111 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

"Machine Guns existing in Battletech before infantry were implemented" Please tell me your not this dumb please? LOL! This is why people like me who know Battletech don't answer questions by people who think they do because they played a PC game or two............ Very sad indeed. There is no infantry in MWO but, this game is based on Battletech and they are using the configs from Battletech that had MG's to take out infantry please do some reading about Battletech for god sakes...............

Can't tell if serious or not? Are you trolling? I think you are just being clever me thinks. Good try though.

Ever heard of a Rommel tank, here is the "description" of its Small Laser: "If attacked by infantry, or as a last resort, the tank commander can aim a single ASL Small Laser."

Ever heard of a Pirnaha Mech, here is teh "description" of its array of MG's: "These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly."

Ever heard of the Machine Gun Description: "Issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs." <-What SORCERY IS THIS!

Ever heard of the MG TT stats? 2 Damage, same as an AC/2. <- WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!

So I guess the small laser should also be reduced to 0.03 Damage so it can shoot at infantry, just in case. I mean, you never know right, while I'm playing I'm always looking for Infantry. I can't tell you how many times I've been killed by them. They could be around any corner bro!

Edited by General Taskeen, 05 June 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[CutterWolf]

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Cutterwolf, you must be new - "Piranha: These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly." Evidence below of the MW3 MG that was based on the Battle Tech MG: And that's just 2 MG's Young Padawan.

Ah, no I'm not new and MW-3 was a far cry from real Battletech

[General Taskeen]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

Ah, no I'm not new and MW-3 was a far cry from real Battletech

This guy is trolling. Move on along folks.

[CutterWolf]

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Can't tell if serious or not? Are you trolling? I think you are just being clever me thinks. Good try though.

Ever heard of a Rommel tank, here is the "description" of its Small Laser: "If attacked by infantry, or as a last resort, the tank commander can aim a single ASL Small Laser."

Ever heard of a Pirnaha Mech, here is teh "description" of its array of MG's: "These are a serious threat on such a speedy 'Mech to any foe, especially if a Star of Piranhas operate in a pack, and such a large array allows a Piranha to chew through an opponent's rear armor almost instantly."

Ever heard of the Machine Gun Description: "Issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs." <-What SORCERY IS THIS!

Ever heard of the MG TT stats? 2 Damage, same as an AC/2. <- WHAT SORCERY IS THIS!

So I guess the small laser should also be reduced to 0.03 Damage so it can shoot at infantry, just in case. I mean, you never know right, while I'm playing I'm always looking for Infantry. I can't tell you how many times I've been killed by them. They could be around any corner bro!

Wow, I see you left out the fact that it mounts x2 ER Med & ER small gee I wonder what those were for??? Or how about this part, "They are most deadly, however, to unarmored infantry," Which was their primary target.

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

This guy is trolling. Move on along folks.

Trolling? You only wish I was

[Sephlock]

Yes. Yes they are.

[FupDup]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:29 PM, said:

Answering you question will do no good because you do not have the Battletech knowledge to be able to understand them. That is why I told you to PLEASE do some reading which will answer all you questions and the reasons will be very clear as to why and how MG's were using in Battletech.

One doesn't need prior knowledge to have a discussion with. You aren't bringing any facts or logic to the table, you just keep using things like "I know more about BT than you Fup, you're stupid and can't comprehend what MGs are for" (paraphrased of course but the meaning is the same). Stop avoiding me and confront my arguments already.



Here is my own evidence:

1. Here is the Inner Sphere Heavy Weapons and Equipment Table from page 341 of TechManual:


Notice the damage value for Machine Guns (2).

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Start up a game of Mechwarrior: Online and fire a Medium or Large Laser. You'll notice that they fire a continuous beam that lasts for one full second. Trying sweeping it across the ground. You'll notice that you can write things with it and draw funny pictures.

Now imagine that each of those scorchholes was an infantry trooper. That's a lot of dead infantry, and keep in mind that my test run didn't drag the beam out as far as possible in order to fit all of it on screen.

What do MGs get? Their fast RoF might initially seem favorable against infantry, but I'm going to guess that each individual trooper would only need a single bullet to be killed. Unless the troopers are clumped very closely together, you're going to be wasting ammo on the dirt because MGs don't have single-shot mode (it's easy to click for just a moment too long and get 2 or 3 bullets at in a single click). Also remember that the Medium Lasers have vastly superior range, can threaten enemy mechs in MWO, have infinite ammo, and aren't susceptible to ammo explosions. MGs might have zero heat, but MWO's heat system is incredibly lenient and doesn't penalize heat other than shutting down or occasionally suicide if you get too trigger-happy.

Conclusion: MGs in MWO would be utterly useless if infantry was added. Even if they were the only target that existed, Medium Lasers would be vastly superior at dealing with them.

------------------------------------------------------------

3. Again, infantry are not currently present in Mechwarrior: Online. Why have a weapon designed to combat something that doesn't exist? We don't even know if infantry might ever make it in-game. You're putting the cart before the horse. As a result, the cart will never get pulled (in this case, MGs will keep being useless). And even if we did put the horse in front, Medium Lasers are still better than MGs at the same duty and more (see above).

------------------------------------------------------------

4. It doesn't make the game more enjoyable to play, at least not for most people. There are perhaps a select few out there who start up MWO and think to themselves "mmmmm MGs are useless, this improves the quality of my gameplay and I would definitely hate this game if MGs were useful" although I'm guessing they're not particularly common.

Edited by FupDup, 05 June 2013 - 06:56 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Can anyone guess which technical specification is which?

[Allister Rathe]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

Wow, I see you left out the fact that it mounts x2 ER Med & ER small gee I wonder what those were for??? Or how about this part, "They are most deadly, however, to unarmored infantry," Which was their primary target.

I think you're missing the point. Just because it makes the statement that they're "most deadly to unarmored infantry" does not preclude their effectiveness against 'Mechs by any stretch of the imagination.

Nevermind the fact that ANY 'Mech mounted weapon is going to be most deadly to an unarmored infantryman. A single small laser is more deadly to an unarmored infantryman than against even the lightest of 'Mechs, but you don't see people complaining that the small laser is designed as an anti-infantry weapon.

You're taking that clause to mean it's only good against them, when in fact is says nothing of the sort.

[Aurien Titus]

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

With a low brow thinker like you? Sure, this’ll be easy.

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Please explain to me then, why an MG in BattleTech does as much damage to 'mechs as an AC/2, albeit at a much shorter range. Explain, please why it does as much damage to a 'mech as a single SRM.

Maybe because the developers, FASA, decided that it was a good median between being completely useless and overpowered. For it to be an anti-infantry weapon we have to explain the design logic of the weapon stats to you? How about this, explain to me how MG’s doing 2 points of damage makes them an anti-mech weapon with a range of 2 hexes when combat between ‘mechs is almost always past this range. In BattlteTech ‘mechs don’t get in each other’s faces and fight at point blank range.

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Explain to me why through all the iterations that the BattleTech rules have gone through, nobody has seen fit to give the MG - this "anti-infantry weapon" - a damage penalty versus 'mechs? There's plenty of weapons in BattleTech that can't damage 'mechs, but the MG isn't one of them.

Explain why a weapon primary role being anti-infantry means it must have a damage penalty versus ‘mechs? And please list these weapons that mount on vehicles, aircraft, or ‘mechs that have a ‘mech damage penalty. You take all the time you need to hunt for those mythical weapons.

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

If you're such a BattleTech rules expert, would you care to explain why the MG gets a massive bonus versus infantry but still keeps its 2 damage versus 'mechs? If it's not an anti-'mech weapon it really shouldn't harm 'mechs, now should it?

Easy, it doesn’t get a massive bonus vs infantry. And why exactly would you put a weapon system that couldn’t hurt a ‘mech on a ‘mech? Even if the primary role isn’t killing ‘mechs, I’d want it to be able to damage a ‘mech. But hey, that’s me using the old noggin. Seems to be missing around this thread.

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Finally, if you'd care to explain why the original BattleTech rules had MGs, when infantry rules weren't introduced until two years later with CityTech? Why would a game with no targets apart from other 'mechs have an anti-infantry weapon?

FASA always envisioned BattleTech as a combined warfare game including tanks, aircraft, INFANTRY, and ‘mechs. So even though they weren’t in the initial rules, they were planning on adding them down the road.

stjobe, on 05 June 2013 - 11:51 AM, said:

Not that I expect you to answer any of these questions, people that drag in the old, beaten-to-death "MG's are anti-infantry, hurr durr" horse never do.

Well I’m sorry I wasn’t able to answer all your stupid questions and break down the design philosophy of BattleTech for you earlier.

Obviously the people who made the game have no idea what the use of their weapon systems are right? They should have consulted you before putting in those descriptions. What they hell where they thinking.

[TheComet]

I'm kinda saddened....I finally was able to get my Jagermech JM6-DD....only to realize 6x MG is a worthless setup despite the promise of my 4x MG build on my previous Jager

Was trying to remake the Piranha with it only to learn that even with 6 MGs focused down on an exposed armor section, nothing is going to happen unless some ammo explodes (and given the meta, almost everyone runs heavy on energy anyways....so yeah nothing much there.).

It's really unfortunate, it feels like stacking small lasers is more effective than running MG right now as they seem to actually put damage on the target as opposed to destroyed negligible internals with next to no effect on the target.

[Aurien Titus]

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

One doesn't need prior knowledge to have a discussion with. You aren't bringing any facts or logic to the table, you just keep using things like "I know more about BT than you Fup, you're stupid and can't comprehend what MGs are for" (paraphrased of course but the meaning is the same). Stop avoiding me and confront my arguments already.

But you are stupid. Your arguments prove it.

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Here is my own evidence:

1. Here is the Inner Sphere Heavy Weapons and Equipment Table from page 341 of TechManual:


Notice the damage value for Machine Guns (2).

How does 2 damage prove it’s primarily anti-mech? The range isn’t anti-mech. The description from the people who actually made the game says it isn’t. But you say it is, so it must be right. Astounding logic there.

Quote

Machine Gun: Though rarely carried by BattleMechs, the high rate of fire produced by machine guns makes them excellent anti-infantry weapons.

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

2. Start up a game of Mechwarrior: Online and fire a Medium or Large Laser. You'll notice that they fire a continuous beam that lasts for one full second. Trying sweeping it across the ground. You'll notice that you can write things with it and draw funny pictures.

Now imagine that each of those scorchholes was an infantry trooper. That's a lot of dead infantry, and keep in mind that my test run didn't drag the beam out as far as possible in order to fit all of it on screen.

What do MGs get? Their fast RoF might initially seem favorable against infantry, but I'm going to guess that each individual trooper would only need a single bullet to be killed. Unless the troopers are clumped very closely together, you're going to be wasting ammo on the dirt because MGs don't have single-shot mode (it's easy to click for just a moment too long and get 2 or 3 bullets at in a single click). Also remember that the Medium Lasers have vastly superior range, can threaten enemy mechs in MWO, have infinite ammo, and aren't susceptible to ammo explosions. MGs might have zero heat, but MWO's heat system is incredibly lenient and doesn't penalize heat other than shutting down or occasionally suicide if you get too trigger-happy.

Conclusion: MGs in MWO would be utterly useless if infantry was added. Even if they were the only target that existed, Medium Lasers would be vastly superior at dealing with them.

This has nothing to do with BattlteTech and doesn’t prove MG’s are magically anti-mech. And in combat infantry would definitely run through the open ground in front of you while you’re not occupied. Why would they wait until you’re in the middle of combat and attack when your heat is high. MG’s have a place in the BattleTech universe, it’s not FASA’s fault PGI hasn’t created it.

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

3. Again, infantry are not currently present in Mechwarrior: Online. Why have a weapon designed to combat something that doesn't exist? We don't even know if infantry might ever make it in-game. You're putting the cart before the horse. As a result, the cart will never get pulled (in this case, MGs will keep being useless). And even if we did put the horse in front, Medium Lasers are still better than MGs at the same duty and more (see above).

Again what does this have to do with the design of a weapon system in the BattleTech universe? MWO doesn’t have infantry so the MG was never designed to fight infantry. Once again some stellar logic there.

FupDup, on 05 June 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

4. It doesn't make the game more enjoyable to play, at least not for most people. There are perhaps a select few out there who start up MWO and think to themselves "mmmmm MGs are useless, this improves the quality of my gameplay and I would definitely hate this game if MGs were useful" although I'm guessing they're not particularly common.

And there’s people sitting around going “if only they had MG’s working this game would be the greatest”? Once again how does this prove MG’s aren’t anti-infantry. I think we can conclude that the assumption of you being stupid and most people being smarter than you is quite true.

[InRev]

Before jumping into this discussion, I would like to post this table since I will be referencing it.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

How about this, explain to me how MG’s doing 2 points of damage makes them an anti-mech weapon with a range of 2 hexes when combat between ‘mechs is almost always past this range. In BattlteTech ‘mechs don’t get in each other’s faces and fight at point blank range.

Not on the anti-infantry table: small lasers. Their range: identical to MGs. Range does not dictate anti-mech intent.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Explain why a weapon primary role being anti-infantry means it must have a damage penalty versus ‘mechs? And please list these weapons that mount on vehicles, aircraft, or ‘mechs that have a ‘mech damage penalty. You take all the time you need to hunt for those mythical weapons.

Whoosh!

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Easy, it doesn’t get a massive bonus vs infantry.

Whoopsies! Please refer to the table. You'll see that you made a bit of a boo boo here. Might wanna show some contrition after that one.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

FASA always envisioned BattleTech as a combined warfare game including tanks, aircraft, INFANTRY, and ‘mechs. So even though they weren’t in the initial rules, they were planning on adding them down the road.

Source? Thanks!

Anyway, you really need to tone down the abuse with your posts. The fact that you completely and totally missed the sarcasm used by the people whom you quoted kind of erodes your position on your soap box.

HTH.

Edit note:

And just so we don't forget:

AC/2: 2 damage to mechs
MG: 2 damage to mechs.

Punto.

Edited by InRev, 05 June 2013 - 07:55 PM.

[FupDup]

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

But you are stupid. Your arguments prove it.

Ad-hominems are the most effective way to assert one's intellectual superiority, amirite?

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

How does 2 damage prove it’s primarily anti-mech? The range isn’t anti-mech. The description from the people who actually made the game says it isn’t. But you say it is, so it must be right. Astounding logic there.

It's not about "primary" function, it's about "can it do it or is it unable to do it." Yes, MGs are waaaay better against infantry than mechs by a long shot (2D6 versus infantry, 2 versus mechs). They're still able to do respectable damage to mechs for their size. That's the point. As for range, there are weapons with even shorter range that are anti-mech such as fists, swords, kicks, maces, and hatchets (battlemech sized versions of course). The Small Laser has identical range as the MG, but nobody goes around saying that we should nerf their damage in MWO and turn them into crit-seekers.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

This has nothing to do with BattlteTech and doesn’t prove MG’s are magically anti-mech. And in combat infantry would definitely run through the open ground in front of you while you’re not occupied. Why would they wait until you’re in the middle of combat and attack when your heat is high. MG’s have a place in the BattleTech universe, it’s not FASA’s fault PGI hasn’t created it.

Medium Lasers generate very, very little heat, especially when using DHS. You can chain-fire with a ML mech pretty much forever if you're careful. As for the Battletech universe, the reason MGs suck so hard here is because PGI didn't import their damage capabilities (against armored targets) while still preserving their weaknesses of short range and ammo explosions.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

Again what does this have to do with the design of a weapon system in the BattleTech universe? MWO doesn’t have infantry so the MG was never designed to fight infantry. Once again some stellar logic there.

The above responses of mine seem to cover this fairly well.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

And there’s people sitting around going “if only they had MG’s working this game would be the greatest”? Once again how does this prove MG’s aren’t anti-infantry. I think we can conclude that the assumption of you being stupid and most people being smarter than you is quite true.

It certainly wouldn't make the game the greatest, but it would make it better. More viable weapons means more options to try out in battle as well as more options for my enemies to use against me, adding greater replayability (matches are more dynamic when people use more than 1-3 different weapons). Nobody said that MGs aren't good against infantry, we're just saying that they can damage armor in addition to their anti-infantry prowess.

I think we can conclude that the assumption of using personal attacks against one's opponent proves intellectual superiority is quite true.

[Allister Rathe]

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:46 PM, said:

But you are stupid. Your arguments prove it.

How does 2 damage prove it’s primarily anti-mech? The range isn’t anti-mech. The description from the people who actually made the game says it isn’t. But you say it is, so it must be right. Astounding logic there.

This has nothing to do with BattlteTech and doesn’t prove MG’s are magically anti-mech. And in combat infantry would definitely run through the open ground in front of you while you’re not occupied. Why would they wait until you’re in the middle of combat and attack when your heat is high. MG’s have a place in the BattleTech universe, it’s not FASA’s fault PGI hasn’t created it.

And there’s people sitting around going “if only they had MG’s working this game would be the greatest”? Once again how does this prove MG’s aren’t anti-infantry. I think we can conclude that the assumption of you being stupid and most people being smarter than you is quite true.

Name calling doesn't make your argument any better, so in the future, please refrain.

How do you justify the argument that "it's range isn't anti-mech"? The Machine Gun was helpful on most 'Mechs as an anti-infantry weapon, as you and so many people are fond of pointing out (and, in fact, no one is REFUTING that, instead pointing out that despite its bonus against infantry, it has never been claimed as an infantry only weapon), but also as a secondary weapon system. At the end of an engagement or in a close range brawl, when a 'Mech is running low on ammo or too high on heat to fire its primary weapons, the Machine Gun is very useful as a way to keep the pressure on without further spiking heat and causing your 'Mechs performance to degrade.

No one is arguing that the MG should be a 'Mech destroying super gun that chews through an Atlas' armor in half a second at five hundred meters. What we would like is for it to be effective enough that if you have a few tons to spare you might actually see a benefit from dropping a pair of MGs and one ton of ammo, rather than having it be dead weight that might explode and kill you.

[InRev]

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

In BattlteTech ‘mechs don’t get in each other’s faces and fight at point blank range.

Sup

Aurien Titus said:

Machine Gun: Though rarely carried by BattleMechs . . .

Strange quotation. It struck me as odd so I did some digging and quickly came up with the following list of timeline appropriate IS mechs that carried MGs in at least one variant:

Flea
Raven
Vulcan
Catapult
Spider
Firestarter
Cicada
Warhammer
Stinger
Wasp
Crusader
Phoenix Hawk
Locust
Thunderbolt
BattleMaster

You'll notice that a solid chunk of that list is unseen/reseen. Why is that important? Because those mechs are considered to be the most ubiquitous mechs in the IS, thus making mech-mounted MGs very, very common.

Why else is it relevant? Because they were mounting MGs before the special anti-infantry rules were written.

[General Taskeen]

Add the Madcat Prime and Piranha Prime to the list. Them Clanners must not know what they are doing. Did they not realize their "MGs" are so useless against armor? Lulz. I almost thought these discussions were over with, but apparently not! MG's do damage to Mechs in Battletech, that's just the way it is.

I'm very scared of Infantry in the game, they are so OP. Hiding everywhere!

Edited by General Taskeen, 05 June 2013 - 09:28 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I don'Ät

General Taskeen, on 05 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

Add the Madcat Prime and Piranha Prime to the list. Them Clanners must not know what they are doing. Did they not realize their "MGs" are so useless against armor? Lulz. I almost thought these discussions were over with, but apparently not! MG's do damage to Mechs in Battletech, that's just the way it is.

I'm very scared of Infantry in the game, they are so OP. Hiding everywhere!

Don't worry. Just carry an MG. I've seen no infantry standing at the end of any match I carried a Machine Gun.

[stjobe]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 05:41 PM, said:

The game Battletech is base off the the books about Battletech which they indeed had "infantry" to worry about.

Nice try. "Decision at Thunder Rift" was the first novel ever published about BattleTech, it was published in 1986 - two years after BattleDroids and one year after BattleTech, 2nd edition. In short, the game came before the books.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

In BattlteTech ‘mechs don’t get in each other’s faces and fight at point blank range.

I guess all those rules for physical attacks were a waste of time then.

Aurien Titus, on 05 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

And please list these weapons that mount on vehicles, aircraft, or ‘mechs that have a ‘mech damage penalty. You take all the time you need to hunt for those mythical weapons.

Tactical Operations, p. 337. "All rifles subtract 3 from their damage points when attacking any battlefield unit except conventional infantry, battle armor, 'Mechs with commercial armor, and support vehicles with a BAR less than 8. This can mean that the rifle inflicts no damage."

[Rippthrough]

CutterWolf, on 05 June 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

Trolling? You only wish I was

Well it's either that, or you can't read, or you're just plain dumb. You make the choice.

Edited by Rippthrough, 06 June 2013 - 02:30 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

InRev, on 05 June 2013 - 08:33 PM, said:

Sup





Strange quotation. It struck me as odd so I did some digging and quickly came up with the following list of timeline appropriate IS mechs that carried MGs in at least one variant:

Flea
Raven
Vulcan
Catapult
Spider
Firestarter
Cicada
Warhammer
Stinger
Wasp
Crusader
Phoenix Hawk
Locust
Thunderbolt
BattleMaster

You'll notice that a solid chunk of that list is unseen/reseen. Why is that important? Because those mechs are considered to be the most ubiquitous mechs in the IS, thus making mech-mounted MGs very, very common.

Why else is it relevant? Because they were mounting MGs before the special anti-infantry rules were written.

Not that I am disagreeing with you, but Back in the 80s how far in advance did a company have to take to write,test,rewrite, retest a system? The original Box set was sorta like what we are doing now. Beta. Pretty much a bare bones version of the game. 1984 the first box set came out. A year later it was 2nd edition-ed to be BattleTech A year later it had CityTech added bringing us... Infantry and tanks! So the basic game was introduced while the DEV team was working on expansions which included... Infantry and vehicles. Aerotech also came out in 86 giving us a full battlefield feel.

They COULD have known the were going to introduce Infantry and included MGs cause Mechs would need anti Infantry weapons.

Just say it could be.

@Fup,
I played Battletech for at least 15 years, never using a Machine Gun. I also played every MW video game without Machine Guns. I never ever missed them. Just sayin'...

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 June 2013 - 02:33 AM.