Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 22, 2017, 09:38:04 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Planetside 2 0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 102 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Planetside 2  (Read 261474 times)
Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #70 on: May 08, 2010, 11:02:36 PM

Y's bombers could just as easily be another guild on your side of a 2 realm war. I'm just pulling this out of thin air, as I don't play it, but I'm sure WWIIO has plenty of stories like that, and it's basically just one side versus another.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #71 on: May 08, 2010, 11:24:49 PM

Football, baseball, chess, rugby, soccer, whatever. Once you add more than two groups, any concept of 'fair play' gets shot to hell and you have too much variance. It becomes more about luck than 'may the best man win'.
All of which have very specific numbers of players on the field at all times.  If you like battlegrounds, fair enough.  If you like open-ended conflict, then the concept goes right out the window.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10551


Reply #72 on: May 08, 2010, 11:40:36 PM

Y's bombers could just as easily be another guild on your side of a 2 realm war. I'm just pulling this out of thin air, as I don't play it, but I'm sure WWIIO has plenty of stories like that, and it's basically just one side versus another.

It has great moments, yes, but its not a great example to use, it has a number of systems in place that fans of the game love, but that wouldn't go over well with the general gaming population (hence why its so niche probably).  Those "unpopular" systems are actually in a large part what leads to those fantastic moments (and plenty of dull, sitting around guarding an objective for an hour and not much happens moments too).  I mean, its just a really very different game than a standard 2 sided RvR game, and while we can get into discussing it, its probably better to bump the WW2O thread to do it (maybe patch 1.31 is finally coming soon, I always did say I was going to go back to that game when they released the patch, but that was like 6 months ago now :))

Anyway, I think a game like Planetside and lots of normal RvR type PvP MMOs would benefit a lot from a 3rd side.
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #73 on: May 09, 2010, 11:04:02 AM

Planetside had a lot of flaws, but three factions was not one of them. Quite sure we are repeating ourselves here.

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
Ghambit
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5574


Reply #74 on: May 09, 2010, 12:27:53 PM

Planetside had a lot of flaws, but three factions was not one of them. Quite sure we are repeating ourselves here.

For the design they had yah.  Twasnt a flaw.
But that design didnt really produce great results did it?

Imo, the only compelling games that offer more than 2 factions (in pvp) are ones with extremely deep resource gathering, diplomacy, and alliance controls OR at least pits the factions against eachother towards a common reachable goal  (like 3+ players playing <insert random FantasyFlight game> etc.).  PS had none of those.  It was just 3 factions zerging around the map for the sake of getting better weapons... design didnt work Blood.

"See, the beauty of webgames is that I can play them on my phone while I'm plowing your mom."  -Samwise
Koyasha
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1363


Reply #75 on: May 09, 2010, 01:54:42 PM

For the design they had yah.  Twasnt a flaw.
But that design didnt really produce great results did it?
Actually yes, it did.  Maybe the reason you disagree is you didn't like Planetside in the first place, but it wouldn't have worked without three sides, and the core design was never one of its problems.

DAOC also worked well with three factions, because of three factions.  Again, it had other flaws, but having three sides was not one of them.  On a battlefield where numbers aren't even, three factions helps immensely.

The reason two sides works well in WW2O is because of all its secondary systems, logistics, and much slower pace.

-Do you honestly think that we believe ourselves evil? My friend, we seek only good. It's just that our definitions don't quite match.-
Ailanreanter, Arcanaloth
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17399


Reply #76 on: May 09, 2010, 04:06:36 PM

Actually yes, it did.  Maybe the reason you disagree is you didn't like Planetside in the first place, but it wouldn't have worked without three sides, and the core design was never one of its problems.

DAOC also worked well with three factions, because of three factions.  Again, it had other flaws, but having three sides was not one of them.  On a battlefield where numbers aren't even, three factions helps immensely.

The reason two sides works well in WW2O is because of all its secondary systems, logistics, and much slower pace.

I think that games would work well with three or more sides as this would add diplomacy.  PvP thrives on there existing mechanics to alter replay.  DAoC was known for this among the more serious players.  It wasn't uncommon to realm-hop or even server hop to find new fights, new environments, and new challenges.  I believe that having multiple factions also enhances replay value.  When you begin to believe the grass is greener someplace else, you have the opportunity to take a look. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4333


Reply #77 on: May 09, 2010, 04:58:17 PM

The more factions there are, the less personal the fight.

In a two-sided conflict, "the enemy" is monolithic. Either the conflict is entirely uninteresting, or the enemy is a bunch of lazy, cowardly fools with no skill who win by unfair advantage. If they dominate, they dominate completely. The grass is greener on exactly one other side of the hill, so traitors only have only two ways to flee: to the other side, or out of the game entirely. War is vast and omnipresent, but without alliances and rivalries the fighting can feel generic.

Alternately, a world without factions means that each guild, gang, or individual takes direct blame. Insults and injuries are more visceral, but less frequent... cooperation is safer than competition. Revenge, then, is simultaneously rare and satisfying because it's more specific. Tiny alliances and betrayals constantly alter the front lines in an unknowable tapestry of sharing and conflict. "Changing sides" is an almost meaningless distinction. Chaos reigns.

The continuum between these extremes dips asymptotically. Three sides feels very different from two. Twelve sides feels almost indistiguishable from twenty. I think the balance between the advantages of both extremes exists somewhere between 3 and 7. Few enough that the enemies are well known and the battle lines are drawn thick, but not so many that there's no reason to fight.

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10128

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #78 on: May 09, 2010, 05:58:34 PM

Still makes one wonder what would have happened if WAR had three sides.

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
Xanthippe
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4762


Reply #79 on: May 09, 2010, 06:09:51 PM

Still makes one wonder what would have happened if WAR had three sides.

With or without WAR's fatal flaws?
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10551


Reply #80 on: May 09, 2010, 06:11:05 PM

Still makes one wonder what would have happened if WAR had three sides.

It would have been better, but still bad. 
pxib
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4333


Reply #81 on: May 09, 2010, 06:50:07 PM

Still makes one wonder what would have happened if WAR had three sides.
It would have had a less overtly polarized structure, for one. Why stop at three? What if it had six? Play the early levels versus your neighbor, then graduate to maps with more options. Have the various NPC realm kings quasi-randomly shift alliances based on how completely one group is dominating. This week Chaos and the High Elves have established a fragile truce to take the Black Crag from the Dwarves. While in Dwarf lands they can group and communicate, but can't fight their "allies". Then allow Chaos and High Elf players to continue skirmishing in the battlegrounds, subtly altering the front lines between their territories, because some commanders still hate the others and WAR IS EVERYWHERE.

It'd certainly be more true to the mythos.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2010, 06:57:39 PM by pxib »

“All of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Pascal
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3816


Reply #82 on: May 09, 2010, 07:37:39 PM

Planetside had a lot of flaws, but three factions was not one of them. Quite sure we are repeating ourselves here.

For the design they had yah.  Twasnt a flaw.
But that design didnt really produce great results did it?

The only two issues I had/have with Planetside, is that #1. It wasn't sticky enough. I don't know how they could have made it stickier, but then I'm not paid to.
#2. Core Combat.

Other than those two things, Planetside was everything I could want in a battlefield FPS game like that.



 "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.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #83 on: May 09, 2010, 08:33:27 PM

Still makes one wonder what would have happened if WAR had three sides.

WAR's core problems had nothing to do with the number of sides it had. In fact, limiting it to two sides helped concentrate players together so there was more fun to be had.

Given that most of the PvP in WAR was instanced and new factions can't crash an instanced PvP event, extra sides would have been meaningless for WAR. Hell, the biggest issue RvR issue would have been that keep flipping would have taken longer to do since you've have to wait behind two other teams, not just one.

tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #84 on: May 09, 2010, 09:10:55 PM

Well when I played WAR, Destruction had a queue time something like 45min to Orders 5min.  A side effect was that anytime Order stepped out to RvR, we were swarmed by the Destros waiting for the queue exasperating the imbalance.  A third side could have made dropped to 5min the queues for everyone.

"Me am play gods"
Sheepherder
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5191


Reply #85 on: May 09, 2010, 10:31:26 PM

Not unless the third side increased the number of non-destruction players by a a factor of nine.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #86 on: May 09, 2010, 10:47:58 PM

At least there would have been in-fighting between the Destruction realms.  It may not have helped their queues, but the imbalance might not have been as noticeable.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
tazelbain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #87 on: May 09, 2010, 11:15:54 PM

So in my mind: Empire/Dwarfs vs Skaven/Greenskin vs Chaos/Undead would work out pretty awesome.


"Me am play gods"
Ghambit
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5574


Reply #88 on: May 09, 2010, 11:53:33 PM

Planetside had a lot of flaws, but three factions was not one of them. Quite sure we are repeating ourselves here.

For the design they had yah.  Twasnt a flaw.
But that design didnt really produce great results did it?

The only two issues I had/have with Planetside, is that #1. It wasn't sticky enough. I don't know how they could have made it stickier, but then I'm not paid to.
#2. Core Combat.

Other than those two things, Planetside was everything I could want in a battlefield FPS game like that.

a)  Not being sticky enough is exactly why the game had no subs. after a few weeks (that and SWG).  Kind of a big flaw for an MMO.
b)  Core Combat was a major xpac that drastically changed the game.  If that's an issue as well....  ur phucked

But yah, other than those things PS was awesome!   why so serious?

Hey, I loved PS as much as the next guy (I led a LARGE clan in it)... but I wasnt ignorant of its flaws.  Debating the amount of factions is probably subordinate to the fact that other elements of the game just didnt jibe.  It's a small piece of the fail-pie I guess.

"See, the beauty of webgames is that I can play them on my phone while I'm plowing your mom."  -Samwise
Dtrain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 607


Reply #89 on: May 10, 2010, 12:42:05 AM

Core Combat is a bit vague of a reason - maybe he didn't like the theme.

Personally, I think it compounded the subscription problem because it took a world that was already becoming too large for the number of subscriptions it was hemoraging and it made it larger.

PS2 is going to need to be stickier, obviously, but it should also have some built in free to play option, similar to the reserves program... aaaand, for the inevitable expansions, it should have some way to elegantly merge servers, hopefully without instancing out the whole thing.
Ratman_tf
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3816


Reply #90 on: May 10, 2010, 02:37:50 AM

Personally, I think it compounded the subscription problem because it took a world that was already becoming too large for the number of subscriptions it was hemoraging and it made it larger.

Planetside was about fighting over towers and bases and choke points. CC was a seperate area that people only fought over to get their BFR cert. And IIRC before the cert incentive, no one really fought in CC areas.

It was redundant.



 "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.
Furiously
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7194


WWW
Reply #91 on: May 10, 2010, 02:57:16 AM

Didn't they play some role in capturing bases? Like you had to go into them to grab something then you could take over a base?

Dtrain
Terracotta Army
Posts: 607


Reply #92 on: May 10, 2010, 04:06:24 AM

Personally, I think it compounded the subscription problem because it took a world that was already becoming too large for the number of subscriptions it was hemoraging and it made it larger.

Planetside was about fighting over towers and bases and choke points. CC was a seperate area that people only fought over to get their BFR cert. And IIRC before the cert incentive, no one really fought in CC areas.

It was redundant.

To be 100% factual, the BFR cert thing didn't happen until the Aftershock release/patch, which was some time after core combat released. If I was going to strap on my armchair developer helmet, I would say that design decision was made to generate interest in the largely ignored core combat areas. In terms of overall game objectives, the core combat areas only served an ancillary goal of providing modules to buff up bases. What was left of the playerbase looked at what the core had to offer, shrugged, and went back capping towers and bases on the old game. After the initial aftershock "OMG, get the BEEEFUR" craze died down, the caverns went back to what they had always been - an empty place where a team looking for an advantage sent a few people willing to be bored to shit in order to get a buff.
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3586


Reply #93 on: May 10, 2010, 05:23:10 AM

In general, anything in a non-resource grind pvp game (See: EVE) that decreases player density below whatever your smallest "unit" threshold is is a bad idea. Adding more dimensions ala core combat was just that.

With regards to some of the other things that have been said here:

1) 3 sides is pretty ideal for this kind of game. Alliances cannot become stable(as might happen in a 4 side game) and are much more likely to be opportunist. It also makes it harder to have one side domination since the weaker two sides can get together.  Timezone issues are still a problem.

2) PS doesn't have any resource generation or usage. It was all about reinforcements. This made it hard to have any stake in winning

Looking at that second part seems like it was what made PS lack the stickyness. Games like Natural Selection can do the hybrid FPS/RTS gameplay well, but since the game is really about resource generation once one side gets a critical mass it tends to cascade pretty quickly. Instanced games can do this because they end. Non-instanced games cannot.

Reconciling these two points is hard, if not impossible. You both need the game to be all combat all the time, but at the same time you don't want a single side to gain enough resources that the other sides cannot win.

Thinking about solving this seems like you could have some sort of system whereby the better people did, the more resources they received, but the less resources their team received, with a cap on total resources.

I.E. Each side gets 10000 units of stuff and various items cost different amounts of stuff. Each player gets 10 units/hour to use draining from the main resource and can accumulate up to 100 units before it caps. Each side gets 10 units/hour/active player added to their total resources. As more bases are captured each player can drain units from the total faster (up to say 20 units/hour) but the main resource refills slower(down to say 5 units/hour)

So resources are limited per person(killing them matters), limited per side(Killing them matters), you gain an advantage by winning(each person can drain more resources), but only so far(main reserves can be drained faster). This means that there is a baseline amount of stuff a side will have per hour/day/whatever and a stalled attack can be very costly in terms of main resource units.

Not sure how well it would work out though.
Trippy
Administrator
Posts: 20566


Reply #94 on: May 10, 2010, 05:33:47 AM

2) PS doesn't have any resource generation or usage. It was all about reinforcements. This made it hard to have any stake in winning
PS bases do have resource usage -- NTUs. An ANT drop into a base under siege that was about to lose all power was one of the more fun events in the game.

Doesn't change your argument, though.

01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10128

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #95 on: May 10, 2010, 08:47:03 AM

2) PS doesn't have any resource generation or usage. It was all about reinforcements. This made it hard to have any stake in winning
PS bases do have resource usage -- NTUs. An ANT drop into a base under siege that was about to lose all power was one of the more fun events in the game.

Doesn't change your argument, though.

As a side note, later on when the lattice went into effect, the bases did have some strategic consequences in having an interlink base was full of win along with a tech plant for armor and amp station for shielding. Drop ship bases were less of a focus simply because galaxies were being used less and less and liberators were meh without a tail gunner.

The balance pass in which they fucked up the striker (and I was somewhat against the fire-and-forget part, but nerfing the rocket dmg was stupid) and nerfed the pounder max for the TR (well deserved for the most part) among other things was the fire shot across the bow. Core combat came out and within a week people in my outfit wrote it off as a wasted effort at an expansion. BFRs served to put people back in the caves but not for what the caves were designed (if there was one) for. You grabbed your cert if people were down there to kill and you left.

And for myself and my outfit, the goal was always to keep our home continents under our control and sanc lock the other factions. Granted, that type of goal has a short half-life - but it was a pretty motivating goal.

"I want to watch it all burn in an orgy of smashed Coke machines and weasel rape." - HaemishM
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3586


Reply #96 on: May 10, 2010, 11:46:47 AM

2) PS doesn't have any resource generation or usage. It was all about reinforcements. This made it hard to have any stake in winning
PS bases do have resource usage -- NTUs. An ANT drop into a base under siege that was about to lose all power was one of the more fun events in the game.

Doesn't change your argument, though.
Personal or item resources. NTU's were all about making sure the base spawned its more or less infinite amount of stuff for you. Functionally its almost no different than if the base just "worked" once you had captured it. NTU's are probably better defined as capture conditions than resources.

Also, i don't think bases should have been able to spawn vehicles, but that is another point all together.
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #97 on: May 10, 2010, 11:54:09 AM

2) PS doesn't have any resource generation or usage. It was all about reinforcements. This made it hard to have any stake in winning
PS bases do have resource usage -- NTUs. An ANT drop into a base under siege that was about to lose all power was one of the more fun events in the game.

Doesn't change your argument, though.
Personal or item resources. NTU's were all about making sure the base spawned its more or less infinite amount of stuff for you. Functionally its almost no different than if the base just "worked" once you had captured it. NTU's are probably better defined as capture conditions than resources.

Also, i don't think bases should have been able to spawn vehicles, but that is another point all together.

What?

NTUs are used every time someone spawns, every time a weapon is created every time a vehicle is made and every time the base repairs things like turrets, tubes, terminals or the generator. If a base runs out of NTU's it goes neutral , and thus regardless of the lattice can be hacked by any faction, also loss of lattice and cave mod benefits due to connection dropped. BFR's also had NTU drain arms as well that could be dissipated in an EMP wave.

Typical, large battle time before the base is drained from simple use, about an hour in a full blown fight. Shorter if various drains are used and or encouraged.

Killing an ANT on its way to the gate or base was sometimes the difference between capture or not.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 12:02:09 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
Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3586


Reply #98 on: May 10, 2010, 12:41:00 PM

Killing an ANT on its way to the gate or base was sometimes the difference between capture or not.
Wow, the base goes neutral, you have seriously crimped the opponents ability to fight for a prolonged period of time... rolleyes

Resources for the base don't matter much, in terms of the game, its just another requisite to holding, not any separate mechanic that makes fights matter.

Edit: i should clarify. Just because you call something a "resource" doesn't mean that it is. NTU's were requisites for holding bases and little else. Its as much a "resource" mechanic as making someone bring flags to capture points. In a game of TFC (the one where you brought the flags to the capture points) the resource was not flags, it was time. It is the same way here, except time is not a resource when its unlimited

NTU's are not resources, they're capture point mechanics.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 12:45:28 PM by Goumindong »
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4451


Reply #99 on: May 10, 2010, 12:55:15 PM


Now would be a really good time for them to release, or announce the imminent release, of Planetside 2. With the experience they gained, the current interest in persistent shooters and the better on-line infrastructure they could make a game for which there is no competition. It would have the potential to massacre games like APB.

Of course it's SOE :/

And they're probably focused on EQ3. Great idea that. Another fantasy MMO is just what we need. And based around a world and Lore that will only have interest to those already playing EQ2. Or maybe they'll actually release "The Agency" some day.


Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #100 on: May 10, 2010, 12:56:18 PM

Killing an ANT on its way to the gate or base was sometimes the difference between capture or not.
Wow, the base goes neutral, you have seriously crimped the opponents ability to fight for a prolonged period of time... rolleyes

Yes, it sure does. Especially if that base was in line, or was a Tech facility. It also allowed another side to enter the space with a foothold.

I guess I need you to define what you mean by resources.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 01:09:16 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
eldaec
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10354


Reply #101 on: May 10, 2010, 06:00:34 PM

So in my mind: Empire/Dwarfs vs Skaven/Greenskin vs Chaos/Undead would work out pretty awesome.



You are terrible at making up appropriate alliances in warhammer.

Skaven/green? Jesus

But yeah, your actual point is completely right. There are a million ways to combine races for 3 or more realms which wouldn't sick half as much as green/chaos/delf.

"People will not assume that what they read on the internet is trustworthy or that it carries any particular ­assurance or accuracy" - Lord Leveson
"Hyperbole is a cancer" - Lakov Sanite
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #102 on: May 10, 2010, 08:33:28 PM

1) 3 sides is pretty ideal for this kind of game. Alliances cannot become stable(as might happen in a 4 side game) and are much more likely to be opportunist. It also makes it harder to have one side domination since the weaker two sides can get together. 

There is an equal chance of the top two sides getting together to kick the crap out of the weakest.

Uneven number of sides are probably preferable, but 2v2 might work. Better than 1v1, anyway.

Goumindong
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3586


Reply #103 on: May 10, 2010, 11:44:26 PM

There is an equal chance of the top two sides getting together to kick the crap out of the weakest.

Uneven number of sides are probably preferable, but 2v2 might work. Better than 1v1, anyway.
Unlikely. Consider the incentives where side 1 > side 2 > side 3

If side 1 and 2 get together to beat up side 3, once side 3 is down, side 1 has an absolute advantage over side 2. Side 2 would never make that choice, they would rather choose to attack side 1, since they can more reasonably make dents into that front.

Also possible is that side 1 and 3 get together. But this is less valuable to side 3 than side 3 choosing with side 2, since at the end of the fight with the other side, if they chose to side with 1 then they're going to get clobbered.

The incentives clearly point to a side 2,3 alliance in such a situation

That assumes rational choice and simultaneous combat initiative.

What about combat that has already started? In all cases the advantage is to choose to side with the weakest side if any alliance occurs. This means that there are still only two possible outcomes side 2 and 3 make an alliance, or side 1 and 3 make an alliance.

Both of the above assume no defection in battle.

What about if people aren't rational? That is the only time its random... BUT there are three possible alliances, 1,2/2,3/1,3 and only 1 of them is the two strongest. One of them isn't entirely optimal, but is still better than the "equal chance of the big boys getting together".

Now, completely random choice is unlikely, more likely is that combat alliances start based on who sees whom first, And in that case the first one to get attacked is likely to be the strongest force in the field.

All of this holds true no matter the duration of the alliance, so long as it is possible to "defeat" in some way, the other side. Even if no defection is possible.

3 sides is much more likely to produce an equally sided outcome
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8297


Reply #104 on: May 11, 2010, 12:50:57 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.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 102 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  MMOG Discussion  |  Topic: Planetside 2  
Jump to:  

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