity so that the attacker always faces some risk, some reward for winning which following the first could go either way and minimal cost for losing. Of course the web based games have the advantage in that the environment is so constrained and abstracted they can shape behaviour.

Something like Darkfall where gear, tactics and numbers can be manipulated will always be used by the attacker to stack fights in their favor. Add a loss mechanism and you've got a negative feedback griefing engine. Of course discussing PvP mechanics in the context of a game that has many other more pressing flaws is a bit of a waste.

[waylander]

Post from Bone about losers and the state of DF

Honestly, many of us have seen this time and time again.  The crushed depart the game because the time investment to stay competitive is too great compared to the time it takes to lose. Just like Shadowbane, the game is too crushing for the defeated, and too grindy to maintain at the top level of play. The elite guilds suffer from boredom and quit, and in the end you have a dead game.

So DF is 60 days old, and rapidly descending into a small population of the few who stubbornly remain.  I'd be amazed if this game is still around in 12 months.

[IainC]

Someone created a 1 man guild called Eurogamer.net and it seems that everyone has been declaring war on it:


I wonder if the Darkfall ToS forbids trademarked names 

[Mrbloodworth]

Someone created a 1 man guild called Eurogamer.net and it seems that everyone has been declaring war on it:


I wonder if the Darkfall ToS forbids trademarked names 

They even made a video that is getting plastered everywhere.

[Nebu]

That video was as terrible as the game itself.

Those players deserve eachother. 

[Azaroth]

Someone created a 1 man guild called Eurogamer.net and it seems that everyone has been declaring war on it:


I wonder if the Darkfall ToS forbids trademarked names 

I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the devs, subsequently announcing the fact in IRC with instructions to declare war.

[UnSub]

Post from Bone about losers and the state of DF

Honestly, many of us have seen this time and time again.  The crushed depart the game because the time investment to stay competitive is too great compared to the time it takes to lose. Just like Shadowbane, the game is too crushing for the defeated, and too grindy to maintain at the top level of play. The elite guilds suffer from boredom and quit, and in the end you have a dead game.

So DF is 60 days old, and rapidly descending into a small population of the few who stubbornly remain.  I'd be amazed if this game is still around in 12 months.

The fact that it I couldn't even see a place to buy DF - that it appears it is still selling limited numbers of copies through its shop - pretty much guarantees its decline. All the early adopters have gotten in and found out that the game is really only for a small percentage of them. The disillusioned quit, leaving the wolves (I love how Bonedancer actually called himself that) bored. Bored players quit. New players are scared off by the reviews and reputation of the game. It's a cycle of death for the game.

[Mrbloodworth]

Post from Bone about losers and the state of DF

Honestly, many of us have seen this time and time again.  The crushed depart the game because the time investment to stay competitive is too great compared to the time it takes to lose. Just like Shadowbane, the game is too crushing for the defeated, and too grindy to maintain at the top level of play. The elite guilds suffer from boredom and quit, and in the end you have a dead game.

So DF is 60 days old, and rapidly descending into a small population of the few who stubbornly remain.  I'd be amazed if this game is still around in 12 months.

The fact that it I couldn't even see a place to buy DF - that it appears it is still selling limited numbers of copies through its shop - pretty much guarantees its decline. All the early adopters have gotten in and found out that the game is really only for a small percentage of them. The disillusioned quit, leaving the wolves (I love how Bonedancer actually called himself that) bored. Bored players quit. New players are scared off by the reviews and reputation of the game. It's a cycle of death for the game.

Not according to the players in that thread.   

[tmp]

Post from Bone about losers and the state of DF

I love that thread so much.

The "sheep" as you so eloquently named them are PvE farmers and gatherers. And, as you mentioned, they are becomming more and more scarce. Why, is the question. Fact is, this game is HORRIBLY unfriendly to the "sheep" making them extremely vulnerble to gankers.

Too much grind for a game thats supposed to cater to PVPers.

The stuff we wolves need to be talking about is how the fuck do we keep the sheep around, cause as far as I can tell the food supply is running out.

you can almost see the little cogs turning.

[kildorn]

Wait, they're understanding that most PVP game models require a pool of people to be abused? How do we keep them around. Hrm. I think the solution starts with a T, and we blame all our lack of PVP game woes on it...

[Mrbloodworth]

Wait, they're understanding that most PVP game models require a pool of people to be abused?

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition. While there is some, hopefully the roles change player to player as situations change (as in, everyone gets a chance to be the wolf or sheep). If this isn't a case, and your game rules, or balance does not allow for this, you do not have a PvP game, you have a griefing game, And it will die.

[Rishathra]

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition.

While this may be true in a general sense, I think it's pretty obvious that Darkfall was designed specifically around the wolf/sheep paradigm.

[Mrbloodworth]

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition.

While this may be true in a general sense, I think it's pretty obvious that Darkfall was designed specifically around the wolf/sheep paradigm.

Yes, i was speaking in the case of a GOOD design. 

[Modern Angel]

Post from Bone about losers and the state of DF

Honestly, many of us have seen this time and time again.  The crushed depart the game because the time investment to stay competitive is too great compared to the time it takes to lose. Just like Shadowbane, the game is too crushing for the defeated, and too grindy to maintain at the top level of play. The elite guilds suffer from boredom and quit, and in the end you have a dead game.

So DF is 60 days old, and rapidly descending into a small population of the few who stubbornly remain.  I'd be amazed if this game is still around in 12 months.

Why oh why wouldn't a prospective developer want to sink serious money into those people?

[kildorn]

Wait, they're understanding that most PVP game models require a pool of people to be abused?

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition. While there is some, hopefully the roles change player to player as situations change (as in, everyone gets a chance to be the wolf or sheep). If this isn't a case, and your game rules, or balance does not allow for this, you do not have a PvP game, you have a griefing game, And it will die.

Pretty much in any situation involving leveling/crafting/landholding in addition to the pure pvp elements, you introduce a sheep: the underleveled/underequipped/asleep player. It's very hard to have a pure pvp system with, well, an opt out for the people to not be in the position of dealing with flat out superior forces camping them in. Eve's empire space. UO's trammel. Whatever. A starter and recovery area. It's the flaw in open world no protection anything goes design: if anything goes, crushing your enemies into quitting is a legitimate tactic.

[Mrbloodworth]

Wait, they're understanding that most PVP game models require a pool of people to be abused?

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition. While there is some, hopefully the roles change player to player as situations change (as in, everyone gets a chance to be the wolf or sheep). If this isn't a case, and your game rules, or balance does not allow for this, you do not have a PvP game, you have a griefing game, And it will die.

Pretty much in any situation involving leveling/crafting/landholding in addition to the pure pvp elements, you introduce a sheep: the underleveled/underequipped/asleep player. It's very hard to have a pure pvp system with, well, an opt out for the people to not be in the position of dealing with flat out superior forces camping them in. Eve's empire space. UO's trammel. Whatever. A starter and recovery area. It's the flaw in open world no protection anything goes design: if anything goes, crushing your enemies into quitting is a legitimate tactic.

Your talking about RPG's with gear treadmills (You die++), most with PvP as an add on. I usually talk about PvP games as the kind with horizontal progression, and gains in utility/options, not arbitrary stats or "power".

But i understand what you are saying.

[Mrbloodworth]

Tasos officially declines offer of re-review from Eurogamer

Surprised, no.

[DLRiley]

Wait, they're understanding that most PVP game models require a pool of people to be abused?

I do not agree with this. PvP should not mean wolves and sheep by its definition. While there is some, hopefully the roles change player to player as situations change (as in, everyone gets a chance to be the wolf or sheep). If this isn't a case, and your game rules, or balance does not allow for this, you do not have a PvP game, you have a griefing game, And it will die.

I have to agree with kildorn.

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete, if you don't believe so if you give the playerbase of these games enough tools (even restricted tools) they will constantly strive to reach that point. When you remove competition you are effectively using the wolf/sheep paradigm and that inherently means a pvp community dead set of cannibalizing itself. You can slow or drastically increase the cannibalism by lowering the amount of weight behind losing, but you ARE losing players regardless at a much faster rate than a game not bothering with world pvp as the real bread and butter of the game.

And before someone goes chalking up EvE, EvE is effectively a Pve game, you participate in the world pvp aspect and you can spend 100% of your time on it if your that bored but you can always spend 99% of your time in the pve metagame without fear of the PvP dick waging contest affecting your gameplay. Even ganking is effectively a none issue because the odds are heavily stacked against the ganker by design.

[Mrbloodworth]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

[DLRiley]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

Tell that to your playerbase.

[jakonovski]

Tasos officially declines offer of re-review from Eurogamer

Surprised, no.

From my mother basement I stab at thee, Eurogamer!

[Vash]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

Tell that to your playerbase.

I'm pretty sure most sane playerbases can understand the fact that if there's nobody for them to fight (or grief) they will get bored pretty quick.

[DLRiley]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

Tell that to your playerbase.

I'm pretty sure most sane playerbases can understand the fact that if there's nobody for them to fight (or grief) they will get bored pretty quick.

You would think so but that is rarely the type of players world pvp attracts. For example people were making serious complaints about WAR not allowing you to march from your zone to another sides zone easily (geography and high level champions preventing you from making such marches). Basically they didn't consider WAR a true RvR game unless you can have large number of destro or order warbands waiting for you to log on. Protecting the playerbase from its inherent stupidity in a world pvp game has literally been a losing battle since UO because no matter how much common sense you think players should have they will always chose to remove the fun from the game as quickly as possible. 

[schild]

So if it’s all the same to Eurogamer we’ll just take it on the chin and stick with the original review. We don’t need their concessions. If they can live with this, so can we. 2/10 from the likes of Ed Zitron is going to be a badge of honor for us. They can keep that fraud up as our memorial contribution to journalistic integrity and to independent games everywhere. At the very least they may think twice before they try doing this to someone else.

Haha what? No, that's not how it works.

I feel like I should mail them a cluebat.

[Mrbloodworth]

So if it’s all the same to Eurogamer we’ll just take it on the chin and stick with the original review. We don’t need their concessions. If they can live with this, so can we. 2/10 from the likes of Ed Zitron is going to be a badge of honor for us. They can keep that fraud up as our memorial contribution to journalistic integrity and to independent games everywhere. At the very least they may think twice before they try doing this to someone else.

Haha what? No, that's not how it works.

I feel like I should mail them a cluebat.

Friend of mine makes and sells clue fairies and half clue coins.

The fairy has a Clue-by-four.



We can easily turn it into a badge. 

[Hindenburg]

Haha what? No, that's not how it works.

I feel like I should mail them a cluebat.

I'd say that they did a bit of research on... Kieron, was it? and realized that the rape was imminent.

[Bzalthek]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

Tell that to your playerbase.

I'm pretty sure most sane playerbases can understand the fact that if there's nobody for them to fight (or grief) they will get bored pretty quick.

Most people are stupid.  This is like Theorem 1.1 of life.  People like grinding other people in the dirt, and rubbing it in every chance they get.  When people leave, it's not the fucktard who systematically set out to make someone quit the game, it's because the carebear is too thin skinned to deal with reality and needs to toughen up.  When people leave en masse, it's not the fucktard's fault either, it's poor design by the developers who didn't provide enough incentive for people to stay.

And the few who do realize this, are doing it anyway because they've adopted the locust mentality.  Feed on the grief and tears while it lasts, and then wait 17 years for the next game like it to come out.

[schild]

Haha what? No, that's not how it works.

I feel like I should mail them a cluebat.

I'd say that they did a bit of research on... Kieron, was it? and realized that the rape was imminent.

/shrug. Tasos reads f13. It's entirely possible (and likely) he's read this thread.

[Modern Angel]

Tasos officially declines offer of re-review from Eurogamer

Surprised, no.

That is some of the most awesome awesome in the history of awesome. I can almost taste the big buttery tears as he typed that out.

[WindupAtheist]

Eurogamer should re-review the game anyway, and give it a 1.

[Mrbloodworth]

Eurogamer should re-review the game anyway, and give it a 1.

I don't think they care that they declined it. However, i had a thought that perhaps Darkfall deactivated the accounts. Now that, would be funny.

[kildorn]

The entire point of world pvp in general (open world or rvr) is to remove the ability for the other side's to compete,

No.

Tell that to your playerbase.

I'm pretty sure most sane playerbases can understand the fact that if there's nobody for them to fight (or grief) they will get bored pretty quick.

The problem is that your bulk playerbase (or even just a plurality) is playing to WIN. Not playing to win fair fights. You get bullshit like the shadowbane play2crush alliance game, Eve-China's apparently instant takeover by a single alliance, yadda yadda. Want to kill someone in a game? Bring 5 people. Want to kill a guild? Bring 5 guilds. It's basic logic, there is some level of safety in numbers. The second you allow for non size limited interaction (aka no BGs/instances), you will get a situation in which people will band together and hunt weaker prey.

Sure we can come up with anecdotes here and there about "I love a challenge", but this isn't limited to pvp worlds. Path of least resistance and such, all it takes is a few jackasses who simply want to crush everyone else to completely destroy a game, barring some method of playing without them able to interfere (trammel, empire space, whatever)

If PVP players were nothing but the e-honor I only fight those equal to me types, maybe this kind of thing would work. But I still think you'd see a lot of e-honor being thrown to the wayside just to kick someone you don't like in the nuts.

[gryeyes]

Surprised, no.

You can decline reviews that you know are going to cock punch you? If only developers have thought of this before.

[Surlyboi]

So if it’s all the same to Eurogamer we’ll just take it on the chin and stick with the original review. We don’t need their concessions. If they can live with this, so can we. 2/10 from the likes of Ed Zitron is going to be a badge of honor for us. They can keep that fraud up as our memorial contribution to journalistic integrity and to independent games everywhere. At the very least they may think twice before they try doing this to someone else.

This is what it sounds like
when tards cry.

[schild]

This is what it sounds like
when tards cry.

Heh, you're proud of that one, aren't you?

If not, you should be.