new lattice tweet from higby - Page 15

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-03-05, 02:21 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

You wrote exactly what i have been thinking since i played the beta for the first time.

I may add taking a long good look at "Savage" (a fps/rts hybrid and one of the most underrated fps games ever - right after planetside 1) could bring in some fresh and right ideas;

Tbh i was (and still am to a degree) kinda bummed that PS2 didn't turn out to be more of a RTS/FPS mix - or MMO for that matter.

I mean they got the shooter part right, but the whole rts part (and the mmo part) is so absolutely absent that you get the feeling some new age shooter kids saw planetside and decided "oh cool, i'm going to make something like that".
Thank god they have PSU where to learn about the good stuff.

/highhorse

SwiftRanger · 2013-03-05, 06:17 AM

If RTS-influences can spice up the metagame then be sure to take the right cues from the right games:

* StarCraft;
Good for PS2 => very different and balanced factions, every unit has its use
Bad for PS2 => emphasis on competitive play, limited resources, handling interface deficiencies is being interpreted as "skill", barely any true simulation or projectile physics (it's still a 2D game in disguise), small and symmetrical maps

* Total Annihilation/SupCom;
Good for PS2 => very big map scale and strategic play with really big armies, all-out-war (land, sea and air), true 3D simulated unit models and weapon physics, crazy-ass experimental units which are hard to get/aren't overpowered, infinite resources
Bad for PS2 => not a lot of difference between factions, too many clutter/filler units, symmetrical maps

* Company of Heroes/Dawn of War 2;
Good for PS2 => varied factions, gritty/visceral urban combat with blood, asymmetrical maps, brilliant Army Painter, wonderful Warhammer 40k-like designs!
Bad for PS2 => small maps

capiqu · 2013-03-05, 08:33 AM

FPSMMO/RPS? I would also like to see a 10 year quest, provided this game last that long and I think it will.
Lets say that we find out from the ancient Vanu that the Arauxian sun will become unstable in 10 years time. This causes all 3 factions into a race against time. A race for full understanding of Vanu writing and Technology. The search will be not only to find out how to reopen the wormholes and find a way back to earth, but also a race for which faction will return back to Earth to reign in full glory.
The TR feel they should return to Earth Victorious having finally united everyone and bringing all this technology home for the glory of the republic.
The NC will bring freedom to Earth and this new technology will be the tool. They imagine the tens of billions of people on Earth all wanting or needing Vanu technology. This will undoubtedly give them the resources they will need to bring change to Earth.
The VS see this as an opportunity to bring mankind into a next level of Superior Evolution. Imagine the Millions of scientist and engineers back on Earth working on all this new technology. What leaps and bounds will humanity make. We will become Godlike.
So I imagine one discovery a month per faction. All pieces to a puzzle. You need all the pieces to crack the Vanu code. So we will not only be fighting for land and resources but also for knowledge. If the Vs make a discovery then the Tr can attack them and take this item away. The Vs can later counter attack and take it back. Since a new item will be discovered every month no one will have all the pieces until the last one is discovered years down the line.
Who knows I may not be playing planetside then but I'd probably look in to see which faction was victorious

Erendil · 2013-03-05, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

{Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits} don't direct the flow of battle at all. Not sure about you, but we ignore logical progression completely.

They do for most people, esp ground forces that don't want to leave a pulled vehicle behind. For most people, the aforementioned mechanics/restrictions already direct the flow of battle across most of the maps we have, the exceptions being the north half of Indar and parts of Esamir. And adjacency affects anyone who wants to go on the offensive.

Sorry, don't have 40 people available to send out as scouts to each potential capture and defense location.

We don't either. But a single ESF with Scout Radar can scout your entire cont's front line in about 4 minutes. Less than that if they only scout bases that actually show an enemy presence. Doing the Redeploy Shuffle to hop between bases works too. Not sure why it takes you 40 people.

1. This isn't the PS1 lattice.
2. Restrictions including adjecency have so far done nothing but improve gameplay.

If you recall, we went from pure chaos and frustration in tech test to a bit calmer, but still annoyingly repetitive game. Linearity allows for more progression and therefore much better "moving the map" as we called it in PS1. You want some closure so you can move on. The worst thing that could occur to us was being stuck on the same map the entire time because an enemy would continuously come back.

I like the adjacency restrictions because it makes logical sense and in turn causes the flow of battle to also make sense. In the tweeted pic, not being allowed to go from Spec Ops Training and cap Arroyo Tore does not make sense. I know it's just a concept pic but I don't want restrictions in the game that are arbitrary and illogical like that. If they can tweak the "lattice" to avoid such arbitrary hard restrictions then I'd be more open to it. I do like the Neutral Hex ides though, if it's mainly used just in the more open areas.

And yes, stopping continuos backhacks is annoying. But IMO they should be discouraged by doing things like :

making backhacks visible on the cont map without having to mouseover the territory
making facilities more defensible and thus harder to backhack/easier to resecure
including the ability to see Ally Activity for the whole cont (we already get Enemy), or better yet, a tactical overlay like PS1
letting us see gen status (EDIT: and cap point status) for every friendly territory on the cont map, not just the one you're in.
letting the chat window stay visible on the screen so you don't accidentally miss important intel relayed via text (yes, some of us use it for something other than trolling the other factions )
letting anyone with Command Chat cert use /Orders, not just SLs

Such tools give players the ability to make faster and smarter choices, letting them better deploy troops for offenses, resecures, etc, but still leaving said choices ultimately up to the players.

Do you remember the Dagda song? You know, the song that wasn't over till someone went and captured Andvari? That is PS2 right now, only spread over a similar sized region, with a few more territories and that you can hardly put a plug on it (there's no "Andvari" to protect the continent behind it). Each impossible to defend (certainly impossible to defend ALL) and therefore utterly frustrating to play ping pong between these bases.

The whack-a-mole syndrome is caused by lack of strategic intel, proper command and communication tools at our disposal, and the piss-poor defensibility of most facilities against a vehicle assault. See my list above.

Flow is how a battle moves. It can be guided, unguided, restricted or unrestricted. Unrestricted flow leads to chaos and people avoiding combat, not finding combat and generally not having a good time. There can be such a thing as too much unrestricted flow. Consider that what we'll get is a rivermouth, with maybe a few branch-offs, where we had a swampy delta. Both flow to sea, but one can potentially be controlled by plugging a branch, the other cannot as it has too many branches. This then is about flow control by the players.

Too much chaos is bad. Very bad. It means you can't ever have a decent session where you feel you contributed to a fight, because literally 10 seconds later the entire frontline can be reduced to sanctuary.

Yep I agree, we don't want a free-for-all. But too much restricted flow is also bad. See PS1's Amerish, where the only 2 possible attack routes to take the cont were either a super-long link with an ultra-defenable Interlink on each end (Qumu and Cetan), or the long march through every single outer base on the cont, one at a time, with no deviation possible for 3/4 of the map.

Or almost as bad, trying to kick an enemy out of the Wele/Aja/Bomazi corridor on Cysoor due to the impenetrable Bomazi fortress and an insanely long LLU run being the only other link (Aja -> Chuku).

I'm not saying that PS2's "lattice" implementation will be like that, but there does need to be a middle ground. I fear a "lattice" ps1-style or not, might be too restrictive.

"Static" as you describe it is simply more staged fighting and progression, with fall back options that still allow you to stall and defend, without being completely overwhelmed. Stalling allows you to set up a meaningful campaign where you can plan fights for a few hours ahead. And that doesn't mean those hours are spend at the same point, it means you can steer the fight in your favour and any tactical and strategic moves made by the opposition and allies have far greater impact on the course of battle in the long term. And that gives much greater satisfaction than "flanking" and having your "flanking" move undone as soon as you try to move on.

Again, agreed. Make facilities more defensible and give us better communication tools and strategic intel and you'll get more stalling while still keeping the current hex-adjacency flanking freedom. I.E. - better game flow.

I'm not sure why anyone would think having over 80 options with just three continents is a good thing (and we have that right now - just stop for a second each evening and count the options on ALL CONTINENTS: which are ALL BORDER REGIONS, friendly AND enemy). There are too few players and too high concentrations of players to have a fight at half or more of them. That's why there's so much ghosting.

Too fluid a map is just going to mean that you're going to be ignored half the time as it's too much choice and too much effort to deal with it: there's just no time to respond so most people don't even bother showing up. This is a PvP game. There should be some PvP somewhere. Look, some ghosting will always happen, but if 60% of your time is ghosting or pointless defense, then people will just go to The Crown and ignore the conquest and defense in favour of at least having some targets to shoot at.

There is too much ghosting now, I agree. But it's not because of the hex system. There's so much ghosting because there's very little incentive to actually defend anything. You get no XP for defense, most facilities have craptastic defenses and so will get rolled once the defending aircraft and tanks get wiped out (which you can't even pull at most facilities), it's difficult to relay to people not in your platoon or outfit that a facility is even under attack, and if you're not in the actual base being attacked you can't tell if there's 2 defenders there or 200 so people are reluctant to spend time having to go there and check it out only to find the base is either perfectly safe or being rolled. In either case it's a wasted trip.

Look, that I'm able to read the map and SirAlydon is able to read the map, doesn't mean that Zergling X, Y and Z (and xXZergerZXx) is going to be able to read the map. But even SirAlydon will have to admit Dark is not capable of responding to all the threats at once and that coordinating people to defend all those regions is not just a pain in the arse, it's virtually impossible. It's simply too chaotic for command to deal with. :/

Yep, that's why we need better strategic tools to make reading the map easier and more informative, better communication tools to relay this intel to others, and better incentives to actually defend facilities in the first place. What we don't need is more arbitrary restrictions that force us to go in certain directions. It's much better to give us the tools we need to make better choices but still keep the choice in our hands.

Now and then I hear or see people use voice command or leader and I hear what they're saying and while they're discussing moving somewhere, I'm watching the map and that has already obsoleted their entire discussion.

The current system is impossible to plan for at all. And yes, of course plans have to be adapted constantly, but to have such a fluid state where a plan has been obsoleted before it has been conceived, let alone prepared or executed is just plain daft. A bit more static frontlines allow time for plans to hatch, be executed and make a noticable impact. Meanwhile, players who just want to play don't have to continuously find a new fight since those fights won't be gone by the time they get there and they can have an hour or two of leisurely fighting without the effort of constantly relocating. That's after all one of the underlying reasons why The Crown is very popular.

Again, better tools, better communication, better incentives for defense. That'll give you more static lines without introducing arbitrary restrictions.

And no, the new lattice won't automatically balance populations fighting one another. It may very well disperse population in a more controlled manner. If that's the case, it should make commanding more relevant. Of course, that still requires the base designs to be suitable for defense. If small teams get good defensive positions, they'll gladly take on zergs to stall them for reinforcements. And the less pressure on a lane, the more likely it will be used for flanking.

Yep. more defensibility will lead to more enemy stalling. But you don't need a "lattice" for that. Although I do like the idea of an "NTU lattice" for resource flow as mentioned by people in this thread..

Tatwi · 2013-03-05, 10:01 AM

Great post, Erendil.

Figment · 2013-03-05, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Erendil

They do for most people, esp ground forces that don't want to leave a pulled vehicle behind. For most people, the aforementioned mechanics/restrictions already direct the flow of battle across most of the maps we have, the exceptions being the north half of Indar and parts of Esamir. And adjacency affects anyone who wants to go on the offensive.

'Affect' is the right word, 'direct' and 'guide' are not. Affect because it limits your choices to any frontline target on either end of the random hex line. It doesn't steer battle however, it's still completely random. Many other effects (like for instance the rts "I like nice borders syndrom") dominate your choice. Intel on enemy positions hardly influences choices, because the intel becomes obsolete too fast and is unreliable.

We don't either. But a single ESF with Scout Radar can scout your entire cont's front line in about 4 minutes. Less than that if they only scout bases that actually show an enemy presence. Doing the Redeploy Shuffle to hop between bases works too. Not sure why it takes you 40 people.

Because every 2 seconds the frontline changes, you want up to date info, you need scouts everywhere. ;p ESF scout radar is a waste of time tbh, only gathers 2 min later obsolete data as per the above. I'm not going to tell any of my squad to waste their time like that. Besides, we can't spare the manpower and we're not willing to expand to put people on chores.

I like the adjacency restrictions because it makes logical sense and in turn causes the flow of battle to also make sense. In the tweeted pic, not being allowed to go from Spec Ops Training and cap Arroyo Tore does not make sense. I know it's just a concept pic but I don't want restrictions in the game that are arbitrary and illogical like that. If they can tweak the "lattice" to avoid such arbitrary hard restrictions then I'd be more open to it. I do like the Neutral Hex ides though, if it's mainly used just in the more open areas.

I understand what you're saying but adjecency is equally random. By the same line of argumentation, I could take it one step further state "I'm here, thus I should be able to hack this right now and create my own enclave". (Whack-a-mole enthusiasts like that though and I don't think either of us like that).

The example you give though is rather arbitrary. Just because there's a road doesn't mean there should be a link. With complete free roaming as we have now, as you state particularly in the north of Indar, players keep missing each other and no field battles form, nor can you fall back. That's the goal of this mission. Those roads can also allow for reinforcements, flank and support attacks and simply different vectors of attack. Just because it's there but has no link doesn't mean you won't make use of it.

And yes, stopping continuos backhacks is annoying. But IMO they should be discouraged by doing things like :

making backhacks visible on the cont map without having to mouseover the territory
making facilities more defensible and thus harder to backhack/easier to resecure
including the ability to see Ally Activity for the whole cont (we already get Enemy), or better yet, a tactical overlay like PS1
letting us see gen status for every friendly territory on the cont map, not just the one you're in.
letting the chat window stay visible on the screen so you don't accidentally miss important intel relayed via text (yes, some of us use it for something other than trolling the other factions )
letting anyone with Command Chat cert use /Orders, not just SLs

Such tools give players the ability to make faster and smarter choices, letting them better deploy troops for offenses, resecures, etc, but still leaving said choices ultimately up to the players.

Agreed.
Agreed - should include instant resecure if the base is still owned by you, tbh. That primarily helps smaller groups fight larger groups (larger groups would otherwise win anyway).
Reveal Friendlies ever 15 minutes was quite useful, though somewhat under used in PS1. Most people used it to check for ANTs. We kinda have this on the main map already, but a similar coloured region system for friendlies should be possible. Note that I do believe we should have fog of war. It's annoying to get so much intel on VS/TR fights.
That includes outpost ownership (those next to bases). In fact, we need a status window pop up like in PS1 after double clicking on the base.
Agreed. And ffs have /re fixed! (And make it /b )
At the very least increase the amount of orders. Once every 5 minutes? I needed 3 messages in PS1 to explain the plan, provide info updates and motivate people. I also agree it should be available to more than the squad leader. Possibly allow the squad leader to assign a couple /c positions.

The whack-a-mole syndrome is caused by lack of strategic intel, proper command and communication tools at our disposal, and the piss-poor defensibility of most facilities against a vehicle assault. See my list above.

That and the capture system and rules. Clearly with the same base layout, lack of intel and communication tools, even worse defensibility and all that. Whack-a-mole was much worse with multiple random enemy pop up and capture points to hold per base (still see it in Bio Labs and some towers) and before the adjecency rule was instated. We came across people who just sent their squad to take 12 points at once with one guy each prior to adjecency. We still regularly make three points turn at once with three people in squad. Adjecency is just a bit too unrestricted. I'd have prefered the hex to provide the influence factor, with a lattice (2-4 links per region) that follows the roads and terrain.

And for rules, that includes the current lack of one-sided link-locking. Remember when you'd hack an enemy base to block them from hacking yours in PS1? Pre-emptive strikes on Andvari would block all access to Dagda and would get you the initiative on an enemy home continent. That sort of thing is missing here: taking control of the initiative and forcing a response. Currently nothing is forced, making it easy to avoid all responsibilities.

Yep I agree, we don't want a free-for-all. But too much restricted flow is also bad. See PS1's Hossin, where the only 2 possible attack routes to take the cont were either a super-long interlink hack (Qumu) or LLu run (Cetan), or the long march through every single outer base on the cont, one at a time, with no deviation possible for 3/4 of the map.

I'm not saying that PS2's "lattice" implementation will be like that, but there does need to be a middle ground. I fear a "lattice" ps1-style or not, might be too restrictive.

That's PS1 Amerish.

But I've always said the capitals were a horrible idea and forced too much (counter-)clockwise duo-route capturing, with one route being next to non-viable. I've hardly seen any fights over Verica since the Capital Shields were introduced. :/ Hossin had the same thing with Naum-Acan and Bitol-Naum due to Voltan though. Then again, the Naum holds were epic fights that would leave players wanting for years. But without Voltan being such an obstruction, the fights for Naum would have been a lot more fair and fun for those coming from the west.

That's why I've continuously said, more restricted, but not too. Certainly not with three, four times the numbers per continent. However, 12x as many links per continent is way too unrestricted. IMO, the most you should have is around 10-13, total (defense + offense targets). More becomes too incomprehensible for too many players and allows too much ghosting.

Or just as bad, trying to kick an enemy out of the Wele/Aja/Bomazi corridor on Cysoor due to the impenetrable Bomazi fortress.

Tbh, Bomazi was easy to take. :x Just needed some good strategies. Double/Triple Sundy drop on backdoor or front door (not Gals, you see those coming too early near Bomazi), Routers and of course if you still had to come over the bridgehead: amphibious flanking with Thunderers.

Bridges are for nubs, after all.

A little bit of creativity went a long way in PS1 and with Mightymouser (pretty much my style of PS1 play) you shouldn't ever have any problems with Bomazi or other interlinks. Just don't first push them back inside. Make a decisive strike before they're all huddled up inside. And if that's the case, nothing a good routerpad wouldn't fix.

There is too much ghosting now, I agree. [...] In either case it's a wasted trip.

Agreed with all, with the notion that the hex lattice system's openness amplifies or is amplified by these issues. None of them are entirely standalone and fixing one of these won't magically fix the lot, which I'm sure you can agree with.

What we don't need is more arbitrary restrictions that force us to go in certain directions.

Pretty much agree with the rest, just one point of critique: I don't think these are arbitrary restrictions, but necessary ones. The trick will be to design the maps such that they flow right. What I fear will happen is that with maps that have already been designed without any such flow in mind, an illogical (even if necessary) flow is imposed.

They should have created continents with this in mind from the start. But Malorn was the first to work on it from what I gather. Makes sense, otherwise they had never started with the whack-a-mole gameplay in tech test. :/

Noxxia · 2013-03-05, 10:56 AM

Without trying to sound like a jerk, I honestly do not have the time of day to read everything posted, so if these points were made or argued, I apologize, and I'll go look for them. There are some problems I see off the bat.

This screenshot is taken from the best and easiest part of the world to implement a new system. Battle basically flows through those canyons as it is, so I find it hard to see how it's much different. So how does this solution plan to take effect in the more open terrain such as northern Indar and Esamir?

From my experience battle flows significantly better on Esamir and Amerish when it happens there. I think a big part of this is the terrain, combined with the number of bases. Esamir has more open terrain, but to to balance that out there are fewer bases. Amerish, while having more bases, has more natural choke points. Indar has open terrain in the northern areas, with massive amounts of small "meaningless" bases. This is where the problem comes. I honestly think the devs understand and have embraced this for future maps, as demonstrated by the Amerish design. What I hope though, is that rather than implementing a Lattice or Lattice-like system, SOE first tries to solve the problem with fixing maps.

While Esamir and Amerish aren't perfect, they're significantly better than Indar in terms of combat flow. But all the action occurs on Indar, so very few players actually know this. Because the map design alone creates better flow, I believe an Indar revamp needs to go into effect before SOE implements a lattice system that players who don't even play on Esamir or Amerish are crying out for, when they don't understand how much map design effects the flow.

The problem I have with Lattice based gameplay is it is not dynamic at all. Certain paths become will become more meaningful than other paths and what players will end up finding is that fights will be easier to find, not because the map pushes in a predictable way, but that they're always in the same locations, as you'll see massive forces making no significant progress against each other. In a very microcosmic sense, it'll be like Metro in BF3 for anyone who's experienced that. Everyone fights over the B point, and rarely does it push beyond that. Rather than one Crown, there will be 3 or 4. This is how PS1 was from what I remember and I think people are living in the world of nostalgia when they want a Lattice or Lattice-like system similar to PS1. Even now, if I want to join the fray and fight big battles, very little progress is made. The only time I really see new parts of the continents and have small battles elsewhere are when going off on side operations to smaller, less populated portions of the world.

I think it's in their best interest to redo Indar before implementing a Lattice system. I don't think anyone would disagree that Indar could use some work, as it was SOE's first map and a learning experience. Not only would this make Indar more fun, but it could naturally push towards better flow of battle, and hopefully make players realize how unnecessary a Lattice system is. This could reduce the work SOE needs to do due to player demand.

When utilizing world design the game allows for freedom and battle can still flow quite nicely. The Southeast portion of Indar is a good example of this. The canyons force players down various routes, but give them the ability to choose where to go. The difference here is that currently, a large force can split and take two bases, while all coming from one. Sure, this makes it harder to defend, but if you get swarmed by a zerg at one base, without at least coming close to matching the size of that force, defense isn't going to be much better at the next base in a lattice system. This is because numbers clearly win out in Planetside.

This also doesn't solve the potential of a Galaxy dropping people onto an empty base. I cannot disagree that a Lattice system would solve this potential problem that would still exist after map redesign, especially on a continent with so many bases. The idea behind revamping game play via map redesign, lattice, or any other ideas out there, though, shouldn't be preventing ghost capping, but solving the flow of battle.

All that being said, I do believe something should be done to help flow, but a Lattice system and trapping people in a Rush style of gameplay is not the answer, yet. I would like to see some map redesign done in problematic areas and maybe some smaller non-lattice changes go into effect before completely redoing how battle flows.

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-03-05, 12:46 PM

Man, whenever someone tells me fps player are dull and just want to shoot stuff in their game i will point them to this thread.

And since i don't have anything more to add here at this time i will just say let's see how the changes will affect the game. I mean that's what a beta is for, right? RIGHT?

:J

Fenrys · 2013-03-05, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

You could fill neutral areas with structures that spawn strategic caches one every so many minutes/hours. The caches could be captured king of the hill style, and provide some temporary bonus to whoever is nearby when the cache is captured.

Things a cache might contain:

-Resource extraction deployment patch. Infantry with the right certs can deploy a nanomagicwand that will create a destructible resource extractor. Each friendly extractor in the area contributes to the size of the resource tick coming to each empire from that area, as well as giving xp to the characters who deployed the extractors. There might be extractors from multiple empires in the same area at the same time. Each area has a maximum number of extractors that may be deployed at once.

-For 60 seconds after the capture, the ability to spawn a supply truck that you can drive to a friendly base/outpost that will increase the resources given per tick from the base/outpost delivered to for the next hour.

-One or more customizable Heavy Battle Tanks, common pool 3 seat tanks. Let bidding for them begin when the capture finishes, a 60 second window when the terminals are active and players can set a maximum they are willing to pay to get a tank. The actual price of a tank increases as more people announce they want tanks also. A large enough force would end up paying 750 for their basic heavy tanks (but everybody can still get a tank), while a smaller one could maybe save a few hundred resources on each basic frame and apply that savings toward getting their tanks equipped with better armor/engines/treds/brakes/2ndary weapon upgrades like AA or AV specific.

MrBloodworth · 2013-03-05, 01:54 PM

We should be Hauling Resources back to the warp gate, in unarmed, escort required Vehicles, for dissemination.

Hows that for Strategic value to bases and logistics?

unAimed · 2013-03-05, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

We should be Hauling Resources back to the warp gate, in unarmed, escort required Vehicles, for dissemination.

Hows that for Strategic value to bases and logistics?

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

bpostal · 2013-03-05, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by unAimed

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

Meh, ANT runs were a kind of break. Hit autorun(drive) and you could do it one handed. Plus it could net a couple thousand free XP.
Grab a buddy with a loady and you can top off half a dozen bases in 5 min.

The real fun from requiring ANTs and NTU is it's ability to stop day(s) long fights, or conversely, keep them going with last minute drop offs into a hot CY.