Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 15, 2018, 03:13:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Shop: Amazon
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Planetside 2 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 102 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Planetside 2  (Read 318670 times)
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3811


Reply #105 on: May 11, 2010, 01:05:02 AM

Aren't you assuming that one side is clearly strongest?



Also, in my experince, as long as curbstomping side 3 gives 'victory points', sides 1 and 2 will happily just continue doing that and won't bother with each other at all. They only take notice of each other when side 3 finally logs out in frustration for the night, or is so small in numbers they are inconsequential.
Yes. I did assume that the fight has to has an end at some point and a reasonably low value for present value discounting. I was vague on when that had to occur. However, if you consider defection a possibility then the situation that you describe is unlikely. IIRC in planetside the persistent drubbings were mainly when one side had a super-massive time zone advantage

Another problem that may reduce this effect is the inability to easily have unified fronts. I.E. if 3 is getting trounced by 1, then 2 can't intervene if they can't get there easily.

Re: The first part

One side doesn't have to clearly be the strongest so long as one side is clearly the weakest. Either would create likely collations. If there are no clear winners then while you may get lop sided allegiances they aren't likely to last long.
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #106 on: May 11, 2010, 01:32:12 AM

Also, in my experince, as long as curbstomping side 3 gives 'victory points', sides 1 and 2 will happily just continue doing that and won't bother with each other at all. They only take notice of each other when side 3 finally logs out in frustration for the night, or is so small in numbers they are inconsequential.

GOOD TIMES

<sob>

God Save the Horn Players
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #107 on: May 11, 2010, 09:43:26 AM

From what I've seen, the weakest is normally not picked on by the two stronger sides. Not to say it doesn't/hasn't happened, nor that it wouldn't happen again, it was just more of a rarity. If that rarity is the major opposition to the almost guaranteed dominance of one side over the other in a two sided war, sign me the hell up. I miss three sided wars as you didn't know what to expect since not everyone went along with unofficial alliances which always stirred up the pot nicely.

I think four sided wars would be interesting, but I'd prefer an odd number of sides since 2v2 isn't much different then 1v1 in this case (basically means less AE as to not hit your unofficial allies). Five sided would be even more impersonal and confusing for most, and that's why I wouldn't want to see five or more.
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3811


Reply #108 on: May 11, 2010, 02:48:41 PM

I think four sided wars would be interesting, but I'd prefer an odd number of sides since 2v2 isn't much different then 1v1 in this case (basically means less AE as to not hit your unofficial allies). Five sided would be even more impersonal and confusing for most, and that's why I wouldn't want to see five or more.
Consider EVE, which has an effectively undefined number of sides. Alliances are relatively stable compared to an FPS, and full scale steam rolling is more common. But once its over they tend to disperse.

However, that is more of a time frame issue. If you consider that the time frame in EVE for a "campaign" is roughly equivalent to the time frame in PS for a "battle" you can see how essentially infinitely mutable sides can produce the situation discussed. However, in EVE, the politics and allegiance has a much deeper pull. This actually serves to make the system less "swingy" with everyone teaming up on one person until their dead. (it still happens, but you do get cohesive power blocks fighting each other one relatively even grounds)

However, absent that the more sides the harder that is to maintain.

Consider the incentives in a 4 sided fight where everyone starts out without an alliance and everyone is as strong as each other. If you ally with one person you double your strength and pretty much guarantee your chances of survival. Random alliance selection can produce either 2v2 or 3v1. But if we acknowledge that the choices are made only semi-simultaneously (I.E. there is some sort of negotiation in between, even if its fast) then the 3v1 option looks more likely. Why? Because 2v2 is a 50/50 chance of winning the first engagement then a 50/50 chance of winning the second. 3v1 is a 100% chance of winning the first engagement, a 33% chance of being selected as the odd man out and loosing 100% of the time(so a 66% chance of surviving to the winning side of the 2v1) and then a 50/50 chance of winning the next engagement. (so in a 2v2 alliance, each side has an incentive to deviate to the other and make it 3v1) Since .33(chance of winning if one of 3 in 3v1) > .25 (chance of winning if one of 2 in 2v2) 3v1 is a more likely occurrence.

What about uneven sides with 1>2>3>4. Ironically in that situation you're more likely to have 1 and 2 team up to kill 3 and 4. Why? Because the 3v1 situation with 1 or 2, and 3, 4 vs 1 or 2 devolves into 3,4 vs 1 or 2 after the 3v1 wins. Since team 1 and team 2 won't like this they will opt to crush 3/4 by teaming themselves and then fight against themselves for the final win. Alternately you could have a 1,2,3, vs 4 option(then 2 and 3 v 1, then 2v3 if 1 loses) since 1 may not defect to join side 4. (note: i am probably missing possible combos, I am not going through to check them all)

As we keep adding sides uneven fights become more common rather than less common.

Of course, all of the above assumes geography is not an issue(I.E. everyone can always get to the fight) and only one side can win.
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5900


Reply #109 on: May 11, 2010, 02:57:18 PM

Consider the Eve Chinese (or whereever it is) server, where all the fighting is in Empire and anyone that tries to take territory is zerged by the rest of the server.

"Die of flaming ass cancer you schmuck. No really, die."

.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4456


Reply #110 on: May 11, 2010, 05:41:12 PM

As we keep adding sides uneven fights become more common rather than less common.

Of course, all of the above assumes geography is not an issue(I.E. everyone can always get to the fight) and only one side can win.
Indeed, and great post. That said, I'm not sure that the desire to eliminate uneven fights is the reason folks want extra factions. Uneven fights are inherent to non-sport competition. Ganking by zergs is a rational effort to seek reward at minimal risk, and the honorable are typically suckers. It's best to make sure you are as strong and your opponent as weak as the environment allows. Worse yet... if losses are severe and only one side can win, then unless the odds are overwhelming the smartest choice for both sides is not to play.

With only two sides, that's precisely what happens.

In multipolar competition, then, the strongest competitors tend to sit back and sustain their power, skirmishing with eachother and slapping the weak when they get uppity. If any of them were to jump forward and waste time and energy wiping a smaller opponent off the map, their stronger competitors might take the opportunity to flank them in their moment of weakness. Everybody major is waiting with a knife for the moment when somebody else's back turns.

It's not that multipolar environments are more "fair" or less "uneven", it's that they're more interesting. The Chinese gamers understand that this interest creates a lot of unhappiness, so the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. American gamers tend to think happiness is for pussies.

"Busy day at the Dracula factory and there's only two of us on the assembly line, so I have to make every second count."
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #111 on: May 11, 2010, 06:21:28 PM


I agree time and geography would play a major role in this discussion as to what would play out (and has played out for people's previous experiences) and what would be better. Though I think that time and either a persistent world or non persistent world are the two biggest factors for how many sides a game should have. Fast games and non persistent worlds I'd agree that people would gang up strategically to better their immediate odds (the 3v1 examples).  Persistent worlds with communities building over time normally had people rotating against the strongest and more battle royal situations then anything else (in my experiences and most people I've talked with as well). So in the persistent world it usually wouldn't stay 3v1 for long since the 3 aren't gaining much of anything fighting the 1 (persistent worlds have development, so why waste time for minimal/no gains?). The 2v2 though, with even forces vs even forces (good luck getting that), is again, a larger 1v1 in the persistent world since long term relations are actually important. In the non persistent world I'd agree that the 2v2 would never happen.

As for EvE, that is a bit different. I was talking about non-sandbox with defined "sides."
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #112 on: May 11, 2010, 07:16:44 PM

From what I've seen, the weakest is normally not picked on by the two stronger sides. Not to say it doesn't/hasn't happened, nor that it wouldn't happen again, it was just more of a rarity. If that rarity is the major opposition to the almost guaranteed dominance of one side over the other in a two sided war, sign me the hell up. I miss three sided wars as you didn't know what to expect since not everyone went along with unofficial alliances which always stirred up the pot nicely.

I am curious where you saw this. In my experience in DAoC, it was exactly as Fordel described. The weakest realm (my realm, Midgard  awesome, for real ) was pretty much the punching bag for the other two until we all logged out. Then the other two realms finished taking all our keeps unopposed. THEN they started smacking each other around in Emain. Then Midgard would log back in (we had a really hilarious SET TIME of when we'd be active, we basically had two shifts of when we'd have enough people to be even the slightest concern, US "prime time" and eventually "when the Italians logged in"), take back our empty, undefended keeps. Then get rolled over again and again and again until we logged out.

It's less "the two bigger realms wouldn't fight each other," it's that "nothing would stop them from beating the shit out of the overwhelmed third realm." And you will definitely get third realms that are so outnumbered, even if they WANTED to call a truce with one of the other realms, there'd be little reason to do so. Mid DID try to work truces on occassion, but when the realm you're trucing with has more people opposed to said truce than your realm has PvPers, who are also not all in agreement, it's ... pointless.

I guess what I'm saying is more-than-two realms is fine in theory, but unless you have some really, really, really strict population controls, and I'm talking the kind that are so strict that they'd never happen because players wouldn't stand for it, it falls apart in practice. I liked three realms in DAoC, it just doesn't do what people think it does.

God Save the Horn Players
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8305


Reply #113 on: May 11, 2010, 07:23:51 PM

On top of Population control, you would need some way to insure participation equality. Having all those people doesn't help if they never enter the RvR zone.


No idea how you could do that without making your game complete ass though.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7195


WWW
Reply #114 on: May 11, 2010, 07:39:33 PM

I recall reading about the forth empire in both those games: the people who would switch to a character on the side that appeared to be winning.

Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #115 on: May 11, 2010, 07:42:47 PM

I am curious where you saw this. In my experience in DAoC, it was exactly as Fordel described. The weakest realm (my realm, Midgard  awesome, for real ) was pretty much the punching bag for the other two until we all logged out. Then the other two realms finished taking all our keeps unopposed. THEN they started smacking each other around in Emain. Then Midgard would log back in (we had a really hilarious SET TIME of when we'd be active, we basically had two shifts of when we'd have enough people to be even the slightest concern, US "prime time" and eventually "when the Italians logged in"), take back our empty, undefended keeps. Then get rolled over again and again and again until we logged out.

It's less "the two bigger realms wouldn't fight each other," it's that "nothing would stop them from beating the shit out of the overwhelmed third realm." And you will definitely get third realms that are so outnumbered, even if they WANTED to call a truce with one of the other realms, there'd be little reason to do so. Mid DID try to work truces on occassion, but when the realm you're trucing with has more people opposed to said truce than your realm has PvPers, who are also not all in agreement, it's ... pointless.

I guess what I'm saying is more-than-two realms is fine in theory, but unless you have some really, really, really strict population controls, and I'm talking the kind that are so strict that they'd never happen because players wouldn't stand for it, it falls apart in practice. I liked three realms in DAoC, it just doesn't do what people think it does.

I was also playing a heavily outnumbered Mid on DAoC. I've also played against underpopulated Mids on a few servers since, let's face it, Mid was underpopulated on all but a couple servers. At no point was the mentality on any server that anyone I knew or myself played on "let's gang up on Mids for crappy RPS." Again though, I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it wouldn't happen at all as that would be a very dumb comment, just that it wasn't the norm for most.
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4456


Reply #116 on: May 11, 2010, 07:58:11 PM

Or, as was said in a different thread, you have to have multiple victory conditions. If winning is a search for uneasy equalibrium rather than a PLAY TO CRUSH there's a lot of room for underdogs to undermine the absolutist ambitions of the overlords. If conquest is a continuum rather than a switch, there's a lot of wiggle room.

Just off the top of my head: dimininshing returns. It's DAoC in reverse. The first victories would be the easiest to capture, the hardest to defend, and give the largest advantages to the winners without actually harming the losers much. Those advantages would have to be hard to share so they'd change hands a lot. Imagine the DAoC relics being kept in flimsy keeps atop the milegates. The deeper invaders strayed into enemy territory, the more terrain and gameplay would work against them... and the more they'd have to defend the tempting territories (and supply lines) they've advanced past from scavengers arriving behind them. Meanwhile the advantages gained would become more complex and abstract.

Perhaps a deep advantage might be a sacred cave. It contains a unique ore that must be mined as a high end crafting material. First it has to be captured so the guard NPCs stop spawning... this is a great insult to the shamans who control it, so they gain assorted attack buffs until it is recaptured. The ore is corpse lootable by anybody, carrying it debuffs your speed, and puts an aura around you that further buffs shaman attacks. Plus you have to fight your way back through the white knights who have captured the milegate relic keep behind you.

That sort of thing.


"Busy day at the Dracula factory and there's only two of us on the assembly line, so I have to make every second count."
Sheepherder
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5192


Reply #117 on: May 11, 2010, 09:27:16 PM

Or make a game where the people on the smallest unit of land belong to a fiefdom (small guild), are conquered and pays a portion of their daily resources to a barony consisting of many fiefdoms (large guild), which in turn swears fealty to a royal family which has been victorious over several baronies (hardcore guild), who contest each other to become the emperor (reeks of catass).

When a territory is conquered the status of the people holding it may change to reflect how much land they hold (if you conquer a neighboring fiefdom, you become a baron and cast off your old superior, conquer a shitton more and you challenge your king, ditto for the emperor).
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #118 on: May 11, 2010, 09:59:57 PM

I was also playing a heavily outnumbered Mid on DAoC. I've also played against underpopulated Mids on a few servers since, let's face it, Mid was underpopulated on all but a couple servers. At no point was the mentality on any server that anyone I knew or myself played on "let's gang up on Mids for crappy RPS." Again though, I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it wouldn't happen at all as that would be a very dumb comment, just that it wasn't the norm for most.

I don't think it was a specific "let's gang up on the Mids" thing. It was a "they're easiest to beat the shit out of, therefore we will beat the shit out of them" thing. Like they weren't taking our keeps because "ha ha, suck on that you underdog LOSERS," they were taking them because they knew there'd be very little resistance. If they just wanted to fight for no reason, it was the Emain zergfest, but for the "winning the game" stuff? Beat up Midgard, because Midgard is a lot easier to beat up than Albion or Hibernia.

Percival, where I played Alb, was a lot more balanced RvR-ing population-wise (although if you woke up the Alb zerg, forget it, because the zone was going to be crashing), and probably played closer to what people like to imagine three-sides games always play out, but once the populations start to skew, it really fucking blows chunks for that third realm.

God Save the Horn Players
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3816


Reply #119 on: May 11, 2010, 10:01:04 PM

I was also playing a heavily outnumbered Mid on DAoC. I've also played against underpopulated Mids on a few servers since, let's face it, Mid was underpopulated on all but a couple servers. At no point was the mentality on any server that anyone I knew or myself played on "let's gang up on Mids for crappy RPS." Again though, I'm not saying it doesn't happen or that it wouldn't happen at all as that would be a very dumb comment, just that it wasn't the norm for most.

On my server, Hib had a decent population, but a lot of them seemed to be not interested in PVP. So we were almost always outnumbered. I remember the one night when we managed to capture a Relic, run it back to our keeps, and then the server crashed.  Ohhhhh, I see.



 "What I'm saying is you should make friends with a few catasses, they smell funny but they're very helpful."
-Calantus makes the best of a smelly situation.
Sjofn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8286

Truckasaurus Hands


Reply #120 on: May 11, 2010, 10:08:17 PM

Our Albs once killed the Hib relic stealing team and then left the relic there.

God Save the Horn Players
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7195


WWW
Reply #121 on: May 11, 2010, 10:27:45 PM

We just played with a guy who's computer was so bad it would "chug" whenever a stealther got in range. We curb stomped.

DayDream
Terracotta Army
Posts: 80


Reply #122 on: May 12, 2010, 04:21:44 AM

Was there pop locking in DaoC?  I know when I played fodderside you'd get that on occasion.  Also had the ~1% xp shifts for global population.
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3811


Reply #123 on: May 12, 2010, 04:44:18 AM

Clearly the incentive structure of "winning" and "losing" is important. As is the population dynamics. A 1v1v1 game with only 2 sides online really isn't 1v1v1 anymore, if populations are disperse enough that any one side gets enough of a population advantage it breaks down as well.

The answer to that is probably a method to shift new entrants to certain sides depending on the general population dynamics of the server that will be expected.

Or, have some sort of side switching mechanic that only works in the direction that has the lowest hour average population for that players(or outfits) mode hour play time.

I.E. if during the hours of 8 am and 9 am Vanu consistently has the lowest population, and TR has the highest, people can change sides, but only if the character/outfit they're in is in TR and plays most often during the 8 to 9 am time slot.

It shouldn't be hard to compile weekly/monthy averages and then compare them, and while its certainly game-able, its not as easy as other systems
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 29770

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #124 on: May 12, 2010, 08:37:24 AM

It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. Or rather, how much fun the competition is. Sure, you know the zerg is going to roll over, but the pussies that run to go nab undefended bases rather than stand up to the zerg (and oh, have some fun and crazy firefights) are the real problem, not the zerg.

And adding experience points so people play to maximize experience rather than to maximize strategy is also one of PS's biggest problems (imo).

Also, switching only came in PS when they merged servers. Bad idea.

Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #125 on: May 12, 2010, 08:53:24 AM

Yeah, not sure where this winning or loosing thing is coming from, you do not get loot for taking a base, you do not gain "levels" and power, a bad day can gain you just as much xp as a good one.

I think some of you are attempting to put DIKU/RPG behaviors on something they dont really apply to. IMO.

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Segoris
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2637


Reply #126 on: May 12, 2010, 09:01:12 AM

I don't think it was a specific "let's gang up on the Mids" thing. It was a "they're easiest to beat the shit out of, therefore we will beat the shit out of them" thing. Like they weren't taking our keeps because "ha ha, suck on that you underdog LOSERS," they were taking them because they knew there'd be very little resistance. If they just wanted to fight for no reason, it was the Emain zergfest, but for the "winning the game" stuff? Beat up Midgard, because Midgard is a lot easier to beat up than Albion or Hibernia.

Regardless of their mindset, your experience on Mid wasn't enjoyable, I get it. Again, I'm not saying that doesn't happen only that it wasn't the norm. I do find it interesting that even while I played on one of the worst servers for Mid population we still had such vastly different experiences.

Quote
Percival, where I played Alb, was a lot more balanced RvR-ing population-wise (although if you woke up the Alb zerg, forget it, because the zone was going to be crashing), and probably played closer to what people like to imagine three-sides games always play out, but once the populations start to skew, it really fucking blows chunks for that third realm.
This seems to be the average experience, Alb zerg crashing the zone when it wants to and all. It's not how they always play out sadly, but the ratio of servers that turned out like this compared to the amount of servers that turned out like your Mid server was definitely for the better from personal experiences and all the chats and reminiscing I've done with people over the years from various servers.

On my server, Hib had a decent population, but a lot of them seemed to be not interested in PVP. So we were almost always outnumbered. I remember the one night when we managed to capture a Relic, run it back to our keeps, and then the server crashed.  Ohhhhh, I see.
I've been there before. To me, that felt worse then being underpopulated because you have the people sitting right there, able to fight, online even, and they just didn't do anything. At least you know you have an uphill battle when always outnumbered and are dealing with overcoming the odds, not with overcoming the odds due to lack of participation.

« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 09:03:02 AM by Segoris »
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3811


Reply #127 on: May 12, 2010, 10:04:58 AM

Yeah, not sure where this winning or loosing thing is coming from, you do not get loot for taking a base, you do not gain "levels" and power, a bad day can gain you just as much xp as a good one.

I think some of you are attempting to put DIKU/RPG behaviors on something they dont really apply to. IMO.
And this is one of the things that has kept PS from falling into the traps that others have. Keeping a close eye on the incentives is a big deal. The question simply comes down to "are players more likely to want to steamroll or have good fights provided no other incentives"? and "Is it possible to structure incentives such that "good fights" are more likely without having it be exploited?"

As a rule, the whole "diminishing marginal returns" on conquest should do a good job. As would real logistical requirements. (rather than "capture a base and you get shit right at the front line") But I am not sure precisely how that should be structured and frankly without knowing anything else about the game it doesn't lead to many answers.

Mainly I think that my point is that game designers should hire or consult with more economists. Specifically in the field of Game Theory. Because all the god damned time I see structures/systems/balance/design that is totally ignorant of the way that strategic incentives are likely to pan out. And that makes for games that aren't fun(specifically games that have easy solutions, and games that don't have mixing strategic solutions)
Tairnyn
Terracotta Army
Posts: 427


Reply #128 on: May 13, 2010, 10:18:43 AM

Mainly I think that my point is that game designers should hire or consult with more economists. Specifically in the field of Game Theory. Because all the god damned time I see structures/systems/balance/design that is totally ignorant of the way that strategic incentives are likely to pan out. And that makes for games that aren't fun(specifically games that have easy solutions, and games that don't have mixing strategic solutions)

I agree games should leverage the lessons learned from mechanism design in economics, but I can see how it could quickly devolve into a complex formulation with unforseen emergent behavior.

While the players involved are rational in some sense, different types of players have different utilities for the outcomes. To make things worse, there is a lack of transferability between these types of players that can make it difficult to identify stable strategies based on some common currency. For example, you can't really assign the same value to players that play for a challenge versus those that play to be with friends versus those that play to powergame and get the maximum experience in a given encounter. This leads to a complex form of a Bayesian Game with different types of players that interact within the factions themselves. There are also simple responses that would likely fall outside the assumptions of rationality in a game theoretic model, such as thinking a faction has cooler weapons or liking a group of people that play on a faction, that can significantly affect the balance of power and would be difficult to capture in a formal sense.

I have a group of friends who never played Planetside that I am already getting pumped up for PS2 with stories of epic glory from yesteryear. If they screw this up I will lose all of my nerd cred and may never recover.


Slayerik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4863

Victim: Sirius Maximus


Reply #129 on: May 14, 2010, 01:36:27 PM

I think they should make it free to play, and any accounts logging over X hours gets 5-10 bucks off Planetside Next when it comes out. That gives incentive, raising the population to the levels needed for truly fun PS, and added interest to the new title. Everyone loves getting things on sale!

"I have more qualifications than Jesus and earn more than this whole board put together.  My ego is huge and my modesty non-existant." -Ironwood
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3811


Reply #130 on: May 15, 2010, 07:35:46 AM

I agree games should leverage the lessons learned from mechanism design in economics, but I can see how it could quickly devolve into a complex formulation with unforseen emergent behavior.
True, but.

1) I am willing to wager that unforseen emergent behavior will be less of a problem than systematic problems that could be seen. At least in this situation.

2) PvP games (and other essentially 0 sum games) suffer from those problems dealing with multiple player types less. Especially if you separate XP from combat.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #131 on: May 15, 2010, 09:38:21 AM

I've been thinking on the topic of PvP being a zero sum game and come to the conclusion it doesn't work if it is. Mainly because there is always the option to quit, which is the last thing devs want players to do.

Slayerik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4863

Victim: Sirius Maximus


Reply #132 on: May 18, 2010, 02:01:58 PM


"I have more qualifications than Jesus and earn more than this whole board put together.  My ego is huge and my modesty non-existant." -Ironwood
LK
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4268


Reply #133 on: May 18, 2010, 02:12:11 PM

Of course it is.  awesome, for real

"Then there's the double-barreled shotgun from Doom 2 - no-one within your entire household could be of any doubt that it's been fired because it sounds like God slamming a door on his fingers." - Yahtzee Croshaw
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #134 on: May 18, 2010, 02:17:28 PM

I knew, just KNEW they were going to use the god dam retarded black ops.

RETARDED.

No one like it the first time, except those picked to be black ops. Wake up Planetside team.

EDIT: Reading further, the count down timer has 11 more hours.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 02:24:00 PM by Mrbloodworth »

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Slayerik
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4863

Victim: Sirius Maximus


Reply #135 on: May 18, 2010, 02:22:18 PM

Well they already had the code, thus cheap lame event!

Someone revive this when its f2p or Planetside Next actually has a future.

"I have more qualifications than Jesus and earn more than this whole board put together.  My ego is huge and my modesty non-existant." -Ironwood
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #136 on: May 18, 2010, 02:25:49 PM

Well they already had the code, thus cheap lame event!

Someone revive this when its f2p or Planetside Next actually has a future.

Black ops were introduced I think, what 3 years ago by now, maybe 4? No one liked them then, and just went to a different continent.


Who the hell enjoys playing VS people that have the health/stamina/armor of 5 people. Its like playing VS hackers.



"While I understand your concerns the fact is we are rather limited in what we're able to do so we don't exactly have the opportunity to switch the lattice around, adjust home continents, or bring back Old Oshur. We'll work within the boundaries that we have access to and have fun with it for sure. " -Raijinn


AKA: We have Zero developers on this title. None. That's what you get for not revamping the engine years ago. Even members of the community were able to change the god dam engine and assets. But you banned them.
« Last Edit: May 18, 2010, 02:31:22 PM by Mrbloodworth »

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Sky
Terracotta Army
Posts: 29770

I love my TV an' hug my TV an' call it 'George'.


WWW
Reply #137 on: May 18, 2010, 02:37:35 PM


01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10475

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #138 on: May 18, 2010, 02:57:48 PM

Well they already had the code, thus cheap lame event!

Someone revive this when its f2p or Planetside Next actually has a future.

Black ops were introduced I think, what 3 years ago by now, maybe 4? No one liked them then, and just went to a different continent.


Who the hell enjoys playing VS people that have the health/stamina/armor of 5 people. Its like playing VS hackers.


Godjoey?

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #139 on: May 18, 2010, 03:07:00 PM

Well they already had the code, thus cheap lame event!

Someone revive this when its f2p or Planetside Next actually has a future.

Black ops were introduced I think, what 3 years ago by now, maybe 4? No one liked them then, and just went to a different continent.


Who the hell enjoys playing VS people that have the health/stamina/armor of 5 people. Its like playing VS hackers.


Godjoey?

God lord pink baby Jesus. Why would you even... NVM.

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 102 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Planetside 2  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC