X_StickmanNot good enough for a custom title.Join Date: 2003-04-15Member: 15533Members, Constellation
I played air stuff almost exclusively (not just the reaver, but mossie, lodestar, gal and lib as well) and the starfire was by far the most annoying one to face.
The burster was the most <i>surprising</i>, admittedly since you just started getting hit out of nowhere. But I can count the number of times I was actually killed by a burster on one hand. The sparrow was next to useless as anti-air (I played NC and the vast majority of sparrow users in the NC took it as AV/AI because it dealt halfway decent damage and was only 2 cert points) because the lock-on time was so long and the missles travelled so slow. Even if you managed to fire off say, 10 missles, only about 3 of them would actually hit any half way decent pilot.
The starfire had a few advantages over the others; the lock on time wasn't as long as the sparrow's and it was easier to aim than the burster's. It did less damage per shot than the sparrow but considering most of the sparrow's missles never hit anyway, that's not a huge thing. But the main advantage of the starfire was how it moved; they are next to impossible for a reaver to take out because they simply jump over your rockets (making for an amazingly hard to hit target even if you switch to the MG, which bumps your damage down immensely) and they can keep firing at you while doing so. They can also jump closer to an escaping pilot, making those last few missles hit when the sparrow was out of luck once the target had moved outside its initial range
Not only that but their jumpjets let them get to weird places that are incredibly hard to hit in the first place, like inside a tree's canopy. If one of them starts shooting at you, your only hope was to just run the hell away, fighting them was next to impossible.
That is, arguably, what all the AA maxes should've been like. The burster in particular was a joke against reavers, you could 1v1 them easily even if you were both aiming directly at each other. The sparrow was a joke at its role too, which is why most of the NC's AA came from the phoenix and the skyguard. If the sparrow was used as AA it was mostly boredom/trying it out for the first time, or simply trying to scare off pilots with the "Locked-On" sound.
The starfire was easily the best AA (of any sort) in the game, which is why it was also the most used AA in the game. Flying over NC or TR territory got you a few lock on noises or flack spam, flying over VS territory had you seeing thousands of the buggers leaping up from treetops and shooting at you.
<!--quoteo(post=1952610:date=Jul 19 2012, 07:32 PM:name=Aldaris)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Aldaris @ Jul 19 2012, 07:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1952610"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And has been mentioned oh so many times to you in the past, you're comparing a one on one situation in ideal circumstances which doesn't happen that often.
Yes if I spot the reaver it'll die and I'll live if it's stupid. If it's smart it will still likely get some damage off on me while it dives for cover. Starfire is then stuck with a 10 hour reload period if you don't manually trigger the reload and no jump jets with adequate boost to survive another engagement. Reaver comes back and kills you. But this is pointless example because it simply does not happen that often.
In the scenario of a Starfire defending a base (A more realistic and more common occurance) its jump jets and orbs just make it an easy target, and its low clip size and easy to break lock make it less effective than the Burster or Sparrow as they have larger clip sizes and are still threats outside of LoS. If there's one thing I'm not sure about is whether that Sparrow and Burster can take down a shielded Reaver without reloading which the Starfire cannot. If they can then that's a plus in their favour. The Starfire loses situational awareness compared to the other two due to having to maintain lock to do anything useful.
The Starfire is just as situational. On attack it's supreme as it can get to places with 360 cover of the sky incase of they try and break the attack by air and there are few places to truly break a lock for long inside the walls of a base. The Burster is nearly as good but can't prevent a counter attack as well and the Sparrow the reverse. But the previously mentioned defense the Starfire isn't as good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> As a user of the Starfire MAX, I was either out of the line of sight of the Reaver and my lock-on would prompt them to flee, or they would sneak up on me, causing an engagement exactly like lolf described. I'd say a fair portion of all Reaver encounters were like that. Reloading was never what got me killed as a Starfire. Manually triggering the reload doesn't take a huge amount of skill, most anyone will do it pretty much the moment their target looks like they're getting away... and if they come back, you just re-lock-on and they get slammed. And it definitely isn't an easier target than the other MAXes, who can barely move at all and certainly not quickly dodge out of the way of rocket spam like the Starfire can.
Okay, I'm breaking out the "you must never have played" argument: You must never have played anything but Vanu. This means that you do not understand the things you take for granted, and which are not. You trivialize the difference between taking damage in a fight and getting killed in a fight, which makes a world of difference. You vastly overstate the reload time which wasn't particularly longer than that of other MAXes. You complain that the jumpjets were only good for one engagement every few seconds, which is still a huge advantage compared to others who had enough jumpjets for zero engagements ever.
Situational awareness is a problem for every AA MAX, LEAST of all the Starfire. The Burster has to anchor in order to be of any use. This not just constrains its vision, but also its firing arc. And it's not like there's time to look around while you're leading your target AND trying to anticipate which direction they'll flee in - unlike the other ones, the Burster's projectiles never change direction in midair. Your target, on the other hand, WILL change direction once they realize they're under fire. And you have to correctly anticipate where they will go. The Sparrow has its own set of problems. That "ten hour reload time" you allege that the Starfire has, that's about how long the Sparrow takes to lock on. Keep in mind that the pilot is warned the moment the Sparrow begins to lock on, not when lock is actually achieved. Ten hours later, when the Sparrow locks on, the pilot has probably logged off and gone to bed. Or maybe just left the area. Or ducked behind any kind of obstacle. And throughout all of this the Sparrow is stuck aiming at the target. How's that for situational awareness? The Starfire also NEEDS situational awareness less than the other two. For the Sparrow and the Burster, the only defense is offense. Any Sparrow or Burster that gets surprised by a Reaver is dead. The Starfire can hit the jumpjets and escape. Damaged, sure, but alive. The difference between damaged and dead is everything.
Clip size: This is where it gets into the whole "situational at best, advantage on paper at worst" thing. The Burster and Sparrow have larger magazine sizes. Granted. The Burster and Sparrow have more damage per magazine. I'm not 100% sure, but granted. For the Burster, this is situational: Yes, it has more shots, but it also does less damage per shot. Furthermore, it requires leading and anticipation, whereas the Starfire requires pointing near your target. The likelihood of missing with the Burster is much higher than with the Starfire, simply because you don't have guided missiles. This means more shots go to waste. If you combine lower damage per shot and higher rate of missing, the bigger magazine isn't really an advantage anymore, it's a necessity. Advantage: Situational. Only in those rare close-range situations where you can't really miss. The Sparrow, again, has its own issues. The longer lock-on time means that your target receives more advance warning before you even fire your first shot. That's more time to dive for cover or more time to simply hit the afterburners and fly out of range. In either case, actually getting to fire off its entire magazine is a rare treat for a Sparrow - the lock will usually be broken before that happens. Advantage: Only on paper. Having a bigger magazine doesn't help you if you can't put it to use.
And finally, indirect fire: No AA MAX is good at this. The Starfire least of all. Granted. But no AA MAX is good at this. The Burster can do "indirect fire" in that it can shoot at and hit a target that it can't see. If you somehow know that there's an aircraft right behind that hill you can fire just over the hill, and if they're right below the ridge the proximity fuses will catch them. If we're really scoring that as a point in favour of the Burster, then it's a hilariously minor one. The Sparrow can do "indirect fire" in that missiles will continue to chase a target even after the Sparrow can no longer see it. This means that if the target breaks line of sight by ducking behind a hill, the Starfire's missiles will immediately lose all guidance, while the Sparrow's missiles will continue to head directly for the target - and promptly hit the hill that the target ducked behind. Tragically, this comical performance still puts the Sparrow in the top tier in terms of indirect fire, for all the good it does.
It comes down to this: You don't know what you're talking about. I do. And everyone agrees with me. You simply don't know what it's like to use an AA MAX as craptacular as the Sparrow or Burster, or how much difference it makes whether your target can fly into the air or not when you're trying to kill them with splash damage. I do. Because I've tried them all, and I've flown against them all, and I know what I'm talking about, and I've laid it out here in plain sight and endless verbiage.
And I probably took this a little too badly. Sorry about that. So now I'm going to relax and try to get over myself with a nice cup of tea or something.
All this discussion of MAXes aside has anyone noticed that there wont be things like TR's Dual Burster MAX certifications as well as the fun melee weapons like the Chainblade (I really only played Terran)? Strikers seem to be missing as well... :(
I played a good deal with all sides and almost exclusively as a MAX and I can say that hands down for me the van AA max was by far the best solely because of its jumpjets and at the very least had a higher survivability rate (for me at least) than the other factions AA equivalents.
Another thing that made the jumpjets so useful it that it made it difficult for reavers and such to duck in behind cover and blind-spots or generally clear the line of sight of the starfire during base defence/assaults since you could simply fly above it all.
Admitedly I have only played Vanu, but I have read up on the subject and spoken to people in game about the Starfire who have played far longer than me. I defend the Starfire in game and get called an idiot. I criticise it out here and basically get called a noob. I'm chalking it down to different opinions and moving on.
Who did you defend it to in the game? Other Vanu players? I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that's the case. I imagine the conversation goes something like "the Starfire is so ######," "no the Starfire is fine," "you're an idiot and you're as ###### as the Starfire" or something like that. I can't imagine that conversation between anyone except Vanu players, because Vanu players are the only ones who'd ever call the Starfire ######. I'm not accusing you and yours of dishonesty, it's a simple case of cognitive bias.
And for that matter, it's not even that the Vanu have a better AA MAX than they deserve. I have said otherwise in the past, but that was bitterness speaking. The Starfire is at most mildly overpowered. It's the Burster and Sparrow that suck. The Starfire is only overpowered compared to those. The problem is air cavalry, especially the Reaver. The Reaver is far too powerful and general purpose for a one-man, highly mobile vehicle. It's a threat to anything on the ground, while only a few specialized ground units are any threat to a Reaver. The result is that air cavalry dominates outdoor fights.
Our outfit (TR) had three basic maneuvers that we liked to pull: First, the basic galdrop on roof/backdoor: Bail, land, hack the door, get the ###### inside before the air cav shows and killfarms the ###### out of it. Second, the MAX crash: Everyone suit up at a TR tower next to an enemy base, autorun through back door and corridors down to generator room, destroy generator, defend generator until the rest of the TR have cleared out the remaining resistance. Third, Thunder Run: Bunch of two-man Prowlers, tear ###### up.
Out of these, the first two spent little enough time outside that air cav was not a big issue, and the third was completely unthinkable without a Skyguard or two. Because that was the only effective AA we had. A Burster MAX could've kept up with a slow moving tank convoy, but the Burster just wasn't effective enough to keep the swarming Reavers at bay. It's not like we operated in a vacuum, there were other TR around. But they couldn't be relied on. Too many soloers. The Skyguard was inherently solo-unfriendly, and the Burster and Sparrow were ######. This left the TR with no popular and common anti-air unit, and this meant you had to bring your own if you wanted to do any serious outdoor fighting without the aggravation of swarming Reavers and Mosquitos. The Vanu didn't have that problem, there were always a few Starfires around. Yes, we were jealous. But if we thought the Vanu had it too easy, we were wrong. They had it the way we should've had it. They didn't have it too easy, we had it too hard. The only ones who had it too easy were Reaver pilots.
if you have already signed upfor the beta, try to log in on the ps2 page with your station account, and click the join beta button again, next what happend to me was i got a hardware survey to fill out, sent it , and got a email with the link to the test client
Sheena, I suspect that you were simply one of the lucky ones. The sort of people who the rest of us would gleefully murder in the middle of the night while humming a happy tune. Something like "Always Look On The Bright Side of Life"
Sticky, here's the work around. Go to your browser language and change it to U.S English from U.K English, close browser and then try again. Don't ask me why it does this but I found this out on Planetside Universe.
<!--quoteo(post=1954632:date=Jul 28 2012, 10:47 PM:name=Konohas Perverted Hermit)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Konohas Perverted Hermit @ Jul 28 2012, 10:47 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1954632"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Beta starts Monday or Tuesday.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> thats right, today we are going to test additional continents for the beta release, im curious how different they will be
<!--quoteo(post=1953510:date=Jul 25 2012, 12:47 AM:name=Chlamydia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chlamydia @ Jul 25 2012, 12:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1953510"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I got the page to work my loading it up in Firefox. Two beta accounts - one my vet and one from E3. No luck yet though ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People like you who enter betas twice are why we can't have nice things.
Aldaris - I hope you mean to hypthetically murder Sheena AFTER beating his account details out of him. Thats just a waste otherwise :P
<!--quoteo(post=1954702:date=Jul 28 2012, 06:55 PM:name=Ph0enix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Ph0enix @ Jul 28 2012, 06:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1954702"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Aldaris - I hope you mean to hypthetically murder Sheena AFTER beating <b>his</b> account details out of <b>him</b>. Thats just a waste otherwise :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ha!
*pulls up a chair*
In other news finally got the survey thing working by doing the aforementioned browser language fix so fingers crossed =<
In other news finally got the survey thing working by doing the aforementioned browser language fix so fingers crossed =<<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its a bit late since that survey was meant for the tech test, the closed beta will start on monday, or tuesday, XD
thats what most of you registered for already.
hope to see you guys soon, we should form a TSF outfit
it appears that the closed beta will not launch this week after all, SOE needs some more tech testing it seems, thats why they put out the testing times for this week.
Server Availability:
Tuesday July 31st through Friday, August 3rd:
2:00 PM PT - 10:00 PM PT (11:00 PM CEST/9:00 PM GMT - 7:00 AM CEST/5:00 AM GMT)
Saturday, August 4th:
9:00 AM PT - 11:00 PM PT (6:00 PM CEST/4:00 PM GMT - 8:00 AM CEST/6:00 AM GMT)
yeah, so grab your tech test accounts , its another week or more until closed beta is opening
Comments
The burster was the most <i>surprising</i>, admittedly since you just started getting hit out of nowhere. But I can count the number of times I was actually killed by a burster on one hand. The sparrow was next to useless as anti-air (I played NC and the vast majority of sparrow users in the NC took it as AV/AI because it dealt halfway decent damage and was only 2 cert points) because the lock-on time was so long and the missles travelled so slow. Even if you managed to fire off say, 10 missles, only about 3 of them would actually hit any half way decent pilot.
The starfire had a few advantages over the others; the lock on time wasn't as long as the sparrow's and it was easier to aim than the burster's. It did less damage per shot than the sparrow but considering most of the sparrow's missles never hit anyway, that's not a huge thing. But the main advantage of the starfire was how it moved; they are next to impossible for a reaver to take out because they simply jump over your rockets (making for an amazingly hard to hit target even if you switch to the MG, which bumps your damage down immensely) and they can keep firing at you while doing so. They can also jump closer to an escaping pilot, making those last few missles hit when the sparrow was out of luck once the target had moved outside its initial range
Not only that but their jumpjets let them get to weird places that are incredibly hard to hit in the first place, like inside a tree's canopy. If one of them starts shooting at you, your only hope was to just run the hell away, fighting them was next to impossible.
That is, arguably, what all the AA maxes should've been like. The burster in particular was a joke against reavers, you could 1v1 them easily even if you were both aiming directly at each other. The sparrow was a joke at its role too, which is why most of the NC's AA came from the phoenix and the skyguard. If the sparrow was used as AA it was mostly boredom/trying it out for the first time, or simply trying to scare off pilots with the "Locked-On" sound.
The starfire was easily the best AA (of any sort) in the game, which is why it was also the most used AA in the game. Flying over NC or TR territory got you a few lock on noises or flack spam, flying over VS territory had you seeing thousands of the buggers leaping up from treetops and shooting at you.
Yes if I spot the reaver it'll die and I'll live if it's stupid. If it's smart it will still likely get some damage off on me while it dives for cover. Starfire is then stuck with a 10 hour reload period if you don't manually trigger the reload and no jump jets with adequate boost to survive another engagement. Reaver comes back and kills you. But this is pointless example because it simply does not happen that often.
In the scenario of a Starfire defending a base (A more realistic and more common occurance) its jump jets and orbs just make it an easy target, and its low clip size and easy to break lock make it less effective than the Burster or Sparrow as they have larger clip sizes and are still threats outside of LoS. If there's one thing I'm not sure about is whether that Sparrow and Burster can take down a shielded Reaver without reloading which the Starfire cannot. If they can then that's a plus in their favour. The Starfire loses situational awareness compared to the other two due to having to maintain lock to do anything useful.
The Starfire is just as situational. On attack it's supreme as it can get to places with 360 cover of the sky incase of they try and break the attack by air and there are few places to truly break a lock for long inside the walls of a base. The Burster is nearly as good but can't prevent a counter attack as well and the Sparrow the reverse. But the previously mentioned defense the Starfire isn't as good.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As a user of the Starfire MAX, I was either out of the line of sight of the Reaver and my lock-on would prompt them to flee, or they would sneak up on me, causing an engagement exactly like lolf described. I'd say a fair portion of all Reaver encounters were like that.
Reloading was never what got me killed as a Starfire. Manually triggering the reload doesn't take a huge amount of skill, most anyone will do it pretty much the moment their target looks like they're getting away... and if they come back, you just re-lock-on and they get slammed.
And it definitely isn't an easier target than the other MAXes, who can barely move at all and certainly not quickly dodge out of the way of rocket spam like the Starfire can.
Situational awareness is a problem for every AA MAX, LEAST of all the Starfire. The Burster has to anchor in order to be of any use. This not just constrains its vision, but also its firing arc. And it's not like there's time to look around while you're leading your target AND trying to anticipate which direction they'll flee in - unlike the other ones, the Burster's projectiles never change direction in midair. Your target, on the other hand, WILL change direction once they realize they're under fire. And you have to correctly anticipate where they will go.
The Sparrow has its own set of problems. That "ten hour reload time" you allege that the Starfire has, that's about how long the Sparrow takes to lock on. Keep in mind that the pilot is warned the moment the Sparrow begins to lock on, not when lock is actually achieved. Ten hours later, when the Sparrow locks on, the pilot has probably logged off and gone to bed. Or maybe just left the area. Or ducked behind any kind of obstacle. And throughout all of this the Sparrow is stuck aiming at the target. How's that for situational awareness?
The Starfire also NEEDS situational awareness less than the other two. For the Sparrow and the Burster, the only defense is offense. Any Sparrow or Burster that gets surprised by a Reaver is dead. The Starfire can hit the jumpjets and escape. Damaged, sure, but alive. The difference between damaged and dead is everything.
Clip size: This is where it gets into the whole "situational at best, advantage on paper at worst" thing. The Burster and Sparrow have larger magazine sizes. Granted. The Burster and Sparrow have more damage per magazine. I'm not 100% sure, but granted.
For the Burster, this is situational: Yes, it has more shots, but it also does less damage per shot. Furthermore, it requires leading and anticipation, whereas the Starfire requires pointing near your target. The likelihood of missing with the Burster is much higher than with the Starfire, simply because you don't have guided missiles. This means more shots go to waste. If you combine lower damage per shot and higher rate of missing, the bigger magazine isn't really an advantage anymore, it's a necessity. Advantage: Situational. Only in those rare close-range situations where you can't really miss.
The Sparrow, again, has its own issues. The longer lock-on time means that your target receives more advance warning before you even fire your first shot. That's more time to dive for cover or more time to simply hit the afterburners and fly out of range. In either case, actually getting to fire off its entire magazine is a rare treat for a Sparrow - the lock will usually be broken before that happens. Advantage: Only on paper. Having a bigger magazine doesn't help you if you can't put it to use.
And finally, indirect fire: No AA MAX is good at this. The Starfire least of all. Granted. But no AA MAX is good at this.
The Burster can do "indirect fire" in that it can shoot at and hit a target that it can't see. If you somehow know that there's an aircraft right behind that hill you can fire just over the hill, and if they're right below the ridge the proximity fuses will catch them. If we're really scoring that as a point in favour of the Burster, then it's a hilariously minor one.
The Sparrow can do "indirect fire" in that missiles will continue to chase a target even after the Sparrow can no longer see it. This means that if the target breaks line of sight by ducking behind a hill, the Starfire's missiles will immediately lose all guidance, while the Sparrow's missiles will continue to head directly for the target - and promptly hit the hill that the target ducked behind. Tragically, this comical performance still puts the Sparrow in the top tier in terms of indirect fire, for all the good it does.
It comes down to this: You don't know what you're talking about. I do. And everyone agrees with me. You simply don't know what it's like to use an AA MAX as craptacular as the Sparrow or Burster, or how much difference it makes whether your target can fly into the air or not when you're trying to kill them with splash damage. I do. Because I've tried them all, and I've flown against them all, and I know what I'm talking about, and I've laid it out here in plain sight and endless verbiage.
And I probably took this a little too badly. Sorry about that. So now I'm going to relax and try to get over myself with a nice cup of tea or something.
Another thing that made the jumpjets so useful it that it made it difficult for reavers and such to duck in behind cover and blind-spots or generally clear the line of sight of the starfire during base defence/assaults since you could simply fly above it all.
And for that matter, it's not even that the Vanu have a better AA MAX than they deserve. I have said otherwise in the past, but that was bitterness speaking. The Starfire is at most mildly overpowered. It's the Burster and Sparrow that suck. The Starfire is only overpowered compared to those. The problem is air cavalry, especially the Reaver. The Reaver is far too powerful and general purpose for a one-man, highly mobile vehicle. It's a threat to anything on the ground, while only a few specialized ground units are any threat to a Reaver. The result is that air cavalry dominates outdoor fights.
Our outfit (TR) had three basic maneuvers that we liked to pull:
First, the basic galdrop on roof/backdoor: Bail, land, hack the door, get the ###### inside before the air cav shows and killfarms the ###### out of it.
Second, the MAX crash: Everyone suit up at a TR tower next to an enemy base, autorun through back door and corridors down to generator room, destroy generator, defend generator until the rest of the TR have cleared out the remaining resistance.
Third, Thunder Run: Bunch of two-man Prowlers, tear ###### up.
Out of these, the first two spent little enough time outside that air cav was not a big issue, and the third was completely unthinkable without a Skyguard or two. Because that was the only effective AA we had. A Burster MAX could've kept up with a slow moving tank convoy, but the Burster just wasn't effective enough to keep the swarming Reavers at bay.
It's not like we operated in a vacuum, there were other TR around. But they couldn't be relied on. Too many soloers. The Skyguard was inherently solo-unfriendly, and the Burster and Sparrow were ######. This left the TR with no popular and common anti-air unit, and this meant you had to bring your own if you wanted to do any serious outdoor fighting without the aggravation of swarming Reavers and Mosquitos. The Vanu didn't have that problem, there were always a few Starfires around. Yes, we were jealous. But if we thought the Vanu had it too easy, we were wrong. They had it the way we should've had it. They didn't have it too easy, we had it too hard. The only ones who had it too easy were Reaver pilots.
<!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->:(<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec-->
<!--sizeo:7--><span style="font-size:36pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->:(<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
if you have already signed upfor the beta, try to log in on the ps2 page with your station account, and click the join beta button again, next what happend to me was i got a hardware survey to fill out, sent it , and got a email with the link to the test client
Just saying.
thats right, today we are going to test additional continents for the beta release, im curious how different they will be
People like you who enter betas twice are why we can't have nice things.
Aldaris - I hope you mean to hypthetically murder Sheena AFTER beating his account details out of him. Thats just a waste otherwise :P
Ha!
*pulls up a chair*
In other news finally got the survey thing working by doing the aforementioned browser language fix so fingers crossed =<
*pulls up a chair*
In other news finally got the survey thing working by doing the aforementioned browser language fix so fingers crossed =<<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
its a bit late since that survey was meant for the tech test, the closed beta will start on monday, or tuesday, XD
thats what most of you registered for already.
hope to see you guys soon, we should form a TSF outfit
You minx why couldn't you have let me remain ignorant and optimistic =[
Server Availability:
Tuesday July 31st through Friday, August 3rd:
2:00 PM PT - 10:00 PM PT (11:00 PM CEST/9:00 PM GMT - 7:00 AM CEST/5:00 AM GMT)
Saturday, August 4th:
9:00 AM PT - 11:00 PM PT (6:00 PM CEST/4:00 PM GMT - 8:00 AM CEST/6:00 AM GMT)
yeah, so grab your tech test accounts , its another week or more until closed beta is opening