Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Orbs in new ONS/WAR

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Originally posted by JZL View Post
    I know we don't play Torlan that much, but some, and that's at least some indicator. In some ways Torlan highlights more than the other common maps the problem with single-prime design, as the prime is 1) relatively far off, and 2) the path to it from the Core is way too exposed. The main problem with Torlan and the orb is the center node orb spawn, but that could be an easy fix.

    IIRC, the main thrust of what Veggie, or whoever it was, was saying was that the distance and delay of the winning team having to carry the orb across a big map to get it to the EP was a good thing, as it gave the losing team a better opportunity to re-group, with or without the use of their orb. For instance, in Torlan, the losing team could maybe make two orb runs to their nearby prime while the winning team could only make one orb run all the way across the map in the same interval. And perhaps that's a zero-sum thang. The bigger map hinders offensive use of the orb but helps its defensive use. Maybe this is also why the devs put an orb spawn in the middle of the map but it backfired because it spawns there instead of at the core regardless of whether the team that controls that node controls its own prime (and thus the orb is spawning halfway across the map when the team really needs it to be spawning at their core-- experienced WAR players know what I'm talking about)

    All that said, yes, it would be fun to test all this.
    I totally disagree with this. I'm sure someone will come in and tell me that getting the center node is stupid and I don't know what I'm talking about. I have been in several matches where someone has gotten the center node and we came back and won the match. If the team coordinates properly the center node can be useful. This is how I see it. It gives you another spawn point and vantage to attack from. You get the cicada which can be helpful to get the tank out of play and you can keep attacking the prime with it.. You also have the shield belt right there and the jump boots and beserk are up top. The manta needs to go there for the tow, so again you need proper team coordination. The main problem is that you don't spawn there, you need to use the teleport at the base. I'll look and see if I still have the matches on video, but I probably don't. Another solution for Torlan would be to put a tank at the base and remove the tanks from the side nodes.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bobba_Novis View Post
    I think it would be fun to have some testing of the orb vs no orb on the ONS map remakes. It's been years since I played most of those maps. The thing is, you need to have sufficient numbers of players to do so. Maybe that is something that can happen if enough players are willing to participate.
    I know we don't play Torlan that much, but some, and that's at least some indicator. In some ways Torlan highlights more than the other common maps the problem with single-prime design, as the prime is 1) relatively far off, and 2) the path to it from the Core is way too exposed. The main problem with Torlan and the orb is the center node orb spawn, but that could be an easy fix.

    IIRC, the main thrust of what Veggie, or whoever it was, was saying was that the distance and delay of the winning team having to carry the orb across a big map to get it to the EP was a good thing, as it gave the losing team a better opportunity to re-group, with or without the use of their orb. For instance, in Torlan, the losing team could maybe make two orb runs to their nearby prime while the winning team could only make one orb run all the way across the map in the same interval. And perhaps that's a zero-sum thang. The bigger map hinders offensive use of the orb but helps its defensive use. Maybe this is also why the devs put an orb spawn in the middle of the map but it backfired because it spawns there instead of at the core regardless of whether the team that controls that node controls its own prime (and thus the orb is spawning halfway across the map when the team really needs it to be spawning at their core-- experienced WAR players know what I'm talking about)

    All that said, yes, it would be fun to test all this.
    Last edited by JZL; 08-01-2015, 08:11 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I have played Alien Sands with and without the orb, and have to say I liked it without the orb better. Its just very hard to get back your prime if the enemy team locks it down with the orb. But on the other hand if you do get it back, you can use the orb to win back the map really fast.

    It will be nice when ons gets made, because I think the community can really help Epic balance things out. It would really be nice if someone would BP the game type up and use the UT3 assets to get things rolling. We could make some non vehicle maps to test some things out, sure it wouldn't be the same, but maps like sinkhole and market could do for now, and I'm sure we could make some new maps that might be fun until the vehicles get made. Come on Epic a year is too long to wait, I'm starting to get bored of playing the Same 3 warfare maps every weekend. Heck I would even donate money to get this rolling.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think it would be fun to have some testing of the orb vs no orb on the ONS map remakes. It's been years since I played most of those maps. The thing is, you need to have sufficient numbers of players to do so. Maybe that is something that can happen if enough players are willing to participate.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think I agree with the thesis that the orb has less value on the maps with more "Onslaughtiness." I don't agree that it becomes useless or not worth carrying. It's use on maps like Torlan, Dusk, and Alien Sands contradicts this. I think someone, maybe Veggie_D, specifically outlined it's use on WAR-Torlan in one of those older threads from last year.

    Originally posted by JoeWilcox View Post
    The Orbs were an attempt to solve a big problem with Onslaught, that it was nearly impossible to shift momentum when a team began to lose. ONS games typically degraded in to a 30 minute slog where one team knew it was going to lose, could do nothing about it and just had to play D until they lost. Orbs were an attempt to fix that. When we do ONS in the future (my best guess would be sometime late 2016 but that's just a GUESS so no holding me to it) I think we will explore other ways of fixing this issue. Orbs just had too many other downsides.
    I'd be interested to hear what the dev's think are/were the downsides of the orb.

    Lastly, it doesn't seem that the idea that the orb increased teamplay has been addressed or discussed in this new thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Bobba_Novis View Post
    ...
    Everything in that post is objectively, 100% correct. ^^


    "Influence of Orb is inversely proportional to Onslaughtiness of map."

    In fact, this little axiom could explain why, empirically, even when a pub WAR server full of ONS lovers (represent!) would vote in a classic ONS remake map, e.g. Crossfire/AlienSands, they usually didn't also bother voting in the NoOrb mutator. In such maps, while the Orb added a modest layer of depth and helped comebacks along, gameplay was pretty rock-solid with or without it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    The biggest differences between ONS and WAR was the map size and number of nodes

    The biggest differences between ONS and WAR was the map size and number of nodes.

    Let's do some comparisons;
    All the stock WAR maps had 1 to 4 nodes, except one. Most had some sort of count down or extra vehicle node. Most WAR maps were smaller in size than ONS, with the distances between nodes significantly shorter that ONS maps.
    The only stock map with 2 prime nodes was Dusk.

    Exactly what would the orb do on a map with 10 or more nodes and multiple prime nodes? Would it even be worth carrying? IMO, it's not worth carrying it in larger maps.

    Why do I think this?
    First, on a large map, nodes are far away, so you need a tow. That's 2 players needed for the orb. That in itself may be fail.
    Second, it will slow you down if you can't get a tow. You cannot take it in vehicles. Even with the hoverboard, will the orb make up for the players time lost? Maybe sometime and sometime not, it's a gamble.
    Third, the orb makes you easy to spot and shows your location to any snipers. So, your dead, respawn, and you just wasted alot of time.
    Fourth, if you have the orb at a node that gets unlinked, you just wasted more time.

    At best, it could help you regain your lost prime node and save the core damage. It could also be used to defend a node, that would delay attackers from capturing a node until they killed the orb runner. That's equal to killing the players healing the node. The orb does not protect the player in any way, it makes him easier to spot, a bigger target.

    The orb works well in the smaller maps, but it's of limited utility on larger maps, maps with multiple prime nodes, and maps with 6 or more linked nodes. We learned that from playing the ONS map remakes.

    Anyone interested could test this on a UT3 WAR server with the ONS remakes. Play a match without the orb and then one with the orb. It won't make much of a difference if you have enough players.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    We need more orbs! When you spawn, there will be a giant wall of orbs for you to pick from: a shield orb that when used on a friendly node gives it extra shielding, a poison orb that when used on an enemy node makes it easier to take down, a redeemer orb that when used on an enemy node causes the node to count down from 5 then explode like a redeemer (and makes it neutral), speed orb that can be consumed for a temporary speed boost, anti-car orb that gives whoever has it UDamage against all vehicles, freeze orb that when used on any node instantly becomes frozen and can't take any damage for a limited time, mushroom orb that when consumed transforms you into a titan, transformer orb that turns you into a tank, moon orb that when used on a node gives the area around the node low gravity. The possibilities are endless!

    Also, change the gametype name to Orbfare.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Wow. It's nice that's there's actually a resurgence in interest in WAR at all, let alone about the orb. We're not anywhere even close to even having a prototype vehicle, let alone a pre-alpha of the gametype itself are we?

    There are some well thought-out points here by some very good players, worthy of a more closer read.

    If the consensus would be as suggested above that the orb should be retained but perhaps nerfed a little bit, I think I discussed in one of the earlier threads simply limiting its capping functions.

    An orb-cap would not instantly switch control of a node from one team to the other.
    If the node is controlled by the other team, capping it will simply neutralize the node so that it would then have to be built up the old-fashioned ONS way.
    If the node is neutral or only partially built up, capping it would only then instantly give the capping team control.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by 8thGradeDropout View Post
    The idea about having multiple players grapple the same vehicle is basically the same concept. In ONS, one of the drawbacks was when an inexperienced/temperamental player got the manta and instantly took off without passengers, and even worse not to your primary node to build it, which instantly doomed your team to a loss and the typical ONS stalemate condition. While perhaps not exactly the same experience, people describe this same exact issue in relation to who controls orb in WAR often.
    In a typical public WAR match or even round, there's going to be at least one, if not many, poor orb runs. Those orbs are pretty much wasted, and the entirety of the run becomes "dead time" (just for the orb). And no, it's not that the orb run "just didn't pan out this time"; usually, the orb runner willfully or ignorantly commits to a bad orb run from the outset (e.g., takes a poor path, chooses a poor target node, rushes headlong into heavy resistance alone, or does not adapt to changing map conditions). For each poor orb run, the orb is effectively removed from play for 30-60 seconds. That's hardly unrecoverable and does not automatically result in lost nodes (i.e., no tangible loss in field position), certainly not a round loss; however, an unknown amount of potential offense in the form of momentum or pressure is lost.

    Don't make the mistake of assuming that the orb is responsible for all or even most node gains/losses. From an old "rage"post:

    Originally posted by ctr2yellowbird View Post
    To inject some facts into this thread for everyone's benefit, I looked at some footage I have from decent public matches and recorded the number of fully built nodes destroyed, nodes successfully built without the orb, and nodes captured with the orb. Slight margin of error with double-counting...

    Map Nodes Time Destroyed Built Capped
    Downtown 3 linear + 1 unlinked 17:36 15 15 11
    Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 9:46 12 11 12
    Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 9:29 10 9 11
    Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 5:30 7 9 2
    Floodgate 3 linear + 1 unlinked 10:23 7 7 17
    Floodgate 3 linear + 1 unlinked 21:29 23 35 36
    The takeaway is that the orb may account for roughly half of the node changes in a typical game of WAR. Thus, the orb has minimal influence over the other half of node changes, and those changes were accomplished the good ol' ONS way.
    If you take away the orb, what's really left? To me, it's just a duality of choices - I can push side node, or I can push main path - that's extremely simple tactically.
    Oversimplified. The "rush mentality" is so bad in the current meta (let's pretend UT3's stagnant player pool allows for a dynamic metagame (it doesn't)) that prime nodes are regularly left completely unguarded (e.g., Downtown without a camping vehicle), save for the players spawning at them and hurrying to their deaths outside. When I unretired from UT3, I came to the understanding that I'd often need to prop my team up defensively to slow their bleeding and to provide a foundation upon which offensive pressure could be mounted.

    There's also the roles of interference/counter-offense (i.e., preventing the rush outside your node) and special operative (i.e., dedicated special pickup control and timely use, and pressuring unlinked nodes). With the orb, there's also the dedicated orb taxi, who should be an interchangeable orb runner on an as needed basis.

    But with the orb, the whole game becomes a very monotone battle of orb's clashing head to head - sure, the pace may have increased (which is needed), but it did so at the cost of creating a real sense of meta-strategy in the game type.
    No. Orbs don't "clash head to head", and orb runners don't usually have to fight each other. Indeed, a good orb runner tries to catch a node during a defensive lull or when the enemy orb is away or out of play (press F1 to see if an enemy is holding their orb), and a good team(mate) will recognize that and focus, distract, or kamikaze attack the enemy orb runner who is defending their orb runner's target node. On the flip side, as an orb runner I'm responsible for protecting my team's nodes even after leaving them, and I will make a judgement call about aborting an orb run if I see the enemy orb threatening a friendly node on the minimap.

    The only part of WAR that is really monotone are the futile rinse-and-repeat deaths that arise from attacking entrenched enemy teams (e.g., assaulting center node on Avalanche or enemy prime on Downtown). Even so, there's usually several different approaches a player can take to accomplishing an objective in WAR, and it's the player's own fault for repeatedly choosing the same low-percentage tactic rather than pursuing alternative methods.

    You're being intellectually dishonest if you claim the orb somehow precludes WAR's capacity for stimulating any metagame-level decision-making, as defined here, unless you're referring specifically to considerations born from non-linear node pathing, which has everything to do with map layout that the orb merely informs. WAR, if not the entirety of UT, has a very forward-oriented metagame: we basically know how to proceed in some common situations as if on autopilot because we've been in those situations so often, especially after playing some maps a couple hundred times. A conscientious player will plan for their enemy's tactics before, during, and after a confrontation, but we basically already know what we need to do next and how to do it. The rest is do or die (i.e., execution). Our metagame for a handful of maps has mostly matured, meaning creativity is dead.

    I've mentioned it numerous times at this point, and even extensively detailed some of the concepts (mostly in another thread), but no one has really responded. For me, it's the first discussion topic because of how much it effects, and how many problems it solves. My response to "should orbs be included by default?" is "Give me good reasons why we should keep the core", and then we can go from there. Put another way, I can think of numerous problems the core creates, and by removing the core, the game play experience will become better - do you disagree?
    ...The simple and obvious, really, argument in favor of having a core is focusing players and gameplay. That extends to linear node pathing too. The counterbalance to this design paradigm is decentralizing gameplay. Thus, cores and nodes are about structuring gameplay. Forcing players into the same areas also increases opportunities for sporadic, emergent cohesion or teamwork, and a core- and node-based gametype helps mappers mold and control the player experience. I think there's more arguments for fixed map orientation, or "sides", than against (i.e., ability and speed of a player to evaluate their position, orientation, and next objective).

    My main concern about vDOM as it relates to a thread about ONS, WAR, and the orb are the ramifications of spreading out players. WAR players generally want to dispel and avoid the notion of "DM with vehicles", and a vDOM variant would arguably be a step in that direction. I'm worried that players will be even more inclined than they already are to mess around fragging rather than directly contributing to winning the game. I suppose I should add that I have not yet played one DOM variant in any game that I actually liked, but my major issues could be avoided in a UT implementation should those discussions arise.

    Not really related to this thread, but I was thinking an objective vehicles gametype could be enhanced where the winning team's score = the health of enemy core. Scoring would definitely need overhauling and maps would need more careful planning and tailor-made mechanics (gimmicks), but I think there's much to be gained from eliminating the WAR adage "score doesn't mean contribution". That would further benefit and maybe even "fix" score-based matchmaking since contributions become very quantifiable, and we could greatly broaden the scope of WAR to include major non-core objectives, for instance. If nothing else, my whining could easily be verified .

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    let's vote on it democratically and equally, one soul, one vote! each vote holding equally infinite potential to support/endorse and lobby ideas into the game.

    Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
    +1 +1





    8th's proposals tend to ... shall we say, get lost in their own verbosity ... but his "No Cores" idea has some merit:

    Basically, in a map of N interconnected nodes, define "game over" as the instant a team gains control of any (N – 1) nodes.

    I like the general "No Cores" idea, as it would lead to more fluid and varied gameplay on maps with cyclic node-graphs (e.g. Dawn/Dusk ... one can imagine WAR-Torlan with nine nodes this way, too). AFAICT existing map designs need not change, either: what was once a Power Core and its larger surrounding "base" structures and assets could be regarded as just another Power Node location to be controlled, albeit one of particularly high value.

    My only concern is with the "N – 1" rule being too unintuitive. I appreciate the rationale for both this and the "auto-shielded final node", i.e. to ensure that the defending team always has at least one spawn location.

    But we can do better for the sake of simplicity: just define "game over" as destroying all of the opponents' nodes. As to spawning, again, keep it simple: whenever all of a team's nodes are under attack, allow players to spawn at any of them.

    This system would work just as well, offer just as much depth of gameplay, and — critically — would be so much easier for beginners.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    i think there should be orbs like football players holding them going for the opposite field for a touchdown. i also think there should be fumbles and recovery and interceptions!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think you need the core, or something substantial to shoot at, for the metric. It does not need to be called a core. I think there must be an obvious substantial objective to hit. If all there is, is a timer counting the times the teams have node control, while that idea may work, it's not very exciting. One exciting part of having cores or something to shoot at, are the cases in which both are under attack at the same time. There were many ONS maps like that. Most of the ones remade for UT3 were like that. That made for an exciting match!

    It may be the core location or implementation is poor in many ONS maps, for example I remember many that could be shot at 1/2 or 3/4 of the map away. The core should be hidden or implemented in a way that makes it's challenging to shoot at. In order to shoot the cores in most WAR maps, you need to get close and place yourself in the line of fire.

    I think many anti orb and anti hoverboard folks have pre-conceived notions about how the orb changes the game. I think that's the result of having very little if any actual experience playing with them. I hear comments that do not hold up to reality or are greatly exaggerated. I hear the same types of comments and analysis about the hoverboard. It seems many folks with little to no experience playing UT3 are quite expert in why they do not like it.

    While the orb is very useful and even critical on some maps, on others it's not. On maps with multiple prime nodes and multiple linked nodes, it's use is limited. On maps remade for UT3 like Dria, Desert sands, etc, the orb is not that useful. We rarely used it on those maps, because you did not need it.

    I played UT2 ONS starting in 2004 until the online community dwindled. I played pretty much all the ONS maps and still have them on my hard drive. I have been playing UT3 since it was released. I have played all the ONS to WAR remakes. These remakes typically had more nodes and were larger in size than stock UT3 maps. With UT4, most of the differences between UT2 and UT3 are moot. In UT4 the same, weapons, movement, and vehicles will be used for everything. So, differences will be very minimal compared to the differences in maps.
    Last edited by Bobba_Novis; 07-24-2015, 08:21 PM. Reason: grammer

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Infra` View Post
    +1 mate. I still haven't heard a good reason on why ONS and Warfare can't coexist.
    Originally posted by Bobba_Novis View Post
    I am also a fan of ONS, this is the public server fun. As I said, I will play both. I remember Dria, Desert Sands, and so many others.

    I want a competitive vehicle mode with nodes! Like I said, you don't need orbs on every map. I will play both!
    +1 +1



    As far as the core, it's a metric to decide the winner. What alternative metric do you propose? There must be a winner.
    8th's proposals tend to ... shall we say, get lost in their own verbosity ... but his "No Cores" idea has some merit:

    Basically, in a map of N interconnected nodes, define "game over" as the instant a team gains control of any (N – 1) nodes.

    I like the general "No Cores" idea, as it would lead to more fluid and varied gameplay on maps with cyclic node-graphs (e.g. Dawn/Dusk ... one can imagine WAR-Torlan with nine nodes this way, too). AFAICT existing map designs need not change, either: what was once a Power Core and its larger surrounding "base" structures and assets could be regarded as just another Power Node location to be controlled, albeit one of particularly high value.

    My only concern is with the "N – 1" rule being too unintuitive. I appreciate the rationale for both this and the "auto-shielded final node", i.e. to ensure that the defending team always has at least one spawn location.

    But we can do better for the sake of simplicity: just define "game over" as destroying all of the opponents' nodes. As to spawning, again, keep it simple: whenever all of a team's nodes are under attack, allow players to spawn at any of them.

    This system would work just as well, offer just as much depth of gameplay, and — critically — would be so much easier for beginners.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by 8thGradeDropout View Post
    In ONS (2k4) you could ride vehicles . . . starting strategies heavily revolved around how many people could jump on the manta(s), where they were dropped off, and where the manta then attacked. Yes, it absolutely made clangames more interesting - thinking up unique starting strategies for every map was one of the best things about ONS, because it lead to genuine meta-strategy and countering opponents strategies. Of course, the greater the node interconnectivity, the more possibilities for unique starting strategies.

    The idea about having multiple players grapple the same vehicle is basically the same concept. In ONS, one of the drawbacks was when an inexperienced/temperamental player got the manta and instantly took off without passengers, and even worse not to your primary node to build it, which instantly doomed your team to a loss and the typical ONS stalemate condition. While perhaps not exactly the same experience, people describe this same exact issue in relation to who controls orb in WAR often. But what are the solutions to these problem?

    In context of ONS, it's important to realize that the main reason someone taking off with a vehicle without passengers hurt so much was because of the importance placed on the "node race" and downing your enemy's prime node (aka the choke node). The first two minutes of the match should matter, but not dictate the entire match (momentum); shifting to more of a capture-n-hold model (no core) would alleviate the consequences of a bad beginning and allow the losing team a chance to fight their way back (allow them to shift momentum). Riding on vehicles is only a problem at the very beginning of a game, and ceases to be an issue if choke nodes are fully addressed.

    In context of WAR, it seems having a "noob" take the orb could happen at any time during the game. But short of removing the orb, what is the solution? While reducing the power of the orb may alleviate some of the consequences of a "noob" getting it, most of the suggestions I've seen still keep the orb a focal point of the game play, and thus the importance of orb control remains.


    But ultimately, it all comes down to this:


    If you take away the orb, what's really left? To me, it's just a duality of choices - I can push side node, or I can push main path - that's extremely simple tactically. At each step along the way, the choices don't change. Without the orb, the center path is just a linear, repetitive slugfest with no higher sense of objective . . . this node layout NEEDS the orb to even really make sense. But with the orb, the whole game becomes a very monotone battle of orb's clashing head to head - sure, the pace may have increased (which is needed), but it did so at the cost of creating a real sense of meta-strategy in the game type.

    The fact is, the orb was introduced in UT3 WAR, and so now there's a lot of fans of that style of gameplay - particularly the idea of orb runners, which gave it a vCTF vibe. The problem is, part of the reason some people liked ONS was because it didn't have that . . . in 2k4, vCTF started out as a mutator, and never came close to the popularity of ONS. But then WAR was announced and "BAM!", they had completely morphed the game type into something barely resembling what it was, giving it an orb-centric / vCTF style game play element. For me, as an ONS fan, it was the most disappointing sequel video game release of all time.

    It sucks because it really creates a lot of division amongst the people wanting a vehicle, objective based game type. Not to mention all the vehicles / hoverboard that were added in UT3 as well. WAR and ONS really are pretty different games, and it will be impossible to fully accommodate both groups (much like the double jump / dodge jump debate). Nevertheless, I'm against the "make it a mutator" mentality, and rather try to create a single, prominent, objective based vehicle game type (outside vCTF). Although I don't view things like the orb / hoverboard as favorably as many here (strong UT3 presence it seems at times), I would be willing to compromise on pretty much anything except for one thing . . . more node interconnectivity (which strongly suggests the core needs to removed).

    I've mentioned it numerous times at this point, and even extensively detailed some of the concepts (mostly in another thread), but no one has really responded. For me, it's the first discussion topic because of how much it effects, and how many problems it solves. My response to "should orbs be included by default?" is "Give me good reasons why we should keep the core", and then we can go from there. Put another way, I can think of numerous problems the core creates, and by removing the core, the game play experience will become better - do you disagree?

    Of course, I recognize that a WAR fan may be hesitant in agreeing with this, because more node interconnectivity suggests the role of the orb may possibly be diminished - in fact, it's intended purpose may become totally unnecessary. In which case, yeah, they might disagree (lol), but I'll point out to the WAR fans, that Epic (Joe) has suggested in this thread that the orb may be removed and/or they will "explore other ways of fixing this issue" (the issue he describes as "momentum shift" is strongly related to what I call "choke nodes"), so it may be in your (our?) best interest to start envisioning the future WAR/ONS without the orb. I'll also point out I have already offered, with much written and rationalized, an "other way" to address this (and that's only a fraction of all I could type).
    I think riding the manta, cicada, raptor, and fury is a great idea. We need to have that as well.

    Have you seen the fling? We have competitive matches weekly on public servers. You can see that and more. Our matches are on you tube, anyone can watch them and see the action. Gamedoutgamer, records the matches and does critique on our play. It's in HD! He does a great job! Check it out.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/gamedoutgamer

    I am also a fan of ONS, this is the public server fun. As I said, I will play both. I remember Dria, Desert Sands, and so many others.

    I want a competitive vehicle mode with nodes! Like I said, you don't need orbs on every map. I will play both! As far as the core, it's a metric to decide the winner. What alternative metric do you propose? There must be a winner.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X