Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

    I just finished a fustrating and fun round of TvT at Corazol. I believe we were BlueFor (attacking), and we certainly had our butts handed to us throughout most of the round, which saw much fighting at hill 101.

    In the last third of the game I took over as forward command, our CO had succumbed to command fatigue (which I completely understand). After regrouping my section one, I ordered section two to draw the enemy West, and keep them busy. This they did with much loss of life, but they did what was necessary nonetheless. The enemy was focused on them. It is not uncommon in war to make such demands of your men.

    Meanwhile, I took section two, a small 4 man squad, far North, then West, and finally in the last minute of the game (quite literally) we walked into the West HQ, and ended the game in a tie.

    I was quite disappointed (but not heart broken) when someone accused us of 'gaming' the game (perhaps he was just speaking in good humor). I am sure that this 'gaming' is done on occassion, but I do not see how that would apply to a strategic flanking maneuver that took into account enemy patterns of activity, anticipated their reponse, and achieved a key objective.

    Many victories, or simple ties, are achieved in the last moments of a contest. Why diminish our accomplishment?

    It seems to me the defending forces foolishly left their rear completely unguared. They left their net open, they pulled their goalie.

    And we scored a tie goal.

    Gaming or effective strategy?
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

    Consider this. Every time that your team put a foot in the "capture" buildings earlier in the round, we responded in a matter of minutes and cleared it out. This resulted in a temporary control of an objective for your team, but had no long-term impact.

    The fact that you were able to send a handful of people into an area that you could expect to be lightly or not guarded at all, due to a variety of factors (I can detail those if you'd like), and "capture" it something like 10 or 20 seconds before the round ended, with the knowledge that there would be no opportunity for retaliation - yes, I would call that "gaming".

    The question I have is directed towards the mission maker, who I will assume is beta. Beta - is that a legitimate tie? Is that your intent with the mission, or had you simply not considered the possibility and had not scripted in a "sudden death" or "overtime" contingency (which would be perfectly understandable)?

    As I said previously, you can't lose a mission for 89m40s and then put your boots inside of a building for 20 seconds, without chance of retaliation, and then call that a tie. Casualty-wise, it didn't look like a tie. Objective-wise, I think it could only be called a tie if you consider the end state - basically, four blufor within one block of enough redfor to clear them out of the building in a few minutes' time - to be legitimate. But, again - that's a question for the mission maker.

    Add 5 minutes of overtime to the mission at that point and I think we all know what the end state would have become.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

      I'd have to say, it was an overwhelming victory for Opfor. Two MBTs, multiple trucks, and dozens (atleast up to 70) Blufor infantry killed. Opfor took atleast half of the blufor casulty count and kept Blufor on Hill 101 most of the game.

      From an objective standpoint, you could call it a tie but as Dsylecxi said there was enough heavily armed Opfor guys standing around waiting for blood. This is a tie only in "gaming" context. In a Strategic context, Opfor crushed Blufor.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

        I'd have to look at the code, but I THINK it is either REDFOR victory (BLUFOR does not hold both), BLUFOR victory (BLUFOR holds both). I don't recall making a tie condition, but hey, it could be in there.

        Didn't take into account a last second capture.

        Didn't think a little text line would make such a commotion. I played that mission through and through. BLUFOR suffered a total defeat IMO. We lost our armour within 10 minutes of the start, lost all but one of our trucks within 15 minutes, and at the end, we had probably 1000 rounds of ammo available total.



        It was a fun round either way, lots of nice firefights, the whole POINT of the mission. The objectives were designed to be ALMOST undoable for the BLUFOR, it may seem frustrating, but it makes for some good firefights, which is the fun part IMO.


        After playing these missions a few more times, I found some bugs in the gameplay, always find some after some play testing. I will be working on these again, getting them up to date with the latest features (wounding script, dialogs, etc.) and also making some gameplay changes.

        Some of these changes should make it slightly easier to work with when there is a lower number of players, also should make some maps more "fair" (ie: Masbete Line; removing the cannon rounds/AT5s from the BMPs, also removing Strykers from BLUFOR, focus is on the infantry fight, not vehicle sniping from the massive hill).

        Overall, I am pretty happy with how these missions are playing out. The respawn system seems pretty good, you are back in the fight, not too quick, not too slow.

        The only major problem I find (this is 100% players), on the last round (Corazol Chokepoint), EVERY SINGLE enemy I shot was using a BLUFOR weapon.

        WHY does everyone immeadiately change for enemy weapons? To confuse the enemy? Your teammates? It's cooler? WHY?


        It has come to the point where I am considering FORCIBLY removing the weapons if the try to take them. This limits possibilities, but also limits stupidity.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

          Taking the opposing sides weapons is a legitimate way of confusing the enemy. That's why we did it.


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

            Originally posted by beita View Post
            Didn't think a little text line would make such a commotion. I played that mission through and through. BLUFOR suffered a total defeat IMO. We lost our armour within 10 minutes of the start, lost all but one of our trucks within 15 minutes, and at the end, we had probably 1000 rounds of ammo available total.
            Good to hear it. That's my opinion as well. Nothing against BLUFOR, they put up a fight, but that one last-second capture doesn't change the entire battle.

            WHY does everyone immeadiately change for enemy weapons? To confuse the enemy? Your teammates? It's cooler? WHY?
            Confuses the enemy, primarily. Get on a flank with an enemy weapon and they may not figure it out soon enough. Also, it uses up the enemy ammo supply and preserves yours.

            It has come to the point where I am considering FORCIBLY removing the weapons if the try to take them. This limits possibilities, but also limits stupidity.
            Seems a bit drastic and unnecessary.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

              Originally posted by Dslyecxi View Post
              ...

              Also, it uses up the enemy ammo supply and preserves yours.
              ...

              Seems a bit drastic and unnecessary.
              Drastic perhaps, unnecessary, that's debatable.


              The whole point is to have limited amounts of ammo. When you simply use enemy weapons, you are essentially cheating a game mechanic, no different than running into a zone at the last 10 seconds of a round to make it a "tie".

              AT weapons should be the only real exception.


              I'll give it some more play testing, but I can see it being a major problem and yet another way players can "game" the system.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                So wait, if someone picks up an enemy weapon in real life, they're exploiting a game mechanic of real life?
                The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. ~
                I have a tendency to key out three or four things and then let them battle for supremacy while I key, so there's a lot of backspacing as potential statements are slaughtered and eaten by the victors. ~
                Feel free to quote me. ~

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                  My job for both rounds was to serve as a picket and disrupt your reinforcement attempts IOT reduce your available manpower at the front (both in time lost getting back to the front and effort spent tracking me down and securing the rear areas in the future).

                  In this situation, picking up enemy weapons makes sense; I was behind enemy lines and BLUFOR was both in front and behind me. Assuming BLUFOR had proper communication, it would be quickly known that there was an enemy using friendly weapons in the area, but there would still be confusion as to where exactly (especially since I relocated after every skirmish). With the tactical advantage this provides, I was able to survive longer than I would have been with a standard AK.

                  As far as "gaming" the system goes... my mindset is that if I can find a way to assist in our victory that does not violate a specific server rule, does not exploit a fault in the game itself, and does not ruin the game for everybody out of just being flat out lame, then it's fair game. Picking up enemy weapons served a legitimate purpose in those particular rounds for me -- I don't do it to be cool and it's not SOP for me every time I run by a dead guy. Had I been part of the assault team, I would have used our standard weapon. This mindset is further illustrated when bobik tasked my detachment with the destruction of the vehicles BLUFOR used to shuttle reinforcements. Since they do not respawn, their destruction provides a real advantage to our team. If they did respawn, it still may have been worthwhile as part of a coordinated attack, but it would have had a much more minor purpose and he may have decided not to use the resources on it. I suppose this could be considered gaming the system if it's not what the mission designer intended, but part of the art of designing a mission is taking into account what players might do once they get into the game.

                  In the Corazol map, a single M1 Abrams hull down on the hill overlooking modesta could have dominated the entire modesta valley with it's superior magnification and probably survived until it ran out of ammo. This can be considered vehicle sniping I suppose, but it's also using your assets to their strengths. It's not lame IMO to employ them in such a way as part of an overall effort. It might be frowned upon to use vehicles in this manner in the server, but I'm sure losing them in the first 5 minutes isn't what the designer had in mind either. Strykers might have been a better choice rather than Abrams (as it has lower magnification so couldn't vehicle snipe as effectively, and therefore and might provide more balanced gameplay).

                  Dropping buildings with a BMP in the earlier round for instance was a novel way to take out well protected defenders, reducing the risk to the assaulting team. I suppose that too could be considered gaming the system if that's not what the designer intended the BMP to be used for. But once the mission starts, the commanders may employ the tools you as a designer give them in ways you might not have expected, and that's part of why designing a mission is an art and not a science ;) tweaking the BMP's and removing their missiles may help, or before the round the teams may have a gentleman's agreement not to do things of that nature. Luckily limited ammunition reduced how many times that could occur (otherwise it could have been pretty lame).
                  Last edited by Burncycle; 10-28-2008, 01:09 AM. Reason: Minor tweaks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                    I had some fun on these missions, some good fire fights but it really does highlight the fact that some kind of SOP's are needed in alot (most) areas when playing tvt on TG Arma.

                    * comms - hate to beat a dead horse but again comms tonight was horrible, constant over-talking, very hard to hear, its not the players fault its the system. Using TS + direct and squad VON would solve the problem, but TS is not setup properly to have 2 teams (TVT) to fight each other in different channels. Since TS use is not enforced, unless you start the mission with a platoon leader that ALWAYS enforces ts useage (which so far there is only 1 or 2 platoon leaders doing that) you will always have this problem.

                    * suppression fire - seems players still dont grasp this basic concept of firing at the enemy to keep them surpressed in a fire fight. Suppresive fire is not being used unless ordered to do it. THis should not need direct orders, squads should just DO IT. I guess some form of training or practice would be needed to encourage these type of tactics to be used more.

                    * ambush drill. When your squad gets ambushed from point blank and your buddy goes down, its not the time to go prone and freeze up and just sit there, not saying anything and just hoping to god the enemy doesnt see you. You need to listen to your squad leader and react to the contact quickly, effectively and violently! Too many times I saw squad members just freezing up upon contact, not calling out hostiles and just generally being very confused about whats going on. Were all new to playing tvt as its not played very often so I can understand players apprehensiveness and confusion, I made a bunch of noobish mistakes tonight too. I think continuing to play TVT will get player skill up, and playing less and less brainless coop will help to stop the brainless lonewolf tactics that players have seemed to get entirely used to when fighting the vanilla ArmA AI.

                    * squad formations and cohesion. From what I seen, needs alot of work. Most enemies I encountered in alot of the missions tonight were strewn about, with maybe a buddy with them, but rarely in any kind of organized group. I dont know about you guys but I really enjoy fighting an enemy that has their **** together and fights as a squad, just like I enjoy team mates that fight together as a squad. This is a basic concept but it seems to not be used all that often. I guess its too easy and tempting to just lonewolf it and try to take on everyone by yourself, get a couple kills and then move on, like john rambo. This is unfortunate but it seems to be a common attitude that most players default to if there is no compelling leadership taking charge during a TVT mission. Removing the killer counter I think would help with this but not eliminate completely. If TG ArmA is ever going to hope to resemble a realistic combat environment, the players have to realize that THEIR ATTITUDE towards the game affects the realism of the game more than anything else! If everyone is running around like rambo, it doesnt matter how many awesome tactical mods and amazing new realistic textures, vehicles, factions and weapons you pour into the server. If the attitude of the players is to behave in an unrealistic fashion, then the gameplay will always be unrealistic. You can argue all the points of whats realistic and whats not, but I don't want to bring that discussion up with this post, I just want to say that staying with a group and moving as a cohesive group that are communicating I think is what most people consider "realistic" and just plain fun, both when your fighting bad guys doing this and your team mates are doing this. SO just keep that in mind next time you find yourself all by yourself and your blindly rushing toward the general direction of the bad guys - YOU are the one bringing the quality of the server down.

                    * squad regrouping and logistics. In a respawn mission, its inevitable that you will loose squad members or even the entire squad. Leaders need to be able to expect casualties, and be prepared to deal with reinforcements coming from rear areas. Alot of what happened tonight was squads getting killed and then trickling back one by one with little or no cohesiveness. Not very effective and as was seen over and over again, attacking the enemy reinforcement route is a very succesful tactic, especially if the reinforcements are not responsive or acting as a unit. Squad Leaders need to plan ahead of create fall back points and rally points, where they will muster their forces and fall back if the squad takes too many loses. If all squads did that it would go a long way to making the battles less chaotic and more organised, so even if a team was getting their butts kicked (like BLUFOR was on corozal chokepoint) then they will still resemble an organised fighting force and not just a bunch of bots tard rushing up a hill ;)



                    Grambo you did a good job platoon leading I didnt see why you stopped, plans dont ever go perfect, important thing is to keep positive attitude and learn from mistakes. Keep at it I think you did a good job until you stopped communicating then I wondered where you went :(


                    Mission comments (mainly for beta):

                    - I know on some of those older shacktac adversarial missions (the ones on those tiny islands and those ones where you pick the location) there was a script at the end of the mission that described how many casualties on both sides and it gave different levels of success, depending on how many for each side. Could something like this be done for your missions? Or at the very least, at the end of the mission, post the ticket counts for both sides, and also post any vehicles destroyed? Just posting the info would be nice, but one step further would be calculating a win / loss margin, which is not as important I think but would be kinda nifty.

                    - A feature that I would like to see that I dont know if possible or not, but I would find it handy myself (just because of my background lol) would be an action button for squad leaders that would automatically place a map icon on their current position, with their section number and "RP". So if you are 1 section leader and you press the action button "Set RP" it would automatically place a marker on the map where you are currently at "1 Section RP" and it would delete the old marker if you had placed one. I know this can simply be done by squad leaders manually, I just think squad leaders would use this kind of thing much more often if it was as easy as hitting a button once, instead of stopping, opening hte map, scrolling around, finding the old marker, deleting it, putting the new marker, typing what you want it say, and making sure the marker icon is the right icon and right color. Its a pita that I think makes squad leading more annoying in arma than it needs to be for respawn missions. However I dont know if it would be an even bigger pita than its worth to code.... so anyways just an idea to help get squad cohesion up by making an easier standardized waypoint system for squads.

                    - I think the Corozal mission was an overwhelming victory for redfor, i think that was prety clear for both teams. It was not grambo's fault, but the team cohesion was just not high on blufor side, and the fact both tanks were taken out within first 10 minutes of the mission kind of spelled doom to the blufor right out the gate. Dunno if anything needs to be changed in terms of balance, I think it needs more play testing (especially with all the updates that have been made but not applied yet on the server).


                    True "Objective" of a Mission:

                    I think the key thing here is not to dwell on who lost or who won a mission. I think the truly interesting and rewarding missions are the ones that make it fun to be on both the losing and winning teams, regardless of the final outcome. What happened during the game tonight, was prety interesting: Lots of firefights in varied terrain, lots of ambushes and counter ambushes and flanking, fighting in urban, open ground and wooded areas. I think it was some good fun that lasted a while. At this point in TG Arma (esp tvt) I would like to see players (esp leadership) less concentrated on the actual objectives of each mission, and more concentrated on just LEARNING HOW TO PLAY. I think you can ask most TG ArmA players and they will agree, they are not very good at playing in an organised squad in ArmA and have alot to learn about squad tactics, ESPECIALLY when it comes to player versus player. I would love to see less emphasis on lone players going to that 'perfect' spot by themselves cause they know its the best place in that mission to get the most kills as quickly as possible. Instead of just going for frag counts it would be nice to see emphasis on moving as a unit, covering each other, defending key locations as an entire squad and not as lone individuals, staying in constant comms with everyone else, etc. I think if the TG server continues to play tvt missions week after week, the playerbase will gradually progress and get more leadership and cohesiveness, but understand that its not about just "winning" its about how to get to that point.



                    Anyways, glad that there was a decent turnout tonight, was over 20 players at one point and for a monday night with ONLY tvt being played, that aint too bad :)
                    Last edited by fuzzhead; 10-28-2008, 01:44 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                      So wait, if someone picks up an enemy weapon in real life, they're exploiting a game mechanic of real life?
                      Thanks for the sarcasm, helped the discussion tremendously.



                      In the Corazol map, a single M1 Abrams hull down on the hill overlooking modesta could have dominated the entire modesta valley with it's superior magnification and probably survived until it ran out of ammo. This can be considered vehicle sniping I suppose, but it's also using your assets to their strengths. It's not lame IMO to employ them in such a way as part of an overall effort. Maybe the mission designer didn't intend for it to be used that way, but nor did he intend for them to be lost in the first 5 minutes... and really if it's too one sided that's a design issue. If you give clever fellows cool toys, they're going to find clever ways to employ them and think outside of the box if the obvious approach would be too risky -- if that's not something a mission designer intended then that's a mission design issue, not the fault of the guys in game (unless they were violating a specific serve rule). Maybe give them a stryker instead of an Abrams (as it has lower magnification and might provide more balanced gameplay).
                      Part of the mission design was to give the BLUFOR overwhelming force, the REDFOR wouldn't want to venture out of the city, because the tanks would decimate them. When the tanks are dead, its fair game. A tank sitting on a hill covering the city is fair game IMO. That's what they are there for in this mission, making sure any obvious targets are dead, and nothing can get out of the city.


                      This mindset is further illustrated in bobik tasking a team with the destruction of your resupply vehicles -- since they do not respawn, their destruction provides a real advantage to our team. If they did respawn, it still would have been worthwhile as part of a coordinated attack, but it would have had a much more minor purpose and he may have decided not to use the resources. I suppose this could be considered gaming the system if it's not what the mission designer intended but that's part of the art of designing missions.
                      No, I completely intended the destruction of transport to be high-priority. It teaches people the hard way; take care of your ride or your stuck walking.


                      My job for both rounds was to serve as a picket and disrupt your reinforcement attempts IOT reduce your available manpower at the front (both in time lost getting back to the front and effort spent tracking me down and securing the rear areas in the future).
                      At least now I can understand a bit better why the people I was fighting were always using our weapons; that's what they were told to do. We never really got into the city, so I guess we were just fighting the picket the whole time.


                      The vehicle sniping comment wasn't really meant for the Corazol mission, it is not as big of a problem there. For the mission in Masbete, it is a lot more pronounced, as the hill near Masbete has a utterly commanding view over the entire town. Coupled with the very destructive armament of the BMPs, it played out much differently than I intended, that's what play-testing is for.



                      I don't think it will be as noticeable of a problem with the new gameplay mechanics, since removing an enemy corpse is basically one body closer to their defeat, there will probably be less weapons around to trade up with. Thanks for the good replies and the good game, when designing (and re-designing) future missions, I'll understand a bit better what works and what doesn't.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                        Our groups were more organized than you think. Using communication, we would split one section into 3 or 4 different individual units and send them in from all angles. It was a lot easier and safer than attacking your defensive position on Hill 101 as opposed to moving in a group with formation and possibly getting ambushed and annihilated in one go. It was a "Guerrilla" tactic of sorts but that's what we had been reduced too since you guys were sneaking teams into the Western HQ and sorta picking off anyone not in a building.

                        The teams that responded to your incursions into our HQ's were organized and in a team though.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                          Originally posted by beita View Post
                          Part of the mission design was to give the BLUFOR overwhelming force, the REDFOR wouldn't want to venture out of the city, because the tanks would decimate them. When the tanks are dead, its fair game. A tank sitting on a hill covering the city is fair game IMO. That's what they are there for in this mission, making sure any obvious targets are dead, and nothing can get out of the city.
                          The intent was sound, but you can't regulate it that way. Actually, the tanks were exactly the reason we were ordered out of the city. With the threat of enemy armor and not knowing exactly where the enemy was coming from, bobik knew that a defense in depth was the only way to ensure we have the best chance of responding to and defeating any attack. In fact, the only time we considered going back into the city and turtleing up was after the tanks were destroyed, because then it's infantry with no fire support against well defended positions.

                          Furthermore, in the beginning we were considering just defending one of the objectives due to the small number of players, rather than spread ourselves out trying to cover both. That would be kind of lame since the objective is to protect both, so bobik ended up permanently stationing a team at one objective to defend it, then sending small teams and pickets out to locate and disrupt BLUFOR as they advanced towards the city, and a small mobile reserve detachment to respond to any that leaked through (thus covering both the second objective to some degree, as well as being able to rapidly respond should the well defended objective get into trouble). It worked well mostly due to communication. Once an enemy was found in the city the response was pretty swift, although BLUFOR was able to put boots on the less defended objective long enough to claim a capture in a lull between reinforcements.

                          No, I completely intended the destruction of transport to be high-priority. It teaches people the hard way; take care of your ride or your stuck walking.
                          Well done then :)

                          At least now I can understand a bit better why the people I was fighting were always using our weapons; that's what they were told to do. We never really got into the city, so I guess we were just fighting the picket the whole time.
                          Indeed. And with decent communication, once a picket stopped responding it was easy to deduce where the enemy was and will likely be coming from.

                          It was interesting, I caught a small BLUFOR team on hill 44 to the northwest of Corazol by chance (I just happened to be looking back towards the city). A miscommunication on my part led to our ATGM BRDM rolling right up to them and getting destroyed, but a detachment was able to respond and take them out. But from there on out it seemed like BLUFOR just decided to concentrate on the southern axis of advance only for the next hour, which ended up being a total meatgrinder for them. By the end there, other than the permanent defense team everybody was concentrating on responding to the southern push. BLUFOR could have snuck a brigade along the northern axis of advance and we probably wouldn't have noticed until they were in the city, and we actually figured that was their plan, but for some reason they kept pushing the southern route right up until the end of the game.

                          The vehicle sniping comment wasn't really meant for the Corazol mission, it is not as big of a problem there. For the mission in Masbete, it is a lot more pronounced, as the hill near Masbete has a utterly commanding view over the entire town. Coupled with the very destructive armament of the BMPs, it played out much differently than I intended, that's what play-testing is for.
                          Indeed. I was convinced BLUFOR was going to send an anti-tank detachment up that mountain and nail the BMP from behind simply because from a commander's point of view the mountain is a perfect place to overwatch the entire city, but it never materalized. I can see why you'd want to remove the ATGM's though, we were dropping buildings left and right :)


                          I don't think it will be as noticeable of a problem with the new gameplay mechanics, since removing an enemy corpse is basically one body closer to their defeat, there will probably be less weapons around to trade up with. Thanks for the good replies and the good game, when designing (and re-designing) future missions, I'll understand a bit better what works and what doesn't.
                          It was fun :) keep them coming

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                            all i gotta say about that whole mission was the order to send the MBT to the front line ahead of any inf was such a bad choice.
                            and probly the reason why bluefor did so poorly i mean redfor can say they lost there bmp's soon after but i think for the atking team that armor is so important.

                            also our teams leadership wasnt quite up to par..not so much the leaders fault we didnt get true order till the last 15 mins when emale and fuzz got together but by that time we were pushed so far back it didnt matter..

                            all things however it was fun like always.

                            i just cant stress enough ppl learn how to use tanks they always seem to just get wasted(wat i mean by this is tanks arent ment to be on the front line alone...they are ment to sit like 1000m away and rain death from a safe distance)

                            fuzz brought it up and i think i should aswell...to many ppl cared who won does it really effect your epeen that much if u win?....i mean who cares aslong as the game is fun thats all that should matter
                            Last edited by Airdrop420; 10-28-2008, 04:06 AM. Reason: forgot one thing

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: TvT at Corazal -- A Tie or "Gaming" ???

                              Sounds like a very interesting and fun evening.

                              Fuzz I have never met anyone whose "Avatar" goes so well with their posting style! ;)

                              Good feedback and discussion here peeps, good to see! Burncycle looks like my kind of player, namely get behind enemy lines and make a royal nuisance of yourself! Quality!

                              Grambo, well done on taking a PL role with this pack of hungry wolves! A lot of experienced players by the sounds of it and it takes time to learn how best to use them, but congrats again for taking it on.

                              I was not on this evening as I was in discussions and emails about the servers and a few ideas with regards COOP and TvT here at TG, stay tuned for more.

                              BD1
                              BlackDog1




                              "What we do in life... echoes in eternity!"

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X