| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (15)

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 9:52AM Sephirah said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why in a game just released and with stability problems "One of the rules states that if the attacking guild's leader drops offline at any time during the battle, the challenge is immediately lost."?!?
To make players suffer more?

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 11:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
NO. to show you how hardcore DFO is!!!!!!!!!!
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 9:56AM Thac0 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
That disconnection this seems like a game breaking bug if all it takes is one guy to disconnect to loose an entire battle.

Other wise the reports i keep hearing about Darkfall seem really positive. I almost want to play the game.

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As Paragus said they ll change it. They maybe be slow in reacting in broken mechanics but they will address it
As always Paragus blog is very informative and entertaining to read. If you want to know more about the game without the retards that post in mmorpg's section of darkfall or the morons that sometimes post here when there is a darkfall topic, read paragus blog.
Waiting to see how many will post again how MO will trash darkfall when and if its released :P



Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:11AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"Certainly there are still client crashes and disconnects, but the performance is overall very stable for mass combat."


Great. Could someone explain me please why still some people are pushing a complete disaster as DF on this site.

Is the staff this desperate to hold on to their writing jobs or is the sky about to fall ?

Haven't most people lost enough money on Hellgate, TR, DF and all that other crap released in 2008?

Posted: Mar 27th 2009 5:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Great. Could someone explain me please why still some people are pushing a complete disaster as DF on this site."

Troll post if ever there was one.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:20AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Expalin why you think DF is a disaster plz. have you played it or you just assume things

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:41AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This:

"During Paragus's siege, the guild leader suffered a timeout, and the guild found themselves losing the challenge all due to connection problems."
And I happen to read other reviews as well.

And I saw an ingame video. The game was worse than a second rate shooter of the 90's.

Thank you but I can judge a game fairly easely these days. And certainly mmorpg's which run on one server and do the Barnum hype tric.

"Come and see the woman with the beard, you only have to pay 50 dollars."
I don't go for the opinion of fans who needed to push 24 hours on F5 to enter the account page and hear that woman indeed had a 1 meter beard.

Thank you, I am no longer 13.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:25AM Darkstryke said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is an un-intended feature of the "Go offline and lose" system. It is done because if anyone kills the leader holding the siege shard, the seige is lost. They are like precious cargo, and are vulnerable to a sneak attack assassin team, etc.

This is done so that the leader simply doesn't pull the plug if he's in danger of dying to avoid a gank. The bad part is that it also affects those whom crash or get disconnected due to the heavy zone boundry crossing sessions with hundreds of others at the same time.

If anyone ever played Everquest, you will remember how mass zoning would end up linkdeathing entire raids.

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:39AM Crsh said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The go-offline-and-autolose system is a bit unforgiving, but given how many players would just exploit it in their favour if it had no repercussion, it's not so bad.

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 10:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There is absolutely no way MO (using the Unreal eng) will even come close to the scale of battles seen in DF.

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 11:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MO? I'm. I'm sorry, I don't speak Spanish.
Reply

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 12:11PM Holgranth said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Paragus spends 50% of his time writing hype for Darkfall and 50% of his time defending it on various forums.

He also claims to "have the ear of the devs" and a million other outragous things.

The guy is an egotistical moron that defends Aventurine no matter what they do........I'll go elsewhere for opinions on games thanks.......

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 2:07PM wufiavelli said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeh a lot of people give darkfall crap. There are bad things about it. The melee system's simplicity, old queues (gone), problems during massive battles (really sometimes u get them sometimes you don't), siege system a little funky. But all and all darkfall is a good game and setup really well to do what it does. Massive massive battles. 10k people on one server which they are hoping to up. An engine with pretty good graphics and still able to handle large battles.

But being like "OOH darkfall failure what a bunch of armature devs" is just retarded. All and all they put out a good game. They might of been ignorant and promised the world in the beginning but they narrowed their vision and they put out a rather decent game.

Posted: Mar 26th 2009 5:38PM Temko said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have currently partitipated in 5 sieges.

1 - 700 people siege (both sides combined)

This was the LoD siege spoken of in the linked post. the preformance was horrible to the point of being unplayable in the city propper...
...but once you got outside the city (2 mins walk out of it) it went well again and you could PvP to your hearts content.

2 - Kill cult siege that the writer lost

i was part of the defenders and i was disapionted to see it end so quickly, all our planing and prep to waste becouse someone on their team crashed. (keep in mind i crashed myself 2 times and this is fully client side not being able to handle it.

3/4/5

Well... These were more fun. no 800 people, no crahes, hell i could keep my setting to high and still play.

Yew/Lod combo siege turned out way more fun then i thought it would be, becouse it was a lot of back and forth and small skirmishes in between, with major battle's happening as well in the siege window itself (cannon are awsome :D)

lastly eht Tempest siege was less fun due to a lack of defenders... city was taken without so mucha s a pushover fight from Tempest/HARM alliance.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW