Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

I am pretty sure there are a hundred thousand suggestion posts for the game. I figured one more won't really hurt. First off I would like to say hi to everyone. I joined before the big reset and played for a short while afterwards. I had to leave due to health and family issues but I am back hopefully full time now. I was honestly surprised to see my bots here when I cam back. I was even more surprised to see them still ranked relatively well in their levels. One thing I have to say though is that alot hasn't changed.

I have a suggestion though. I play through out the day while I'm at work and home. One thing I can say is that I see a trend forming. You sign into your bot and go for a mission and most of the missions are 0/3 bot to con ratio most of the time through out the day (6am to 2am EST). With that said, I move my bots to the Arena since I don't like throwing Energon away on CR and not walk away with anything. However most of the time the Arenas are full of just Bots waiting for an opponent.

My suggestion is this. Can we remove the bonus XP/energon from the Missions when the missions are not filled with any opposition? That way if it is 0/# or #/0 then the team completes the mission but doesn't get any XP/Energon since they didn't do anything (much like sitting in the arena). This would prevent unfair stacking and open up the channels a bit.

The only other option I can think of is this:
Make the missions start off as 1/1. Once both slots are filled on both sides then the counter goes up 1 for each side. I am more than willing to join a 1/2 battle than I am a 1/3 simply because my bots may actually have a chance against a 1/2 of winning.

Better idea. Shut down the arena.

IconJade wrote:Better idea. Shut down the arena.

Got to agree with that, if all the bots sat waiting in the arena went into the missions instead then they wouldn't be outnumbered.

I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. It may be better to shut down the missions instead. At least in arenas you are guaranteed a payback for your times. With Missions you can get wiped out in the first round by a few bots with Strafe/Ram before you even get to participate. If your team looses there is no pay out and a complete loss. For people that are trying to capitalize on time and on maximum efficiency then doing that would just put some people at a greater disadvantage.

_Anshin_ wrote:I am sorry, but I disagree with this statement. It may be better to shut down the missions instead. At least in arenas you are guaranteed a payback for your times. With Missions you can get wiped out in the first round by a few bots with Strafe/Ram before you even get to participate. If your team looses there is no pay out and a complete loss. For people that are trying to capitalize on time and on maximum efficiency then doing that would just put some people at a greater disadvantage.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. You still spend an hour in the CR chamber weather you get killed in a mission, or the arena. There is no guarantee what so ever that the arena will always pay off. On the whole, missions just pay off better.

These are good ideas that have oft been discussed in the past, but unfortunately there can be no changes to the game for the moment as our current stand-in admin Mkall is still encountering technical diffculties with the database.

On point, I know how you feel Anshin. At the lowest levels its a widely accepted fact that one faction will stack the missions and the other will stack the arena leaving the latter to wait whilst the former make miniscule gains against minimal opponents. This gets people nowhere, but some people play the game for social enjoyment, others for personal gain, meaning that there will always be those who dump their team in the arena and leave their allies to rot if they see they will be outnumbered and others who will cheerfully hurl their minions into outnumbered missions and certain doom.

This is why the removal of the arena would balance out the game more, removing the option to hide, meaning that less missions would be inbalanced - but will likely never happen to allow for that 'other option' as not everyone plays the same. I'd advise persevering with the missions though, they will always be the core of the game where the biggest gains are to be had, and as the Potentato says above: nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Psychout wrote:These are good ideas that have oft been discussed in the past, but unfortunately there can be no changes to the game for the moment as our current stand-in admin Mkall is still encountering technical diffculties with the database.

On point, I know how you feel Anshin. At the lowest levels its a widely accepted fact that one faction will stack the missions and the other will stack the arena leaving the latter to wait whilst the former make miniscule gains against minimal opponents. This gets people nowhere, but some people play the game for social enjoyment, others for personal gain, meaning that there will always be those who dump their team in the arena and leave their allies to rot if they see they will be outnumbered and others who will cheerfully hurl their minions into outnumbered missions and certain doom.

This is why the removal of the arena would balance out the game more, removing the option to hide, meaning that less missions would be inbalanced - but will likely never happen to allow for that 'other option' as not everyone plays the same. I'd advise persevering with the missions though, they will always be the core of the game where the biggest gains are to be had, and as the Potentato says above: nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I understand that removing the Arena would balance the game out. I also realize that nothing ventured nothing gained aspect. However I have always viewed the Arena not as a place to hide out, or not support my team. I have viewed it away to raise my bots or my energon consistently. For me I know that alot of people choose Autobots / Maximals because of the good guy mentality. I also know that alot of people don't think before they click join. For me if I don't think the battle is one that can be won or at least turn out profitable then its not a battle worth fighting. I have yet to be in an Arena where I am 0/0. I have joined many battles where the fight doesn't look like one I can win, but one that I will end up walking away profitable in energon or experience non the less. For example if I see a battle with 2 minutes left I am more inclined to join than one minute left if the odds are stacked against my side 3 to 1. If its a 1 on 1 battle I will join knowing that at the last second there could be a flood that could change either way. Instead of punishing one side for having different tactics than the other by not rewarding or removing, I think we could improve the game by lowering both sides so the playing field is favorable.

I often think the cons purposely stack the missions when they can to dissuade the other side from joining. After all if you know your going to loose, why fight if your not even going to get the reward? I for one don't want to see the other side always higher in Arean/Misssion won. I don't want to contribute to my team's loss because I just want to push my bots out of the CR and back into battle as fast as possible.

The missions reward the winner and punish the looser. I am all for that. Thats war. The Arena punishes the participant by time, but rewards both sides for participating, however that is also fare. The Arena is one on one. There is no stacked deck. Its other your build is good, or your lucky. With the Missions, you can have a stacked deck and no reward. Without a reward what is the point for punishing my faction with a lower score?

_Anshin_ wrote:I often think the cons purposely stack the missions when they can to dissuade the other side from joining.

Yeah, because Autobots NEVER do that.

_Anshin_ wrote:There is no stacked deck. Its other your build is good, or your lucky.

Because strafers and avoiders fare so well in the arena against rammers.

Stun factor? If a rammer's first move is to ram and it's successful the arena battle is over there and then. At least with missions there's more chance for the stunned to recover.

_Anshin_ wrote:With the Missions, you can have a stacked deck and no reward. Without a reward what is the point for punishing my faction with a lower score?

The mission win bonus was implemented to encourage people to participate in missions more.

The initial basis of the HMW game was to be centred around missions. Programmers and staff members over the years have tried to ensure that happens. However people are of two mentalities. They either enjoy the arena more or they prefer the arena as they're scared about lack of backup. In all the years i've always been amazed that if someone sees a lack of backup in missions they automatically go to the arena and ignore all the other commanders sitting there waiting. Why not contact them and say "hey, we seem to play at the same time, let's work together in missions".

Seems pretty simple to me.

I wish the cons were that organised.
It has been hypothesised in the past that the cons are the more socially minded of the factions here, certainly until recently the bulk of the regular forum posters here were cons, and that the Arenas is also widely regarded as a total waste of time by the bulk of the forum posters means its not much of a conicidence that the cons use the missions heavily, but it does also depend on time of day - those of us who dont operate on US time find that the bots tend to flood them pretty regularly too.
There has never been any kind of actual 'order' as such though, the faction are a pretty chaotic bunch.

_Anshin wrote:With the Missions, you can have a stacked deck and no reward. Without a reward what is the point for punishing my faction with a lower score?

Interesting point. But, arguably, punishing them by leaving them alone to die can be worse. How will your allies develop if you leave them to be slaughtered? At the very least you can use the brave soul as a shield whilst you score a handful of points...

The autobots out number the Cons. The problem you're having with missions, where there simply aren't any bots joining the missions and backing up other bots is pretty much how the game has always been. You may feel that the cons are purposefully stacking the missions, but I don't see how there is a problem. If the other autobots got out of the arena, then you would have full sides in the missions, and you would see a larger XP pay out.

Now, the reason why a side gets the energon/xp pay out for victory in missions, but not in the arena is pretty simple. If you send a group out to go and secure a facility or something, they're going to be paid for it whether or not someone actually resists them or not. Or, if you're a RPGer, when you complete a fetch quest, you still get your XP and money for completing the quest. The reason you don't get it in the arena for timing out on your wait is because you're not doing anything. You sat their on your duff waiting, not doing anything, for two hours and didn't contribute anything to your faction. It's kinda like sitting in a room, not doing classwork, or working, just sat there doing nothing. Should you be rewarded for that? Probably not. People don't generally get paid for doing nothing, but soldiers get paid for doing their job, whether they shoot people or not.

Now, I know those missions stacked with cons can be daunting, but really, if you join them, suddenly they're not 1 on 6, they're 2 on 6, still more than likely a loss, but you can earn a bit of XP (with a good build, you can earn a lot) and if it looks better to the next person joining missions, so they might join, making it 3 on 6, and much better odds. Suddenly, you have a better chance at better XP than you could get in the arena, and instead of hanging other players out to dry, you're providing much needed back up, and helping out the other autobot players. That should be part of being the "heroic" autobot, but it has always tended to be the mentality of the con players, which is why you see cons in missions, because they're more willing to back up their allies and not say "well, I might not do well here, so screw it."

I'm in aggreance with the three previous posters here. Especially Burns point of contacting other bots. When I started this game the lvl balance was far different tons of 1-3 bots and not as many cons. My solution too this was too create orginizational type threads mini games things of that nature.
I also ran builds that thrived on being outnumbered. So much so that at one point I had 3 bots hunting me in a race to 21 grudge match.

Now you can play however you like but I think you should be aware of the options and not feel like your pigeon holed too one way of making xp.

Burn wrote:

_Anshin_ wrote:I often think the cons purposely stack the missions when they can to dissuade the other side from joining.

Yeah, because Autobots NEVER do that.

_Anshin_ wrote:There is no stacked deck. Its other your build is good, or your lucky.

Because strafers and avoiders fare so well in the arena against rammers.

Stun factor? If a rammer's first move is to ram and it's successful the arena battle is over there and then. At least with missions there's more chance for the stunned to recover.

_Anshin_ wrote:With the Missions, you can have a stacked deck and no reward. Without a reward what is the point for punishing my faction with a lower score?

The mission win bonus was implemented to encourage people to participate in missions more.

The initial basis of the HMW game was to be centred around missions. Programmers and staff members over the years have tried to ensure that happens. However people are of two mentalities. They either enjoy the arena more or they prefer the arena as they're scared about lack of backup. In all the years i've always been amazed that if someone sees a lack of backup in missions they automatically go to the arena and ignore all the other commanders sitting there waiting. Why not contact them and say "hey, we seem to play at the same time, let's work together in missions".

Seems pretty simple to me.

I never claimed that Autobots don't do it. It was is an issue that happens to both sides. Don't think that I am trying trying to say one side is over powered and the other isn't. When I gave my examples it was from my stand point. I admit this was wrong. As it stands when I write this response the missions are currently (Bots/Cons) (0/6,1/6,3/5,1/0,2/1). This is typical at night. During the day around 10-2pm EST it is typically the reverse.

Burn wrote:Because strafers and avoiders fare so well in the arena against rammers.

Stun factor? If a rammer's first move is to ram and it's successful the arena battle is over there and then. At least with missions there's more chance for the stunned to recover.

I again disagree. If you get rammed in the mission your pretty much done if the you get another bot attacking you in a row. I've been rammed in an Arena and had the next two attack missed. Again my last three missions yielded 49/49, 165/115, 88/88. My last three Arenas yielded 188/188, 297/322, 301/326.

I don't disagree with the idea of yielding a bonus award for winning the missions either. I just say if you win it without fighting anybody then you shouldn't get the bonus. This is pretty much like sitting around in the Arena. By removing the bonus for stacking the deck this may to spread out the distribution and even push some people into the arena so that there is more fighting and less sitting around.

Burn wrote:The mission win bonus was implemented to encourage people to participate in missions more.

The initial basis of the HMW game was to be centred around missions. Programmers and staff members over the years have tried to ensure that happens. However people are of two mentalities. They either enjoy the arena more or they prefer the arena as they're scared about lack of backup. In all the years i've always been amazed that if someone sees a lack of backup in missions they automatically go to the arena and ignore all the other commanders sitting there waiting. Why not contact them and say "hey, we seem to play at the same time, let's work together in missions".

I understand this. However like i stated before, I play during the day from roughly around 6 to 2 am. I do this all day during work and off of my phone when I get a chance. When I first started playing I joined a group (ASF) and we talked via AIM. However its hard for me to do now since I can't AIM at work and when I am home I would love to spend time organizing with people, but I spend time with the girlfriend. So for me its a matter of opportunity until I can finish moving in and start my new job.

Psychout wrote: But, arguably, punishing them by leaving them alone to die can be worse. How will your allies develop if you leave them to be slaughtered? At the very least you can use the brave soul as a shield whilst you score a handful of points...

Thats exactly my point. I tend to be the shield for somebody else. Again my points tend to be more in the arena, I know once I get past 1 this will be a different story, but for right now just keep chugging away

Absolute Zero wrote:The autobots out number the Cons. The problem you're having with missions, where there simply aren't any bots joining the missions and backing up other bots is pretty much how the game has always been. You may feel that the cons are purposefully stacking the missions, but I don't see how there is a problem. If the other autobots got out of the arena, then you would have full sides in the missions, and you would see a larger XP pay out.

I agree with you 100%. However I am trying to find a solution to a problem that obviously hasn't been corrected yet.

Absolute Zero wrote:Now, the reason why a side gets the energon/xp pay out for victory in missions, but not in the arena is pretty simple. If you send a group out to go and secure a facility or something, they're going to be paid for it whether or not someone actually resists them or not. Or, if you're a RPGer, when you complete a fetch quest, you still get your XP and money for completing the quest. The reason you don't get it in the arena for timing out on your wait is because you're not doing anything. You sat their on your duff waiting, not doing anything, for two hours and didn't contribute anything to your faction. It's kinda like sitting in a room, not doing classwork, or working, just sat there doing nothing. Should you be rewarded for that? Probably not. People don't generally get paid for doing nothing, but soldiers get paid for doing their job, whether they shoot people or not.

Again, I understand however having the Energon/XP payout, however please understand this. If you want good troops you pay them to get the training they need as well. You would not release a new recruit into the battle field. You would pay to train them as well as pay them for their time in service. Trust me, even after you reach higher ranks in the military, you are expected to go into training. So why not treat the arena as training?

Absolute Zero wrote:Now, I know those missions stacked with cons can be daunting, but really, if you join them, suddenly they're not 1 on 6, they're 2 on 6, still more than likely a loss, but you can earn a bit of XP (with a good build, you can earn a lot) and if it looks better to the next person joining missions, so they might join, making it 3 on 6, and much better odds. Suddenly, you have a better chance at better XP than you could get in the arena, and instead of hanging other players out to dry, you're providing much needed back up, and helping out the other autobot players. That should be part of being the "heroic" autobot, but it has always tended to be the mentality of the con players, which is why you see cons in missions, because they're more willing to back up their allies and not say "well, I might not do well here, so screw it."

There is another way to look at it though. Lets take your example of 2 on 6. Yes there is a chance to earn a bit of XP, however what I am really doing is strengthening the enemy. While I may earn a hundred XP and 50 Energon, they will probably earn 200 XP, 100 Energon and a bonus of 200 XP and 150 Energon. If I am to think this is a war, then I need to think what is it that I can gain from strengthening my enemy's troops? While I may take one out and stop them from gaining more than the 200 XP, the rest will surely profit. To quote Sun Tzu,

"The primary objective of every state should be to weaken enemy states without actually engaging in armed combat"

So by fighting in Arenas, I am not strengthening a group of cons, I may be only strengthening one.

_Anshin_ wrote:You would not release a new recruit into the battle field.

Which is why there are no cross level missions for level 0's.

The plan was to also to see level 1's only face off against other level 1's or level 2's with a 1-11 mission being rare to generate. Unfortunately access was lost before the 1-3's could be taken out.

You would pay to train them as well as pay them for their time in service. Trust me, even after you reach higher ranks in the military, you are expected to go into training. So why not treat the arena as training?

There is another way to look at it though. Lets take your example of 2 on 6. Yes there is a chance to earn a bit of XP, however what I am really doing is strengthening the enemy.

What you're also doing is increasing the odds of your sides victory.

People may look at the missions screen and see 1 vs 6 and run. But if they see 2 vs 6 they may be more inclined to think "if I join, it'll be 3 vs 6, that's better chances". And someone else may come along and think the same thing and suddenly it's 4 vs 6.

But instead, people walk away to the arena.

Long story short, the missions are the core of the game. The payout bonuses were implemented to encourage more people into them.

We can't be held responsible for how people choose to play the game. But all it takes is for one person to try to rally others. You say you're busy? Fair enough, but take a note of the other Commanders in the arena around the same time as you, check their profiles (when you have a chance), find one that's fairly active and see if they can put the time in to rally people.

_Anshin_ wrote:

Absolute Zero wrote:The autobots out number the Cons. The problem you're having with missions, where there simply aren't any bots joining the missions and backing up other bots is pretty much how the game has always been. You may feel that the cons are purposefully stacking the missions, but I don't see how there is a problem. If the other autobots got out of the arena, then you would have full sides in the missions, and you would see a larger XP pay out.

I agree with you 100%. However I am trying to find a solution to a problem that obviously hasn't been corrected yet.

Because it's not a problem with the game, it's a problem with the players. Every single complaint you've had about the missions? It's not the mission code. It's 100% the problem with the players.

Absolute Zero wrote:Now, the reason why a side gets the energon/xp pay out for victory in missions, but not in the arena is pretty simple. If you send a group out to go and secure a facility or something, they're going to be paid for it whether or not someone actually resists them or not. Or, if you're a RPGer, when you complete a fetch quest, you still get your XP and money for completing the quest. The reason you don't get it in the arena for timing out on your wait is because you're not doing anything. You sat their on your duff waiting, not doing anything, for two hours and didn't contribute anything to your faction. It's kinda like sitting in a room, not doing classwork, or working, just sat there doing nothing. Should you be rewarded for that? Probably not. People don't generally get paid for doing nothing, but soldiers get paid for doing their job, whether they shoot people or not.

Again, I understand however having the Energon/XP payout, however please understand this. If you want good troops you pay them to get the training they need as well. You would not release a new recruit into the battle field. You would pay to train them as well as pay them for their time in service. Trust me, even after you reach higher ranks in the military, you are expected to go into training. So why not treat the arena as training?

If it was treated as training, you wouldn't get energon for it. New recruits also don't train in solo fighting exclusively. They have to learn to fight and act as a unit. Which is why level 0s only face other level 0s in missions, and not 1s and whatever else.

Absolute Zero wrote:Now, I know those missions stacked with cons can be daunting, but really, if you join them, suddenly they're not 1 on 6, they're 2 on 6, still more than likely a loss, but you can earn a bit of XP (with a good build, you can earn a lot) and if it looks better to the next person joining missions, so they might join, making it 3 on 6, and much better odds. Suddenly, you have a better chance at better XP than you could get in the arena, and instead of hanging other players out to dry, you're providing much needed back up, and helping out the other autobot players. That should be part of being the "heroic" autobot, but it has always tended to be the mentality of the con players, which is why you see cons in missions, because they're more willing to back up their allies and not say "well, I might not do well here, so screw it."

There is another way to look at it though. Lets take your example of 2 on 6. Yes there is a chance to earn a bit of XP, however what I am really doing is strengthening the enemy. While I may earn a hundred XP and 50 Energon, they will probably earn 200 XP, 100 Energon and a bonus of 200 XP and 150 Energon. If I am to think this is a war, then I need to think what is it that I can gain from strengthening my enemy's troops? While I may take one out and stop them from gaining more than the 200 XP, the rest will surely profit. To quote Sun Tzu,

"The primary objective of every state should be to weaken enemy states without actually engaging in armed combat"

So by fighting in Arenas, I am not strengthening a group of cons, I may be only strengthening one.

If you want to play by that quote, go play Farmville. This game is called Heavy Metal War, not Heavy Metal Avoid Armed Combat.

Burn wrote:People may look at the missions screen and see 1 vs 6 and run. But if they see 2 vs 6 they may be more inclined to think "if I join, it'll be 3 vs 6, that's better chances". And someone else may come along and think the same thing and suddenly it's 4 vs 6.

Sadly I have tried this quite frequently and it doesn't always work. The down side tho is that at level 0 it is not easy to win outnumbered matches so I can see why some people would run from them. My biggest issue with the arena is that people will leave their 'Bots there (or 'Cons) when there are plenty of mission that can use their help. Even worse they will load up in one mission, giving it 1 vs 6 odds, instead of jumping in on a mission that could actually use their help.

I know I do complain, at times, about the missions and the lack of support but I would still choose them over the arena giving the choice. The only exception would be, like this morning, when there were no 'Cons in the missions, or any missions for that matter, and a group of 'Cons waiting to get beat....er I mean waiting to do battle

Its ok, I joined a mission (the only one available at the time this morning to try to give what everyone was saying a chance. I normally stay away from 1-11 missions, but what the hell everyone can't be wrong.

http://www.seibertron.com/heavymetalwar ... _id=259295

0/0. I think I'll take the 1hr in the CR to think about my mistake.

_Anshin_ wrote:Its ok, I joined a mission (the only one available at the time this morning to try to give what everyone was saying a chance. I normally stay away from 1-11 missions, but what the hell everyone can't be wrong.

http://www.seibertron.com/heavymetalwar ... _id=259295

0/0. I think I'll take the 1hr in the CR to think about my mistake.

it happens to the best of us.

yes its hard at low levels. yes, it sucks. but you cant get discouraged at every 0 xp mission. stick it out and it'll pay orff in the long run. you cant expect to be gaining tons of xp right off the bat. Its not gonna be fast, and its not gonna be easy, but you gotta pick yourself up and try again. If i got discouraged from losing missions, i wouldn't still be playing. The 1-11s are gonna be the more brutal missions for a while (until you get level 4's probably) but they do generate lots of xp, but have harder opponents, so if you can (not always possible)join the 1-2 or 3 missions.

Now I'll be the first to admit the Arena CAN be a good place to get xp, but missions normally give alot more. and its fun to take win outnumbered missions.

there is also a unwritten rule that when you level, you initially suck more before it pays off. don't ask me why, its just the way it happens.

and for the record, getting rid of the arena makes repaiers unusable.

Name_Violation wrote:and for the record, getting rid of the arena makes repaiers unusable.

I think you meant missions, but you're absolutely right.

maybe one day you'll post here when sober - then we're all in trouble...:-p

Psychout wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:and for the record, getting rid of the arena makes repaiers unusable.

I think you meant missions, but you're absolutely right.

maybe one day you'll post here when sober - then we're all in trouble...:-p

right on both accounts

Name_Violation wrote:

Psychout wrote:

Name_Violation wrote:and for the record, getting rid of the arena makes repaiers unusable.

I think you meant missions, but you're absolutely right.

maybe one day you'll post here when sober - then we're all in trouble...:-p

right on both accounts

You have 2 accounts?!!

Dammit, don't the mods do anything around here???

My suggestion is that we call Burn, Burny from now on.

Aerialbot Commander wrote:

Burn wrote:People may look at the missions screen and see 1 vs 6 and run. But if they see 2 vs 6 they may be more inclined to think "if I join, it'll be 3 vs 6, that's better chances". And someone else may come along and think the same thing and suddenly it's 4 vs 6.

Sadly I have tried this quite frequently and it doesn't always work. The down side tho is that at level 0 it is not easy to win outnumbered matches so I can see why some people would run from them. My biggest issue with the arena is that people will leave their 'Bots there (or 'Cons) when there are plenty of mission that can use their help. Even worse they will load up in one mission, giving it 1 vs 6 odds, instead of jumping in on a mission that could actually use their help.

Sadly, that is the unfortunate side effect of our Autobot faction. For the most part, we wouldn't know teamwork if it jumped out and bit our collective arses. But I wont give up! I will argue for joining missions where your brothers are out numbered. If you die, it is better to die together then to let them be slaughtered alone, for that is what will undoubtably happen, if we don't support each other. Dieing alone.

Absolute Zero wrote:

Aerialbot Commander wrote:

Burn wrote:People may look at the missions screen and see 1 vs 6 and run. But if they see 2 vs 6 they may be more inclined to think "if I join, it'll be 3 vs 6, that's better chances". And someone else may come along and think the same thing and suddenly it's 4 vs 6.

Sadly I have tried this quite frequently and it doesn't always work. The down side tho is that at level 0 it is not easy to win outnumbered matches so I can see why some people would run from them. My biggest issue with the arena is that people will leave their 'Bots there (or 'Cons) when there are plenty of mission that can use their help. Even worse they will load up in one mission, giving it 1 vs 6 odds, instead of jumping in on a mission that could actually use their help.

Sadly, that is the unfortunate side effect of our Autobot faction. For the most part, we wouldn't know teamwork if it jumped out and bit our collective arses. But I wont give up! I will argue for joining missions where your brothers are out numbered. If you die, it is better to die together then to let them be slaughtered alone, for that is what will undoubtably happen, if we don't support each other. Dieing alone.

I admit there were a few times I would have giving up on the game. Usually right around the time I scrap one of Naval Strikes lack...er I mean Decepticons is when I feel better and get back into playing the game