Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Landsraad

Collecting Balance Thoughts

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

941
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,107 posts
4,926 battles

I... Really don't know what I hope to accomplish with this thread, if anything. I'm just tired of seeing the same stuff suggested over and over with no change in sight and nobody budging. Maybe if we were to look at some ideas all taken together, how they might interact with each other as a unit, rather than in a vacuum as per usual people might be able to come to some kind of agreement? Screw it, here goes nothing.

AA Changes

Yes, I play carriers a lot. Yes, I think the rework can still work and is overall an improvement. But also, YES I agree that AA is in a bad place right now and needs some real work before we can get to the rework being considered successful without some big asterisks next to it. So how do we do that?

  • Give defensive fire back some of its "Panic" ability. Right now all DFAA does is put more pressure on carrier players to drop faster by causing more damage. That can mess up your aim and ability to perform successive strikes, sure, but it's not really all that noticeable an effect overall. Giving DFAA back at least some of its old panic ability to widen out aircraft dispersion would be more solid indicator that it's actually being helpful, the player using it feels like it's getting more done.
  • Make flak less random. Yeah, this is a pretty obvious one. Flak bursts certainly look cool now, but their effectiveness is solely based on where RNGsus places them in regards to the planes they're being fired at. Sometimes they burst far enough away that you don't have to dodge, other times multiple burst land on top of a squadron at once, it's stupid and unintuitive. There needs to be more consistency.
  • Make sector switching easier and more intuitive. This one's been on the list since day one of the rework. Just make it so we can bind a key to each sector, tap it once to switch, and again to either cancel or revert back to balanced, or just tap the other button to swap. There's no need to open a pop-up window to do something so simple.
    • Edit 5/14: Apparently sectors are being completely redone at some point in the future, no info beyond that though.
  • Overall AA balance tweaks. This is a tough one to feel out, but from my personal experience AA fire for ships of pretty much every tier except ten needs an across the board buff, and even at tier ten ships specced into dedicated AA boats like Worcester could use a little more bite to them. Right now the problem seems to be concentrated on tiers 5-8 though.
  • And speaking of AA tweaking, I honestly feel like destroyers in general could use a bump up in continuous damage overall. Not really a huge one, but enough that I can't just loiter over a Minsk for five minutes and not lose a single plane.
  • Actually, maybe a DoT buff isn't needed. Maybe we could increase AA potency by extending the average long range AA outward by about .5km, and then doing the same with medium and short range. More time in the danger zone means more damage, and this would keep aircraft's time in the flak zone on nearly every ship the same. Either way, whether it's range or DPS, AA needs to be a bit more potent and less random.
  • Increase XP and credit gains for AA damage and kills. Again, this is a player agency thing. If you want people to counter planes then the best way to do that is to reward them for doing it. Plus this could help alleviate some of the frustration that comes from being focused because hey, at least you're getting SOMETHING for the effort you're putting in to WASD hax and working your AA. In fact, why not add a small multiplier to XP/credits done to aircraft if it's coming from multiple sources at the same time? That would further reward players that drop fighter cover for allies and group up to share AA.
    • Edit 5/14: Aircraft economy is being overhauled in terms of plane kills, to be implemented sometime after sector overhaul.
  • So ships get little effects on them now to show you who is using radar and hydro, maybe add something like that in for DFAA? Like a little crosshair and plane logo over the main mast?

Carrier Changes

This is where I've got more data to work with, I'm mostly going by "feel" above. So how do we change carriers to bring them all more in line with each other and make them less frustrating to play against?

  • Takeoff delay. Not my idea, this is the devs. It's a pretty good one that goes a little ways towards fixing some problems, but I disagree with an aspect of the implementation: The time. Right now it's 0, 15, 30, 45 for tier 4, 6, 8, and 10 respectively. This means that at tier 4, nothing changes, but all the other tiers are penalized. I don't like that, that adds another mechanic for new players to learn to deal with in tier 6 that they may not know about. I'd suggest instead that the delay be 10, 20, 30, and 40. That way people figure this out early, but don't get hit too hard by it. Oh, and speaking of introducing mechanics to tier 4.
  • Give tier 4 carriers fighter consumables. I get why tier 4 doesn't get TB heals, but I don't get this. These ships see tier 3, that's LITERALLY the highest tier that can have NO AA outside of the Arkansas Beta. Giving tier 4 carriers the option to drop fighters over allies would help immensely in this regard because then at least these ships would get SOME defense from air attack.
  • Give carriers magazines. No, I'm not joking. If we can loldetonate any other class then why can't they do it to us? It's not a "critical existence failure" any more, your planes stay up after you die now for up to two minutes, so why not? Come on, you just know you want to blow up the Taiho when she comes back.
  • Change how squadron HP is distributed. Right now damage is spread across the whole squadron, and I agree that it needs to be spread somewhat, but that just means that right now your planes all start falling out of the sky at once. What if we split the squadron's HP up into attack runs and spread AA damage across those? AA dodging would be more accurate (you're steering a bunch of small plane groups instead of one huge formation), squadrons would lose strikes on an individual basis, but may not necessarily lose them all at once, and we still avoid losing one plane at a time most times as damage is spread across (on average) 2-4 planes.
  • Adjust US HE bombs. Okay I know, DBs are the aircraft type that HASN'T been nerfed, but right now US HE bombs are really strong. Maybe swapping some of that damage for increased fire chance?
    • Edit 5/14: All HE bombs are now getting a targeting ellipse similar to AP as of 0.8.4, this will make them harder to use against destroyers while not affecting performance as much versus larger cruisers, battleships, and carriers.
  • Adjust AP bombs. How the heck do four bombs from a Hakuryu do 58k damage with four citadels against a Yamato, but a single bomb citadel from a Graf Zeppelin only does 5.9k to a Grosser Kurfurst? Why is there a 250% difference in per-bomb damage there? Maybe Hak's citadel hits need to do a bit less damage. On the other hand, standard penetrating hit damage for most AP bombs is downright abysmal currently and could use a bit of a buff. I don't know the exact numbers, but... Yeah.
  • Seafires and Fairey Fireflies need a buff. Either increase their squadron size by 50% or increase their speed by 50% to bring their durability back in line with the the Royal Navy's "gimmick" of TOUGHER squadrons, because right now they're the least survivable tier 8 rocket planes in the game in every category that realistically influences an aircraft's toughness. Sure, they have the best per-plane HP, but that only becomes relevant if you can BACK IT UP with either comparable speed or comparable plane numbers, Implacable is nerfed in BOTH categories compared to her peers.
  • Level bombing, make it less RNG dependent. Just shrink the aiming reticle by like 5-10% or make the fall time a second faster, that's all I ask! It's hard enough to line the damn things up to begin with, why do they have to land in an area larger than a same-tier battleship WHEN FULLY AIMED?!
  • And for cosmetic changes:
    • Midway needs its bombers flipped. Skyraider should be elite, BTD should be stock, not the other way around.
    • Hakuryu, give it something like an upgraded B7A3, why is it using a land-based high-altitude interceptor in a bomber role?
    • Swap Hermes' bombers. The Swordfish NEEDS to be a torpedo bomber. End of discussion.
  • Aircraft Speed Boost/Engine Cooling consumable is being adjusted in 0.8.4. All rocket planes and Japanese bombers will now boost up to 40 knots faster at all tiers, and brake to 20 knots slower. All US and RN bombers will boost to 35 knots faster, and brake to 17.5 knots slower.
  • Properly model Midway, Hakuryu, and Taiho's armored flight decks. As-is the entire deck is maximum thickness, when in reality the thickest armor was only directly over the hangar and thinned out toward the edges, like on Audacious and Implacable.

Spotting

Okay I've got a few ideas here, some could work together, some might not, but let's just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It all revolves around the same premise though: Target acquisition should be line of sight based.

  • Remove dispersion buff from ships not spotted by the player when targeted. This would be the simplest, tiniest baby-step in this direction, and it's pretty straightforward: If you couldn't stop it yourself, you don't get the bonus from locking on.
  • Add dispersion DEbuff to ships not spotted by player when targeted. Same principle, but now we're adding on a penalty beyond what camo would give.
  • Disallow targeting of ships not spotted by the player. You can't spot it, you can't get a lock on it. Same principle as above, but now you don't get the crosshair matching the target's movement either.
  • Replace ships not spotted by player with icon. This is personally as far as I would go. If you can't spot a ship by yourself you still get to see where it is on the minimap and what type it is on the screen, but instead of seeing the ship itself you just see a small highlighted area or icon roughly where the ship is. Can't lock on, can't accurately judge direction, speed, or even exact position; but you know it's there and can make a best guess. Note: Some kind of exception may need to be made for smoke, otherwise this could be a MASSIVE nerf.

This would be applied to ALL ships and everything spotted by all ship types. Carrier spots something? You don't get a lock/don't see more than an icon until you can see it yourself to get an "accurate" fix on it. Destroyer spots something? Same deal. Planes looking for targets of opportunity? Well you still see what they are and roughly where they are, but lining up a run is more fiddly because aerial detection is so small comparatively, especially on the more agile targets like destroyers.

 

So yeah, that's what I've got. I really hope we can stay constructive and positive on this, preferably avoid just dismissing everything out of hand and calling for a "No CV mode" or just flat out removing carriers from the game. I'm just tired of all of this. I just want to see the game do well, and do well with the class I love in it. Add to all that the fact that the property where I work is being sold and the "manager" sent to oversee that process seems all-but completely incompetent when things are running less than 100% smoothly, while we are short-staffed at the BUSIEST TIME OF YEAR, and I just want to stop the arguing, the name-calling, the accusations, and try to look at things calmly so something useful might actually come from all this effort.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
810
[FML]
Members
2,459 posts
11,856 battles
35 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

Overall AA balance tweaks. This is a tough one to feel out, but from my personal experience AA fire for ships of pretty much every tier except ten needs an across the board buff, and even at tier ten ships specced into dedicated AA boats like Worcester could use a little more bite to them. Right now the problem seems to be concentrated on tiers 5-8 though.

Firstly, thanks for making a constructive post. Alas, no doubt it’ll go down in flames like everyone else who has tried engaging constructivly in this debate but didn’t run with the ideological purity line of abolishing CVs. Philistines. 

Anyway, I haven’t finished reading your post yet, but the quoted point jumped out at me. 

I think the difficulty here is that when a CV is top tier it stomps things, and when it is bottom tier it is almost completely neutered (and will be more likely to target DDs because it’s tge only thing they can do, and spot). 

But I think buffing AA isn’t the solution, as it exacerbates this latter problem in particular. 

I think the solution is to make CVs +/- 1 matchmaking. Now, normally I am ardently against 1 tier MM, but with CVs this greatly narrows the scope for ships’ AA to be balanced against. It should be tried first. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
810
[FML]
Members
2,459 posts
11,856 battles
42 minutes ago, Landsraad said:
  •  
  •  Increase XP and credit gains for AA damage and kills. Again, this is a player agency thing. If you want people to counter planes then the best way to do that is to reward them for doing it. Plus this could help alleviate some of the frustration that comes from being focused because hey, at least you're getting SOMETHING for the effort you're putting in to WASD hax and working your AA. In fact, why not add a small multiplier to XP/credits done to aircraft if it's coming from multiple sources at the same time? That would further reward players that drop fighter cover for allies and group up to share AA

Oh, and on this point Of player agency / confirming that shooting down planes is making a difference, I think an alternative to consider is adding a team message along the lines of “Enemy carrier is at half hanger capacity” when that happens. I think it’s a good improvement that doesn’t need to actually change the balance between carriers and ships but makes players feel better about their (collective) contribution to the air war, and directly counters the infinite planes argument. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,996
[INTEL]
Members
9,805 posts
27,863 battles
1 hour ago, Landsraad said:

I.Spotting

Okay I've got a few ideas here, some could work together, some might not, but let's just throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It all revolves around the same premise though: Target acquisition should be line of sight based.

  • Remove dispersion buff from ships not spotted by the player when targeted. This would be the simplest, tiniest baby-step in this direction, and it's pretty straightforward: If you couldn't stop it yourself, you don't get the bonus from locking on.
  • Add dispersion DEbuff to ships not spotted by player when targeted. Same principle, but now we're adding on a penalty beyond what camo would give.
  • Disallow targeting of ships not spotted by the player. You can't spot it, you can't get a lock on it. Same principle as above, but now you don't get the crosshair matching the target's movement either.
  • Replace ships not spotted by player with icon. This is personally as far as I would go. If you can't spot a ship by yourself you still get to see where it is on the minimap and what type it is on the screen, but instead of seeing the ship itself you just see a small highlighted area or icon roughly where the ship is. Can't lock on, can't accurately judge direction, speed, or even exact position; but you know it's there and can make a best guess. Note: Some kind of exception may need to be made for smoke, otherwise this could be a MASSIVE nerf.

This would be applied to ALL ships and everything spotted by all ship types. Carrier spots something? You don't get a lock/don't see more than an icon until you can see it yourself to get an "accurate" fix on it. Destroyer spots something? Same deal. Planes looking for targets of opportunity? Well you still see what they are and roughly where they are, but lining up a run is more fiddly because aerial detection is so small comparatively, especially on the more agile targets like destroyers.

Those have long been suggested, and they are not bad ideas. They would also fix radar too.

Another option might be to make spotting RNG-driven for CVs, reflecting the sometimes inept spotting by air. 

Another option: remove the ability of planes to spot entirely. Give the CV a "search plane" function that allows it to detect everything, inherently, within a cone spreading out from the CV. For example, the 360 degree radius around the CV might be divided into eight cones and the CV can search two of them at any one time, for a predetermined period, say one minute or two minutes. The CV driver can shift the cones around as needed. That means it would easily miss ships, including DDs sailing in its direction. Then it could direct its aircraft to targets in that area, but the whole map wouldn't be lit early. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,107 posts
4,926 battles
2 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Another option might be to make spotting RNG-driven for CVs, reflecting the sometimes inept spotting by air. 

Another option: remove the ability of planes to spot entirely. Give the CV a "search plane" function that allows it to detect everything, inherently, within a cone spreading out from the CV. For example, the 360 degree radius around the CV might be divided into eight cones and the CV can search two of them at any one time, for a predetermined period, say one minute or two minutes. The CV driver can shift the cones around as needed. That means it would easily miss ships, including DDs sailing in its direction. Then it could direct its aircraft to targets in that area, but the whole map wouldn't be lit early. 

Okay, Tai, the point of the spotting section was that spotting as it is is kind of out of control for every ship, not to single out carriers. Spotting could be equally inept by sea too, see the lead-up to the Battle of River Plate for an example, where British ships mistook a freighter for the HIPPER; and don't even get me started on the Dogger Bank incident. I strongly feel that taking spotting away from planes entirely is just overly punitive on top of all the nerfs to aerial detection and the fact that aircraft get no concealment benefits whatsoever outside of CE and CSM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,996
[INTEL]
Members
9,805 posts
27,863 battles
1 minute ago, Landsraad said:

Okay, Tai, the point of the spotting section was that spotting as it is is kind of out of control for every ship, not to single out carriers. Spotting could be equally inept by sea too, see the lead-up to the Battle of River Plate for an example, where British ships mistook a freighter for the HIPPER; and don't even get me started on the Dogger Bank incident. I strongly feel that taking spotting away from planes entirely is just overly punitive on top of all the nerfs to aerial detection and the fact that aircraft get no concealment benefits whatsoever outside of CE and CSM.

Yeah, but at present, the spotting issue for CVs is urgently in need of addressing. Played 14 games today, and in all but the T5 matches everyone bunched up at the beginning, and we were shooting at each other at 18+ kms. That's horrible gameplay, and it caused by early spotting. 

It does seem ridiculous to take spotting away from planes. 

What if we when with your freighter for Hipper mistake, and made spotting doubly RNG -- some low chance of evading being spotted no matter how close the aircraft is (hidden by cloud bank, squall, etc) and again, once spotted, mistaken for some other ship present in the battle. Fog of war spotting?

Right now the best gameplay is at T5, I think, because the ships don't have the speed or range to conduct battles at such ridiculous ranges, the maps are too small, even when they are spotted early. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[R-F1]
Beta Testers
7 posts
4,314 battles

I think one problem that needs to be addressed is making aa strong yet not making it so that ships in a group are invulnerable, to prevent encouraging overly passive play. And addressing the discrepancy in aa through the tiers both for cvs and other ships. A Ranger fighting North Carolina's is as fun as a Kiev being focused by an Audacious. 

Personally I like the rework, but it still needs more work. I think finding a solution to this problem is absolutely necessary for the rework to succeed. I can think of a few things that could be done to help dds presently. First off I think the drop reticle is too forgiving, especially that of dive bombers. What I mean is that if a dd is actively maneuvering it is very difficult to throw off the aim of a cv drop. Maybe making the drop move less so as the cv needs to be more precise and there is at least some opportunity for a dd with poor aa and or a lack of smoke. Also on the subject of smoke cvs should not be able to see the smoke circles on  the water for the same reason other ships don't at long range, it makes it too easy to drop a dd that just smoked up imo. Another options to enhance the counter play between cvs and dds is to buff dd maneuverability, most specifically the ability to slow down or accelerate though I think turning radius is a heavily neglected stat among tier 9-10 dds, maybe buffing the base acceleration/deceleration slightly or adjusting the existing propulsion mod, or even making new capt skills. I say this as a possibility though such bonus's must be tiny or else dds will be neigh impossible to hit at any sort of range, although this would at least help lessen the damage received by being radar-ed via evasion though this could easily be completely broken and would require a great degree of testing before being implemented.  

As for spotting goes I kinda like cv spotting to a degree as it reduces the dependency on radar. However a delay is clearly needed so cvs can't just constantly spam squadrons at a dd, or maybe the squadrons launch before their ready (at a certain number of planes) the aircraft could be more vulnerable to aa or have a dispersion penalty to their strikes. Also I really don't think fighter aircraft should be able to spot dds at all. Only player controlled aircraft.

Another aspect of cv spotting is the plane detection, right now I am able to find a dd even without rpf or a last spotted location simply by using the massive circle and speed of the aircraft and making a few educated guesses about which way the dd is likely to be going. I can usually fairly quickly find a dd even after the massive concealment buff to dds from air detection. I'm not really sure what can or should be done about this though I do think it's worth mentioning. 

I definitely agree with aa continuous dpm focusing individual aircraft from a squad down rather than swallowing the entire squad at once. I would also add a limit and delay to planes in an attack being replenished by the rest of the squad maybe at t8 cv one plane is replaced if shot down and at tier 10 up to 2, but they would also have a delay custom to the length of the attack so torpedo bombers would be most likely to get replacement planes if aircraft were shot down early into an attack run because of the longer attack period compared to other squadrons though the real meat is from adding  a limit to the number of planes that can reinforce an attack. I do think removing plane reinforcement outright would nuder a cv too much against  strong aa ships but ships without strong aa don't feel like the aa is doing anything. I realize this isn't perfect but I think between the delay and limit to whatever exact number seems good based of battles played, might go to helping the situation.

I've been wondering if it might be worth addressing the way ships are place at the onset of a match, as especially faster higher tier aircraft can easily find most dds at the start of a match, now delay is one thing, but maybe widening the area dds spawn specifically so that it isn't mirrored at least not exactly on both sides would also help. 

I've noticed a bug where aa guns fire at planes that are beyond their gun range, what I think is happening is that the aa is firing shot at aircraft within the circle of it's range, but the planes are flying away at speed near the edge of the circle, thus the lead is going beyond the circle to 7-8km because when the shot was fired the planes were in the circle, I notice this all the time with my t6-10 cvs. Idk if someone has already reported this or not, I don't usually bother with bug reports as someones probably already reported it. 

Sorry if this is a little incoherent wrote this at 3am...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
2 hours ago, Landsraad said:
  • Remove dispersion buff from ships not spotted by the player when targeted. This would be the simplest, tiniest baby-step in this direction, and it's pretty straightforward: If you couldn't stop it yourself, you don't get the bonus from locking on.
  • Add dispersion DEbuff to ships not spotted by player when targeted. Same principle, but now we're adding on a penalty beyond what camo would give.
  • Disallow targeting of ships not spotted by the player. You can't spot it, you can't get a lock on it. Same principle as above, but now you don't get the crosshair matching the target's movement either.
  • Replace ships not spotted by player with icon. This is personally as far as I would go. If you can't spot a ship by yourself you still get to see where it is on the minimap and what type it is on the screen, but instead of seeing the ship itself you just see a small highlighted area or icon roughly where the ship is. Can't lock on, can't accurately judge direction, speed, or even exact position; but you know it's there and can make a best guess. Note: Some kind of exception may need to be made for smoke, otherwise this could be a MASSIVE nerf.

I can see going as far as the first two, but I think the other two are a little bit too much of a nerf to spotting (especially for DDs). Then again, punishing BB camping would be nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,630
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
8,211 posts
7,205 battles
3 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Adjust US HE bombs. Okay I know, DBs are the aircraft type that HASN'T been nerfed, but right now US HE bombs are really strong. Maybe swapping some of that damage for increased fire chance?

I‘d actually go a different route there.

Increase the delay between bomb drop and impact, so that an agile target has more time to evade while larger targets do not. This can be done by either lowering the velocity of the dropped ordonance, or by not allowing the planes to drop below a certain altitude, or a combination of the two. Right now HE DBs are a ridiculously powerful tool, capable of landing 8k salvos and beyond on Destroyers. A delay would offer a clear damage-reducing opportunity which would be skill dependent on the target‘s part.

In other words, if you can do unpredictable maneuvers you will be able to avoid most of the bombs. But if you sail straight (or predictable), then you will get punished. This system has been in place for ages for Torpedoes, so I don‘t see why it should not work. Battleships or larger Cruisers however remain unaffected, and will still be hit as easily as before.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,943
[ARGSY]
Members
10,184 posts
6,638 battles
4 hours ago, Landsraad said:

Screw it, here goes nothing.

I like your post, even if I don't agree with some of the suggestions (I do agree with quite a few others). It's rational, it's not full of bile and bitterness, and you're showing clearly what issues it addresses and how you think it solves them.
 

We need a metric F-ton more of stuff like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,107 posts
4,926 battles

Well this got sidelined for a bit. Probably time to bump it back up and edit the OP since the devs decided to announce a whole bunch of changes the day after I posted this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
93
[TF-60]
Members
273 posts
9,154 battles

Return odd tier CV to tech tree with +/- 1 MM to make Aa and CV damage potential scale better

hard cap of 1 CV per team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,128
[USCC2]
Members
4,763 posts

@Landsraad A nice post, I hope your attempt will garner some useful, constructive and respectful comment.

 

For me balance is not so much about what needs to change, but rather where we want to end up - what is the objective?

Balance (objective) for me is a game that I can come to, pick any ship, and have a chance to contribute to the team (i.e. not die in the first 5 mins). Now game mechanics can easily change to accommodate this and I would look to the evidence provided by stats (rather than my feelings). Fair.

My second objective centres around making rewards balanced. What I mean here is - now objective one is achieved and the game gives the same averages for me to survive whatever the ship type - now I would like similar xp/credits for similar performance; whatever the ship type. I may need to cause damage in a BB, shoot planes in a CA, cap in a DD or spot in a CV. Whatever the role, an equal reward for an equal performance.

 

So how we accomplish a game that means whomever you are, whatever ship type you pick, you get a fair outcome for your efforts is down to WG. They have all the stats for the community, and we are a community - don't look at one persons experience; just because I survive longest/get most rewards in a BB means nothing - look at the stats look at the community.

 

*Although the above is achievable, one caveat blows the above out of the water - WG is a business and as a business, needs to make money. To make money you ensure at least the majority of your players are happy. In this case you look at what brings people to the game and what is played most. So whereas I believe WG are trying their best, some areas in this Game of Thrones have plot armour that can't be messed with.

The stats/evidence show this clearly and although I argue for balance, I know it is impossible. So I accept and play a game I enjoy.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×