Communit design meeting with Higby and T-ray

[CrazEpharmacist]

http://www.twitch.tv/azuretwilight?utm_campaign=live_embed_click&utm_source=forums.station.sony.com

Started about half an hour ago. Don't know how much longer it will go.

[Cee]

Thanks.

[Rockit]

They saved the recording here...

http://www.twitch.tv/azuretwilight/b/360977329

[Rivenshield]

Somebody wanna recap the highlights for us...?

[MonsterBone]

dweeb alert

[thegreekboy]

Honestly there wasn't really any good part of the meeting. They presented their ideas, then Higby thought about it, then he said "okay we'll look into that" and brainstormed a bit. Nothing special tbh.

[MonsterBone]

Poor Higby had to drive all night and get up and do this.

[Helwyr]

Somebody wanna recap the highlights for us...?

Bits that I recall:

Iccarus Jump Jets scraped.
No plans for Stalker Camo (PS1 type cloak), implied scraped as well.
Higby wants more cloak counters.
TRay gets pissed at something theGreekboy said in chat.

[Phantomdestiny]

Rail guns confirmed for tanks , and searhus releases in 7 months

[DirtyBird]

Cant wait for the next one.

[Ironside]

higby basically says lattice will never be introduced because the game/our pcs can't cope with the large amount of players it promotes in one area.

So here's a suggestion, get 6 conts up and running as a starting point, introduce the lattice, LOWER pop locks on continents to a more manageable number, reduce the amount of pointless installations on each cont, redesign bases/towers.

This gives us the beginnings of the meta game and promotes meaningful fights on the other conts, instead of ghost hacking them, in my opinion this is moving in the right direction.

Remember ps1 had lower cont pop locks yet the fights were so much more epic and meaningful

[coconut]

higby basically says lattice will never be introduced because the game/our pcs can't cope with the large amount of players it promotes in one area.

He also pointed out that the continent which put the most constraints on player movements (which is the effect the suggested lattice systems want to achieve) is also the least popular.

People on forums care about a lattice system, but the vast majority of players dislikes it, it seems.

Proponents of a lattice system will have to explain how their suggestion would be more successful than Amerish to convince me.

[ringring]

I thought this was brilliant, very well done Nobel!

I mean this not so much for what was said that was concrete, @thegreekboy - no one should have expected an 'omg I didn't think of that, we're going to put that it right away', but for the insight into thew way Matt and the devs were thinking and the issues they believe there are.

Personally I have no to very little faith in resources or the mission system - but I wait until I see the way it turns out.

I also think the text chat is more important than what Matt seemed to think. It may be old but it works and in many respects works better than VOIP as a command channel for inter-outfit stuff.

Overall very good. I think we got a lot of information and I saw Figment and Rockit who for different reasons nearly got a name check each. :p

[CrazEpharmacist]

He also pointed out that the continent which put the most constraints on player movements (which is the effect the suggested lattice systems want to achieve) is also the least popular.

People on forums care about a lattice system, but the vast majority of players dislikes it, it seems.

Proponents of a lattice system will have to explain how their suggestion would be more successful than Amerish to convince me.

Just because it's a lattice in geography(whatever that even means) doesn't mean it's an actual fully fleshed lattice system like we have in PS1. I would wager that most people don't even look at the geography on Amerish. They just go to whatever nearby base is capturable or looks like it has action. Not to mention you can just fly over any geographical bottlenecks the developers have designed and just hot drop in on a base.

The lattice made it clear what bases you could attack allowing defenders to set up defenses which made for interesting, dynamic battles. In other words two forces colliding and the winner would have to demonstrate superior tactical advantage over the enemy. You couldn't just zerg bases and 90% of the time meet no resistance like we see in PS2.

Further demonstrating my point: look at the crown on Indar. The developers have stated Indar is the most popular while Amerish the least. The crown gives players the kind of fights they are looking for. The crown supports the fact that the hex system fails at it's function because most players have to pretend it doesn't exist to have an enjoyable fight.

[Nobel]

We actually did get one changed agreed upon. He said that changing resources to only flow to bases connected to warpgate was a "no-brainer" and although it would be a short term solution, it was insinuated this would be done. Also, the "Hex-walls" had feedback from higby that it would be sent to the rest of the team/technical to see how possible it was.

[BIGGByran]

The 'lattice' system was to restrictive and the devs did not want to say, "You MUST attack here and ONLY here" while the hex system allows the players to attack where ever a enemy hex is touching a friendly hex. That creates a dynamic fight as you don't know where the attackers maybe going. Admittedly, this makes it difficult for the defenders to defend because they cannot ALWAYS setup a proper defense if the attackers does not attack where the defenders are at.
Ex.
- Lattice System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Defenders knows that the attackers MUST move to Territory B because it is the only territory connected to A. So defenders setup a defense and the attack again MUST fight them face on.
Restrictive and what you can attack (predicable attackers), Proactive Defenders because attackers can only attack limited territory.
- Hex System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Now the defenders can be PROACTIVE to predict where the attackers will attack next and setup a defense, but if they are wrong, they will have to be REACTIVE and move to defend where the attackers will be at. When an attacker takes a territory, they are not to restrictive on where they can attack next and can catch the defenders off-guard.
Attackers have the freedom to attack where one of their hex is touching an enemy hex (generally unpredictable attackers), Defenders MUST be more REACTIVE than PROACTIVE.

Again, admittedly, the hex system does favor the attackers a bit more as the defenders cannot setup a defense proactively, well they can, but they have to predict where the attackers are going. This "unpredictable" attacker makes the game dynamic as you generally don't know where they are going to attack next. They just need to buff the defensive capabilities and maybe restructure the bases to make them more defensible.

[CrazEpharmacist]

The 'lattice' system was to restrictive and the devs did not want to say, "You MUST attack here and ONLY here" while the hex system allows the players to attack where ever a enemy hex is touching a friendly hex. That creates a dynamic fight as you don't know where the attackers maybe going. Admittedly, this makes it difficult for the defenders to defend because they cannot ALWAYS setup a proper defense if the attackers does not attack where the defenders are at.
Ex.
- Lattice System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Defenders knows that the attackers MUST move to Territory B because it is the only territory connected to A. So defenders setup a defense and the attack again MUST fight them face on.
Restrictive and what you can attack (predicable attackers), Proactive Defenders because attackers can only attack limited territory.
- Hex System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Now the defenders can be PROACTIVE to predict where the attackers will attack next and setup a defense, but if they are wrong, they will have to be REACTIVE and move to defend where the attackers will be at. When an attacker takes a territory, they are not to restrictive on where they can attack next and can catch the defenders off-guard.
Attackers have the freedom to attack where one of their hex is touching an enemy hex (generally unpredictable attackers), Defenders MUST be more REACTIVE than PROACTIVE.

Again, admittedly, the hex system does favor the attackers a bit more as the defenders cannot setup a defense proactively, well they can, but they have to predict where the attackers are going. This "unpredictable" attacker makes the game dynamic as you generally don't know where they are going to attack next. They just need to buff the defensive capabilities and maybe restructure the bases to make them more defensible.

No, the hex system creates BF sized skirmishes across the entire continent. The lattice system did not restrict movement. Typically you would have 3 or 4 potential routes of attack at any given time. This does not include the potential to back-hack ANY BASE behind enemy lines. You could drain an NTU silo bringing the base to neutral and then hack it. So there were plenty of options to attack and not restrictive in the slightest. Keep in mind that would just be on one continent out of (10 I think?)

In PS2 it doesn't make sense to consolidate forces because the enemy can just go around you. The hex encourages splitting up and attacking the largest number of possible bases at once. Again, this enforces small BF sized skirmishes across the entire continent. They advertised massive, epic battles but the hex system is not giving us that.

[BIGGByran]

So, does that mean that PS2 does not support zerg because "The hex encourages splitting up and attacking the largest number of possible bases at once."? While PS1 with the lattice system support zerg because of the restrictive number of bases you can attack? (not saying you can't drain NTUs and back end things, but as in the main battle force).

In PS2, if you zerg in an even pop continent, you will get cut off by a smaller force, which forces the zerg to split up, 1 to take back the territories and 1 to continue the push. It almost seems the same, PS1 and PS2 style. PS1 with the drain of the NTU and hacking the base, while PS2 you just have to keep taking bases that the zerg is not going towards and cut them off. But either one, you will need a force to go back to these territories to fight off the force that is doing that to keep your bases connected. I do remember that one moment in PS1 that I drove a NTU truck because I saw 1 base about to go neutral. Parked it next to the NTU tower and got exp. Was fun doing that kind of thing and not having to fight to get Exp if you don't want to. I hope they can introduce some methods of PS1 into PS2 without the Lattice system. Maybe just the whole NTU system would work and tweak the resource system a bit to make it work with the NTU system/Amp, Tech, Biodome. I hope also they do bring in the NTU, it was fun.

EDIT:
I think I know what you mean about the zerg. I think to solve that issue is to implement some type of Continent Lock. How, I'm not sure yet, but I'm sure the dev team and some people are thinking about it. I fully support some way of preventing 1 continent from begin completely dominated by 1 faction. In one of the post on this forum was talking about a way to prevent that and seems pretty cool. Gotta find it and read up on it more.

[Figment]

Overall very good. I think we got a lot of information and I saw Figment and Rockit who for different reasons nearly got a name check each. :p

Saw me? Where? What? Who's stalking me? O.o'

[ringring]

The 'lattice' system was to restrictive and the devs did not want to say, "You MUST attack here and ONLY here" while the hex system allows the players to attack where ever a enemy hex is touching a friendly hex. That creates a dynamic fight as you don't know where the attackers maybe going. Admittedly, this makes it difficult for the defenders to defend because they cannot ALWAYS setup a proper defense if the attackers does not attack where the defenders are at.
Ex.
- Lattice System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Defenders knows that the attackers MUST move to Territory B because it is the only territory connected to A. So defenders setup a defense and the attack again MUST fight them face on.
Restrictive and what you can attack (predicable attackers), Proactive Defenders because attackers can only attack limited territory.
- Hex System:
Attackers took over Territory A. Now the defenders can be PROACTIVE to predict where the attackers will attack next and setup a defense, but if they are wrong, they will have to be REACTIVE and move to defend where the attackers will be at. When an attacker takes a territory, they are not to restrictive on where they can attack next and can catch the defenders off-guard.
Attackers have the freedom to attack where one of their hex is touching an enemy hex (generally unpredictable attackers), Defenders MUST be more REACTIVE than PROACTIVE.

Again, admittedly, the hex system does favor the attackers a bit more as the defenders cannot setup a defense proactively, well they can, but they have to predict where the attackers are going. This "unpredictable" attacker makes the game dynamic as you generally don't know where they are going to attack next. They just need to buff the defensive capabilities and maybe restructure the bases to make them more defensible.

That's not what Higby said.

He said he understands the call for the lattice because of the predictability it brings for commanders.

However, the issue is one of performance, of bringing too many people into the same area at the same time.

[ringring]

Saw me? Where? What? Who's stalking me? O.o'
He talked about a big thread about the lattice in beta forums and he's by erm, erm can't remember the name ... bit think it might have been you.

Let's admit it, your threads certainly are big :cool:

[Rockit]

He talked about a big thread about the lattice in beta forums and he's by erm, erm can't remember the name ... bit think it might have been you.

Let's admit it, your threads certainly are big :cool:

It could have been either OrangeSoda or Figgy, both have been long winded on the subject. :lol: As for me, I think I know where you are coming from and it may have been a bit harsh but damn I want to see this game get much better, much faster. He's right, it's better we complain and lambast them than just disappear because by saying anything is saying we care. He's a true professional for recognizing that. We all give plenty of good feedback and when it appears it is being ignored (or at least delayed) that is when the frustration comes in and they get blasted.

[CrazEpharmacist]

It could have been either OrangeSoda

Yeah, I believe even Higby referred to his post about lattice during the design meeting. He said something along the lines of "someone back in beta made a huge post saying the hex system is really lattice in disguise,etc. Pretty sure he was referring to OrangeSoda there.

[Figment]

He talked about a big thread about the lattice in beta forums and he's by erm, erm can't remember the name ... bit think it might have been you.

Let's admit it, your threads certainly are big :cool:

What, only big? :/ I'm going for epic length every time! And all I get is rather big? :( What an absolutely British thing of you to use such understatements! :p


I think the Beta-thread in question could have been mine, there were at least three big ones on the subject iirc. We explored a couple of different lattice and adjecency mix systems then. Some of the ideas proposed by various people in that thread are obsolete though. Particularly those suggesting more links beyond the hex adjecency, because of the amount of options turning out to be much greater than the amount of resec people and required time involved due to there being too much bypassing.

[thegreekboy]

Bits that I recall:
TRay gets pissed at something theGreekboy said in chat.

Yea lol

He said something about making smaller hexs cappable in larger hexes to give small squads something to do

I was like

"TRAy's idea is BAD"

...

"His idea treats the symptom but not the problem"

The TRay apparently only saw my first thing and was all like

"oh, alright theGREEKboy, what's your idea, huh? Thats right! You don't got one! Why you bashin my ideas when you don't got your own?" Then before i could respond they moved on.

eh, whatever though

[Rivenshield]

higby basically says lattice will never be introduced because the game/our pcs can't cope with the large amount of players it promotes in one area.

/massive facepalm

So, no hundreds fighting hundreds fighting hundreds in gigantic clusterfucks as advertised, eh? Sold us a bill of goods, eh? Existing technology can't handle it, eh? Have an unknown pop per continent spread around like a pat of butter on a whole loaf of bread, eh? so we wind up with a series of SMALLER battles than we had a decade ago? Rather than make smaller conts with lower pops and bigger fights?

Oh, and did you hear? According to Higs we're getting Gal spawns back, but it'll be squad-only. So only ONE SQUAD can have an invulnerable spawn point landed on top of every outdoorsy mother freaking spawn-outhouse and air pad on Auraxis. That'll be fine. Just fine. Just like it was in beta. Yeah. Dynamic gameplay FTW. No need for Gal drops anymore. No teamwork or coordination required. Just join a squad with a Gal AMS, and YOU TOO can have a shorter run to the objective than the defenders...! Or respawn and re-drop without even landing, like an endless torrent of drop pods! And within a few months, this is exactly what everybody will be doing.

I like Higby for his enthusiasm -- I really do, honestly -- but from a game design POV he is beginning to simultaneously dismay and piss me off. Badly. I'm beginning to entertain the terrible thought that they selected the wrong man for the job.

[Rockit]

So, no hundreds fighting hundreds fighting hundreds in gigantic clusterfucks as advertised, eh? Sold us a bill of goods, eh? Existing technoloby can't handle it, eh? Have an unknown pop per continent spread around like a pat of butter on a whole loaf of bread, eh? so we wind up with a series of SMALLER battles than we had a decade ago? Rather than make smaller conts with lower pops and bigger fights?


The more and more I think about this the more I see it as maybe the ultimate downfall of this game. Having large conts with large pops is so zerg focused it has limited any other style gameplay. We can't even have any sort of directed fight mechanism because tech can't support it. It is a struggle for them to see meaningful metagame design in conjunction with sandbox style as well. Good luck to em, it's a tough hill to climb.

[AThreatToYou]

higby basically says lattice will never be introduced because the game/our pcs can't cope with the large amount of players it promotes in one area.

No, no! No higby! You're thinking of lattice wrong. You really are!

[CrazEpharmacist]

Did anyone catch the part where he said "drawing dots on your mini-map is just as expensive for your cpu as drawing a full character would be? Can someone confirm this because it doesn't really make sense to me. I can understand that tiny dot taking up as much server bandwidth as a full character but a cpu cycle? Doesn't make sense to me.

[AThreatToYou]

Did anyone catch the part where he said "drawing dots on your mini-map is just as expensive for your cpu as drawing a full character would be? Can someone confirm this because it doesn't really make sense to me. I can understand that tiny dot taking up as much server bandwidth as a full character but a cpu cycle? Doesn't make sense to me.

That's Flash for you.

[Rockit]

Did anyone catch the part where he said "drawing dots on your mini-map is just as expensive for your cpu as drawing a full character would be? Can someone confirm this because it doesn't really make sense to me. I can understand that tiny dot taking up as much server bandwidth as a full character but a cpu cycle? Doesn't make sense to me.

It's just a matter of player tracking. The more dots the more tracking, the more players rendered the more tracking and thus CPU load increases. MMO's are simply more CPU burdened by player tracking. Actually he should say object tracking. It can be planes, tanks, troops, etc they require CPU load to track in as close to real time as possible, X, Y and Z axis of every game object in your vicinity. That's why you can play something like BF3 on Ultra everything and cannot come close on PS2. Simply a matter of less objects to track and little to do with graphics.

[Helwyr]

Did anyone catch the part where he said "drawing dots on your mini-map is just as expensive for your cpu as drawing a full character would be? [...]

Yes, I thought that was interesting as well. More so because that little tip-bit of info now lends further support in removing game mechanics like Radar. Not only would such a change IMO improve actual gameplay, but we now know it would also improve game performance.

[Figment]

It's just a matter of player tracking. The more dots the more tracking, the more players rendered the more tracking and thus CPU load increases. MMO's are simply more CPU burdened by player tracking. Actually he should say object tracking. It can be planes, tanks, troops, etc they require CPU load to track in as close to real time as possible, X, Y and Z axis of every game object in your vicinity. That's why you can play something like BF3 on Ultra everything and cannot come close on PS2. Simply a matter of less objects to track and little to do with graphics.

Would have helped if they had just required more people in the same units to make them operational... :p

@Helwyr you're not seriously suggesting Radar should be removed, do you? There's no third person, 360º threats and you want to remove the last bit of situational awareness too?

[Maidere]

It's just a matter of player tracking. The more dots the more tracking, the more players rendered the more tracking and thus CPU load increases. MMO's are simply more CPU burdened by player tracking. Actually he should say object tracking. It can be planes, tanks, troops, etc they require CPU load to track in as close to real time as possible, X, Y and Z axis of every game object in your vicinity. That's why you can play something like BF3 on Ultra everything and cannot come close on PS2. Simply a matter of less objects to track and little to do with graphics.

I cannot understand why they keep saying that using one and a half cores is ok then.
This problem definitely looks like the one that can be solved via multithreading for me.

[CrazEpharmacist]

I think the problem is two-fold. Yes, there may very well be a client-side cpu limitation that should have been solved by optimization and better use of multi-cores but I think the real limitation is coming from their server bandwidth. Guild Wars 2 has a similar problem referred to as culling. A recent developer post explains how they just received the go ahead to upgrade all servers so that coupled with code optimization will result in elimination of all culling. I think a similar thing has to happen here.

[Rockit]

I cannot understand why they keep saying that using one and a half cores is ok then.
This problem definitely looks like the one that can be solved via multithreading for me.

Well maybe but it depends on how they distribute out the worker threads. Does just one thread track everyone? I don't know.

[Palerion]

The Icarus jets thing really disappoints me :(

[Helwyr]

@Helwyr you're not seriously suggesting Radar should be removed, do you? There's no third person, 360º threats and you want to remove the last bit of situational awareness too?

I am absolutely serious. Are you serious in implying that situational awareness only comes from these player crutch like game mechanics such as radar?

[Sledgecrushr]

We actually did get one changed agreed upon. He said that changing resources to only flow to bases connected to warpgate was a "no-brainer" and although it would be a short term solution, it was insinuated this would be done. Also, the "Hex-walls" had feedback from higby that it would be sent to the rest of the team/technical to see how possible it was.

Both of those ideas proposed by AT are brilliant. I really hope the devs can institute these changes quickly.

[Figment]

I am absolutely serious. Are you serious in implying that situational awareness only comes from these player crutch like game mechanics such as radar?

I'd like to point out your phrasing is a definite strawman that doesn't warrant a direct reply, because the answer is always a rhetoric no.


So I'll say this:

Situational awareness comes from:

- Looking around since frontal vision isn't sufficient (frequent crazy ivans needed)
- Sound
- Knowing terrain layout, objective locations
- Knowing likely friendly and enemy routes
- Extrapolating routes through observation
- Spotted enemies in and out of sight (Those out of sight should be removed from the actual frontal vision, IMO)
- Q-spotting (= meh, don't like this system either way)
- Map (very important for communicating threats between friendlies, understanding where you're engaged from and finding fights)

You can see the impact of map on situational awareness if you compare these four situations and their impact on gameplay:

- Both have same map info (no interlink radar)
- One has Interlink radar
- One has normal map info, one has no map info due to radar viral
- Neither side has map info due to radar viral (third party that has radar is not present)

Of course, third person existed then too, so that adds to the ambush quality. Ambushing someone in PS1 and PS2 is easy enough with radar, catching people off-guard is horrendously simple with all the flanking options you have. It would be even easier without.

From my perspective, this would primarily aid campers and attackers who approach objectives from all directions currently. The defender and holder locations are known anyway (at least, I know where they are, not many positions they can be...), so this would primarily benefit non-defenders. See, defenders usualy have fewer numbers and use radar to determine where to focus their defense (can't have scouts and sufficient players covering all sides for visual confirmation at all times), if they need to relocate etc (you could see how effective this was in Interlinks and how in viralled bases pushes were so easy defense was a non-option - and I've taken over plenty TR-VS viralled bases to know it's not particularly favouring the smaller group defending/taking over). I'm not keen on making defense even worse. (I'm also not keen on semi-perfect Interlink Radar, mind).

I'm also not keen on making off-screen threats like rocket pod aircraft and Liberators even stronger. AA needs to know what side the aircav is if they want to position appropriately without getting insta-spammed for instance. Same goes for infantry vs tanks.

Sound and vision made by footsteps and many other threats is often drowned out or muddled by screenshakes, explosions, etc. Radar is the one constant you have. Furthermore, not everyone has dolby surround sound, so it would give an unfair advantage to players with a better sound setup in relation to directional sound.

And how do you suppose new players will react to no radar in a battle this size?

I also presume you know those perks in CoD that jam the entire minimap and its effects?

So no, I'm not saying AT ALL that ALL situational awareness comes from it, however, sufficient need exists for specific groups of players to ensure it is there. :/

Now implants, Sensor Shield and all, fine. But flat out removing it would mean serious increase in "rape" kills. Not fun at all and not healthy for the new player populace in particular.

[Rockit]

Just imagine if a good old fashioned PS1 mossy flew over and lit up 200 enemies on the mini-map. :lol:

[Kail]

Did anyone catch the part where he said "drawing dots on your mini-map is just as expensive for your cpu as drawing a full character would be? Can someone confirm this because it doesn't really make sense to me. I can understand that tiny dot taking up as much server bandwidth as a full character but a cpu cycle? Doesn't make sense to me.

A radar blip vs character model certainly takes up far less GPU resources but as far as the CPU is concerned its not very surprising it's a wash. The CPU gets notified a player X is at position Y; whether the GPU needs to render the model for you or not is past the point of the CPU's work.

Yes, I thought that was interesting as well. More so because that little tip-bit of info now lends further support in removing game mechanics like Radar. Not only would such a change IMO improve actual gameplay, but we now know it would also improve game performance.

The only way for it to be a performance increase is to have the server not tell you about those players at all - which is the "rendering" problem you see in large fights.

[Helwyr]

I'd like to point out your phrasing is a definite strawman that doesn't warrant a direct reply, because the answer is always a rhetoric no.


Perhaps you should more carefully word your posts then...

[...]There's no third person, 360º threats and you want to remove the last bit of situational awareness too?

Still glad to see you acknowledge the obvious that situational awareness isn't just lame shit like radar.

[PsiKoTiK]

I found it funny that Higby said the classes were going to be looked at in order of popularity. Yes, let's give the Light Assault more abilities to be an even better mass murderer while the Infiltrator continues to be ignored.

[Rivenshield]

Also, the "Hex-walls" had feedback from higby that it would be sent to the rest of the team/technical to see how possible it was.

/rereads thread carefully

/does search

That's not a mechanic I've heard of or seen mentioned before. Can someone clue me in?

/looks clueless

[CrazEpharmacist]

I think the problem is two-fold. Yes, there may very well be a client-side cpu limitation that should have been solved by optimization and better use of multi-cores but I think the real limitation is coming from their server bandwidth. Guild Wars 2 has a similar problem referred to as culling. A recent developer post explains how they just received the go ahead to upgrade all servers so that coupled with code optimization will result in elimination of all culling. I think a similar thing has to happen here.

Here is a really great post on culling by a programmer from Guild Wars 2:

https://forum-en.guildwars2.com/forum/pvp/wuvwuv/Update-on-Culling/first#post1137307

I wonder how many of his points pertain to PlanetSide 2. My guess would be all of them because they're both similar games in terms of massive amount of players on screen at once.

[Vashyo]

Watched the interview myself finally, I really dislike the hand-holding they are tilting towards when making every decision. Either players are very fickle or SOE is underestimating their playerbase.

They want to attract new people in, more than keeping their fanbase I suppose so Higgles is going to make everything very willy-nilly. :rolleyes:


Only reason people go to Indar over the other two continents imo, is crown and the fact that it's just the best place to be if you want action. I go there simply because everyone else goes there, even though I'd like to play amerish more, but there's nobody there!