PDA

View Full Version : FINALLY! Multiplayer Info Up @ TeamXbox



LORD BLACKFIRE
22nd Jan 2009, 00:05
http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/2191/Battlestations-Pacific/p1/


In addition to this second long campaign, BattleStations: Pacific is crammed other ways to play. Namely the multiplayer modes which we got to play at an event co-publishers Eidos and Warner Bros. hosted on the USS Hornet, which has been converted to a floating museum in Alameda, CA. Perfect setting, considering the ship we were sitting on actually went through some of these battles. There are five different multiplayer modes that can be enjoyed with up to eight players at a time. They are:

Escort Mode: Just like it sounds, you have to escort some units and prevent them getting attacked by the other side. You’ll take turns playing assassins or bodyguards, and you can only control one pre-determined unit at a time. This mode is supported on all eight multiplayers, each map with a specific scenario for each side, making for sixteen in all.

Siege Mode: Once again you’ll only control one unit at a time, chosen from a preset pool, but instead of protecting a moving craft you’ll be protecting an island from an incoming onslaught. Islands are dotted with artillery and AA, so its not an unfair fight whether you’re on the attacking or defending side, each of which has its own scenario.

Competitive Mode: Sort of a co-operative mode without the co-operation. All the players are on the same side, fighting an A.I. controlled fleet, but they’re competing against one another to score the most points for defeating enemy assets. How pissed will you be when someone steals your kill in this one?

Duel Mode: Sounds a bit like deathmatch at sea when you think about it. It’s everyman for himself, with each player controlling one unit of a specific type. So you might have eight destroyers attacking one another, or eight battleships. Cruisers and Fighters are your other two options for a mode that sounds like it could be a lot of fun, if not completely void of any historical accuracy.

Island Capture Mode: This is the big daddy, everything-goes mode. Two teams of up to four players square off on a map that features a bunch of islands with supply points and bases on which new planes and ships can be created by spending command points (which you get for doing stuff like capturing islands and taking out enemy forces). Capturing neutral and enemy bases unlocks more factories that will allow you to build different types of craft, but you also receive victory points that will ultimately crown a winner.

At the event on the Hornet, I played a pretty decent 2v2 battle versus some guys from the studio and PR. Playing as the Japanes side with one other guy, we quickly started thinking about dividing duties, one guy concentrating on planes another on ships, coordinating our attacks on enemy islands with paratroopers landing on freshly shelled enemy positions, and landing craft hitting the beaches after being strafed a few times by the Zeros. Of course, once my Fuso class battleship hit the lagoon, I thought it was over for the other guys. But wave after wave of torpedo bombers were too much for it and stopped it just short of its big guns being in range of the enemy command point. Then next thing you know, the tide turns and the rest of task force slowly gets chipped away at by the ridiculous number of planes they have in the air. Game over. Some may feel the somewhat realistic pace is a bit too slow, but after a 45 minute match that might have gone on even longer, I’m not complaining.

Who knows if BattleStations: Pacific will be the breakthrough title for the nascent franchise, it might still be too wonky for many. But for this fan of the first game, and its amazing ability to blend exciting action and complex strategy, it couldn’t be more fun.

LORD BLACKFIRE
22nd Jan 2009, 00:25
Hey Chip,

Can you find out if we'll still have the standard multiplayer mode from BSM where two teams square off against each other WITHOUT the island capture aspect?

I can't imagine they'd completely take that out (unless they are holding it back just for DLC for $$$ later).

Polarshark
22nd Jan 2009, 00:32
thx lord blackfire

wow wonder how people like you quickly find new info

LORD BLACKFIRE
22nd Jan 2009, 00:44
Just watched a multiplayer info video on Gamespot. http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/strategy/battlestationspacific/video/6203386/battlestations-pacific-multiplayer-first-look-interview

Same deal.

NO hint that our standard BS:M multiplayer mode is included.

This is bad.

I'm smelling DLC (because I can't believe Eidos is that stupid to take out what's kept us playing for 2 years now).

Somebody please say it ain't so.

Polarshark
22nd Jan 2009, 01:05
yep they took it out alright

and that's stupid, battlestations series is all about multitasking but just controlling 1 unit for some of those modes, that's horrible

and i thought skirmish was gonna be against the AI, a plain deathmatch similar to BSM

well the best i say they can do for DLC

is new units or new map, new modes or hey the best of all to end the series is a map editor or some sort similar

Kreutzberg
22nd Jan 2009, 15:19
I am a bit concerned by this development. I'm sure the island capture mode will be quite fun, and it looks to have significant strategic depth, but it is the only multiplayer mode with more than one unit under each player's command (escort, duel, and siege only have one unit and competitive doesn't count as "multiplayer" in my book). The problem is that there is no variant that allows for reasonable control of multiple units with the finite assets like in BSM.

Thus, how could we do a game like Samar, where one side is profoundly different than the other? I suppose that could be duel or escort, but that would sort of dumb down the game to one unit at a time. I also wonder if that "one unit at a time rule" means that there will be no aircraft carriers, because they create more units.

Island capture is what the Eidos team is betting the farm on, it seems. I think it will indeed be good, but is simply incompatible with setting up a very specific battle. The other modes can set up a specific battle, but are dumbed down to single units.

ricbar89
23rd Jan 2009, 01:10
I want to go to a skirmish screen, set me a fleet, set the AI or another person a fleet, choose a map and options and let us fight it out. Thats what the whole community has been asking for. But after waiting all this Eidos aren’t going to deliver it again?

If they don’t im not getting Pacific, sorry I haven’t waited all this time to take control of 1 ship or be limited to a single mod otherwise.

Sorry if i seem overly harsh but im not keen on wasting any more time on something that isnt going to deliver what i want.

Shamrock
23rd Jan 2009, 06:40
My guess is this is their way to make the game more "mainstream" (IE easier). In the first game it was hard for new players to come into a game and take control of 3-6 units (especially if people quit or the game started with less than 8 players).

I'm guessing they are doing this to make sure people can't get overwhelmed with a lot of units to control.


This sucks for experienced veterans of the series, but it probably makes sense for Edios as a whole who are trying to give this game more mass appeal.

lardassmonkey
23rd Jan 2009, 12:29
I agree with you chaps; where is the standard MP mode? The one that is the reason we are all still here? Lets face it we didn't stick around for the love of the single player did we? :whistle: It would be a big mistake to remove that from the lineup.
It certainly sounds like they're concentrating too hard on attracting new players whilst neglecting the existing player base that has made this second game possible.

As for these new modes; well the Island capture mode sounds fun and I look forward to playing it but as for the rest I have my doubts.

The escort & seige modes are a good idea but the single unit allowance is just daft. This is meant to be a tactical game, how can you really play tactically with just one unit each? Its going to seriously limit the replayabilty of those game modes. Plus what happens if the teams are uneven? What happens if players drop out of a game? Do you still only get one unit each?

I also don't like the sound of this unit 'pool', it makes it sound like random unit will spawn in the middle of the battle each time a player loses their unit. :hmm:

Competitive mode? Whats wrong with standard Co-op against a more powerful AI team? Stick the scoreboard at the end of the round like in BSM and people can compare scores if they want to be competitive.

Deathmatch? Not for me thanks but I guess it could be useful for new players as a mode where they can learn the game in Multiplayer or settle dispute over 'who am bestest'.

This whole one unit each thing really has me worried. BSM to me is primarily about massive battles with lots of units and I was hoping for it would be on an even grander scale in BSP. Instead it sounds like it just being dumbed down and resticted just to make it easier for players with no patience or willingness to learn (just like the rest of the media & entertainment industries I guess :rolleyes: ).

ricbar89
23rd Jan 2009, 15:06
You know its funny, i made this post in Jul 05.

http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=73275

And here after reading about the different mods available im thinking exactly the same thing again.

Wasted potential, once again Eidos after making this engine that can handle large scale naval engagements are going to limit it to a few mods, most limiting you to a single unit.

:mad2:

The island capture sounds great and i will play it, but what is so hard about letting is choose a map, whether it be open sea or islands, choosing a fleet for ourselves and the AI if single player or another human opponent, and letting us fight it out until the last fleet standing?

:confused:

I hope were mistaken or Eidos decide to add this, or as someone who been playing since that post was made, i am just going to forget about Battlestations.

Just give us the options, streamline it for new people yes, but at least add the options for us who want them.

-Incline-
23rd Jan 2009, 19:01
If they take out the standard BS:M multiplayer mode, I will lose all faith I ever had in Eidos.

eff that.

It3llig3nc3
23rd Jan 2009, 19:28
Guys, Guys Guys,

Let's take a step back. Now that we have some valuable info in our hands about multiplayer all I see in this thread is complaints about what is MISSING. This is really absurd.
Think for a moment that you're the developer or the designer and read these responses. How would you feel? Not even an acknowledgment that compared to BS:M there are 5 different approaches for battles other than the normal single player campaign??? If I were them I would be pissed as hell.

Secondly - You guys keep forgetting that we as the "hard core" forum members are absolutely and ultimately MINORITY in the general player community. I had to realize this in the hard way when I was sitting in the beta focus group of 12 people realizing that my viewpoint (aka strategic oriented) is a solo one!
How many of us are here as regulars? 20 at best!

You need to realize that unfortunately general player population consist simple people. (sorry I do not mean to under valuate them). If you want to sell thousands of copies you need to listen to general crowd. On this aspect I'm confident EIDOS did its homework. It is not a random choice to have these kind of options in the game. It is the result of focus groups and tests.

As for the 5 multiplayer modes.

The "simple" modes (one unit or limited scope) are designed for people who just have 15-30 minutes to "kill" with that game. You come in, shoot the hell out of a unit, you leave. This is it. Do not tell me this is an impossible need or scenario.

As for the Island Capture mode - this is the real meat. You get a HUGE map and the option to have AI or human opponents. (biggest map is 20x20 which is 4 times bigger than in BS:M).
You get a certain amount of points and you're free to buy units as you please. When I did my testing in one round I had some ships and air-force and started to take out islands. Second round I decided to buy an army of PT boats (10-12) and roamed the waters. It is really up to you.
Just like in games like this the main objective is fixed but the way you can achieve it is many. The beauty of it is that by playing this type of game you can create ANY of the BS:M multiplayer map situations depending on how the struggle on the huge map unfolds.
A type of "Solomon Island" scenario unfolded when we were battling with the enemy from neighboring islands. Suriago Strait type of battle is when you try to push through your few heavy ships and your opponents throw everything at you. and the list goes on.

You guys are really fast reacting and writing off the game - well this is understandable because you do not have 1st hand experience. But because of this you need to be more careful.

I'm still looking forward the game and I'm 100% sure many of you my fellow "regular" forum members are going to be very very happy after the first few battle. I bet on this.

-----

PS: there was one thing that made the Island Capture mode a bit limited at the time I beta tested: the unit cap that was put relatively low at that time. One side had 1200 "points" (if I remember correctly) to buy units. This was divided amongst the players on the side. So on 1vs1 one player was allowed to buy units for 1200 points. On 2vs2 (we played that way) each of us had 600 points. The trouble was that one BB costed 200 points, smaller ships less, the "cheap" PT was 50 or 60 (can't remember exactly). So assuming a 4vs4 battle having 300 points is not a lot.
When asked we were told that these limits exists because of memory limitations on XBOX360. Allowing more units would mean the memory and network bandwidth won't be enough to make it work. If you think the total 2400 points is equivalent of 12 BBs!! That's a LOT!

LORD BLACKFIRE
23rd Jan 2009, 22:34
Guys, Guys Guys,

Let's take a step back. Now that we have some valuable info in our hands about multiplayer all I see in this thread is complaints about what is MISSING. This is really absurd.
Think for a moment that you're the developer or the designer and read these responses. How would you feel? Not even an acknowledgment that compared to BS:M there are 5 different approaches for battles other than the normal single player campaign??? If I were them I would be pissed as hell.

Secondly - You guys keep forgetting that we as the "hard core" forum members are absolutely and ultimately MINORITY in the general player community. I had to realize this in the hard way when I was sitting in the beta focus group of 12 people realizing that my viewpoint (aka strategic oriented) is a solo one!
How many of us are here as regulars? 20 at best!

You need to realize that unfortunately general player population consist simple people. (sorry I do not mean to under valuate them). If you want to sell thousands of copies you need to listen to general crowd. On this aspect I'm confident EIDOS did its homework. It is not a random choice to have these kind of options in the game. It is the result of focus groups and tests.


It is not absurd and I doubt they are pissed. We are not their source of happiness and self-worth. We are their customers and are trying to point out what we believe may decrease our enjoyment of the game before it's released. :thumb:

A quick look in this forum and other places should reveal that we have been trying to help out the dev team. Not only have we given up our time to give them feedback, we have expressed our concerns with the lack of promotion by Eidos' marketing team and even tried to suggest ways to improve the game's exposure. We have spread the word both on Xbox Live and other websites. :o

I have NO PROBLEM with the multiplayer modes as described but I also want to play the mode that has kept us playing for 2 years now as well.

Your line of thought does not hold up. Basically you are saying that the standard mode was too intimidating for the masses and they've had to dumb down the multiplayer modes to attract more customers.

Okay, add more noob modes and one possibly great mode. That's fine and I hope it pays off. But where your logic fails is that you DO NOT REMOVE WHAT HAS WORKED. You simply add more modes and a better tutorial to both build up player confidence and skills and give those less skilled a place to congregate.

No potential customer is going to say "I heard that game was too hard to play on multiplayer. I want an easier game." There are a ton of popular hardcore games out there: Halo, Call of Duty, Madden, Rock Band, etc. that put the lie to that line of thinking. Also, games are not reviewed based on multiplayer! They are only reviewed on the single-player aspect due to printing deadlines. No little kid is going to even know the game is "too hard" to play, esp. if the noob modes are included.

It's ludicrous to think that the devs sat down and said: "Okay, what was good and bad about BS:M?" and then decided to scrap the one good thing, replace it with several untested modes, and improve on the worst part of the game, the single-player.:nut:

That's why I don't think they have. Instead they are planning on offering it as DLC for $$$ after release. By then the noobs will have either increased in skill or bailed out. The hardcore crowd will (they are betting) be ready for the real multiplayer mode and willing to shell out $12-15 for it (and it may already be on the disk - you'll be paying to unlock it). The end result will be that you are paying $75 to play the game you want. :mad2:

At this point, I'm thinking about holding off on buying the game, which really pains me to say considering how many hours I've put into BS:M. :hmm:

Instead I may wait until reviews come out, I hear from friends, and the DLC. By then I might be able to pick up the game for a lower price and deprive Eidos (I'm sure this is not the devs decision) of the extra cash. Hopefully I can find it used and really screw them.

I'm still hoping a dev will say somewhere that this is a big misunderstanding and there is a way to turn off the unit spawn points on Island Capture. But like you said in another thread, if they saw something they didn't like they'd let you know. They have not said a word on Facebook, here, the new BS:P website, or Xbox.com's forums. I can only take their silence as confirmation.:(

It3llig3nc3
23rd Jan 2009, 22:59
No potential customer is going to say "I heard that game was too hard to play on multiplayer. I want an easier game." There are a ton of popular hardcore games out there: Halo, Call of Duty, Madden, Rock Band, etc. that put the lie to that line of thinking. Also, games are not reviewed based on multiplayer! They are only reviewed on the single-player aspect due to printing deadlines. No little kid is going to even know the game is "too hard" to play, esp. if the noob modes are included.


I respectfully disagree. I saw a lot of reviews now and in the past. The few about BS:P as well. Read them through carefully. Everybody who is not hard core BS:M struggles with the "complexity" of the game. I do not believe this is because it's so difficult, but more because of the nature of this title: borderline between action and strategy. My take is that despite all our "wishes" as hard core fans the game goes towards being more action oriented with some efforts to try to please the "strategic mind".
Like it or not this is what seems to be the case.



I'm still hoping a dev will say somewhere that this is a big misunderstanding and there is a way to turn off the unit spawn points on Island Capture. But like you said in another thread, if they saw something they didn't like they'd let you know. They have not said a word on Facebook, here, the new BS:P website, or Xbox.com's forums. I can only take their silence as confirmation.:(

Their silence is not their confirmation. I said this before many times but does not seem to stick to the minds: the DEVs are not allowed, I repeat NOT ALLOWED to communicate about the product. They are under NDA. Period. The only communication about the game is done through EIDOS London HQ with their explicit approval. Believe me the DEVs would have an awful lot to say but they can not.
I have debated this practice a lot on this forum - but nobody picked up the line. Nobody is bothered about this strange practice. But again: fact is a fact.

------
Finally: regardless of what you say one things stands out in this thread: displeasure. And let me have the right not to like it. If you read my comments you will see that I can "beat" EIDOS hard on many things. However it does not mean they do not deserve appreciation on things they have done. Frankly, having 5 multiplayer modes is a good thing, isn't it?

LORD BLACKFIRE
23rd Jan 2009, 23:13
I respectfully disagree. I saw a lot of reviews now and in the past. The few about BS:P as well. Read them through carefully. Everybody who is not hard core BS:M struggles with the "complexity" of the game. I do not believe this is because it's so difficult, but more because of the nature of this title: borderline between action and strategy. My take is that despite all our "wishes" as hard core fans the game goes towards being more action oriented with some efforts to try to please the "strategic mind".
Like it or not this is what seems to be the case.


It still doesn't explain removing what kept the game popular.

Sure, add the 5 new modes but leave the other one in.

Basically Eidos is saying "let's disregard the people who bought BS:M. We don't want their money anyway. We'll get it from the masses of noobs. Our exemplary marketing department can sell anything to expectations." (::::cough cough:::: Tomb Raider :::cough cough::: )."

I don't think Eidos is in a position to turn down money so I still don't see the reasoning behind not including what worked and they know we like. If it's a development time issue they could have gone with 4 new modes and then the classic mode.

The point should be to keep the fans you have and then expand.

If a restaurant is surviving off regular customers but wants to attract more, it should not dump the most popular dishes. It should simply add a few more items to the menu. Dumping what works risks failure.

It3llig3nc3
24th Jan 2009, 00:14
Well OK.
I hear what you say. Yet there are a few things to consider - in my mind.

1. If I want to be funny I say that give it a day or two when mycoldman comes on board and will say that we all completely misunderstood everything and the multiplayer is just fine :D (look what happened with the power-ups and related stories - I'm still waiting to see the reality on those BTW)

2. You claim the multiplayer was the part of BS:M that kept it afloat since 2007. I have to agree. However we also notice that the playing community is not so huge. Moreover even amongst the ones playing are only a handful who is a "competent" player. This on-line presence (I can speak of the PC not the XBOX360) is really nothing compared to other top notch multiplayer games.
Question is why is this happening?
My opinion is that the success (if we may say like that) of the BS:M multiplayer is not really a result of a choice more so a lack of options. People are playing this because there is nothing else. SP campaign? A few skill tests. All scripted so replayability is limited.
No map editor and no permutations of the maps.

So you keep playing the same 5-6 maps over and over again - and hoping a good game with good opponents and mates. Not a great perspective.
What shows that even on-line players are "afraid" of strategy is the response when you offer a 1vs1 or 2vs2 game. 50% chance at least that somebody will bail out saying there are too many units to deal with... Isn't it your experience?
Coral Sea for example is the most "fearful" map for 1vs1 - obviously not for me :D


So what do we know so far about BS:P?
EIDOS listened (had to!) and beefed up the SP mission part. Sounds like they put a lot of effort into it.
They refused to consider any editor, moddability and dedicated server.
What about multiplayer then?
I guess they said: "let's please the crowd".
A lot of people wanted to shoot and leave the multiple units behind. They get what they want.
Fixed maps and unit setup was a major drawback for us "hard core fans" on this forum. We wanted free choice of units and scenarios.
We got it with Island Capture.
Drawback? We might lost some "fixed map" scenarios.
You might be right that it will come with DLC. (mind you on PC even the BS:M DLC was FREE)

but until we know for sure we have the perspective to have a very dynamic multiplayer mode where a lot can happen. This is basically why I'm not worried about loosing the fixed multiplayer maps.

Time will tell who was right. But remember: our forum community isn't strong. There are not even a 100 people here. Nobody is going to target a product for such a small community. In another way: I'm not sure they LEFT OUT the fixed multiplayer scenario maps, it is more likely the DEVs simply did not include them. BS:P looks like a complete rewrite.

Kreutzberg
24th Jan 2009, 03:55
What I'm really fearing about island capture is that it will a giant version of Islands of Soloman, a map which I despise. Whenever there is the option to respawn new units (conditioned on losing your first units), the whole strategic aspect of the game goes nowhere.

I hope I'm wrong, and perhaps I am. Perhaps when you get 1200 points, you only get 1200 points for the whole map (or perhaps you can get a relatively modest few more by capturing) and when your units die, you don't get them back, or get replacements (unless you keep points in reserve). We need more information--but games that have essentially infinite respawning units devolve into throwing your units quickly so you get more.

Polarshark
24th Jan 2009, 05:25
did they say 5 new multiplayer modes?

or only 5 multiplayer modes

cause if it's 5 new multiplayer modes, chances are there'll still be deathmatch

cause they're just adding on

btw i hope there is a glitch or cheat where you can have unlimited points =)

and i don't think that the devs listened to all our comments

where's our MAP EDITOR

lardassmonkey
24th Jan 2009, 11:02
What I'm really fearing about island capture is that it will a giant version of Islands of Soloman, a map which I despise. Whenever there is the option to respawn new units (conditioned on losing your first units), the whole strategic aspect of the game goes nowhere.


I have similar fears that Island capture could go that way. I have visions of people producing nothing but BBs and games all ending up being the same as the last. At least with fixed units you can be sure of a few games with a variety of units.

I think that 80% of the MP game modes limited to 1 unit each, regardless of whether people can cope with any more or not, just seems like alot of wasted potential to me. Would it perhaps not be better to allow us to choose the unit allowance? If it was put in as a server option the host could choose to allow one unit at at time or all at once. Then we could define what sort of battle we wanted it to be and you could in effect get 2 modes for the price of 1.

It3llig3nc3
24th Jan 2009, 17:19
It looks like to me that technically no matter how flexible the Island Capture mode will be many of you believe there are too many downsides.

Most of you here are pretty much asking for similar multiplayer maps and playmode than in BS:M, with the additional possibility to alter the starting "lineup" of units OR the map on which the battle unfolds. Simply said you just want the map editor. Period.

Question is if you can not have the map editor what is the second best option. Because let's be honest here: there have been a decision made by EIDOS that there will be NO map editor in BS:P. Don't ask me why, but this is a kind of "axiomatic" parameter that we have to work with.

Once you overcome this scope limitation it becomes quite obvious that the Island Capture mode is the most flexible option inside the limits.
The issue of having heavy units respawn can be problem but I do not believe it will take away the "strategic aspect".
It is true that with unit respawn available the idea of lining up the units for battle and winning or loosing goes away. It won't be one big battle to fight out (ala BS:M) but a series of events that will turn the tide.
We all know the RTS games out there working with the "victory point" concept for example. Hold enough key points for long enough and you win. Alternatively, capture all key points to win.
I believe BS:P Island Capture will be something like that - which is fine by me. It is VERY STRATEGIC. :D

lardassmonkey
25th Jan 2009, 14:26
I don't doubt that island capture mode has plenty of potential and could turn out to be absolutely amazing, I just have a nagging doubt in the back of my mind.

I believe in having a choice and limiting the larger more strategic battle to a single mode just doesn't make sense when it would be so easy to provide additional options.

Polarshark
25th Jan 2009, 15:36
i know why BSP will have no map editor
or some modding program

then how will they sell their DLC????

well guess this BSP forum is dead

everyone's at the new one now

battleshipman
25th Jan 2009, 16:02
i know why BSP will have no map editor
or some modding program

then how will they sell their DLC????

well guess this BSP forum is dead

everyone's at the new one now

The new one sucks, its full of kids that keep reposting topics on the same things over and over. I still like it here. lets hope they release a map editor in the DLC. At least that way we will still get one.

-Incline-
25th Jan 2009, 16:59
This forum > the new one.

I haven't posted much lately anyway, but I still lurk pretty much every day.

I can't stand the layout of the new forums. They suck.

battleshipman
25th Jan 2009, 18:59
This forum > the new one.

I haven't posted much lately anyway, but I still lurk pretty much every day.

I can't stand the layout of the new forums. They suck.

Same here, it's like looking at the comments section on all the blogs.

It3llig3nc3
25th Jan 2009, 19:11
Well I still can't post on the new forum - every time I type up a short thing and want to send it the browser just times out and I loose everything.
Tried 5 times so I gave up.

BTW: have any of you heard about this game?
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/home.html
It looks like a WWI 3D strategic game with a map editor :)
Any opinion?

battleshipman
25th Jan 2009, 22:41
Well I still can't post on the new forum - every time I type up a short thing and want to send it the browser just times out and I loose everything.
Tried 5 times so I gave up.

BTW: have any of you heard about this game?
http://www.stormeaglestudios.com/public/home.html
It looks like a WWI 3D strategic game with a map editor :)
Any opinion?

Seems I've seen it before but I don't know much about it.

Polarshark
25th Jan 2009, 22:48
battleshipman is right

those guys over there are such bums

even when i was new, i know not to swear

and when someone answered their question

they make a whole new thread regarding the same topic

how ignorant

and they even compete to see who can make it to the most active users list ( mostly by spamming garbage)