Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 34

Author Topic: Combat Readyness isn't fun..  (Read 151204 times)

Debido

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #300 on: September 24, 2013, 01:27:20 PM »

SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP

Sounds to me like you listened to a grand total of about ten minutes. If you'd listened to the end to - you'd know I'm not arguing for my sake! I'm done with SS! I don't care! I just want the game which in my opinion is better back, and I want to defend that stance.

Please, everyone - you have to listen to the whole thing. I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points. What I have said there is also far better conveyed than I can in text.

Well Xareh, the good thing is that 0.54a is still out there so there is no reason to stop playing it. A really enjoyable version of the game is available for you and your friends. The game isn't destroyed or inaccessible, a new small version has just been released . We're not talking about a version 2.0 of the game where everything is different, it's just 0.6, a small step.

Version 0.7 could be really great, 0.8 could be awful, 0.9 could be getting there and version 1 could be near perfect. It may be version 1.4 before the game is perfect*

In the mean time the community would appreciate it if you can take all of that enthusiasm and channel it in to a constructive, well thought out analysis (that is a dot-point exec summary) and help guide the next iterations to improve the gameplay experience for new and old gameplayers alike.

I spent 5 hours sitting down thinking and writing down how CR could be improved, Alex didn't quite dismiss it...but I'm still actively trying to give constructive feedback to the development of the game to make CR satisfying for everyone.


Logged

hadesian

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • It's been one of those days...
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #301 on: September 24, 2013, 01:34:01 PM »

SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
SNIP
snip
0.54a provides nothing of interest to me. As I already mentioned, I am done with SS. I have had hours of enjoyment from Starsector but I am now done with it. Unfortunately, I doubt any level of content can ever really bring me back.

But if there was anything to motivate me to come back, CR is one thing.
Logged
Changes as of May 24, 2013
  • Reinvented Starsector.
  • That is all.

K-64

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1117
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #302 on: September 24, 2013, 01:38:01 PM »

If you're done with it, you sure do take a lot of effort into trying to draw attention to yourself regarding it.
Logged

Debido

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #303 on: September 24, 2013, 01:38:31 PM »

Ok, back to construction mode, and I want to discuss the matter of CR acting as a means of averaging out ships so that no one ship is necessarily better than another.

As Fireball14 with no tiering or 'higher level of achievement' to achieve with ships, then players aren't as motivated to try better or more expensive ships as they aren't really better due to the effect of CR trying to make all things equal.

A common mechanic in many games is to directly tie a players ability to utilise a ship as a function of their XP/Player level. If there were actually tiers of ships in the game where higher tech ships actually meant lower CR as well BUT they cost 5x as much to purchase and you needed to be of a sufficient level to pilot it THEN the player is directly rewarded for playing longer AND CR becomes more balanced and may make more 'sense'**

So I haven't heard back from many other players as to whether they want to see 'tiered' ship gameplay level unlocks.

I think this concept can be further utilised with 'officers', if you're not directly piloting a ship then you need an officer of sufficiently high level to pilot it.

Yes it's a common mechanic, but it is common because it's enjoyable and it works.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #304 on: September 24, 2013, 01:59:19 PM »

My suggestions:
  • Let Combat aptitude CR reduction bonuses apply to all ships.  That way, high Leadership is not required to get enough ships you can rotate in-and-out of.
  • Let Combat aptitude or a skill perk extend deployment time for frigates.
  • Reduce CR consumption after battle even without Combat aptitude.  Many ships lose too much simply by entering the battle.
  • Let player pick flagship between battles.  CR as it is forces players to change ships, especially if a Hyperion is involved.
  • Reduce cost of supplies, enough that buying some does not send you to the poorhouse (or make you rich beyond belief if you sell too much).
  • Reduce supply consumption.  Freighters (and Oxen by extension, due to freighters' slow speed) should be useful for trading runs or extended voyages or raiding parties, not required to pick up all loot from one fight without sending LR to 0%.
  • Some way to make more fleet configurations useful as in previous versions.
Logged

Debido

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #305 on: September 24, 2013, 02:04:06 PM »

SNIP You are all horrible. SNIP
SNIP
snip
0.54a provides nothing of interest to me. As I already mentioned, I am done with SS. I have had hours of enjoyment from Starsector but I am now done with it. Unfortunately, I doubt any level of content can ever really bring me back.

But if there was anything to motivate me to come back, CR is one thing.

Well I can tell you are very passionate about the game. But seriously don't worry so much about CR for now, I'm going to continue lobbying change to the system whilst you're away so when you return it may be much more enjoyable.

Before you go, can please review some of my suggestions that aim to assist with CR
Fleet Formations: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6847.msg111764#msg111764
Usage based CR: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=5813.msg110951#msg110951
Logistic Rating Bonus: http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112826#msg112826
Tiered Ships (see above)

Also see Fireball 14's notes, he's a professional game designer
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112494#msg112494
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112678#msg112678
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112721#msg112721
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112758#msg112758

He's thinking about solutions as well, and I'm quite excited to hear back from him. He's one I'm definitely listening to.

Histidine has also been having some great thoughts on it as well:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112776#msg112776

and Gunnyfreak:
http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=6728.msg112786#msg112786

and those are just recent points, and just in this thread.

I know you'll be back for SS 0.7 Xareh. Why? Cause you love it like the rest of us.

Wow, and even between my posts Megas has chipped in.

I'm going to try and maintain a list of positive and constructive posts if I can, I'm sorry if I've missed anyone's.
Logged

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #306 on: September 24, 2013, 02:06:42 PM »

I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points.
And I am too busy to listen to a couple of people whine for forty minutes about how they can't play the game properly.

If you're done with it, you sure do take a lot of effort into trying to draw attention to yourself regarding it.
That.
Logged

hadesian

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2058
  • It's been one of those days...
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #307 on: September 24, 2013, 02:10:26 PM »

I am too busy to give you forty minutes in bullet points.
And I am too busy to listen to a couple of people whine for forty minutes about how they can't play the game properly.

If you're done with it, you sure do take a lot of effort into trying to draw attention to yourself regarding it.
That.
There we go with that aggressiveness again...
Logged
Changes as of May 24, 2013
  • Reinvented Starsector.
  • That is all.

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #308 on: September 24, 2013, 02:11:08 PM »

Agreed.
Logged

Upgradecap

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5422
  • CEO of the TimCORP
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #309 on: September 24, 2013, 02:15:23 PM »

You are in no way obligated to listen to the video in which we explain our points indepth and very well.


I am in no way obligated to listen to you saying that and can tell you to *** off at my descretion.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #310 on: September 24, 2013, 02:17:14 PM »

Well, this is turning into a lively discussion :) And while the motherboard on my dev PC is on the fritz, I have some time to partake in it! (Trying hard to find the bright side.)

Some random notes, responding to the points brought up:

It's not an arcade game, so trying to turn it into one probably isn't a good premise to start with. Frigate combat is a bit arcade-like, certainly, but it gets much less so with slower ships, and that's before we even start talking about the plans for the campaign.

So lets get one thing straight. No mater what i or anyone else say(even if we all say its bad) it wont change fact that CR system will stay. Most likely it will be rebalanced a lot but fact is a fact - new core system is here.

Correct on all points :) Especially the one with it being rebalanced a lot. Given the feedback (and I have been keeping up with all/nearly all of it, even if I haven't had time to respond to everything in as much detail as I'd like), my takeways so far are 1) the system works in encouraging the kind of gameplay dynamics it was meant to and 2) it has some rough edges. So, right, will be working on that. Very much aware of the learning curve/early game trouble for new players, too.


Funny about the analogy with various level spells being available; was actually going to post something very similar. My comparison would have been spells with different mana costs - say, an expensive AoE vs a cheaper single-target spell. As all analogies, it's not 100% identical, but I think it's largely valid. What that does illustrate is that CR isn't something that limits progression. Well, no more than the mana cost of spells does. You still get more tools you can use, you still get more powerful and able to take on larger challenges, and that's before you consider progression along other axes - like character skills. And you can still overwhelm something weaker badly once in a while, just for the fun of it - or if it happens to be necessary for larger strategic reasons (not currently present).

You're not going to be able to nuke everything from orbit all the time, no. Even if it's the only way to be sure. If that makes the game less fun for you, my apologies, but I strongly believe that allowing that would be, all things considered, a very bad idea.

As far as CR costs of high tech ships being higher than low-tech and it evening the playing field: right, that it does. But that doesn't make ships the same, some are still more suited for different roles or playstyles than others. Besides, what's the alternative? If you have a few clearly "best" options, then that's what will get used. What CR does here is it expands the pool of viable options, *without* making them all the same in combat. The way it does it, of course, is through out-of-combat considerations.



-4b: The "hard-foughtness" of a battle (as used to calculate CR recovery from the stand down option) is based linearly on the DP value of enemies destroyed, which results in the "5 Hounds sent one at a time renders capital ship completely helpless" problem (it's actually way harder than that, and the AI will never realistically use it, but the fact that it's possible suggests a problem nevertheless)

More like 25+ Hounds. Just saying :) The number is high enough where I don't think this is actually a problem.


Okay, (4a). This one's a real pickle, because while it's obviously "wrong" , it's also awfully easy to come up with a "solution" that makes things worse by promoting gamey behavior in order to minmax CR. Like the popular suggestion of using ammo consumption as a factor in the calculation; during 0.6's development, Alex actually came up with the idea of hitting ships with a CR cost for using missiles. Yeah... I think you can see the problem with that one. Damage taken on armor/hull, another popular suggestion, is already modeled by the current repair system.

Yeah, definitely. A more complex way of tracking it is both more difficult to explain and more prone to being gamed.

(Another point about damage taken on armor/hull being the main metric: ships that can avoid this damage would be effectively free to deploy. Not good!)


(4b) should be largely covered by the fix to (4a), but here's an additional idea. Currently the recovery factor seems to run from 100% at no kills to 0% at (killed DP value == own deployed DP value). You could add a constant to it, so it instead scales from (say) 100% at (KDP == DDP*0.5) to 0% at (KDP == DDP*1.5) - this establishes a minimum value to commit in order to whittle down a capital's CR with wave attacks.

Hmm. The exact formula is actually hidden from the player anyway, so making it a bit more involved wouldn't hurt. Haven't thought it through all the way- there may be some implications - but at first glance I like the idea. Thinking it through further, though... you could massively over-deploy to the point where your stand-down would be 100% effective, and get all your CR back, plus half the loot. Yeah, that's problematic, since now it's encouraging over-deployment.


Spoiler
Ok, here is another potential piece of the puzzle in improving CR and may help new players.

At the moment if you go above your logistics capability you're penalised on CR and supply usage. How about instead you get a boost if you're under your logistics rating.

As a new user with a hound I start with between 20 and 44 logistics rating points depending on initial skills, and with the wolf use 3 points only. Let's start with a -1% deployment CR cost per LR rating, and +1% CR recovery per LR, -1% to CR recovery cost

Min. -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost

You can tweak these values as needed for balance. We could try to tweak it to be free as well. 2%

Min. -28% CR Cost per deployment, + 28% to recovery rate + 28% less CR recovery supply cost (not bad, nearly a third less)
Max -82% CR per deployment + 82% to recovery rate + 82% less CR recovery supply cost (this would avert a death spiral)

As the player grows their fleet they get less fleet logistic bonus and are eased into CR.

This would need to be play tested and tweaked, but I think it may help.

This bonus would certainly give an advantage to smaller fleets, but any small fleet still has the disadvantage of being small and unable to compete with larger ones. Another thought may be to give an extra 1 burn speed for each 10, 15 or 20 LR points unused. Or you get +1 burn at 10, +2 burn at 25, +3 burn at 40 (needs tweaking) So potentially an initial player could look at:

Min. +1 to burn speed, -14% CR Cost per deployment, + 14% to recovery rate + 14% less CR recovery supply cost
Max +4 to burn speed, -41% CR per deployment + 41% to recovery rate + 41% less CR recovery supply cost


What effect this may have on the game is
  • Slowly eased into the game
  • Smaller fleets are still competitive with larger fleets in terms of Return on Investment due to fast CR recovery and burn speed
  • Player keeps larger ships at still kept at abandoned storage until needed to take on defence fleets (bad, micromanagement to change fleet composition all the time)
  • Large enemy fleets will have more difficulty keeping up with your burn speed (good?)
  • Effectively sets most efficient fleet size ROI fleet as less than 100 point LR fleet (bad? disempowering?)

Thoughts? Comments?
[close]

This is very interesting. I think a combination of increasing the CR recovery rate *and* reducing the deployment cost would be a bit much, since both of those end up reducing the total supply cost for a deployment. I.E. if you recover at twice the rate and deployment costs half as much, then it'll take 25% of the original supply cost to get back that CR. Probably using one of the two would be enough, though would have to be careful about how it stacks with the flagship deployment cost reduction from the Combat aptitude. Basically, my reaction to anything reducing deployment costs is to approach it very carefully, since that opens the door to easier overkill deployments.

Another potential problem is how this interacts with ship repairs - those use your logistics "headroom" as a bonus to the base emergency repair capacity. Could just say that while repairs or ongoing, any CR recovery rate bonus is lost, though - that seems acceptable. Also, as you mentioned, investing in logistics could still be a good idea for a small fleet. Not sure how I feel about that.

Still, this is a neat idea. It would make the early game more forgiving in a more organic/elegant way than, say a "50% CR" option. Kudos for coming up with it, whether it ends up being used or not :)


  • Reduce supply consumption.  Freighters (and Oxen by extension, due to freighters' slow speed) should be useful for trading runs or extended voyages or raiding parties, not required to pick up all loot from one fight without sending LR to 0%.

Yeah, that makes sense. I think while the relative costs may be more or less ok, in terms of how much a ship costs you to get on the field, the overall amounts of supplies - as they relate to the cargo capacity of the combat ships - might be too high. Will definitely have a look at that at some point; probably a bit further along.

  • Some way to make more fleet configurations useful as in previous versions.

I think the main issue is that capital ships don't have as much of a job given the state of the Sector and the types of fleets you're running into, but that's totally unrelated to CR. Aside from that, I don't think the variety of viable fleet configurations has gone down any. If anything, non-combat ships now have more of a reason to exist. And you can still use capital ships effectively if you invest in Navigation/Combat and pick up some Tugs.
Logged

FloW

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 282
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #311 on: September 24, 2013, 02:43:34 PM »

Alright, I finished those 40 minutes of improv-complaining. And I made some notes about that stuff that you talked about, so let's get rolling:

  • CR loss on deploy:
    That's there because ships go into combat and start running at 100%. When cruising around in space, they're actually powered down and most stations aren't fully manned.
  • CR death-spiral:
    Yeah it exists. Can we say that it's good if we declare it as "roguelike" element? As in: You're boned if you end up in it, but you can get some safety nets before you do end up in it. Unless end up in one at the start of the game. In that case you can just restart and nothing of value was lost.
  • Mid-tech bad:
    With the new CR mechanics they are a good middle ground, with nice shields, weaponry, CR and speed.
  • CR loss by refit:
    Yes, that happens if you refit in space. If it happens on a station, try to reproduce it and create a thread in the bugforum.
  • Frig-only fleet:
    Alright, first off: I haven't tried one yet, but some of the other points you mention there: I started out in a Wolf. Now I'm using a Sunder as flagship, with the Wolf, an Eagle, a Conquest, a Gemini, two Thunder wings, two Oxen and a Buffalo in my fleet. What I saw so far: Unless you attack a far superior fleet, you will maybe start to scratch the 3 minute mark. And considering that a regular crew brings CR up to 60%, with a degeneration of 0.25% per second, you still have 40 seconds before you even end up below 50% CR.
  • Comparisons with Star Citizen:
    Different game, different focus points. I don't think that it's really easy to get a comparison going between them. Considering one focuses on dogfights in space, while the other one is busy bringing logistics in.
  • Supplies cost a lot even though a lot of them are in stations:
    Yes, economics are not in the game yet. Dynamic prices will be something that hopefully shows up in the final game.
  • Ships spawn at full CR:
    Nope. They spawn at max CR, which is 60% with regulars. For players, maxing combat and having elite crew gets you up to 100%, pure elite crew goes up to 80%. And the player ship will start with 60% CR at the start of game with the next update.
  • New players and CR:
    Alex mentioned that there will be a tutorial, that will explain it.
  • The X-Series:
    "X3:TC did a great job" or something? And the entire series is great? Try the very first game, X:BtF. You start in a ship with 100Cr, one 1MW shield and NOTHING else. No radar, no SETA (which you don't have enough money to buy yet). X-Tension was a bit better at the start, the second One is great, the third one was alright. But TC gave you one of the best Corvettes in the main storyline for free. That game was far too easy.
  • Again, Difficulty:
    Looking at the various threads, it is obvious that some don't feel an increase in difficulty at all. Some even feel that the game got easier.
  • Making supplies cheaper, but reduce the amount:
    That one wasn't thought through. If you make them cheaper, but there are not enough around, you'll still be unable to buy as many supplies as you need.
  • The reason CR was introduced:
    To give another way to balance ships.
  • Alex not fully testing CR:
    Yes, that's what we're here for. He can test to some degree, but he won't start several playthroughs to see if every strategy is still viable. So we should examine the problem that shows up in detail and give possible solutions.
Logged
"The point is, you see, that there is no point in driving yourself mad trying to stop yourself going mad. You might just as well give in and save your sanity for later.''
- Ford Prefect, creator of the giraffe; a very long time ago

Joush

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #312 on: September 24, 2013, 02:43:53 PM »




Funny about the analogy with various level spells being available; was actually going to post something very similar. My comparison would have been spells with different mana costs - say, an expensive AoE vs a cheaper single-target spell. As all analogies, it's not 100% identical, but I think it's largely valid. What that does illustrate is that CR isn't something that limits progression. Well, no more than the mana cost of spells does. You still get more tools you can use, you still get more powerful and able to take on larger challenges, and that's before you consider progression along other axes - like character skills. And you can still overwhelm something weaker badly once in a while, just for the fun of it - or if it happens to be necessary for larger strategic reasons (not currently present).

You're not going to be able to nuke everything from orbit all the time, no. Even if it's the only way to be sure. If that makes the game less fun for you, my apologies, but I strongly believe that allowing that would be, all things considered, a very bad idea.

Save that ships don't work as spells. You don't have them at the ready to use at need in a tactical engagement, instead choosing to deploy them is a strategic level choice. It's a huge difference.

Instead, we are picking what weapon our generic RPG hero is holding. And the current system is to keep you using the Rusty Dagger you start with, because the dragonbone greatsword is Too Awesome to Use. Right now if playing correctly there is -never- a reason to cast Summon Onslaught unless you are willing to pay a whole bunch of supplybucks to enjoy the show. If you consider ships more party members, it's your most powerful tools almost always have to be left on the bench.

The average engagement shouldn't be watching the same pack of lashers chase retreating ships over and over, because 90% of targets won't fight your core fleet.

Aside from that, I don't think the variety of viable fleet configurations has gone down any.

Single capitol ship used to be a perfectly reasonable way to play, but now is utterly unworkable. A Cruiser squadron is too slow to catch the prey they need to keep money coming in. For profits, there's now a pretty limited set of "correct" fleets, effectively a pursuit squadron with cargo ships and tugs, then you can add heavies if you have the tugboat support for them.. but again, optimally you will never deploy them.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12117
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #313 on: September 24, 2013, 03:36:46 PM »

Alex: The reason I use frigate swarms now is because by late game, most battles are pursuit, and only frigates can catch and kill everything.  Bigger ships can sometimes kill the bigger ships in pursuit but have no chance of killing frigates and fighters like they used to.  Frigates also use less supplies and are cheaper to replace.  The things I miss most when I lose a Lasher or Afflictor in battle are all those rare Light Needlers and/or Railguns I lost.
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 23986
    • View Profile
Re: Combat Readyness isn't fun..
« Reply #314 on: September 24, 2013, 03:53:20 PM »

Save that ships don't work as spells. You don't have them at the ready to use at need in a tactical engagement, instead choosing to deploy them is a strategic level choice.

While that's true, I don't think it actually matters to the analogy. The time scale is different, sure, but my point was that the concept of "pick the right tool for the job" (present in both cases, regardless of the time scale involved) is orthogonal to the concept of progression. Both can coexist.


The average engagement shouldn't be watching the same pack of lashers chase retreating ships over and over, because 90% of targets won't fight your core fleet.

That's definitely true, but more of an issue with the current content. CR doesn't factor into this much.

Single capitol ship used to be a perfectly reasonable way to play, but now is utterly unworkable.

Well... I'll just come out and say it: that's not true. Try a lone Onslaught with maxed out Combat and enough points in Tech to get the nice hullmods and some +OP skills.

Even with terrible weapons, it's a beast. Added bonus: medium-large sized pirate fleets will try to pursue you, so your burn level doesn't matter that much. You can still get it to 5 with Navigation 10 and Augmented Engines, though.

The only issue is cargo capacity (and I'll agree that supplies probably take up a bit too much space relative to the capacity of combat ships), but that only limits your profits somewhat. You'll still be making credits hand over fist. I'd say that's pretty far from "utterly unworkable"! You might even have an easier time than with a frigate fleet since you don't have to chase everyone down. The one thing to watch out for is taking critical damage on your hull/armor; that'll eat a lot of supplies, but should only really happen as the result of a bad piloting mistake.


Alex: The reason I use frigate swarms now is because by late game, most battles are pursuit, and only frigates can catch and kill everything.  Bigger ships can sometimes kill the bigger ships in pursuit but have no chance of killing frigates and fighters like they used to.  Frigates also use less supplies and are cheaper to replace.  The things I miss most when I lose a Lasher or Afflictor in battle are all those rare Light Needlers and/or Railguns I lost.

Yeah, ship prices and availability are out of whack. They can't really get "in whack" until there's an economy, ship production, etc. In the future, I suspect simply buying an Onslaught will be impossible, or nearly so. In fact, I'd imagine most factions would be quite wary of selling high-grade military hardware to someone they don't trust.

As far as pursuit, I've actually got some notes here to look at making that type of battle more entertaining and somewhat less prevalent. It's a fair point. (Also, the above about a lone Onslaught is, I think, worth a look. Less can be more in this case.)
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 [21] 22 23 ... 34