|
On May 22 2012 10:53 cydial wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 10:21 Kharnage wrote:On May 22 2012 10:19 monkybone wrote:On May 22 2012 10:05 Kharnage wrote:
The mule is pretty BS in certain situations. I saw an odd game in the GSL where a zerg got mutas REALLY fast and the terran had built mostly hellions (going mech). The mutas killed all the scvs and the hellions killed all the drones, but then a thor came out and was standing with turrets, so the mutas couldn't do anymore damage, and they came home, killed off hellions and both players were stable. However the terran dropped 2 mules and could make non stop scv production and pretty much got right back into the game. The zerg however only had enough mins to make 2 drones, and then had to wait for them to mine enough for another drone etc making what was a VERY even game to a solid lead for terran. No, your argument is BS. Different races have different mechanics helping them out in different situations. I can name tons of things that Protoss and Zerg has that Terran doesn't have which gives them the advantage in other situations. I'm sorry, but energy for minerals in low econ games is BS. In any low econ game terran has a HUGE advantage. So, low econ games, chrono boost is a huge help in helping you spend money you don't have really quickly. Awesome! Do the math... the mule makes the terran EVEN with the other races in terms of eco considering... -Terran has to lose mining time to make a building -Spend money to get the orbital Once terran actually starts to use the mule it's about even with the zerg and protoss that have been using their macro mechanics since the very beginning of the game...
Actually, after I think 7 minutes terran is ahead in TvP even if protoss uses all their chrono on probes. Someone did the math and yeah, mules are really good. Also once a base has more than 16 mineral workers mules become even better, because you can over saturate a mineral line.
Note that the advantage you're talking about isn't always available as protoss cause you need to use chrono on warp gate research etc so you don't die to really aggressive openings. getting an orbital and muling away has no negative effect on aggressive play, unlike using all your chrono on probes. for zerg this is even more true, you simply cannot be aggressive and take full advantage of faster drones. Likewise if you drone as hard as you can, you'll die to early aggression.
|
On May 22 2012 10:45 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2012 20:35 MooseMasher wrote:On May 21 2012 20:02 Alejandrisha wrote:On May 21 2012 20:00 Dzerzhinsky wrote:On May 21 2012 17:58 Lightspeaker wrote:On May 21 2012 10:35 ntssauce wrote:
4th GSL and other 3 wins were 1 - 1,5 years ago we are talking about NOW. Stop using that retardet argument.
Amusingly MVP by himself wins GSL more frequently than the entire Protoss race, as well as having twice as many championships as the entire Protoss race. If you take MVP as an individual (4 wins) he has also won more GSLs than Terran (2 wins, 3 if you include the Super Tournament), and one of those was against MVP. It's a bit of a joke amongst Terrans that Blizzard balance the game as if everyone was MVP. so how should it be balanced? this thread is ridiculous. no one has even identified an actual problem. it's just the same garbage: protoss is too strong late game, so nerf X because that will fix the problem. that's not how you solve a problem. identify the problem first and then figure out a way to solve it. not the other way around. and the game absolutely has to be balanced around the top level of players. if it's not done this way it ceases to be competitive What do you mean no one has identified an actual problem? Protoss late game IS too strong. (and not even to a reasonable extent, the comparison with bw does not hold) As for the suggested nerfs, I can see why you find them inadequate. I'm not sure how I would solve the situation if it was my job to balance. You must realize tho, the people you criticize are two steps ahead of you: -They have realized there's a problem. -They have started to think about a solution. One think I'd like to bring up to discussion that I've never heard anyone talk about is the warp gate upgrade and new maps. I've heard a lot of people applauding blizzard for buffing ol speed, since the old speed was designed for smaller maps (steppes of war and whatnot) and thus was not sufficient to provide the required scouting information on the new, way larger map pool. Am I the only one thinking that warp gates also need to be adjusted now that the difference between having them pop out at the gate, or wherever you please, is increasing with the maps? I think that the reason protoss players have been having a lot of more success defending attacks in the mid game is indirect consequences of maps growing and warpgates being untouched. On a large map, terran either cheeses in a non-reactionary manner (proxy rax etc), or plays strong macro. If you just add raxes and go for a timing, you will probably not hit the window. The protoss however, always maintains the option of reactionary allins, which forces the terran into playing less greedy than the map allows, and thus by mid-game, terrans strengths are negated by the mere presence of warp gates. you are missing the point no one has identified a problem saying that "protoss is overpowered in the lategame" is not identifying a problem. what is making protoss late game overpowered? can't seem to find an actual consensus but instead taking stabs at it: remove warp-in! remove feedback! back these units better or these units worse. these are not solutions to a problem because after 100 pages of terran groupthink, believe it or not nothing has been solved, nor has anyone even tried to identify the actual problem through looking at games where "imbalance" decided anything
terran early game (marines/marauder) beats toss lategame (voidray/carrier/mothership/immortal)
toss early game (stalkers/zealot) actually beats terran lategame (bc/thor/banshee/viking/tank)
this is all depending on the amounts of zeal/stalker and marine/marauder you make depending on what you need to counter
i should clarify something. marines are stronger than stalkers, and stalkers actually LOSE straight up even-food fights with terran endgame, and marines win fights against toss lategame, however just because which unit wins a fight doesnt say everything about the story. Stalkers are not a pushover and they will kill a large chunk of the army before they die.
YES, marines are stronger, now be quiet about marines being imba and let me explain something. Marines strength comes at the EXPENSE and WEAKNESS of being more weak to AoE mechanics compared to the stalker which has 160health and is much stronger against AoE mechanics. So... moving on...
marines actually win in the straight up fight at the weakness of being more weak to aoe (marines are 1food and 55hp and alot weaker to aoe compared to 160hp 2food stalkers). marines actually WIN the battle with the toss lategame, and stalkers lose the direct battle with the terran engame, but stalkers do not COMPLETELY lose they still kill a majority of the army at the strength of being less weak to aoe and also at the strength of being highly mobile. blink stalkers are more mobile than marines allowing the toss to blink around the map avoiding the mech dealing tons of damage and doing inferred damage before the battle
so this damage and mobility is what compensates for the stalkers weakness in direct combat compared to the marine. also remember the stalker is less weak to aoe which matters alot later
So remember that point now. terran early game beats toss lategame, toss earlygame beats terran lategame (or at least, takes out a majority of it before losing the fight). HOWEVER theres a catch
Toss lategame+aoe spell (storm) actually beats the terran early game
and terran lategame+aoe spell (emp) actually beats the toss early game
remember, yes MARINES ARE STRONGER THAN STALKERS AND ACTUALLY BEAT THE TOSS LATEGAME WHEREAS THE STALKERS LOSE TO THE TERRAN LATEGAME however that strength comes at the price of being weaker to AoE. Marines will win the fight against toss lategame, and stalkers will lose the fight against terran lategame, but that victory for the marine comes at the price of being weaker when AoE is added to the equation later on
so the marine gets to be stronger early game, but it is weaker lategame compared to the stalker once AoE hits the field because once AoE hits the field the stalker becomes the more durable and combat-effective unit
but after explaining all that, let me say that stalkers being better than marines lategame is not the problem with TvP lategame, because terran has marauders which are very strong against stalkers and marauders allow the terran to fight the strength of the stalker with the strength of his marauders
the problem with TvP lategame is when both terran and protoss get lategame army+aoe spell, the terran loses because the protoss ALSO has feedback added on top of that
now, you can try to give a ton of micro scenarios where you scan to kill observers, then cloak and snipe HT, but that just wont happen if the protoss is as good as you. Protoss has just as many counters and tactics to stop observer sniping and cloaked ghosts
the truth is, here is how endgame engagements go. Both the terran casters and protoss casters are BEHIND their army and protected until the engagement happens. once the engagement happens, both toss and terran unleash their aoe spells. EMP and Storm are fairly equal in strength, emp happens INSTANTLY but only works on shields but storm happens over time but on all of a units health. in the end the battle is even between the aoe
but were forgetting something. the protoss has something ON TOP of Storm that makes it imbalanced. the protoss has the overpowered lategame because he gets FEEDBACK TOO on top of his aoe spell
when you add in feedbacks 200 bonus damage against thors/bc's it just becomes stupid and retarded. and the protoss easily demolishes the fight
THIS IS WHY terran cannot get thor/bc against protoss
THIS IS WHY terran has no endgame option against protoss, they have tried it, and it gets DECIMATED.
the PROBLEM if -FEEDBACK-. period.
feedback and the 200 damage it deals to thors and battlecruisers is the single largest design flaw in the game and i cant believe it took a year+ and its not fixed yet
here is my idea to fix feedback.
if feedback was removed then 250MM and yamato would become overpowered against toss
ive done the math on it and 250MM and yamato are both overpowered against toss if there is on feedback. which is why i suggest if feedback is removed or fixed in some way, 250mm and yamato should both be weakened drastically to fix things.
HOWEVER BLIZZARD IS PROBABLY not going to remove feedback
Thus i think the smartest most fair balance change is not to remove feedback, but to give BC's and thors a energy shutdown option. This is a option you can click on BC and Thor and when its turned on it stops energy generation and depletes energy protecting the unit from feedback.
I dont really want feedback to be removed, my main concern is i believe feedback and the 200 damage it does to BC/thor in the endgame is a problem and needs to be fixed.
If you wanna know how imbalanced feedback is read this next sentence. This is how big of a problem feedback is. It is the sole reason why terran has no lategame. ---
Feedback is so stupid, i would GLADLY let high templars get default storms and default feedback (with no upgrade being needed) PLUS i would GLADLY let high templars get Khaldarin Amulate back (heck, even default), as long as it meant BC's and Thors received a energy shutdown option to protect themselves from feedback
feedback is the pure reason why terran has no lategame
(I left out collossi from the list of toss lategame units because yes, collossi do defeat marines however theres a strange relationship blizzard has seemed to create with each races T1 and groundmech in my testing.
Terrans real lategame units or lategame army if you remove marine/marauder/reaper from the equation is banshee/bc/viking/thor/tank/hellion.
Protosses lategame options if you remove stalker/zealot/sentry from the equation is carrier/voidray/pheonix/immortal/collossi/mothership
lets look at the "ground mech" units for each race if we shall. terran has hellion/tank/thor and protoss has collossi / immortal. In this relationship it sort of seems like collossi and hellions are highly related to eachother dealing AoE damage but not friendly AoE, and it seems like thors and tanks are two split-units where its like blizzard took the immortal and gave terran two units to serve as the terran immortal. So for terran, their "immortal" is thors and tanks, and their collossi is hellions. i know it sounds retarded to compare collossi to hellions but heres how the balance looks like in my testing
yes, collossi DESTROY hellions/marines
however, hellions/marines destroy zealots/immortal (with 3/3 upgrades and blue flame)
zealots/immortal beat tank/thor
tank/thor beats collossi
and collossi again beats hellion/marine
it looks like this
collossi > hellion/marine > zealot/immortal > tank/thor > collossi
many terrans would actually look at the above scenario and say the collossi might be the problem element that might be too strong, but actualy in my testing it is the immortal that usually ends up being too strong but that is fixed by the other design element added to terran which is giving ghosts fast/default EMP, where as toss needs to upgrade storm. the real reason its like that is most likely because in the above scenario immortals generally end up being too strong and emp is needed to even the playing field and then once toss gets storm to get his power, terran should have vikings by that point to even out the overpoweredness of the collossi
looking at this huge scenario is kind of a different beast than the above point i was trying to explain. However once again remember, feedback itself is a huge problem that destroys the above from even happening and all it does is force terran to mass bio every game because feedback is just TOO GOOD against thors, a unit which should be integral in TvP mech
In the above point i said marines beat toss lategame, and stalkers "barely lose" to terran endgame, and i listed other strengths of the stalker which make up for the fact that they lose to terran lategame. But the REAL TRUTH is, i do realize this, is that marines also lose to toss lategame because toss lategame includes collossi and any collossi base army shreds marines. But thats my point marines are granted early game power at the cost of being weak to AoE, and once the toss gets AoE the power of the marine fades away, but the problem occurs when feedback destroys terran lategame too easily which is the main point i was trying to make with the above write-up which is why i left collossi out of the equation
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix
|
Can we start warning idiots who don't read a single post in this thread and just come in here to say something like "Maek thor, maek raven, u has early advantage, stop using tier one. derp."
User was warned for this post
|
On May 22 2012 11:24 Snoodles wrote:
Can we start warning idiots who don't read a single post in this thread and just come in here to say something like "Maek thor, maek raven, u has early advantage, stop using tier one. derp."
Only if we can start warning idiots who bold-facedly assert with no evidence that Terran can't beat Protoss in macro games.
|
On May 22 2012 11:23 roymarthyup wrote:
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix
I agree that feedback is problematic, but I think a better solution is to make feedback only deal damage to Psionic units. I would also 'buff' feedback to allow it to remove energy from buildings. that way feedback is only anti-caster but still has utility vs BCs, Thors, Banshees and Medivacs without killing them outright.
|
On May 22 2012 11:37 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 11:23 roymarthyup wrote:
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix I agree that feedback is problematic, but I think a better solution is to make feedback only deal damage to Psionic units. I would also 'buff' feedback to allow it to remove energy from buildings. that way feedback is only anti-caster but still has utility vs BCs, Thors, Banshees and Medivacs without killing them outright.
That's probably a workable idea. There might be some edge cases you'd want to change, like I don't think ravens are actually psionic and maybe you'd want to make them vulnerable too. Just checking, queens are psionic so that still works.
|
I'm not sure I agree with Blizzards premise. I think Terran might be in a metagame rut but I don't think that necessarily means that the matchup will always be a time bomb for terran. Let the game develop, less patching!
|
On May 22 2012 11:41 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 11:37 Kharnage wrote:On May 22 2012 11:23 roymarthyup wrote:
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix I agree that feedback is problematic, but I think a better solution is to make feedback only deal damage to Psionic units. I would also 'buff' feedback to allow it to remove energy from buildings. that way feedback is only anti-caster but still has utility vs BCs, Thors, Banshees and Medivacs without killing them outright. That's probably a workable idea. There might be some edge cases you'd want to change, like I don't think ravens are actually psionic and maybe you'd want to make them vulnerable too. Just checking, queens are psionic so that still works.
Ravens are already Glass Cannons in the way that they have only one chance to pull off a HSM per Raven before they die. A couple of Psi Storms can decimate Ravens, much like they can to Vikings. Plus the Raven's abilities are near-useless already against Protoss, other than PDD pre Colossus/Templar tech.
|
Also I will add i think thors and BC are viable against zerg and we will see them being used sometime in the near future i think.
thors are useful against zerg lategame if you just get 2 of them. they have extremely high damage and 7range and they MELT ultralisks and if you only have 2 of them it kinda forces an overcommitment to counter them with NP and infestors are easily focused down and every NP is tons of energy wasted and less fungals. and if the terran has plenty hellions to vaporize the broodlings and lings and banelings, then 2thors actually arent too bad as an anti air element against broodlords. thors actually kill broodlords food for food if they have something to kill the broodlings. and your only getting 2 thors, so the thors themselves are food-for-food anti-air efficient against broodlords, and you only have 2 of them, meaning you should have tons of vikings and some marines to deal with the rest of the broodlords
BC's are useful against zerg lategame if you just get 3 of them. possibly lategame against zerg if your upgrading air get a single starport for a single production line of battlecruisers and never get more than 3.
the reason yamato isnt overpowered against zerg is because the only thing worth yamato'ing is ultras and that'll never happen. instead what makes terrans think BC's are weak is if a terran does turtle to 20 BC's the zerg comes out with 60 corrupters and just smacks you.
but 1 BC actually kills 3 corrupters if it YAMATO's one
ive tested 20 BC against 40 corrupters (no yamato) and the B's win. but when its even food (20 bc vs 60 corrupter) with yamato the BC's lose.
even though BC's win when its 6food vs6food, they lose when its 120food vs 120food. Why? because APM restrictions stop you from being able to yamato 20 corrupters fast enough before they get free hits and after that happens BC's lose
this means BC's win even food fights with corrupters as long as they get off a perfect yamato
this means if there was a highspeed AI-bot controlling the terran, it would win with 20 BC's against 60 corrupters because it would be able to instantly yamato 20 corrupters in one second thus turning the battle from 20v60 into 20v40 instantly letting the BC's win
However, currently thats not possible and its why BC's lose to corrupters (which is fine) and its why mass BC's are not viable in ZvT currently as corrupters beat them too hard which is alsto fine
however the combat effectiveness of a unit is based on how effective it is compared to the cost to counter it for the enemy.
This means BC's in low numbers, sprinkled into your endgame army, are actually very smart to get against zerg because the cost to counter it for the zerg is too high.
If you have a normal endgame army with 3 BC's sprinkled into it, and the zerg tries to counter them with 9 corrupters, the zerg actually loses out in that deal because its easy to micro 3 BC's to yamato 3 corrupters, thus that means at the end of the day the BC's served as an effective power unit and out-costed and defeated the zerg in cost effectiveness
corrupters actually lose to BC's if the BC's get off perfect yamatos, but thats hard to do after you start getting around 30food vs 30food of bc vs corrupter
so this means as long as you only have 3 battlecruisers in your army, and they have yamato, then they are viable and strong units because they will actually be stronger than the 9 corrupters used to counter them
|
On May 22 2012 12:03 roymarthyup wrote:
... lots of stuff about TvZ terran tier 3 ...
I think you're also overlooking how thors and BCs work together vs corruptors. Mass corruptor takes huge damage vs thor volleys, which drastically changes the corruptor vs BC dynamic.
It's the same for protoss. Carriers turn to mush vs mass corruptors, unless you have a few archons hitting the corruptors as well. then the corruptors melt and the carriers are unstoppable.
|
On May 22 2012 12:30 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 12:03 roymarthyup wrote:
... lots of stuff about TvZ terran tier 3 ...
I think you're also overlooking how thors and BCs work together vs corruptors. Mass corruptor takes huge damage vs thor volleys, which drastically changes the corruptor vs BC dynamic. It's the same for protoss. Carriers turn to mush vs mass corruptors, unless you have a few archons hitting the corruptors as well. then the corruptors melt and the carriers are unstoppable.
Another reason why I believe corrupters should be spawned from mutalisks yet I still do not understand to this day Blizzards decision on having Broodlords spawn from corrupters..
|
On May 22 2012 12:03 roymarthyup wrote:
thors are useful against zerg lategame if you just get 2 of them. they have extremely high damage and 7range and they MELT ultralisks
They don't, it takes too much time for them to actually deal damage, the problem is they can't move and shoot and on top of that they can't follow an ultralisk, they are just too slow. Ultralisks are actualy a counter to BCs, they can destroy your base before you are even able to kill one; I've been trying to use them in TvZ but now I try to implement banshees instead. Yes 1-2 BC along with your main or above your planetary army helps but saying ultras MELT is way exaggerated.
|
On May 22 2012 11:28 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 11:24 Snoodles wrote:
Can we start warning idiots who don't read a single post in this thread and just come in here to say something like "Maek thor, maek raven, u has early advantage, stop using tier one. derp." Only if we can start warning idiots who bold-facedly assert with no evidence that Terran can't beat Protoss in macro games.
I would actually consider that most of the GSL protosses have near 100% win rates vs terran in 20+ minute games as evidence of such, but that's just me personally.
And apparently Blizzard coming out and stating that Protoss lategame >> Terran lategame isn't enough either.
|
On May 22 2012 11:55 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 11:41 Resistentialism wrote:On May 22 2012 11:37 Kharnage wrote:On May 22 2012 11:23 roymarthyup wrote:
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix I agree that feedback is problematic, but I think a better solution is to make feedback only deal damage to Psionic units. I would also 'buff' feedback to allow it to remove energy from buildings. that way feedback is only anti-caster but still has utility vs BCs, Thors, Banshees and Medivacs without killing them outright. That's probably a workable idea. There might be some edge cases you'd want to change, like I don't think ravens are actually psionic and maybe you'd want to make them vulnerable too. Just checking, queens are psionic so that still works. Ravens are already Glass Cannons in the way that they have only one chance to pull off a HSM per Raven before they die. A couple of Psi Storms can decimate Ravens, much like they can to Vikings. Plus the Raven's abilities are near-useless already against Protoss, other than PDD pre Colossus/Templar tech.
Don't even need to Psi storm the raven, feedback works just fine and has longer range than any Raven spell.
|
We give terran medivacs the upgrade 'healing skies' which costs 250 / 250 (ish)
Healing Skies:
When activated, gives the medivac 6 seconds of aoe healing for 200% healing done.
Cooldown 60 seconds.
Ability is ofcourse on use. Upgrade must be bought in the techlab addon.
Preferably you also require the fusion core to make it late game and expensive enough to not be cost effective for mid game drop harass.
|
On May 22 2012 11:41 Resistentialism wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 11:37 Kharnage wrote:On May 22 2012 11:23 roymarthyup wrote:
moral of the story is, feedback is a problem. I believe my energy shutdown option is the perfect balance fix I agree that feedback is problematic, but I think a better solution is to make feedback only deal damage to Psionic units. I would also 'buff' feedback to allow it to remove energy from buildings. that way feedback is only anti-caster but still has utility vs BCs, Thors, Banshees and Medivacs without killing them outright. That's probably a workable idea. There might be some edge cases you'd want to change, like I don't think ravens are actually psionic and maybe you'd want to make them vulnerable too. Just checking, queens are psionic so that still works.
I think you might also want to make Medivac vulnerable to feedback. Making them immune could change the drops dynamics in mid-late game (when you have high templars to defend). And I think the way drops work in TvP now is quite ok.
But otherwise yeah, that's probably one of the wisest suggestion I've read in this whole thread. Blizzard should make a bunch of custom maps with that change.
|
On May 22 2012 20:58 AbuseYouMerc wrote:
We give terran medivacs the upgrade 'healing skies' which costs 250 / 250 (ish)
Healing Skies:
When activated, gives the medivac 6 seconds of aoe healing for 200% healing done.
Cooldown 60 seconds.
Ability is ofcourse on use. Upgrade must be bought in the techlab addon.
Preferably you also require the fusion core to make it late game and expensive enough to not be cost effective for mid game drop harass.
This would be so OP... ~10 medivacs would make your army unstoppable lol.
|
On May 22 2012 21:04 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 20:58 AbuseYouMerc wrote:
We give terran medivacs the upgrade 'healing skies' which costs 250 / 250 (ish)
Healing Skies:
When activated, gives the medivac 6 seconds of aoe healing for 200% healing done.
Cooldown 60 seconds.
Ability is ofcourse on use. Upgrade must be bought in the techlab addon.
Preferably you also require the fusion core to make it late game and expensive enough to not be cost effective for mid game drop harass. This would be so OP... ~10 medivacs would make your army unstoppable lol.
I do realise that it could become OP when tweaked wrong... maybe it should be 3 seconds.
But remember that the upgrade is only available in latelate game. Its too expensive to rush, if you do youll die and for what? opponent has no aoe dmg yet. GG. Its purely a stabalizer for those fights with 5+ collos and HT's that will wreck your ball in like 5 seconds.
|
On May 22 2012 21:22 AbuseYouMerc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2012 21:04 sereniity wrote:On May 22 2012 20:58 AbuseYouMerc wrote:
We give terran medivacs the upgrade 'healing skies' which costs 250 / 250 (ish)
Healing Skies:
When activated, gives the medivac 6 seconds of aoe healing for 200% healing done.
Cooldown 60 seconds.
Ability is ofcourse on use. Upgrade must be bought in the techlab addon.
Preferably you also require the fusion core to make it late game and expensive enough to not be cost effective for mid game drop harass. This would be so OP... ~10 medivacs would make your army unstoppable lol. I do realise that it could become OP when tweaked wrong... maybe it should be 3 seconds. But remember that the upgrade is only available in latelate game. Its too expensive to rush, if you do youll die and for what? opponent has no aoe dmg yet. GG. Its purely a stabalizer for those fights with 5+ collos and HT's that will wreck your ball in like 5 seconds.
You shouldn't be able to endure the storm, you should have to micro as now, the problem is that you die before you even have the time to do so...
|
If storm is the problem then its a matter of lowering dps while making it last longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
