DF:UW – So you’re saying theres a chance…

Added 10% durability hit (on item Max Durability), on all equipped items when the player gets ganked.

/Smug

PS: Resubbed.

 

27 Responses to DF:UW – So you’re saying theres a chance…

  1. sid6.7 says:

    PS: Resubbed.

    LOL – too bad it’s just you.

  2. Rammstein says:

    Just spent some time reading forumfall about this change, the number of players on there who simultaneously maintain these two statements as facts is astonishing: 1. I have so much gear that I could never use it all. 2. It takes way too much time to acquire gearsets in DFUW.

    Hilarious.

  3. Rynnik says:

    I seriously don’t think it will be enough of a gear sink in isolation tbh – I really wish they had gone ahead and had a % break completely on gank. It is a really positive nudge in the right direction though.

    • sid6.7 says:

      I’m not in favor of it, but I think it’s relatively inconsequential. It’s not going to have much of an impact (good or bad).

      If anything, I think the public relations impact is potentially more harmful than any actual impact. In other words, the downside of driving people away being greater than any positive impact of keeping or attracting players.

      I know one of Syn’s main arguments in favor of a change in this direction is that it was easy to get gear through scroaching. This doesn’t exactly change anything on this score.

      • Rynnik says:

        Holy fuck, I am starting to really regret having given you a healthy dose of respect based on knowing you in game.

        The economy isn’t fucking inconsequential. You know mob loot? Resource localization? Conflict drivers (they call it pvp hotspots)? Holding and Village meaning? All of those things that forumfall froths about non-stop as being required for the game right now? Every one of those cheesy-snorting neckbeards is actually talking about the fucking economy and just is too rectum-around-the-neck situated to realize it. Forumfail is screaming for an economic revamp daily and doesn’t have any clue about it.

        You can’t fix any of that shit until ‘stuff’ (ie the basic building blocks of an economy) has meaning. And you can’t establish meaning until there is a working economy for something to mean something in. You need scarcity (if everyone has ‘enough’ or ‘to much’ it is broke), diversity (if everyone has the same thing it is broke), transferability, (if everyone is unable to give someone else it it is broke), and… ummmm… you know, like, other stuff. But I am drunk and REALLY don’t feel like you, Sid, needs this sort of lesson on how it works. This is common fucking sense so why do you have your head stuck in the mud white knighting Jonah Fucking Veil when ‘shit needing to break and leave so that the game play of creating/stealing shit has SOME sort of basic meaning’ is self evident? You confuse me.

        I really am drunk though.

        I should read your blog more and see if I can figure out where you wnet wrong.

        How do you not get this?

        • Rynnik says:

          Also Sid, why do you ignore Rammstein like he is Xipher or soemthing? Dude, has some great points.

        • SynCaine says:

          Go home, you’re drunk!

        • Rynnik says:

          You don’t get to claim omniscience points for that by the way, as I previously clearly stated I was drunk, unlike the ones you have earned for correctly predicting the collapse of F2P MMORPG business models around the world.

        • Rynnik says:

          *** baits ASL hook, crosses legs, leans back, sips beer, and contemplates intellectual dominance while relaxing in subscription superiority***

        • Rammstein says:

          He ignores me because he has no answer to those points. Sid is not someone who can admit being wrong, or ever change his mind; but he is someone who feels comfortable deploying the “stick your head in the sand and pretend it’s not raining” defense.

          Now, if I were someone like SynCaine, and was a frequent poster on the MVP forum and/or had my own blog advocating my point of view, then I’m sure Sid would take the time to construct some appeal to authority fallacies against my points–which are generally similar to Syn’s on the topic of economies mattering.

          Him not responding to my comments is preferable to that, so, shh.

          “How do you not get this?”

          There’s an entire subset of players who ‘don’t get it’, when it comes to the economy in a pvp mmo. Their mistake is simple: they want combat to matter, which is why they’re in an mmo and not an arena type pvp game in the first place. So, they want full loot, etc. But, they don’t want any painful consequences to pvp, because all they want to do is pvp. When you try to explain to them that “pvp mattering” and “consequences” are synonymous, they throw a temper tantrum and stick their head in the sand, or come up with bizarre countertheories. They’re not willing to accept any logic that contravenes their basic two ‘wants'; since their assumed wants contain a contradiction within themselves, it is impossible to discuss the topic with them logically.

        • sid6.7 says:

          Inconsequential in that the magnitude of the change does very little to change the status quo. If you were an advocate of more gear sinks, it’s not a big enough sink to impact most of the things you listed. If you were against increased gear sinks, again, it’s not significant enough to make much of an impact on your ability to sustain a viable set of gear.

          What may be more significant is the actual reaction to the change which could be out of proportion to the actual change. So why inconsequential, there may be players who don’t perceive it as inconsequential. Based on Forumfall reactions (admittedly, a lousy measure), I would say that most took it in stride.

          As for Rammstein, he seems to enjoy playing the pedantic troll. If he makes a sensical comment, I’ll play along. More often, it’s just a really bad attempt at making inferences in something I wrote that just doesn’t make any sense.

          For example, in response to my earlier comment, he wrote “In your words, the change to scroaching is potentially much more definitive than any actual change to subscription numbers.”

          Huh? Maybe his word choice is just lousy or he’s trying to play smarter than he actually is but I can’t possibly see how you can logically infer that I think changes to scroaching are more definitive than changes to subscription numbers.

          When people don’t make sense — I usually don’t respond.

        • Rammstein says:

          Hey look, more ad hominems from sid.

          I’ll explain this joke for you, though, since you made a real reply to it:

          “If anything, I think the public relations impact is potentially more harmful than any actual impact.”

          1. The public relations impact is just as ‘actual’ as whatever other impact you’re trying to describe.
          2. The public relations impact is just as ‘potential’ as whatever other impact you are trying to describe.

          I was poking fun at this torturous construction, while also making the point that the change to scroaching will be much simpler and easier to deconstruct than any changes in subscription numbers after this change. That is to say, I am/was poking fun at you saying something like this to Syncaine a few days ago:

          “There really isn’t enough data to draw such correlations. If a failing game converts to F2P and continues to fail, that’s not evidence that F2P doesn’t work — it’s simply evidence that the game continues to fail.”

          And then having the nerve to post something like this in your comment today. Even if we disregard the scrambled syntax, you’re making a wild ass guess about the future, in a way that’s completely untestable, and in a fervent and judgmental fashion; but in areas where you’re not feeling so emotional, you’re calling for levels of scientific rigour (from others, of course) that you acknowledge aren’t currently possible without undertaking lengthy and involved studies. Hilarious hypocritical.

          And no, I’m not surprised you didn’t get the joke.

        • sid6.7 says:

          Look ma! I have a fan. I know you love me. You follow me from post to post. :)

          And I, in turn, am a great lover of irony.

          I particularly love the “more ad hominems from sid” right after a post in which you wrote “Sid is not someone who can admit being wrong, or ever change his mind; but he is someone who…” and then later called me a hypocrite.

          And you also get the additional irony points because I’m not exactly well known for my ad hominem attacks. But for you — let’s delve into the realm of personal attacks one more time since it’s such an accurate description:

          Rammstein = Pedantic Troll.

        • Rammstein says:

          Pedantic troll is an insult; inability to admit being wrong is a observation that you’re unable to admit being wrong, where you could have just replied with a quote where you admitted being wrong, proving that you can do such. Still waiting for that quote…

          “And you also get the additional irony points because I’m not exactly well known for my ad hominem attacks.”

          No, you definitely are.

        • sid6.7 says:

          Rammstein, you like to reference fallacies, so let’s point out the obvious ones you are guilty of in practically every post:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question – or is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque – a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent’s position by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently in accordance with that position

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent – If P, then Q. Not P. Therefore, not Q.

          As for the pedantic troll observation, it may in fact be insulting, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

          And what exactly am I supposed to admit to being wrong about? My opinions? My opinions are my own and unlikely to change. Opinions are subjective statements representative of perspectives, feelings and beliefs.

          You may believe my opinion is wrong, but your failure to persuade is not evidence that my opinions are anymore wrong than your own or anyone else. Similarly, any lack of evidence that I have ever changed my opinion has zero reflection on the the validity of any position or opinion that I hold. You better find a better strawman if that’s all you can hang your hat on.

          I can and do change my opinion all the time. And I have been proven wrong. But generally not on topics that are blogged about that have been discussed ad nauseum.

          Most of these discussions aren’t new. Whenever the subject of F2P comes up, I could just copy/paste things I said 4 years ago.

          Or I could just pull out the blog post I made after beta NDA lifted about DF:UW.

          In any event, I truly am done responding to you. You enjoy it. I find it pedantic. :)

        • Rammstein says:

          “In any event, I truly am done responding to you.”

          Thank god.

    • Rammstein says:

      Anyone who leaves because of an inconsequential change (in your words) wasn’t a good prospect to be a long-time player anyway.

      “I know one of Syn’s main arguments in favor of a change in this direction is that it was easy to get gear through scroaching. This doesn’t exactly change anything on this score.”

      If people wear gear that’s already low dura to situations where scroaching occurs, then post-gank the gear will be poofed, no? That’s a change. In your words, the change to scroaching is potentially much more definitive than any actual change to subscription numbers.

      • SynCaine says:

        I’m also not against scroaching outright, its an activity in DF and in a balanced economy, whatever. Why scroaching was such an amazing source of gear (by far and away THE BEST source unless you are Mycke-level retarded) was a side factor of gear overall being easy to get, and never going away.

        Watch, shortly in DF:UW graves will become an important aspect to secure, especially the grave of someone well-geared (because look out, r70 is going to become something rarer than your everyday bag).

        I’m very much going to enjoy the changes to the game this one aspect brings, because knowing Forumfall, the idiots won’t correctly identify why they are happening, so while in one sentence will be happy about things being meaningful, in the next will still state they wish dura loss wasn’t in the game. Much like today people say to ignore the economy, but they want mob loot buffed.

  4. weritsblog says:

    So this change was enough for you to re-subscribe? I’d like to read more about why it is a game changer :)

  5. […] previously noted, Darkfall: Unholy Wars took a huge step towards becoming a sustainable sandbox with the recent […]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 162 other followers

%d bloggers like this: