Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Magmus_DF

Here is the important question...

 

Are you, O Holy Ones    going to pre-order? 

 

Yes i will preorder since i love the game.

So will all 100 in my guild.

+90% of beta testers will preorder.

Says alot about the game.

It still have some flaws but it's increadible fun and that's what counts.

I will take this rare opportunity to agree with Aragon.  If you are looking for pvp with full looting and conquest, this one is fun.  Yes, I will preorder.

Being a skeptic, I do have some reservations.  The biggest being server performance under retail level loads.  But so far, it has met or exceeded my (low) expectations.  As long as this thing holds together under load, I think they can fix the rest of the flaws.

Originally posted by hercules

stability,ingame graphics,content,balance issues.

this is what i want to know about

Client is very stable.  Server might be stable, but honestly, it hasnt been stressed.  Graphics are adequate.  Content could be fleshed out.  Needs a fair amount of balancing.

I am in beta.

Game has a stable client.  Good base to work with, much better than I expected.  As I expected, it needs a ton of balance and polish.  Still, good enough to preorder and I will.

It is obvious that there are quite a few, IMO.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

We dont know for sure if Darkfall is another Dark&Light trap waiting to happen or the BestSandboxTM

But one thing is sure: When next month is over there will be lot "I told you so" comming from one side of the fence.

So , for the record (and fun) , put your name here and -

If you going to preorder , or buy DF at launch, and vote for greatness of DF - put this sign

If you think Darkfall is unfinished mess, like D&L. And Aventurine is cheating people - put this

like this:

 

Lobotomist : Darkfall is

 

Theodgrim:      /

Bottom line, I am going to pre-order.  I know exactly what I am getting into, and have paid for worse.  The game will still need plenty of work and I am not certain it will hold together under load, but it just might. 

If I forget all the propoganda spewed by Aventurine over the years and just keep in mind this is another niche game by an indy dev, it looks pretty good.  It has potential to be even more, but most of us have seen enough unrealised potential in other games.  I do expect a very bumpy ride if they launch on the 25th, but for me, it is worth a shot.

Originally posted by Kyleran

A more interesting bet would be on the date that Aventurine will cry uncle and delay the release again.

On a related note, if they delay, what date will they push it to.

 

I think the real question, is CAN they push it back?  I have to think they can not, as they obviously know the state of the game.  Of course, devs do seem to wear blinders when it comes to their own game.  /shrug

There will never be an open beta.  And if they release on the 25th, it will be worth a dollar just to watch the train-wreck.

Originally posted by Locklain

Originally posted by javac

Originally posted by altairzq

I expect a decent game by december 2009.

 

The game is already well past decent right *now*. More like somewhere between awesome and best MMO ever.

 

is it perfect? of course not.

 

that said, it's less buggy and more stable than most of the recent big name MMO releases in the past 12 months.

 

 

That being said, DF also has far less people in beta than any other commercial MMO release.  This makes it far less taxing on the servers which would also reduce server lag.  Wait until the game actually releases and if all of their applied testers try to play.  Then we will see how "less buggy and stable" it will be.

True.

I think the poll shows that 70% of the beta population know what they are talking about.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

Originally posted by Theodgrim

Originally posted by zymurgeist

I'm as skeptical as anyone but I seriously doubt the game won't be able to handle 40 player battles at release. When it gets to 200 player battles it may have problems but 40 is cake.

 

40 isnt cake right now, and there are what....15 days? 

Of course, what makes some folks happy is pure crap for others.  As I have always said about this game - keep your expectations low and you might not be disappointed.

 

You'd be surprised what can be fixed in 15 days if indeed it launches then.

No, I would not.  I have been there and done that many times over.  However, all stuff still isnt on, and server load isnt close to what it will be retail.  Shouldnt launch in 15 days, though that doesnt mean it wont.

Originally posted by zymurgeist

I'm as skeptical as anyone but I seriously doubt the game won't be able to handle 40 player battles at release. When it gets to 200 player battles it may have problems but 40 is cake.

40 isnt cake right now, and there are what....15 days? 

Of course, what makes some folks happy is pure crap for others.  As I have always said about this game - keep your expectations low and you might not be disappointed.

Originally posted by originalegg

Originally posted by ProfRed

Uhh I don't think you are in beta.  I know of 40+ person fights that run smooth as butter(fps drops maybe to 22-25 on a 950$ machine built in 09/2007).  Mostly people complain because they have no idea about how to do siegeing and don't understand siege timers.  You are telling me that a few more people has catastrophic outcomes?

 

this

Is a joke.  The game wont even come close to handling 100v100 battles at 60fps, as the dev's said about their battle simulation a few months back.  And even 40+ battles wont be be "smooth as butter", unless those 40 people are the only ones on the entire server.  Just the truth, so best get used to it.

Originally posted by Vutar

How much is everyone being charged to wait for this game? I can only guess that is what is causing an uproar from everyone since no one is actually playing the game and couldn't possibley have a legitimate opinion on it. 

If you are truely upset because "Tasos lied" all I can say is welcome to life and enjoy your stay.  You are going to learn during this "life" that things do not always go to plan.  Most people will adapt, overcome and move on.  If you simply cannot get over the evil Tasos and his vicious lies simply don't play his game.  How hard is that?. 

 

 

I should calculate how much it costs.  Running a decent clan for Darkfall isnt necessarily cheap.  At least if you want ad-free forums, quality voice servers and the like.  I would not even try to calculate the time and effort spent on the web site, graphics, org, etc...  Bottom line, I am being charged to wait for the game.

What does Tasos have to say about it?  April of 2008:

http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devjournals/darkfalljournals/3570-Darkfall-Dev-Journal-25-Philosophy

"So why don't we announce a date already? It's because there's no way we'll miss a release date and we're not going to just set a date as a goal, and either postpone or be forced to release something unfinished. We resolve to stick with our release date because we know how people tend to plan around this as far as organization, time and hardware goes when they're looking to make a commitment to an MMORPG, especially a competitive one like Darkfall."

I will give Tasos this much - at least he likely understands, even if you dont.

They are hiding the state of the game.  It is that simple.

These small indie companies that FAIL to live up to expectations...and I mean expectations for a small company...doesnt do anyone any favors.  I will not cheer for incompetance, just because they have a good feature list.  Been there, done that.  The industry didnt change for the better.

The amount of negativity towards DF and Aventurine was EARNED.  They keep screwing up, and have been given the benefit of the doubt several times already.  Enough. 

 

I hope that the Darkfall world is like the WWIIoL world in many ways (size and travel distance) because it will help minimize the ganking.

It also made the game a freaking joke.  The enemy always attacked where there was no opposition.  Being able to attack anywhere meant everyone went for whatever was lowest risk - human nature.  That was later changed, making attacks only possible for towns "on the front".

I would dispute that the WWIIoL Devs are 'inept' though.
When WWIIoL came out PCs didn't even have graphics cards (it was integrated graphics) let alone SLI.

Baloney.  I was using Monster 3D cards YEARS before WWIIOL.

The WWIIoL Devs have freely admitted several times they made mistakes simply because they tried to do the 'impossible'.  They have also said that if they had known graphics cards were on the horizon they would have designed the game totally differently.

Then they were blowing smoke, as graphics cards had been around for years. 

What's more, if you read the post I linked above, you will see that as bad as their engine is... it is still unique and still does things no other engine can do... 7 years later.

Combines air, land, and sea.  Pretty damn cool.  Though their technology actually treated EVERYTHING as an aircraft.  They came from flight sims.  But they did adapt things fairly well.  Biggest problem was all of the realistic hitboxes and physics was too much, IMO.

Still, they had big probs.  The game was so unstable, they didnt even charge a fee for many months after release.  The limited number of visible characters (64 max) really caused some funky issues - you might not even see the guy that killed you, even though HE could see you.  Lag was an issue, infantry play suffered most.  Tanks and planes were pretty fun, but I am a ground pounder at heart.  Items listed in the game manual (like LMG) didnt actually make it into the game for a LONG time after release.

Still, I liked WWIIOL and played it for years.  But it is just another game that had a lot of potential, yet did not execute.

Originally posted by ndpunch

This here, ladies and gentlemen, is the modern gamer. Straight from the latest WOW raid, comes and cries if someone makes a sidestep from the beaten path.

Unnecessary complication? What the hell does that even mean here??

Nothing to do with strategy?? Do you have brains? At all?

Number one benefit coming from friendly fire is zergs. Zerg guilds are the ones that lose here. In other games they come, by the hundreds, and spam AOE damage and heal, just in the general direction of the combat, and steamroll everyone. In Darkfall, a small, well organized guild will rape them. Also called strategy.

I like you.  Nothing creepy, just cool.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

WWII is a historical game..this map supposed to be the real map of  a part of Europe in the right proportions and scale.

No fantasy world should  concur that ..

 

So...because it's theme is history rather than fantasy, it doesnt count?  Really not sure what you are trying to say, as the last sentence is gibberish.

Originally posted by DarthRaiden

Originally posted by Theodgrim

When it comes to defining what a "skeptic" really is, I take it from the Skeptic's Society rather than parsing dictionary definitions.  Here ya go:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:

Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think.

 

Descartes wasn't a skeptic ;) To the contrary ..hehe..

he just used the method of skepticism to proove something he was "fanboi" of but IMO he prooved  exactly that.."he must exist in certain moments because he is thinking at these moments the very thought that he is thinking"  LOL

Skeptics have a real problem..if they doubt  ..why they don't doubt them doubting ?  it should be  a case  of  "accuracy" to do so for them...;)

Damn...did you read it?  Apparently not.  Give it a try.

When it comes to defining what a "skeptic" really is, I take it from the Skeptic's Society rather than parsing dictionary definitions.  Here ya go:

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:

Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think.

Originally posted by Arcken

Originally posted by xzyax

You are correct.

 

wiki.wwiionline.com/index.php/Introduction

I found this quote from the link above:

"Because of potential abuse and unruly players this game does not have "Friendly Fire". You cannot kill anyone on your own side. Except for this, this game is the closest to a true full scale war sim ever produced."

 

 

A side-benefit of finding that info though was that I found a map-comparison for MMO's that I remember seeing way back in the day, but had never been able to find again!  

 

 

www.battlegroundtools.com/maps/oldmaps/swgcomparebig.jpg

IT will be interesting to see how DarkFall's claim of being the largest MMO world compares with that.  Hmm... 

In one of the Dev. Journals I remember them comparing DarkFall to SWG, and saying that DarkFall was bigger than SWG.  But dang!  SWG's world looks puny compared to WW2 Online!  I had forgotten just how huge that game was in scope. 

 

 

 

Ah we forgot Planetside, friendly fire galore, in fact the more of your own people you shoot the more grief points you get, accrue enough, and your gun wont fire.
 

Yeah, almost forgot about Planetside.  Of course, they have a counter-measure with locking the weapon, so they sorta wimped out.

xzyax - indeed, WWIIOL is HUGE.  IIRC the map is accurate, but half-scale to reality.  Hell, even RV is big, about 8 hours to cross the map.  Starter towns are about an hour apart, so if you want PvP, better get used to travel time.  God help you if you are wounded and want to travel.