Percent-Based Mods Do Not Facilitate Build Diversity

[Seox]

Put simply, because most mods are based on percentages, weapons and warframes really aren't as customizable as they could or ought to be. 

 

I really like the effects of the impact proc, and I love the lex prime, but no matter how much I'm willing to sacrifice in other areas, I can't make the lex's most prominent damage type impact. On the flip side, recent posts that ask why status mods have not been buffed touch on the problems with weapons that DO possess high innate numbers in stats that mods modify.

 

Because certain weapons carry such high status chances, it's difficult to buff the mods that buff status chance without breaking these outliers. While we could opt to normalize the stats on weapons (bring up the low end, drop the high end), this does not allow us to modify the way weapons behave. The other answer would be to change the way these mods modify their stats in question.

 

To play devil's advocate, we also don't want to allow too much freedom in customization and I'm aware of this. If all weapons can be made to do anything, then build diversity doesn't matter because they're all basically restyled/reskinned versions of one another. I simply think that the current system's percent based mods mean that only weapons that already had a given stat to begin with can actually do anything with it. I'm surely not the only one who wanted to build a crit nikana.

 

TL;DR Because mods tend to be %based (impact damage +60%), the only weapons that benefit from them are weapons that already had that stat to begin with. Mods don't let us build differently, they just buff the base stats of the weapon and prevent players from creating truly unique, truly interesting builds.

 

Let me know what you think.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Seox

[immolator1001]

Do a blast build, its basically the same effect of knocking people over.

[The_Sharp_Demonologist]

Many have discussed how we could get more customization whit out guns, especially since Damage 2.0 precented status chance whit no good status chance mods. I would like a Mod 2.0 in the future but i dont know when that would happen, who knows maybe they already have prepared alot of reworked mods for us for the next patch.

 

There is nothing funnier tan going invisible and proc Radiation on a couple of Heavies to make them fight each other, but i can only do that whit a high stat chance weapon like Tysis. i would like to do that whit a sniper (like the Vulkar) to watch the Fireworks form afar but i cant cause the status chance mods are blocked for even only and the ones we have are useless.

Edited April 24, 2014 by The_Sharp_Demonologist

[Monolake]

I threw in a proposal for non-% mods that could benifit the weaker weapons more and make the gap smaller instead of scaling where the relative power ratio remains the same. 

But that would require a whole system change and rebalance which DE wont ever do.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Monolake

[Seox]

Exactly - I've wanted to build a crit nikana, an impact based lex...etc. The problem with the current system is that you're only "allowed" to build weapons and frames in the way that they were designed in the first place. You cannot use steel fiber to make a frame that wasn't already intended to be armored a juggernaut, etc. The tough part is as I said before - how far can you fairly go before everything is just a reskin of everything else?

 

What kinds of solutions might fit well and address the problem?

[OblivionNecroninja]

Agreed. at the very least, there need to be SOME mods which are not percentage-based. 

[Ezren]

I can't really emphasize how short-sighted this entire shtick is without basically insulting your intelligence outright, so here it is.

 

It's % based because the variables fluctuate to a great degree. You cannot add static +damage to pistols, because then rapid-fire pistols would become incredible favored. You cannot add a static statistic-boosting mod for the very basic reason that each weapon has a variable approach to doing damage.

 

So here's the part where it's worse, for the part where you were supposed to think this through. Changing that system from percentage-based to static stats means that specific weapons will become the go-to for their synergy with that system. In which case, it will entirely eliminate diversity, trading it for a system where specific types of weapons are most favored.

 

You have a rapid fire weapon and you have a slow-shot weapon. Their damage is, as current, roughly equal. You increase their damage by 90%. Their damage is still roughly equal. Now you instead increase the damage by +10 per shot. Suddenly the semi-auto weapon is far inferior to the rapid fire weapon. Where is the choice there?

Exactly - I've wanted to build a crit nikana, an impact based lex
...

You cannot use steel fiber to make a frame that wasn't already intended to be armored a juggernaut, etc. The tough part is as I said before - how far can you fairly go before everything is just a reskin of everything else?

 

Do you not grasp how entirely nonsensical that is? Frames can't be made identical through mods, so they're reskins? Just saying it doesn't make it a point. You wanted to make an impact-based Lex? No, you really didn't, but let's pretend you wanted to, for some reason, pretend that the sniper pistol should fire impact shots. Sure. And you wanted to make a Bo build for Slashing damage, right? Did you want an Impact Fang build too? Or are you perhaps making up terrible scenarios to try and make your point seem somehow valid?

 

Weapons and frames have strengths and weaknesses. Mods accentuate them. I don't know how to explain it more clearly for you to understand. The fact that you follow up your complaints that weapons and frames are so varying with your insinuation that they are all the same shows a serious lack of critical thinking.

[DoomFruit]

Do you not grasp how entirely nonsensical that is? Frames can't be made identical through mods, so they're reskins? Just saying it doesn't make it a point. You wanted to make an impact-based Lex? No, you really didn't, but let's pretend you wanted to, for some reason, pretend that the sniper pistol should fire impact shots. Sure. And you wanted to make a Bo build for Slashing damage, right? Did you want an Impact Fang build too? Or are you perhaps making up terrible scenarios to try and make your point seem somehow valid?

The Vulkar is an impact-based sniper weapon.

 

And he does have a point in terms of the physical damage mods. Because they only add on to the base stat, they are utterly worthless when compared to an elemental mod. You can add on 60% of 60% of your damage (for pistols, assuming you boost the *majority* damage type)... or you can add on 90% of 100% of your damage. I don't know of anyone in my clan that uses them.

[Monolake]

I can't really emphasize how short-sighted this entire shtick is without basically insulting your intelligence outright, so here it is.

It's % based because the variables fluctuate to a great degree. You cannot add static +damage to pistols, because then rapid-fire pistols would become incredible favored. You cannot add a static statistic-boosting mod for the very basic reason that each weapon has a variable approach to doing damage.

So here's the part where it's worse, for the part where you were supposed to think this through. Changing that system from percentage-based to static stats means that specific weapons will become the go-to for their synergy with that system. In which case, it will entirely eliminate diversity, trading it for a system where specific types of weapons are most favored.

You have a rapid fire weapon and you have a slow-shot weapon. Their damage is, as current, roughly equal. You increase their damage by 90%. Their damage is still roughly equal. Now you instead increase the damage by +10 per shot. Suddenly the semi-auto weapon is far inferior to the rapid fire weapon. Where is the choice there?

Do you not grasp how entirely nonsensical that is? Frames can't be made identical through mods, so they're reskins? Just saying it doesn't make it a point. You wanted to make an impact-based Lex? No, you really didn't, but let's pretend you wanted to, for some reason, pretend that the sniper pistol should fire impact shots. Sure. And you wanted to make a Bo build for Slashing damage, right? Did you want an Impact Fang build too? Or are you perhaps making up terrible scenarios to try and make your point seem somehow valid?

Weapons and frames have strengths and weaknesses. Mods accentuate them. I don't know how to explain it more clearly for you to understand. The fact that you follow up your complaints that weapons and frames are so varying with your insinuation that they are all the same shows a serious lack of critical thinking.

All you need is a competent designer with spreadsheets and lots of changes across the board and such system would be balanced better than the current one, with the gap between weapons lowered (if thats what you want, its debatable if weapons should be close in stats).

There is a linear equasion for dps= (firerate+Y rate mod)*(damage per shot+X dmg mod) and you can find set values for X and Y to equalize the stats.

And of course you would have to alter lots of base stats to prevent the case of negative solutions.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Monolake

[Ezren]

All you need is a competent designer with spreadsheets and lots of changes across the board and such system would be balanced better than the current one, with the gap between weapons lowered (if thats what you want, its debatable if weapons should be close in stats).

There is a linear equasion for dps= (firerate+Y rate mod)*(damage per shot+X dmg mod) and you can find set values for X and Y to equalize the stats.

And of course you would have to alter lots of base stats to prevent the case of negative solutions.

 

Unless you can specify how it can be "better", you're just making vague claims with no basis. If the current system is balanced so badly, why can't you come up with a competent alternative?

 

Because, and you either said this without realizing it or knew it and didn't care about anything but saying "nuh", but measuring weapons by "DPS" just homogenizes them much, much further, and increasing their "DPS" through mods is just a slightly different way of saying increasing their damage by a percentage exactly as it does right now. You are actually backpedaling away from originality.

 

Developers can look on the forums as see stuff like "scrap the current system and alter all the stats on all the weapons because I want to make one specific weapon do a different type of damage", and if they address it, they can only look for a very polite way to say "Thank you for your terrible idea about how to ruin our game".

[Monolake]

Unless you can specify how it can be "better", you're just making vague claims with no basis. If the current system is balanced so badly, why can't you come up with a competent alternative?

 

Because, and you either said this without realizing it or knew it and didn't care about anything but saying "nuh", but measuring weapons by "DPS" just &*$$genizes them much, much further, and increasing their "DPS" through mods is just a slightly different way of saying increasing their damage by a percentage exactly as it does right now. You are actually backpedaling away from originality.

 

Developers can look on the forums as see stuff like "scrap the current system and alter all the stats on all the weapons because I want to make one specific weapon do a different type of damage", and if they address it, they can only look for a very polite way to say "Thank you for your terrible idea about how to ruin our game".

 

Its better at equalizing the weapons and I wrote how. Its debatable, but many people want more even power between all the weapons. Or you might think its generalising weapons and its bad, so you are happy with % scaling that keeps best weapons 4 times better then the weakest,

[Xylia]

Do a blast build, its basically the same effect of knocking people over.

 

That works for the Impact Proc, but what if I want Bleed on a weapon that is Impact or Puncture?

 

You'll tell me to use Toxin, right? Well, crap what if I have another element on that weapon? Then I get something stupid like Radiation or somecrap and I have to play Sliding Block Puzzle to get the mods on there in a certain order to make that happen.

 

And I really don't understand why bullet-based weapons have set-in-stone damage types anyways. When you take two similar weapons, say a Dread and a Paris... why does the bow itself determine the kind of damage it does, and not merely the arrows? What's preventing you from shooting a Paris arrow out of a Dread, or vice-versa?

 

IMO, guns should have an additional mod slot, and each gun should come with the mod that goes in that slot and they should all be free (0 mod points). These slots are for Projectiles (obviously some weapons shouldn't have them, like Penta, Ogris, Ignis, Phage, etc).

 

You could then equip Dread Arrows on a Paris to make it Slash instead of Puncture.

 

The Projectile Mods merely control the % of damage. For example, the Dread does 90 Slash, 5 Impact and 5 Puncture. Therefore, its Mod Card would say "Slash 90%, Impact 5%, Puncture 5%". When you equip those arrows on the Paris, (which only does 75 physical damage), You'd get 67.5 Slash, 3.75 Impact, and 3.75 Puncture.

 

The weapon would determine the strength of the projectile, the projectile mod card would determine the damage type(s) the projectile does and you get these mods for free when you build/claim a weapon.

 

BAM.

 

More diversity.

[Ezren]

Its better at equalizing the weapons and I wrote how. Its debatable, but many people want more even power between all the weapons. Or you might think its generalising weapons and its bad, so you are happy with % scaling that keeps best weapons 4 times better then the weakest,

 

Wow, there's a whole lot of imagination in you, isn't there?

 

So it's "better" at equalizing weapons, in some undefined way. And "many people" want more power "between all the weapons" (we'll just guess at what that's even supposed to mean).

 

But really now. Your thought is that you should "generalize" the weapons. And you don't consider that a bad though, right? Wow. So the gun you start with should be just as potent as a weapon that has rare components, parts, and blueprints, right? Because that's your philosophy.

 

Here's the short and sweet of it: No. Weapons are currently unique and behave, function, and deal damage differently. They're diverse. It's good game design. It encourages players to go out and farm for these weapons to try them out. It encourages players to keep multiple weapons around for different builds and effect. It encourages people to go out and hunt for those weapons with desirable traits.

 

This is, and I can't believe I keep needing to explain this, a free to play game. Generalized, boring weapon design will not work. A design concept that encourages players to keep multiple types of weapons for a variety of loadouts and enemies, that's conducive to their business model. And there is no approach to game design where "variety is bad" is ever on the lips of the design team.

 

Setting that aside, let's consider from another perspective: Mastery. Players build weapons to max them out for Mastery. So if everything was "generalized", it would be a process of using slightly different weapons. It would be levels of similar mechanics and DPS and effectiveness. Short-range guns and long-range guns, rapid-fire and bolt-action? NUH. Gotta be similar! Right?

 

So from a design standpoint, a business standpoint, and a player standpoint, variety is beneficial. But you want to generalize because, what? Shortsighted and shallow understanding?

[Tsukinoki]

@Xylia

The only problem with your idea is that it would lead to making tons of weapons obsolete.

Why would I *ever* use the paris when I can use the cernos or dread when both of those weapons can have better damage and crit chances and I can just make them deal majority puncture damage?

Instead of going "I'll use the paris on grineer, dread on infested, and cernos on corpus" it'll turn into "I'll use the Dread with the paris arrows on grineer, Dread with dread arrows on infested, and Dread with cernos arrows on corpus"

No one would go "How about I make the paris deal slashing damage!" when the dread outclasses it completely.

And even when looking at two weapons that are pretty identical, in this example Dread and Paris Prime, the Dread would always be chosen because it has a 5% crit over the paris prime and everything else in the same. As it stands when I go against infested I chose the Dread because it works better and against grineer I choose paris prime because its better. With your system it would be dread only.

Where is the diversity in that system?

The current system has more diversity and important choices than the one you are suggesting.

And you can repeat that with a vast majority of weapons in this game if you could just swap around the physical damage types like that.

In the current system at least there are incentives to pick the right weapon for the right faction because of innate physical damage. In the system you're suggesting you're just completely removing all of that.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Tsukinoki

[Xylia]

Why would I *ever* use the paris when I can use the cernos or dread when both of those weapons can have better damage and crit chances and I can just make them deal majority puncture damage?

 

That's why you tweak the weapons so that they have pros and cons that go beyond pure damage.

 

Maybe.... the Paris does less damage, but has a faster arrow draw, the Dread does more damage but has a slower arrow draw? Maybe the Cernos has a damage inbetween Paris and Dread, but since it is made for impact arrows (or maybe it has iron sights where the other two bows do not), it has a lot less ballistics drop than the other two bows?

 

And it kinda requires you to actually HAVE these weapons in the first place, you can't have Dread Arrows without obtaining an actual Dread.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Xylia

[Ezren]

That works for the Impact Proc, but what if I want Bleed on a weapon that is Impact or Puncture?

 

You'll tell me to use Toxin, right? Well, crap what if I have another element on that weapon? Then I get something stupid like Radiation or somecrap and I have to play Sliding Block Puzzle to get the mods on there in a certain order to make that happen.

 

And I really don't understand why bullet-based weapons have set-in-stone damage types anyways. When you take two similar weapons, say a Dread and a Paris... why does the bow itself determine the kind of damage it does, and not merely the arrows? What's preventing you from shooting a Paris arrow out of a Dread, or vice-versa?

 

IMO, guns should have an additional mod slot, and each gun should come with the mod that goes in that slot and they should all be free (0 mod points). These slots are for Projectiles (obviously some weapons shouldn't have them, like Penta, Ogris, Ignis, Phage, etc).

 

You could then equip Dread Arrows on a Paris to make it Slash instead of Puncture.

 

The Projectile Mods merely control the % of damage. For example, the Dread does 90 Slash, 5 Impact and 5 Puncture. Therefore, its Mod Card would say "Slash 90%, Impact 5%, Puncture 5%". When you equip those arrows on the Paris, (which only does 75 physical damage), You'd get 67.5 Slash, 3.75 Impact, and 3.75 Puncture.

 

The weapon would determine the strength of the projectile, the projectile mod card would determine the damage type(s) the projectile does and you get these mods for free when you build/claim a weapon.

 

BAM.

 

More diversity.

BAM. You need to have a cup of coffee, sit down, and really look at that.

 

That applies only to bows, and even then, only marginally. It's a partial idea. You can't just switch ammo from gun to gun to make a wholly different weapon, because guns fire specific types of ammunition. Putting a shotgun shell in a sniper rifle doesn't give you a shotgun, it gives you a sniper rifle that won't fire.

[Xylia]

That applies only to bows, and even then, only marginally. It's a partial idea. You can't just switch ammo from gun to gun to make a wholly different weapon, because guns fire specific types of ammunition. Putting a shotgun shell in a sniper rifle doesn't give you a shotgun, it gives you a sniper rifle that won't fire.

 

OBVIOUSLY, Shotguns, Pistols and Rifles would have their own ammo types. You're not putting pistol ammo in a rifle. The Mod System already supports this; you can't put a Shotgun Spazz in a pistol for example.

 

You could interchange, say, a Hind and a Braton bullet, or perhaps a Lex and a Magnus bullet, or perhaps swap a Hek and a Strun Wraith shell.

[Monolake]

Wow, there's a whole lot of imagination in you, isn't there?

 

So it's "better" at equalizing weapons, in some undefined way. And "many people" want more power "between all the weapons" (we'll just guess at what that's even supposed to mean).

 

But really now. Your thought is that you should "generalize" the weapons. And you don't consider that a bad though, right? Wow. So the gun you start with should be just as potent as a weapon that has rare components, parts, and blueprints, right? Because that's your philosophy.

 

Here's the short and sweet of it: No. Weapons are currently unique and behave, function, and deal damage differently. They're diverse. It's good game design. It encourages players to go out and farm for these weapons to try them out. It encourages players to keep multiple weapons around for different builds and effect. It encourages people to go out and hunt for those weapons with desirable traits.

 

This is, and I can't believe I keep needing to explain this, a free to play game. Generalized, boring weapon design will not work. A design concept that encourages players to keep multiple types of weapons for a variety of loadouts and enemies, that's conducive to their business model. And there is no approach to game design where "variety is bad" is ever on the lips of the design team.

 

Setting that aside, let's consider from another perspective: Mastery. Players build weapons to max them out for Mastery. So if everything was "generalized", it would be a process of using slightly different weapons. It would be levels of similar mechanics and DPS and effectiveness. Short-range guns and long-range guns, rapid-fire and bolt-action? NUH. Gotta be similar! Right?

 

So from a design standpoint, a business standpoint, and a player standpoint, variety is beneficial. But you want to generalize because, what? Shortsighted and shallow understanding?

I defined it mathematically, read up. And you missed the word 'even'  in that sentence about power.

You must be new here, quite a lot of players want all the weapons to be viable at high level with proper moding. I dont care to argue on this, Im sure you will find some one else if you want.

Btw 'inferiority' is different from 'variety'.

Edited April 25, 2014 by Monolake

[Seox]

I can't really emphasize how short-sighted this entire shtick is without basically insulting your intelligence outright, so here it is.

 

It's % based because the variables fluctuate to a great degree. You cannot add static +damage to pistols, because then rapid-fire pistols would become incredible favored. You cannot add a static statistic-boosting mod for the very basic reason that each weapon has a variable approach to doing damage.

 

So here's the part where it's worse, for the part where you were supposed to think this through. Changing that system from percentage-based to static stats means that specific weapons will become the go-to for their synergy with that system. In which case, it will entirely eliminate diversity, trading it for a system where specific types of weapons are most favored.

 

You have a rapid fire weapon and you have a slow-shot weapon. Their damage is, as current, roughly equal. You increase their damage by 90%. Their damage is still roughly equal. Now you instead increase the damage by +10 per shot. Suddenly the semi-auto weapon is far inferior to the rapid fire weapon. Where is the choice there?

 

Do you not grasp how entirely nonsensical that is? Frames can't be made identical through mods, so they're reskins? Just saying it doesn't make it a point. You wanted to make an impact-based Lex? No, you really didn't, but let's pretend you wanted to, for some reason, pretend that the sniper pistol should fire impact shots. Sure. And you wanted to make a Bo build for Slashing damage, right? Did you want an Impact Fang build too? Or are you perhaps making up terrible scenarios to try and make your point seem somehow valid?

 

Weapons and frames have strengths and weaknesses. Mods accentuate them. I don't know how to explain it more clearly for you to understand. The fact that you follow up your complaints that weapons and frames are so varying with your insinuation that they are all the same shows a serious lack of critical thinking.

 

Mate, your straw man fell over.

 

When did I say anything about static mods?

 

Further, your bit in the end about "Gear has strengths and weaknesses and mods accentuate them" begs the question. This system exists in this form precisely because it hasn't already been changed. That's the premise I'm challenging.

 

 

This is, and I can't believe I keep needing to explain this, a free to play game. Generalized, boring weapon design will not work. A design concept that encourages players to keep multiple types of weapons for a variety of loadouts and enemies, that's conducive to their business model. And there is no approach to game design where "variety is bad" is ever on the lips of the design team.

 

 

You state this as if players actually buy weapons from the market. If you were to check the sales, I'm almost certain that the vast majority of it comes from potatoes/forma, and people will gather weapons because they want to try new ones out.

 

You've repeated several times now that I want to "generalize weapons", but I made it quite clear in the OP that I feel they need to be more general than they are now, but not so much that they're all the same thing. Please read the OP before continuing to post on things I've already acknowledged.

 

 

 

But really now. Your thought is that you should "generalize" the weapons. And you don't consider that a bad though, right? Wow. So the gun you start with should be just as potent as a weapon that has rare components, parts, and blueprints, right? Because that's your philosophy.

Again, I never mentioned weapon potency - my entire point is about build diversity. A starting weapon that can be modded in more than two ways != a starting weapon that is as powerful as a rare weapon.

 

 

BAM. You need to have a cup of coffee, sit down, and really look at that.

 

That applies only to bows, and even then, only marginally. It's a partial idea. You can't just switch ammo from gun to gun to make a wholly different weapon, because guns fire specific types of ammunition. Putting a shotgun shell in a sniper rifle doesn't give you a shotgun, it gives you a sniper rifle that won't fire.

 

Armor piercing ammo? Hollow points? Ball ammunition? JSP?

HEAT rockets? HESH? HE-FRAG?

 

Straw man again, mate :[ Obviously no one thinks you can put shotgun shells in a pistol, but explanations aren't that hard to find.

 

I proposed a problem and admitted I didn't have a solution, and you're right - some setups don't make any sense (impact fang, etc), but I'd advise you to be careful about what you tell people they do or don't want, because I'm pretty sure you don't have one of these:

 

Edited April 25, 2014 by Seox

[Seeto]

Let's say we categorise weapons based on their functions and overall types. There could then be certain mods that are only available for that weapon type. That said, I believe flat damage mods would become viable, with some tweaks.

For example bolt/semi shot weapons and automatic weapons are categorised separately based on innate fire rate, there could be 2 individual mods for the same attribute.

 

Bolt/semi flat damage mod:  90 Impact

Auto flat damage mod:         30 Impact

 

Now that we have already resolved the "fast fire rate weapons would be more preferred" issue, we can get on to the more dynamic possibilities:

Utilising percentage based modifiers WITH flat damage based ones.

 

If we were to separate the base % damage mods to one of the three main damage types as flat damage (Impact, Puncture and Slash), that would allow for more diverse builds. Of course weapons with a stronger innate puncture damage would benefit more from a flat damage puncture mod, but that would still make other damage type builds viable with the same weapon, just mildly to a lot weaker because it's not the primary damage type. That would allow people to still retain a wtfbbqgodmode9000kcrit build but also open up the imagination of the player to try out different builds. With what we have now, half the mod slots are already reserved because certain mods are that good it would be stupid not to use them. Like for weapons, they are generally flat % damage mods, fire rate and multistrike. 

 

A way to counter this would be as I said, create 3 mods that only give flat damage based on the damage type, Impact, Puncture and Slash.

Then completely scrap/rework flat % damage mods (Hornet Strike, Serration), and make elemental mods only gain a certain % of damage based on the highest damage type. Example:

 

Paris

Impact:     10

Puncture: 60

Slash:      10 

 

Add a flat damage slash mod = 100 slash (10 from base, 90 from mod). Now add a rank 1 Hellfire (30% more damage as fire):

 

Paris

Impact:     10

Puncture: 60

Slash:      100

Fire:         30 (30% of the highest damage type, slash)

 

Now onto multistrike. Instead of adding an additional hit with the same damage as the first, why not only do a % of the initial hit and decrease by that % for all the multistrike hits from there on, example: 50% damage decrease per hit

 

Base damage hit: 1000

First multistrike: 500

Second multistrike: 250

 

Total combined damage:1750, not 3000

This would eliminate EVERYONE using multistrike because it wouldn't be that insanely strong. It would still be useful, but not a bare necessity. 

 

 

I believe this would give people a lot more incentive to try out different build types while also retaining a strong "minmax" build for their gaming pleasure.... and have less mod slots "reserved". That's just my piece though, I wouldn't mind having my weapons serve multiple roles with the delicious A, B and C slots.

 

 

To Ezren: You have some very valid points, but you also have some very obnoxious behaviour. Calm your testicles, this is a conversation/debate... not an argument. No matter how much you disagree, there is no need to get personal.

 

Make tea, not war.