Jump to content

For The Love A...! Boating Is A Symptom!


16 replies to this topic

#1 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:14 AM

A new meme is rising and it burns with the fires of stupid.

"Boating is the problem" seems to be the new cry of the underhive. Allow me to explain why this is wrong. Boating is not the problem... it is the reactionary symptom of the imbalance of the game.

Of course, we also need to point out that when "Boating is a problem" it is used almost exclusively for LRMboating. Full confession I run LRMs almost exclusively with a little long range sniping thrown in. Why? Because it's a more fun game experience for me, and my system is slow and chokes if I try to brawl making it a miserable experience. We never hear much about ACboats or Energyboats in comparison (save for those cheering over the recent PPCs nerfs right now) because they are not as big of a problem really. When's the last time you heard someone freak out over an AC2boat or an MLboat or even an ERLLboat? You really don't.

So... WHY is boating (specifically LRMboating) the symptom and not the problem? Because it is spawned from necessity of the current game balance.

Ask yourself this. What good is a single AC5? Not much. Two on the other hand is a good mix on many mechs. Same with two AC10s and the infamous AC40 combo (2 AC20s) is a fearsome monster. Is this boating? Many would say no. Why? Because you do not need to and mostly you can't put more on a mech (Clan mechs not included in this example. they're their own bag of carnivorous worms). Same goes for energy. Nobody complains about the 9ML hunchback because that thing will overheat and explode if it is not careful thanks to Ghost Heat.

So why is having 4-6 LRM launchers boating? Why is it even neccessary? Because unlike a single AC5 or PPC... they can't get the job done. What threat is a single LRM5 on the battlefield? It has 1000m of range, has no damage drop off and causes 5.5 damage per hit in optimum conditions! Why is this not better than an AC5? Why is an LRM10 not better than a PPC or AC10? The sad part is we all know why and it's a multi layered elephant in the room nobody wants to address because there would have to be a very painful adjustment to the game both from PGI's position and the players.

The problem is the Counters issue. This is a great deal larger than just the Information Warfare Pillar PGI has talked about in the past. It includes non ECM assets as well. A single LRM 20 should be feared on the battlefield, but because of all the counters, it's just a nuisance. We have ECM, AMS, Betty's warnings, Radar Deprivation and soon to arrive Chaff modules to stop them.

Of course, then we have the ability to use other people's targets NARC, TAG, BAP, Adv. Sensor module, Adv. Target Decay Module, 360 Target Module all out there to buff the LRMs in counter to all the protections no other weapon must suffer. Oh! and if you notice, there are no LRM weapon modules, and Mech modules that contain all the modules to help a LRM mech have been reduced unless mastered... in most cases.

Getting to the point. This game of counters is what's causing boating because let's face it, you need the mass of missiles to make your mech competitive. A single LRM10? A joke. 2 AMS and you go from 11 points of damage to a max of 2.2 if you can shoot at them at all. They are dodge-able unlike almost every single DF weapon by any pilot who is skilled enough to find cover. So why even fill that slot when a bigger energy or ballistic weapon will produce better results? And so Energy and AC boats build up because the counters aren't there and they can poptart or ridge hump to their heart's delight and the hue and cry is much less from the crowd because they're already doing that.

So how do we deal with the symptom of LRMboating? Short answer, remove the necessity by removing the reasons that make it so. Currently, AMS has one broken buff, and one OP nature. Fix these two things and you will reduce the need to boat immensely.

1. AMS ignores terrain and can shoot through solid objects to stop LRMs.
2. AMS targets all missiles in their sphere.

AMS must be reigned in by having it react to scenery. I should not be watching AMS come through the floor of the Manifold Ziggurat or the Crimson Straits parking garage to shoot down my missiles aimed somewhere else. They go through your own mech as well as others. The problem is I understand why AMS does this, and I get why PGI did it this way: AMS is a bubble field, not a directed weapon because the math was too hard and the animations were too crazy difficult on people's computers. The problem is, it creates an unfair advantage against missiles of all types. What's worse is this is a problem that would require a fundamental rewrite of how AMS works. This means issue number 2 must be addressed.

AMS targets all enemy missiles in their radius whether they are targeted at that mech or not. This creates the 'umbrella shield' many of us LRMpilots know and hate and force us to just push the clouds of missiles more and more making people scream and animations to bog down. It's to burn up AMS to take it out of the game and get SOME damage through early.

What's the cure to this? Actually it's the simplest and possibly the most fair and effective cure in lieu of not being able to make AMS hit scenery and mechs: Limit AMS to only target missiles shot at the mech it is mounted on. Suddenly, I don't have to worry about having all my missiles burn up. AMS users know that they only will have a lessening of the damage. I can change my LRMboat builds around to create more balanced builds currently not possible if I want to run LRMs because I must devote myself to the weapon for any effectiveness on the battlefield.

That deals with only one counter, but it would reduce the necessity.

So, what's going to stop me from boating anyway? We already have a cure for this in place, we just need to make it a harder cure: Missile Tube limits. Right now, I can mount any size launcher on a missile hardpoint that has fewer available tubes. If it's an LRM20 and only 5 tubes available, it fires in a sequence of 4 groups of 5. The best way to handle this would be to only allow 5 to fire with each trigger pull and still have the weight, slot, heat and recycle rate of the LRM20. Nobody's going to do this. They'll match the tubes. Some mechs will require reduction in the number of tubes, but for the most part, the issue is solved. That deals with the ability to boat. Yes some mechs will still be boats, but like ECM and AC platforms, they will be much more limited in who does and can.

We do not need any more LRM nerfs to their effectivness. Fixing AMS will reduce the necessity to LRMboat and possibly eliminate the need to buff their effectiveness through higher speeds and damage because they would get a spillover buff from fixing AMS.

You notice of course, I don't dig at ECM so much (which I'm still convinced is broken but could be solved by making it the weight and size of an AC2 or at the very least an LRM15.) because there are some good counters, and broken counters to it. It's not perfect, but not as broken as AMS. The only area it is broken is that it does not affect the targeting systems of direct fire weapons. ECM should cause similar issues to those weapons because of how I have had it explained to me by Devs when I complained about it blocking TAG under 180m and by their own logic, all weapon systems should have difficulty targeting them. This could be done through adding the jitter caused by JJ when aiming at mechs inside an ECM bubble. It also could be used to warn ecm is in play in a certain area. You can still dumbfire LRMs at an ECM target, so you should still have the ability to dumbfire with the DF weapons affected with better, but reduced results.

So, as you can see, the need for boating is a symptom of underlying flaws in the system with two very obvious culprits. This should be addressed through reducing the need by fixing the broken AMS and ECM systems while decreasing the ability to boat huge numbers of missiles on most mechs through hardpoint restrictions. Effectiveness increases brought about by this would then allow for a greater variety of mech designs to be more functional on the battlefield pushing the LRM back into it's weapon's role as a support weapon on a mech. Yes you might see more mechs packing a launcher or two with 20 missiles or so, but the 50+ crowd would diminish dramatically for there still would be better ways to play the game in the direct fire arena.

Boating is the symptom, not the problem. Fix the problems and watch the symptom go away.

Edited by Kjudoon, 12 August 2014 - 10:23 AM.


#2 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:20 AM

You are late to the party.

Convergence and Heat scale are the real issues. Until they are addressed everything else is so much bandaid.

#3 FDJustin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:32 AM

You'd be surprised at how often a little mech with AMS runs out of ammo due to LRM spam when they're in a tunnel, only to pop our and eat a giant ball of missiles and die.
I don't think it should go through terrain, but I do think it should continue to shoot down any enemy missile it can. Hell, I think it should give a small reward for doing it to help out support mechs.

#4 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:39 AM

It wouldn't be bad to give AMS an XP bonus. Solid point. But since we're not going to see the AMS stop going through the ground, it needs to stop targeting missiles that betty doesn't notice.

#5 Ph30nix

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,444 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:41 AM

One thing that always bugs me when they complain about boating or mechs with a large amount of weapons (direwolf with a beam loadout)
is that just because they HAVE those weapons doesnt mean they can actually fire them much.
example my direwolf is 2 gauss, 2 ERLL and 6 ERML
my main weapons are my 2 guass and 2 ERLL, i only pull out the ERML to try and open someone up or in panic moments.
i can get MAYBE 2 salvos out of all my weapons (with delays to prevent ghost heat) before im limited to just my gauss for a few second then only gauss+ ERLL until i break the engagement to cooldown.


its not like i can walk around and alpha everything non stop i mean i could once but id end up either shut down or at about 90% heat.
as for you mentioning LRM's the fix needed is to remove Linked Target lock ability without special equipment by either the scout (tag/narc) or the LRM launcher, preferably both but start with just one.

View PostKjudoon, on 12 August 2014 - 10:39 AM, said:

It wouldn't be bad to give AMS an XP bonus. Solid point. But since we're not going to see the AMS stop going through the ground, it needs to stop targeting missiles that betty doesn't notice.

ive never seen it go thru ground to destroy something.... i see it TRYING to but failing miserably.
Oh and Betty see's all the b* just doesnt tell you because she is a B*

#6 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:44 AM

View PostPh30nix, on 12 August 2014 - 10:41 AM, said:

One thing that always bugs me when they complain about boating or mechs with a large amount of weapons (direwolf with a beam loadout)
is that just because they HAVE those weapons doesnt mean they can actually fire them much.
example my direwolf is 2 gauss, 2 ERLL and 6 ERML
my main weapons are my 2 guass and 2 ERLL, i only pull out the ERML to try and open someone up or in panic moments.
i can get MAYBE 2 salvos out of all my weapons (with delays to prevent ghost heat) before im limited to just my gauss for a few second then only gauss+ ERLL until i break the engagement to cooldown.


its not like i can walk around and alpha everything non stop i mean i could once but id end up either shut down or at about 90% heat.
as for you mentioning LRM's the fix needed is to remove Linked Target lock ability without special equipment by either the scout (tag/narc) or the LRM launcher, preferably both but start with just one.


ive never seen it go thru ground to destroy something.... i see it TRYING to but failing miserably.
Oh and Betty see's all the b* just doesnt tell you because she is a B*


As you see, the Dire Whale has counters in place for boating that are effective... kinda.

I see the AMS come up through the floor of the tunnels to shoot at missiles. I've been in the tunnel watching other mechs with AMS chatter away at missiles they shouldn't be able to see let alone hit... but they do. I've watched it happen. Play an LRM boat for a while in those positions, and you will see it too.

#7 FDJustin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 10:52 AM

It should be pretty easy to stop them from firing through floors. It just needs a raycast to fire at the missiles, report that it hit a ceiling/building and not shoot.

If they really wanted to, they could set up a zone in the tunnels that modifies the bubble to be shorter than the ceiling. Wouldn't solve all the problems, but at least it's something.

#8 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:05 AM

View PostFDJustin, on 12 August 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

It should be pretty easy to stop them from firing through floors. It just needs a raycast to fire at the missiles, report that it hit a ceiling/building and not shoot.

If they really wanted to, they could set up a zone in the tunnels that modifies the bubble to be shorter than the ceiling. Wouldn't solve all the problems, but at least it's something.

I'd agree with that, but the problem is how they've got it currently set up, the animation is only a representation. It's otherwise just a math calculation. So they'd have to start from scratch.

Edited by Kjudoon, 12 August 2014 - 11:05 AM.


#9 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:12 AM

View PostAgent of Change, on 12 August 2014 - 10:20 AM, said:

You are late to the party.

Convergence and Heat scale are the real issues. Until they are addressed everything else is so much bandaid.


There's one other serious problem:
Mech upgrades with no real downsides.

They are what allow mechs to pack on seriously huge weapon loads, rather than having to work with the tonnage they have available.

The convergence issue is greatly exacerbated by the availability of XL, endo, and DHS on most mechs.
endo and XL engine upgrades should be rare and much less worthwhile a trade. I don't include FF in this list as its a much smaller benefit for the costs associated. Though I do believe it should be made into a more direct defensive upgrade.

I have a suggestion in my signature that wouldn't NERF them, but would buff standard equipment to make them a much harder choice.

Edited by Prezimonto, 12 August 2014 - 11:12 AM.


#10 Choppah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 174 posts
  • LocationIn transit, ETA unknown.

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:16 AM

View PostKjudoon, on 12 August 2014 - 10:14 AM, said:

So how do we deal with the symptom of LRMboating? Short answer, remove the necessity by removing the reasons that make it so. Currently, AMS has one broken buff, and one OP nature. Fix these two things and you will reduce the need to boat immensely.

1. AMS ignores terrain and can shoot through solid objects to stop LRMs.
2. AMS targets all missiles in their sphere.

AMS must be reigned in by having it react to scenery. I should not be watching AMS come through the floor of the Manifold Ziggurat or the Crimson Straits parking garage to shoot down my missiles aimed somewhere else. They go through your own mech as well as others. The problem is I understand why AMS does this, and I get why PGI did it this way: AMS is a bubble field, not a directed weapon because the math was too hard and the animations were too crazy difficult on people's computers. The problem is, it creates an unfair advantage against missiles of all types. What's worse is this is a problem that would require a fundamental rewrite of how AMS works. This means issue number 2 must be addressed.

AMS targets all enemy missiles in their radius whether they are targeted at that mech or not. This creates the 'umbrella shield' many of us LRMpilots know and hate and force us to just push the clouds of missiles more and more making people scream and animations to bog down. It's to burn up AMS to take it out of the game and get SOME damage through early.

What's the cure to this? Actually it's the simplest and possibly the most fair and effective cure in lieu of not being able to make AMS hit scenery and mechs: Limit AMS to only target missiles shot at the mech it is mounted on. Suddenly, I don't have to worry about having all my missiles burn up. AMS users know that they only will have a lessening of the damage. I can change my LRMboat builds around to create more balanced builds currently not possible if I want to run LRMs because I must devote myself to the weapon for any effectiveness on the battlefield.

What about dumbfire LRMs or SRMs? Plus, what good is a mech with more than one AMS if not to shield his teammates? This would make AMS unviable and this game doesn't need any more unviable equipment/weapons.

Quote

So, what's going to stop me from boating anyway? We already have a cure for this in place, we just need to make it a harder cure: Missile Tube limits. Right now, I can mount any size launcher on a missile hardpoint that has fewer available tubes. If it's an LRM20 and only 5 tubes available, it fires in a sequence of 4 groups of 5. The best way to handle this would be to only allow 5 to fire with each trigger pull and still have the weight, slot, heat and recycle rate of the LRM20. Nobody's going to do this. They'll match the tubes. Some mechs will require reduction in the number of tubes, but for the most part, the issue is solved. That deals with the ability to boat. Yes some mechs will still be boats, but like ECM and AC platforms, they will be much more limited in who does and can.

We do not need any more LRM nerfs to their effectivness. Fixing AMS will reduce the necessity to LRMboat and possibly eliminate the need to buff their effectiveness through higher speeds and damage because they would get a spillover buff from fixing AMS.

You notice of course, I don't dig at ECM so much (which I'm still convinced is broken but could be solved by making it the weight and size of an AC2 or at the very least an LRM15.) because there are some good counters, and broken counters to it. It's not perfect, but not as broken as AMS. The only area it is broken is that it does not affect the targeting systems of direct fire weapons. ECM should cause similar issues to those weapons because of how I have had it explained to me by Devs when I complained about it blocking TAG under 180m and by their own logic, all weapon systems should have difficulty targeting them. This could be done through adding the jitter caused by JJ when aiming at mechs inside an ECM bubble. It also could be used to warn ecm is in play in a certain area. You can still dumbfire LRMs at an ECM target, so you should still have the ability to dumbfire with the DF weapons affected with better, but reduced results.

So, as you can see, the need for boating is a symptom of underlying flaws in the system with two very obvious culprits. This should be addressed through reducing the need by fixing the broken AMS and ECM systems while decreasing the ability to boat huge numbers of missiles on most mechs through hardpoint restrictions. Effectiveness increases brought about by this would then allow for a greater variety of mech designs to be more functional on the battlefield pushing the LRM back into it's weapon's role as a support weapon on a mech. Yes you might see more mechs packing a launcher or two with 20 missiles or so, but the 50+ crowd would diminish dramatically for there still would be better ways to play the game in the direct fire arena.

Boating is the symptom, not the problem. Fix the problems and watch the symptom go away.

I do agree with the limited effectiveness of a single LRM. If I were to make a graph of LRM amount vs usefullness it would look like this: ______/ (that sharp increase at the end is LRM30 and above). However, hardpoint limits have already been discussed many times before. If missiles were to be limited, there would be crys to have ballistic and energy limited as well. This is no small change and would require loads of tweaking and testing. Bottom line, the devs aren't going to do it.

#11 Agent of Change

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,119 posts
  • LocationBetween Now and Oblivion

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:43 AM

View PostPrezimonto, on 12 August 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:


There's one other serious problem:
Mech upgrades with no real downsides.

They are what allow mechs to pack on seriously huge weapon loads, rather than having to work with the tonnage they have available.

The convergence issue is greatly exacerbated by the availability of XL, endo, and DHS on most mechs.
endo and XL engine upgrades should be rare and much less worthwhile a trade. I don't include FF in this list as its a much smaller benefit for the costs associated. Though I do believe it should be made into a more direct defensive upgrade.

I have a suggestion in my signature that wouldn't NERF them, but would buff standard equipment to make them a much harder choice.


I can't argue that your approach is not the right way to go. but at the end of the day even that would only be addressing a facilitator to the primary issue. so long as every weapon on a mech will always hit the same spot on and enemy mech every time regardless of other factors all things being equal, this game will have endless balance issues.

#12 Screech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,290 posts

Posted 12 August 2014 - 11:44 AM

AMS needs a toggle. It sucks wasting ammo in a light on useless AMS shots. They can't compete with the lurm boats luggin around 10 tons of ammo. Also sucks giving away position due to lob spams.

The part about AMS being OP will remain a head scratcher to me.

#13 Kjudoon

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 7,636 posts
  • LocationWisconsin

Posted 12 August 2014 - 12:13 PM

View PostChoppah, on 12 August 2014 - 11:16 AM, said:

What about dumbfire LRMs or SRMs? Plus, what good is a mech with more than one AMS if not to shield his teammates? This would make AMS unviable and this game doesn't need any more unviable equipment/weapons.


I do agree with the limited effectiveness of a single LRM. If I were to make a graph of LRM amount vs usefullness it would look like this: ______/ (that sharp increase at the end is LRM30 and above). However, hardpoint limits have already been discussed many times before. If missiles were to be limited, there would be crys to have ballistic and energy limited as well. This is no small change and would require loads of tweaking and testing. Bottom line, the devs aren't going to do it.

You are right, the effectivness IS a hockey stick. The changes I propose would make it less of one. Limiting the hardpoints is something I would like to see on all weapon systems by either slot or tonnage, probably tonnage being the better option. I've seen the double ERPPC spider and have shaken my head that nothing so light should be able to mount a single weapon heavier than 5 tons per point.

I don't know if they will do it. I don't know if they can do it. I do know that they have the solution in place for LRMs, and as long as you reduce the need to boat, then activating a hard lock on a system already in place would be an easy fix. But like telling the US government to utilize a consumption tax, not progressive income tax... I'd fear they'd do both making the whole problem worse.

#14 Choppah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 174 posts
  • LocationIn transit, ETA unknown.

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:42 PM

View PostKjudoon, on 12 August 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

You are right, the effectivness IS a hockey stick. The changes I propose would make it less of one. Limiting the hardpoints is something I would like to see on all weapon systems by either slot or tonnage, probably tonnage being the better option. I've seen the double ERPPC spider and have shaken my head that nothing so light should be able to mount a single weapon heavier than 5 tons per point.

I don't know if they will do it. I don't know if they can do it. I do know that they have the solution in place for LRMs, and as long as you reduce the need to boat, then activating a hard lock on a system already in place would be an easy fix. But like telling the US government to utilize a consumption tax, not progressive income tax... I'd fear they'd do both making the whole problem worse.

Your changes only effect the end of the hockey stick though. What about the flat part (which is an exarggeration on my part)? Even with hardpoint limits and AMS only targeting missiles aimed at your mech, how does that make LRM5 viable? Nerfing boats is the easy part, finding a way to make the low tonnage weapons like AC2, MG, and Flamer actually worth taking is whole other matter entirely. I honestly can't think of a way to buff individual LRM5s without turning it into a super weapon once it is boated.

Quirks maybe? LRM5 has +5% damage resistance to AMS, and with Artemis +15%. And/or each LRM5 decreases time to lock by 10%, but only in conjunction with a equal number of different sized LRMs. Whatever the solution is, I think the carrot will work better than the stick in this regard. By making LRM5 a good choice for missile users, they use up more of their hardpoints with them, then they obviously can't make monster missile boats. Quirks seems like the best option, and the devs love them some quirks so win-win for them.

#15 -Natural Selection-

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,631 posts
  • Locationdirty south

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:44 PM

You lost me at "I boat LRMs".

#16 Prezimonto

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 2,017 posts
  • LocationKufstein FRR

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:53 PM

View PostAgent of Change, on 12 August 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:


I can't argue that your approach is not the right way to go. but at the end of the day even that would only be addressing a facilitator to the primary issue. so long as every weapon on a mech will always hit the same spot on and enemy mech every time regardless of other factors all things being equal, this game will have endless balance issues.


I agree.

I see the convergence issues and the mech upgrade issues as being in lockstep for causing problems though.

convergence wouldn't be NEARLY the issue it is if mechs couldn't free up so much tonnage for weapons without also trading in a serious amount of speed and agility.

Likewise, upgrades wouldn't have NEARLY the affect they do on game play if we had any one of many solutions to perfect, instant convergence of weapons at all ranges.

Together, they cause problems. If one is fixed there will still be many problems, but they wouldn't be as severe.

Properly both issues should be addressed, that's really all I'm getting at.

I think too often we overlook the affect that upgrades have on the game. And to be clear I don't want them to go away, most players like to customize mechs at least a little. I just want them to be an honestly difficult choice for a player.

#17 Postumus

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 399 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 12 August 2014 - 01:54 PM

Basically, what the OP is talking about with missile tube restrictions is just plain old hardpoint size restrictions. The idea is that, instead of just having a missile hardpoint, the mech has a large, medium, or small missile hardpoint. It's a damn good idea, and it would be an even better idea for the other two weapon types. If, for example, the Stalker had been limited to two PPC-sized energy slots under a hardpoint restriction system, there would have been no need for ghost heat, and the result would have been the same.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users