Stomp, on 16 January 2014 - 01:08 AM, said:
Well it's not a secret per se, but now that you've mentioned it I just PMed it to you. I've found ammo in your legs isn't nearly so bad in an assault, but I rarely play them so YMMV. I mean, the Stalker mounts how much armor into a single leg? 72 points says Smurfys. I'd think it would take a lot of concentrated fire to take a leg, when it would be quicker to maim you with a side torso shot, or kill if you're a less than clever man.
But in regards to my build, I've found I get more mileage with the ER Large than a normal Large, simply because I can use it in conjunction with the LRMs to peg a mech and soften him up with damage he can't shoot down. The Large's range is only 450m, and while that's my optimal operating ranges, I find I'm also fighting mostly farther as well. I try to attack "preoccupied" mechs, either harassed by lights or under fire from other mechs. That way, my LRMs have plenty of time to arrive and start knocking the {Scrap} out of him. I don't use the ML unless I'm being attacked up close myself, but I've gotten plenty of kills with the ERLL+ML combo, right as they're torn apart and charging me thinking I'll be worthless up close. Boy are they mistaken. 14 damage into a side torso takes half their guns or murders them, which makes them easy pickings, especially since he just bumrushed into me AND my team.
Looks good. I figured if you had a couple extra sinks to cover the ER, then dropping the ER for a large and dropping the extra sinks could clear up some room. However, the ER laser gives you punch, even if ECM might be in the way. I do like your build. The small launchers keeps the weight down (instead of the larger ones), and you can still (something Victor isn't thinking about) group fire them into a single large burst, as much as you can chain fire and shake someone, harass and damage them.
Out right ignore Victor about lasers. Those can in fact scare away some light mechs, or if anything can at least do some damage before they kill you if you aren't lucky. Personally, I probably would so something different. I'll message my ideas to you, but your build looks nice to me. Especially for a medium.
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
Again, everyone is welcomed to play however they want. But a lot of people keep jumping to this "My playstyle" defense. It doesn't work that way, if you're planning to be effective. You've got to play in the styles the game accommodates, or suffer for it.
Could you go play a modern FPS and say it's just "your playstyle" to use pistols and flashbangs only? Sure. Is it in anyway a ticket to success? Nope.
The reason I pick these builds apart is for people reading this thread, to understand why they are bad, more than anything.
So, once again, "anyone can play what they want, but you suck if you don't do it my way" statement.
Playstyle. The reason I can play a Hollander 3 styled Cicada 3C well, even when people tell me it's a horribad build (and keep being told it needs DHS, even though it already never overheats with SHS). Or why my Cicadas are bad because the "Jenner can do it better". Or why my slow AC20/LRM Shadowhawk is bad, yet I commonly outperform most of my team in it. Or why my LRM/laser hunchback is so bad, but yet I commonly do good damage with it, and preform better than over half my team, AND have lots of fun with it. My Raven 4x, which is so inferior to to any other Raven build according to other people, is one of my highest killers (and no one else thinks of having a light mech stand near their team, supporting them till the time is right to rush in and attack, then withdraw back behind the team). Or my Locust 3S, which is called the worst locust variant in the game, and I have my Locust 3S going 80-90 KPH with the smallest engine possible on it, 2 LRM5s and 2 SRM2 w 2 tons LRM ammo and 1 ton SRM ammo, yet I out preform my other Locusts in kills, assists AND damage in my "terribad Locust" "Slow light mechs sucks" mech.
My playstyle combines many different weapons systems and tactics together, making them more effective in my hands than in most other player's hands. Can these builds work for the generalized masses? Most times, no, because they don't/wont play them the same way I do. This is called, playstyle. I have a style of play that works well for me, even if it doesn't work well for other people, if might even be close to suicide for other people. This is why many of us chime in that "this is the build I use, and it works well with my playstyle". This is fact. We all play things differently.
Honestly, if I tried to play an LRM mech in the skirmisher like you do, even with the same exact builds as you use, I probably wouldn't/couldn't get half the performance you do. I'd probably drift too close to the enemy. Not have enough mouse buttons for all the different weapon groupings (my mouse only has 2 buttons on it). I would probably stand still (get stuck, land/jump at the wrong time) and get killed quickly. Or, knowing how my luck works, I'd have a light on me too soon, and they would follow me and slowly rip me apart before I could deliver most of my weapons payload. I might even drift too far away from the team, because I might not be use to moving so much (not really, as I tend to play a lot of light/fast mechs stil)l, and become gang killed by half of the enemy team focus firing on me. I might charge too soon. Join in too late. Fire indirectly too much...
Basically, your style of game play doesn't equal the same way I play. What you do, how you do it, and what comes naturally to you might not work for me at all. It's like with art, I can draw well in an Anime style. Some people can draw well in a realistic style. Others can only draw stick figures. Even if I show them how I draw, it might never work for them, because it might not be an art style that is intuitive to them. Same for this game and how to play our mechs.
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
Do you really think a single Medium Laser - a single one - is going to benefit you more than a TAG in this scenario? A single medium laser has accomplished pretty much nothing ever, but a TAG has had a huge impact. This seems very unwise.
You'd have a far easier time guiding those shots in to faster 'mechs if you had TAG, too, because it enhances their tracking rate dramatically.
To continue on from last quote, one case in point is right here. You think a single laser can't do much, but once more fail to realize that it's paired with a large laser as well. So that's two lasers. He might also be better than you at keeping those lasers on target, meaning they might be better "
for him" at taking on, and out, light mechs. It's no different than saying that a single SSRM isn't going to be effective against a light mech, but when paired with, say, two or three medium lasers, it starts to add up to being rather threatening. (And if that light comes at you with a red leg/torso, those lasers/SSRMs might be the difference between him eating you, and you easily scaring him away, or killing him.)
Don't know about everyone else, but as I said, my mouse only has two buttons. I don't have a button for TAG on many of my mechs, and I'm not going to flicker it or waste shots to activate TAG. Or go all pure LRMs and gain the huge blaring weaknesses of doing so.
You realize, as you say this, that I've had lights somehow outrun SSRMs fired at near point blank, and they somehow turned and dodged them as they exploded harmlessly off their backs... (don't ask, but I've seen it happen a few times already). Either this is more of the hit reg not working right, or missile tracking strength doesn't always mean what you think it does...
Besides that, we never argued that TAG wasn't a worth while upgrade. However, we don't see it as the end all be all of LRM usage. My LRMs hit and do plenty of damage and tracking without TAG. Also, unlike you, if my LRMs aren't doing the job, then I can still close in if I must. I don't even have to expose myself if I don't want to and wait for my team to get ride of the ECM... (situation dependent, team dependent)
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
I'm going to be completely honest with you: If a Raven or Jenner pilot can't deal with an ER LL and ML on a Kintaro, they are baaaaad. That is simply not enough firepower to counter lights, and on top of that, the ERLL's fairly lengthy discharge time makes it a terrible anti-light weapon.
Those powerful 2 ER LL Ravens going around? Yeah, they can't even dent a proper light. They're amazing anti-heavy but it's just a horrible, horrible weapons platform to kill scouts.
Or he is good? Have that crossed your mind? Could he be more skilled with those two lasers, and with the chassis, to be able to threaten and take down such builds or mechs? Is this actually even a possibility in your mind? I've found large lasers to be very effective at hurting lights. In most cases, a large can deal more damage in a shorter time than a med laser, simply because it does more damage per "tick", even if it does run longer.
Talk to my wingman. He piloted a dual Large Raven (back a while ago, before it became "meta" for them) with SSRMs (I think) (because they where larges and not ERs, he saved on sinks). He could handle other light mechs, even with no Streaks and only his lasers. I watched him personally take on other "light hunting ravens" and kill them with just his large lasers before they could kill him, and he'd take two of them on (usually an ECM commando and ECM Raven working together). I'm not joking here either.
Of course, to you any laser is a bad weapon for anything. Seen as 4-6 med lasers is not enough to defend yourself from anything...
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
When the only problem with your build is "2.5 tons of equipment + ammo can turn my entire 'mech into a useless paper weight" it's time to rethink your build. What if TWO people have AMS? Three? Four? What if they're clustered with everyone else, covering their allies?
Suddenly you are down to 55 tons of worthlessness.
Now, say, take a Griffin running 2x15 or the 15/10/5 skew; that'll crack the toughest AMS reasonably in one huge salvo. It'll have TAG, meaning it could track your 100kph Kintaro (but not you tracking the Griffin back without TAG.) It's going to deliver way more damage - including to faster moving targets even without the lasers (Again, TAG track rates), too.
If you're looking at "How can I get the most bang for my ton?" then...
Ah, but
HIS ENTIRE MECH ISN'T USELESS. He can still fight with his ERLL and med laser, and still be able to group fire his LRMs (or very quickly chain fire them, and if he can shoot them close enough, AMS probably wont even touch his second and fourth waves of missiles, at least from my observations with missiles and AMS) to try and punch through. Or, as he stated, he could just use one volley at a time to rapidly drain the AMS systems of ammo. If he can get enough of them to waste their ammo on a single LRM5 volley, he might leave the enemy team more vulnerable to other LRMs, or his own if he still has ammo. With this concept, let them cluster. He will just drain more AMS ammo faster that way.
Oh, and same goes for you. What if there are 5-12 AMS in range of your incoming LRMs? I'm sure even your Skirmisher LRM mech would become hard pressed against that. His Kintaro on the other hand can at least still fight with those lasers...
Okay, you want to talk about breaking through AMS, wouldn't the best way be to bring as many tubs as possible to launch in one volley (by your narrow concepts of AMS), and launch them all at once? LET IT RAIN! Artemis would be a hindrance now, as it takes up too much weight. Better go without it so you can cram more launchers in... oh wait... CONTRADICTION!
You just don't get it. Do you? There are so many different, and very viable, ways to play LRMs. Some are, yes, more effective at dealing damage than others, but even I've been known to shoot LRMs I knew would miss, just to press a sniper back into cover and protect my team. But you wouldn't understand this, would you? It wouldn't be "damage effective".
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:
Again, speed is definitely a good thing. You're honestly in an "Almost there" kind of situation. I think if you were to swap to 2x15+Artemis and throw a TAG on there, you would see an actual huge upswing in your damage. Granted I prefer the Griffin and Hawk yet due to JJs being such a huge help, but the Kintaro can do a reasonable job of it.
Nobody's stopping you from using it, but it's definitely not defensible on any practical grounds.
Once again, "Do it my way or you suck", as he is "almost there". It's what works for him, like my Stalker works for me.
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:
Controlling the engagement range is always important for LRMs, even if you aren't planning on firing at full speed a lot. You cannot dictate engagement ranges when you are moving in the 50s-60s.
No, I'm saying against any proper missile skirmisher, your Stalker would be eaten for breakfast and that it would not even leave some chipped paint on one in return. Which is true.
We have different roles we are preforming with each of our mechs.
I'm more or less an LRM brawler, using them at closer ranges, but have them to also help support my team if possible/needed.
He's a medium, mobile LRM support, who is not intended to work by himself, but in a team (much like my mech). He's designed to attack unsuspecting pray, people who are too distracted with a teammate to bother with a medium mech.
You, on the other hand, are designed to be a solo operator as an LRM skirmisher, who is designed to flank, move, and deal as much damage as possible before you need to back away. Your design needs to control range or it fails.
The difference is, our designs don't need to control ranges, so when the fight comes to us, we can hold our own. A fast mech gets to you, you... what? Try to out run a Jenner? Wait, no. You basically die without giving much of a fight once he's on top of you... But if that doesn't happen, you will take anyone else apart, especially if they are unaware of you, or are not near any cover. (I never said your strategy was bad, but it isn't the only effective thing around.)
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:
Where you make the mistake is thinking "inside 180m is good because I have weapons that hit within 180."
The problem is reality is this: "Inside 180m is good because I have less firepower than a Jenner in a slow turning assault 'mech." Again, I would seriously pit any one of my unit's light pilots against your Stalker and you'd never, ever walk away from it.
Just some common light builds I hear about.
My Stalker has 4 med lasers and 2 SSRM2s for close range weapons. That's 30 damage total, 10 of which will, in theory, "always hit". (I also know my mech very well, and I can, in fact, keep a fast target in my sights longer than you think.)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f6704081e9382c4 - 6 med lasers, and not enough cooling to normally handle them for long. A striker. Now, let me do the math: 6 med lasers (which seem to do nothing in your opinion anyway) deal 5 damage a piece. That's 30 damage total. Seems like the same to me, but your opinion of lasers and their damage makes it so I trump with the SSRMs, as they aren't lasers. So, we have 6 med laser Jenner doing 0-3 points of damage per alpha in your opinion... (as you keep saying 4-6 med lasers are useless.) (Really, it's 30 damage vs my 30 damage, sarcasm aside.)
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c6ffb5465f4c271 - My current Jenner build for myself. Has 4 med lasers and 2 SSRM2s... wait... that sounds familiar. Well, compared to my Stalker, that's 30 damage vs... 30 damage! Again! Same exact armaments! And I can run them cooler on my Stalker, longer, and STILL have my LRMs...
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...075ce51a10cc86f - A semi-typical Spider (or at least something close to the Spider I run). 1 Large and 2 Med lasers. That's 19 damage total. Once more, vs my 30 damage of my Stalker... and I have 10 damage of SSRMs...
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...75a18d8a8823912 - A Raven 3L build, though I'm not overly familiar with Ravens overall beside my 4X. But, 3 med lasers and 2 SSRM2s. That 25 damage total, vs my Stalker's 30 damage...
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...82ed6a2cda16ef3 - A Commando build I know use to be a big deal. 3 SSRM2s. 15 damage. That's half the fire power of my Stalkers 30 damage...
So far, seems like I match, or exceed, many of these common light builds with my close range weaponry. This means, I'm a threat to them. Especially with 10 SSRM damage. I have the armor to take their hits, can they say the same? So, what you say is basically a lie. Congrats. (Either that or you still didn't really look at my Stalker build.)
As far as "your unit's lights" vs me and my Stalker, if it could be kept as a one vs one, I'd take it. I think I'd even come out on top too. Why? Look above. I have, typically, as much weaponry as they do, and deal as much damage as they do. But I have more armor. My rear armor is a lot of lights front armor (some exaggeration included).
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:
OK, there's a huge difference between the kinds of builds based on what you are talking about. Let me break down the difference and why one is bad, one is good.
BAD: [BRACKETED BUILDS] - Builds that have weapons with different range cut-offs and limited overlap. These always result in a 'mech that is inferior to what it could be in two brackets, rather than being the good in either. This is effectively what you are doing it; it is not adding flexibility, it's taking it away.
GOOD: [ALL-RANGE BUILDS] - Builds that use weapons that are reliable at (most) any range. This is why the AC/5, UAC/5 and PPCs are so popular in the competitive community. They are highly responsive, fire at the drop of the hat, and can do long range, close range, or anything in between just fine without having "cut off" zones where X or Y gun stops working (outside of the small minimum on regular PPCs.)
So, we agree. All range weapons are normally better than bracket ranged weapons. So, the LRMs are junk. So... why did you waste making a guide for a "junk" weapon that you "know" is junk? (Sarcasm)
Anyways, if Bracketed weapons are bad, then by THAT logic, balancing out the "bad" bracket weapons with some direct fire all range weapons helps to counter the weaknesses of the bracketed weapons. Yes?
My Stalker may be "best" in an 80m window between 270-190m (I cut 10m off from the LRMs minimum range for a small buffer zone), but it can easily function outside and inside that range "bracket". I also tend to use my LRMs as indirect far more than you would probably suggest. However, I'm also not afraid to get my own locks. Also, a lot of brawlers and other players seem to like staying inside that nice bracket range from my observations. They seem to just like to let me pummel them with all my weapons. Even then, I've taken out Atlases with my close range only weapons, as I concentrated my Lasers into a side troso, and my SSRMs seemed to do the same somehow. Got lucky? Maybe. But I did get him anyway.
For the record, I'm talking about a Balanced Build, not a "Bracketed Build". I didn't design the build to be effective in one bracket, but to not be "useless" at any one situation. Especially with how slow the mech is, it
NEEDS to have those defensive weapons, as you so clearly pointed out.
You also forget, builds don't have to be made for "solo" use only. My builds, many of them, are designed to work within a team. They typically do very intuitively. A lot of your builds and suggestions are for a more "solo" style of play, and that isn't bad either. Your builds are also more "high risk, high reward". My builds try to mitigate the risk, but that typically also mitigates and reduces most chances of a higher reward. However, when things go really bad, I'm normally still a good performer, at least placing enough damage to be considered contributing. With you, when things go really bad, you can do less damage than me, as I mitigated the risk. That is the difference between a Specialized "high risk, high reward" build and a balanced "mitigated risk, normalized/stable rewards". I normally, even at the worse "head shot out" matches, still tend to do at least 200 damage, and maybe even a kill already. (I have a screen shot of that match end score if you really wish.) Your worse case would be to have the first mech you see be a fast mech, who kills you with you doing 0 damage. Your risk is greater. And because I normally do at least 200 damage and upwards to (so far I've maxed at) 800 damage with 1-4 kills, I have more stable rewards and less risk.
See the point of a balanced build verse a specialized build yet? You might see larger "kills/damage" amounts on a more regular basis, but when you wipe, you can really wipe bad. I'll still see those higher damages, and I might see the high spikes of kills/damage less often, but I'm a more stable performer, with more stabilized results.
If you really want to see the comparison of what I am talking about, post a build up here, and post the corresponding stats. If possible, post the stats that relate to when you started that specific build. (For me, the match number will be low, as I just redefined my Stalker, but I have the break off stats I can use to separate old stats from the new ones. Or we can just lump all of my Stalker's stats together, old and new, and compare. However, my Stalker has a low match count from when they started to track individual mech stats, as it was already mastered before that system was put into place.) With this information, we can see average stat numbers on damage per match, damage per ton per match, and k/d with that mech. (Too bad it doesn't keep track of assists. I have bad luck getting kills, as someone always seems to slip in the last bit of damage on me, even if I did all/most of the work killing the target.) This system may not be perfect, but it would give up some concepts to at least compare, and wouldn't be each of us just throwing "cherry picked best matches end screens" up.
Victor Morson, on 16 January 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:
Except, again, that's why LRM boats need speed: So they can't be hounded like that. Your Stalker will NEVER close the distance on my Shadow Hawk. Your Stalker will NEVER do severe damage to my Shadow Hawk, long or close - in particularly long - of any serious consequence, unless it's legged or something. However my Shadow Hawk would deliver about 90% of it's ordinance right into the top of your 'mech, smacking your CT every single salvo thanks to TAG/Artemis/all the other stuff we've talked about.
Again, I'm not saying this because of personal skill or anything, I'm saying this because that's just how the mechanics are right now. I've mass murdered LRM Stalkers more than any other kind of LRM boat out there and it plays out the same every single time.
As a side note, with a TAG, you do at least stand some chance of winging the medium in the process. Without one, you have no hope.
For the another time in this post
I AM NOT AN LRM BOAT! Stop comparing me as though I am a boat! My mech CAN be hounded my a light, and I will either kill it (I actually hunt them down when I see allies being attacked by them), or scare it away to go pester someone else who will fight back less.
You missed the point of my example. What if you made a mistake, and GOT too close to my Stalker? Once you are placed outside of your element, you become useless, where as I don't HAVE an "outside my element". High risk, high reward. Mitigated risk, normalized rewards. You also think in terms of one vs one. I'm part of a team. So are you. We have to consider that as well, as my build is designed to work within a team, unlike your design. Also, you are comparing two different battlefield roles, and trying to determine one is better over the other by how they would deal against each other, of course in your builds "best" area. Well, by your logic, a Brawler is inferior to your LRM Skirmisher, as you can "trounce" them easily before they can "chip your paint". Well yeah, you took that Brawler, placed him outside his prime area, and place yourself in your prime area. Of course he is going to lose!
30 damage, max close range. You do 0 damage. Your typical armor on any one point is 52 points of armor. That's also 26 structure. If I can hit with 3 bursts, I can take a leg off. If you get within my "magic" zone, that's 60 damage potential. Yes. At that range, my LRMs will hit you, as you wont move fast enough to dodge them all, or even most of them. So, yes I can maim, or even kill, you with my close range weapons, situation dependent. So, to say you "always will" kill me, is an outright lie. The advantage may be in your favor, but never underestimate your opponent.
PS: If I twist to the side, your LRMs will hit mostly my side torso. Not my CT. Even with TAG and Artemis, and "Magic movement bonuses" or anything else you come up with. The Stalker, unlike the Battlemaster, has HUGE side torsos. They can easily get damage redirected to them and away from my CT. I've done it many times already, to LRMs among other forms of fire. You will probably have to take both my sides off before getting my CT destroyed, or very close to it. I normally die in my Stalker with no torso left at all.
Once more, you compare my Stalker to other "LRM" Stalkers, who was probably "LRM boats", whom my own Stalker has eaten alive itself, but surviving their LRMs long enough to get in close, and kill them with no farther damage. Sure, they can beat me up, but I typically win against them just because I don't "specialize" strictly into LRMs.
Now, once more, you are failing at this comparison issue, as you compare my LRM Brawler directly to your LRM Skirmisher, and pitting each against the other with no other team being considered. I am not the same build as you. I am not working with the same strategies nor tactics in mind. My mech is built to fulfill a different role on the battlefield than you. What you are comparing would be the same as comparing a Brawler Atlas, with a poptart Highlander. With your logic and comparison strategy, if you are the Sniper, you would place the Atlas at 1000+m away from you, with a nice hill between you. And then kill the Atlas with "no chipped paint". If you were arguing the brawler, you would have the fight start within 500-200m from the Highlander, with lots of cover, and you would "sneak up" on the Highlander and kill it, with maybe a dent in your armor as you "take a side from the XL sniping Poptart" quickly and with ease.
As for the TAG comment, "Obi wan kenobi, you are my only hope." Or "(without the Matrix of leadership we have) No hope. No hope, no hope at all." I still refute your opinion on this, as I can leg/arm/kill fast light mechs with my mech, with LRMs or not. You move slower. So, sorry. I can hit you. I can kill you. You are not indestructible. I can win. How easy, how often, or how well I can win is a different story, but it is possible. Even if the advantage is yours, I can win. It is possible, even if it isn't likely.
And for the record:
My new Stalker:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...96a221aea6eb8d2
My old Stalker:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...3a07913ba3ee52c (Something like this, exacts not guaranteed)
My old score with old build:
Matches: 21 Wins: 10 Lose: 11 W/L: 0.91 Kills: 22 Deaths: 15 K/D: 1.47 Damage: 6,010 Damage per match: 286.19 Damage per ton per match: 3.37
Total Score:
Matches: 38 Wins: 18 Lose: 20 W/L: 0.90 Kills: 37 Death: 25 K/D: 1.48 Damage: 13,256 Damage per Match: 348.84 Damage per ton per match: 4.10
My New Score only:
Matches: 17 Wins: 8 Lose: 9 W/L: 0.89 Kills: 15 Deaths: 10 K/D: 1.50 Damage: 7,246 Damage per match: 426.24 Damage per ton per match: 5.01
Damage may not be a complete indicator, but bringing it up almost double over my older mech per match, raising the damage per ton per match up by 1.64 (67.26% more damage per ton per match extra), increasing my K/D over my older design... I'd have to say this mech is effective. 200 damage in a match last I knew was considered "contributing" by most standards, and seen as I average 426.24 damage per match, that's "contributing x2" as my average match (meaning I probably do 200 damage worse, and 800 damage best or there abouts, or I average as many 800 damage matches as I do 200 damage matches), means I'm probably doing fairly well, if not exceeding in most matches.
I must be doing something right I would think, or is 400+ damage average per match with 1.5 kills per death (I get more assists anyway) "not doing it right" or "doing it just wrong" or "it's bad". I'd have to strongly argue against what you say, and have to listen to my own experience on the mech, as well as what the analysis of the available statistical data is telling me.
What do your stats say? Something close to mine I'm guessing? Better? Even if it is better, that doesn't mean you are any more or less right than I am. My mech, by it's stats, is effective in a match. No matter what your "opinion" may say otherwise. Cause what you spout is just "opinion", not "fact".
Just to sum this up, we never said you didn't make good points or that many things you mentioned where bad. Your guide makes a lot of good points and suggestions. However, I disagree with the "attitude" behind it being "the only way" to do it. Your tips can help improve, but there are more ways to do the job is all we are saying.
20
)
I don't think Smurfy's works on my tablet but I will take care of it as soon as I'm on the regular comp again. It might though, going to have to give it a shot!
