356 replies to this topic

[pbiggz]

Curccu, on 10 January 2024 - 08:12 AM, said:

I boldly claim that there is no freaking way that Solaris City is playable with LRMs been there multiple times and unless enemy just WANTS to do fighting in those few long streets, I'm not doing ****... except QQ about map.

Agreed. Its one of the last "older" maps, before they zeroed in on their current paradigm. Certain figures in the community feel that was preferable because it makes brainless midrange and bad brawling viable strategies. I differentiate bad brawling and true brawling because im confident those who say brawling is truly underpowered only do so because they're bad at it. They're bad at it in part because the older maps let them get away with bad positioning a lot more than the new maps, which are made with all strategies in mind, and chiefly because lowreybalance made certain weapons massive overperformers and they still feel entitled to that meta despite the fact that it has long since departed; which further depresses their performance AND makes them more extreme in their rhetoric. There's a reason the sniper OP fantasy emerged just as the cauldron took over, these guys are constructing a narrative in which a wicked cabal of evil comp players has stolen their game from them.

[Bassault]

Tarteso, on 07 January 2024 - 11:39 AM, said:

They want more nerfs to LRMs, to protect their snipers in their niche comp play, that's all. They need some new excuses. So what? they are now willing to discuss about another ****** 1% nerf per node to raderp?

Indirect fire mode is already nerfed to the ground. What does they want, lurmers fighting purely LOS as if missiles were point and click like lasers??? Make it happen, but with all consecuences included: same counters and as fast as any other direct-fire weapon. Or a complete rework to make them like in MW4.

What LRMs (and the other guided missiles) really need is a BIG un-nerf:

1. Given the actual skill tree situation after their brilliant modification: raderp reduction to 5% per node, and remove all raderp quirks. Simply make the maths. Indirect fire is just no viable AT ALL starting at 1 raderp node, because time-to-lock and target retention time exceed the time a given target remains targeted, UNLESS you have a dedicated spotter/narcer (see DATA videos to know what IS NOT happening about LRMs in a regular basis).

2. Even in LOS, any lurmer, fully TD skilled, need several sec to target, lock, and fly time before to start speaking about "long range missiles". So, increase the damn velocity very significantly.

2. Stop making unfriendly maps, like Bearflaw II. And release old Polar.

3. Clean up a bit walls, rocks, buildings, etc. from the already avaliable """open""" maps, so long range missiles could have a chance to reach targets at long ranges, actually.

4. BIG spread reduction. Aren't they ****** guided?


And overall, they should stop modding this game to change it as a slowmotion version of PUT RANDOM DUMMY PEWPEW GAME NAME HERE. This is mechwarrior.

[Redacted] LRMs do not in any way harm "niche comp play snipers" more than any other loadput archetype. Actually, I'd say they're not even a threat to snipers. Snipers can just take cover and alpha any LRM boat they see before the LRM blat can get a lock, or they can shoot the LRM boat's teammates while the LRM boat cannot get a lock in time. Nerfing LRMs does not meaningfully effect snipers. What it actually does is make the game much more fair and enjoyable not just for us veterans but for new players as well who are especially susceptible to LRMs.

Let's make this very clear. LRMs take no skill to play. Not less skill, not little skill, they take.no skill to play. You don't need to aim, you don't even need to position yourself most of the time as you fire because the missile just goes over terrain. You don't put yourself in danger you just leech off of others actually fighting. You don't need to peek or hold angles... almost all of the games mechanics just do not exist the moment you equip LRMs. Putting that aside, do you think it is good for a game to reward players victory for not having any skill at all and not participating and learning? No. This isnt a phone game. Now, since LRMs do not take skill to use, they are appropriately going to remain relatively weak compared to other weapons in the game. Why? Because other weapons have to either aim, position more strictly, or both. I'm sorry if this upsets you, but it is what it is. Mechwarrior is not strictly in the genre of AFK phone games.

[BlueDevilspawn]

A few points I'll drop in here -

1. Changes to LRMs are to make them more consistent to use, less feast or famine as it has been stated multiple times. All the complaints about velocity are missing the point that the biggest issue with consistency is ability to get and hold locks. This is what is getting buffed, but needs to come at a trade off of velo to ensure a LRM-pocolypse does not happen again. Cauldron is nerfing indirect but buffing direct. To directly address the notion on ammo.... ammo isn't the issue with feast or famine. It's the ability to make that ammo worth a fig.

2. Cauldron has no input on map design, as has been said again and again. Maps should accommodate all playstyles, but imo should NOT be designed as a buff to lack of skill (e.g., making maps brawl only). As a recent example, I would say that Bear Claw fits this admirably as it is possible to position and path into brawl range. That said, anyone thinking they are allowed to simply waltz into the open without using cover deserves to get drilled.

3. Cauldron's remit is primarily QP, very little comp and definitely not FP.

4. Cauldron balances around high level gameplay only, but considers the impact to lower level gameplay. As has been said, LRMs are oppressive in low tier matches. but good players use hard cover just fine. A buff to raise the consistency of LRM play at high levels must also be aware that they may become oppressive in lower tiers.

5. Cauldron is a spectrum of high level players because the game knowledge (including mechanics), playstyle knowledge, mech and build knowledge are all important to consider holistically in balancing the game. Furthermore, they (as better players) are able to generate more consistent data in determining the viability of builds, weapons, equipment. This is similar to something like testing golf equipment.... higher handicap players can't generate the consistency in equipment use to have the data mean anything.

6. Building on #s 3-5, Cauldron is both comp and non-comp players but opinions and voting results are NOT drawn along those lines. Some of the better players in the game are simply comp players which is where the overlap comes from. Cauldron members voting together on one issue may easily be on opposing sides on another issue. What's important is they are able to be consistent in all mechs, weight classes, playstyles (brawl, sniper, midrange, dakka), game modes, etc. are considered and tested in QP.

EDIT:
7. Optimized builds and skill trees are considered in balance. There's no point in balancing in something less optimal (and certainly not stock/lore) because anything less would be individually "buff-able".

Edited by BlueDevilspawn, 10 January 2024 - 10:17 AM.

[Bassault]

MechMaster059, on 08 January 2024 - 09:40 PM, said:

This CS 2023 Gold Champ doesn't understand that it's impossible for lock-on weapons to even target specific components which is the price they pay for being able to seek targets.

This is THE biggest disadvantage of lock-on weapons and is a HUGE negative for them..

I've seen Mad Dog STREAK boats fire salvo after salvo trying to take down a cored Atlas and they can't do it because their STREAKs keep flying all over the place and hitting armored components.

Effectiveness =/= Takes no skill. A PPc poptarter who runs around the map at max speed landing every single shot is very effective but that clearly takes a lot of skill. The same for the opposite. Just because a weapon takes no skill to use, that doesn't mean it has to be effective. Lock ons are easy for bad players to use, but their capacity to be effective compared to other weapons is limited (unless you have a narc spotter in a group lol). This is the way it should be, since all of the actions that take skill (aiming, leading projectiles, positioning, peeking from cover, getting in range of the enemy, thinking) are not utlized when using LRMs.

When you say holding a lock on a light is VERY HARD, it is very hard but not because it takes some mastering of a very difficult skill. It is hard because the LRMs are so limited it just makes that not really possible in most circumstances. Holding the lock itself takes no effort at all, its trivial. You press R and move your mouse over a massive box over the enemy. You dont need to be precise or have perfect timing.This is what I mean when say easy to use does not mean effective.

Compare this to hitting a light with a heavy ppc. It is easier to do because you don't need a lock, so it's actually possible hit this light. But would it be reasonable to say using LRMs takes more skill than using Heavy PPCs? Absolutely not.

Edited by Bassault, 10 January 2024 - 10:41 AM.

[Bigbacon]

I think next patch, Fire starters should get some love.....

[Tarteso]

BlueDevilspawn, on 10 January 2024 - 10:15 AM, said:

A few points I'll drop in here -

1. Changes to LRMs are to make them more consistent to use, less feast or famine as it has been stated multiple times. All the complaints about velocity are missing the point that the biggest issue with consistency is ability to get and hold locks. This is what is getting buffed, but needs to come at a trade off of velo to ensure a LRM-pocolypse does not happen again. Cauldron is nerfing indirect but buffing direct. To directly address the notion on ammo.... ammo isn't the issue with feast or famine. It's the ability to make that ammo worth a fig.

2. Cauldron has no input on map design, as has been said again and again. Maps should accommodate all playstyles, but imo should NOT be designed as a buff to lack of skill (e.g., making maps brawl only). As a recent example, I would say that Bear Claw fits this admirably as it is possible to position and path into brawl range. That said, anyone thinking they are allowed to simply waltz into the open without using cover deserves to get drilled.

3. Cauldron's remit is primarily QP, very little comp and definitely not FP.

4. Cauldron balances around high level gameplay only, but considers the impact to lower level gameplay. As has been said, LRMs are oppressive in low tier matches. but good players use hard cover just fine. A buff to raise the consistency of LRM play at high levels must also be aware that they may become oppressive in lower tiers.

5. Cauldron is a spectrum of high level players because the game knowledge (including mechanics), playstyle knowledge, mech and build knowledge are all important to consider holistically in balancing the game. Furthermore, they (as better players) are able to generate more consistent data in determining the viability of builds, weapons, equipment. This is similar to something like testing golf equipment.... higher handicap players can't generate the consistency in equipment use to have the data mean anything.

6. Building on #s 3-5, Cauldron is both comp and non-comp players but opinions and voting results are NOT drawn along those lines. Some of the better players in the game are simply comp players which is where the overlap comes from. Cauldron members voting together on one issue may easily be on opposing sides on another issue. What's important is they are able to be consistent in all mechs, weight classes, playstyles (brawl, sniper, midrange, dakka), game modes, etc. are considered and tested in QP.

EDIT:
7. Optimized builds and skill trees are considered in balance. There's no point in balancing in something less optimal (and certainly not stock/lore) because anything less would be individually "buff-able".

How are you going to balance hollistically if only optimization and high level gameplay are considered to collect the "data"? Are you aware that the results of analyzing some golf equipment, used by elite players, can be fine to test performance or even improve such things for the elite golf players, and absolutely wrong for the masses, at the same time? (Hint: that "data" has intrinsec bias)

[ScrapIron Prime]

Tarteso, on 10 January 2024 - 01:04 PM, said:

How are you going to balance hollistically if only optimization and high level gameplay are considered to collect the "data"? Are you aware that the results of analyzing some golf equipment, used by elite players, can be fine to test performance or even improve such things for the elite golf players, and absolutely wrong for the masses, at the same time? (Hint: that "data" has intrinsec bias)

Basically this. Its confirming that only LRM hulks with dedicated spotters will be considered for LRM balance and that any other use of LRMs is "wrong". While I agree that this use case is the one most subject to abuse, you can't ignore virtually everything else.

Or at least I think so. The definitely-not-elite have already made it clear in this thread that I am "ignorant." But I can live with that.

[PocketYoda]

Lol Osiris what a waste of money that was haha

[ThreeStooges]

PocketYoda, on 10 January 2024 - 01:52 PM, said:

Lol Osiris what a waste of money that was haha

I'll use the skemet over the pos spider ansi or raven huggin. Now those are worthless pos light "heroes" that the regular variants are far better. Even a (c) variant can be better. rvn-3l(c) > rvn-H any time.

[dario03]

ThreeStooges, on 10 January 2024 - 02:17 PM, said:

I'll use the skemet over the pos spider ansi or raven huggin. Now those are worthless pos light "heroes" that the regular variants are far better. Even a (c) variant can be better. rvn-3l(c) > rvn-H any time.

The Osiris hero is going to have very high burst dps after the patch.

[ScrapIron Prime]

And I’m suddenly interested in a 3D with 5 ER Smalls and an MRM 20.

[kalashnikity]

BlueDevilspawn, on 10 January 2024 - 10:15 AM, said:

4. Cauldron balances around high level gameplay only, but considers the impact to lower level gameplay. As has been said, LRMs are oppressive in low tier matches. but good players use hard cover just fine. A buff to raise the consistency of LRM play at high levels must also be aware that they may become oppressive in lower tiers.

Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

Who are the majority of players, and therefor who brings PGI the most money? A small self appointed "elite" group or players, manipulating weapon stats to benefit their preferred play style? (and I do mean "play style", since if they were truly Tier 1 they should be able to adapt and overcome different play styles).

Instead tiers 5 thru 2 are expected to play with weapons balanced to the certain preferred play style of a certain group of tier 1 players, a weapons balance which helps tier one maintain that tier 1 spot?

I figure we get another LRM nerf every time one of them gets embarassed by a LRM boat.

Funny how SNPPC boats don't suffer the same ire.

If T1 is as good as they claim then they could adjust tactics to deal with whatever weapons are in the game.

Nope. They want to nerf everything they don't like to deal with, anything that might embarrass ot threaten their Tier 1 egos.

They've already admitted they don't want LRMS interfering with their preferred play style. LRMS are to be relegated to "those lowly T5 no skill noobs".

AS if it doesn't take skill to pull in 1000DMG with the way LRMS have been nerfed beyond recognition.

Then when someone (like me) occasionally pulls off a 1000dmg game, and by some miracle stomps some elites they go back and whine some more and nerf LRMS again.

But I pull off a 1000dmg SNPPC game and "this is fine".

[Redacted]

[kalashnikity]

LRMs are no skill?

IT absolutely takes skill to possition and get a lock in the current meta, massive skill, after RLMS ahve been nerfed patch after patch.

There are other types of skill besides moving an clicking a mouse.

Positioning, situational awareness, and yes, even mouse skill to try and keep a reticle within 2 degrees on a target moving in 3 directions, knowing if it goes behind a tree for a second you'll have to start over, and just hoping when you finally get a lock the enemy doesn't go behind a tree for a millionth of a second, forcing you to start over again, and send all previous missiles into dirt. With half the teams packing ECM locks are nearly a miracle to even get, much less maintain with the enemy popping in and out of cover.

Why are weapons being balanced for 1% of players?

Do 1% of players bring in most of the money to keep the servers on?

I'm voting with my wallet.

[feeWAIVER]

Wow, this thread is infuriating and funny.
There's so much **** to quote, and I don't want to multiquote because it's annoying.. but omg-

So I'm watching all these 99% players coming in with locked arms, and paraphrasing each other with the same smug half-truths.
I just went to quote Bassault as the prime example, but he already edited his post. This dude posted a complete fallacy, I'm assuming because he was swept up in the pursuit of winning an argument! Clearly emotions are high.

Nice golf swing. Great "consistency".

I don't like lurms, but at least I'm honest enough to acknowledge they're among the worst weapons in the game.
The idea that a worst weapon in the game gets a slight buff so must have a nerf is an appeasement to kids who still have PTSD from Polar Highlands.

The only reason to nerf velocity on a weapon that already is known for being easy to dodge, is because you don't want it to interrupt your own gameplay.

And all this "Skill" talk, in MWO? Let's be real.
I've watched great online games- better online games, really- close their servers to the sound of the same small groups shouting the same words.


Here's an idea-
How about greatly buffing LRM lock on time and velocity. Make them really strong- and then greatly nerf the cooldown.

Forcing them to be reliable backup weapons.
Making the fewer, more reliable shots matter more.
Lowering DPS on Boats, and tandem lurm groups.

Why aren't your diverse group of top tier pro golfers thinking about actual solutions to improve balance and gameplay for all weapons and all players?

Edited by feeWAIVER, 10 January 2024 - 08:58 PM.

[Heavy Money]

kalashnikity, on 10 January 2024 - 07:21 PM, said:

Am I the only one that sees a problem with this?

Who are the majority of players, and therefor who brings PGI the most money? A small self appointed "elite" group or players, manipulating weapon stats to benefit their preferred play style? (and I do mean "play style", since if they were truly Tier 1 they should be able to adapt and overcome different play styles).

Instead tiers 5 thru 2 are expected to play with weapons balanced to the certain preferred play style of a certain group of tier 1 players, a weapons balance which helps tier one maintain that tier 1 spot?

I figure we get another LRM nerf every time one of them gets embarassed by a LRM boat.

Funny how SNPPC boats don't suffer the same ire.

If T1 is as good as they claim then they could adjust tactics to deal with whatever weapons are in the game.

Nope. They want to nerf everything they don't like to deal with, anything that might embarrass ot threaten their Tier 1 egos.

They've already admitted they don't want LRMS interfering with their preferred play style. LRMS are to be relegated to "those lowly T5 no skill noobs".

AS if it doesn't take skill to pull in 1000DMG with the way LRMS have been nerfed beyond recognition.

Then when someone (like me) occasionally pulls off a 1000dmg game, and by some miracle stomps some elites they go back and whine some more and nerf LRMS again.

But I pull off a 1000dmg SNPPC game and "this is fine".
[Redacted]

You don't get it at all. They aren't refusing to buff LRMs to help them, they are refusing to stop t5 from turning into nothing but LRM spam, as it has several times in the past. LRMs could do 50% more damage and it'd make no difference to 99%'s because they don't even get hit by them in the first place, but it would demolish the lower tiers.

If LRMs are rebalanced to suit "the majority of players", then high skill players will clean up with them even more and you'll all whine like mad. When Blue talks about balancing around high level gameplay, that doesn't mean around the personal preferences of high tier players. It means balancing around the power of weapon systems in the hands of high skill players. Many nerfs have occurred to weapons and playstyles that were popular with top players. In fact, those are the most nerfed. That's one of the easiest ways to know something is too strong. Top players will find the strongest and most effective things and use them.

This whole conversation is about changes that will make LRMs more accessible and easier to use. That's a change that benefits lower skill players more, not higher skill. You're acting like this change is because elite players are upset by LRMs. Then why is this thread full of elite who think the change is going to make them more accessible? That would mean people using the more, which is the opposite of your paranoid conspiracy theory about high level players getting embarrassed by them.

This whole idea of being embarrassed by being beaten is absurd. You are clearly projecting. The top players get beaten all the time. They do private lobbies and arrange comp scrims against other top players in order to find people who can play at their level, and that means they lose more often. Your whole perspective on the game is absurd and childish projection against players who have the audacity to be better than you. And now they are implementing changes that will help you LRM them MORE, and you're complaining!

Edited by GM Patience, 12 January 2024 - 01:33 PM.

[Besh]

I find it interesting to look up nicknames' stats on jarls . When it comes to discussions like the one about LRMs, the things I am interested in are matches played in recent seasons, and weightclasses played . Now if jarl's would distinguish between Solo and grouped, it would be even more informative - but I guess that data isnt provided by pgi/api .

Edited by Besh, 11 January 2024 - 12:25 AM.

[Curccu]

Besh, on 11 January 2024 - 12:23 AM, said:

I find it interesting to look up nicknames' stats on jarls . When it comes to discussions like the one about LRMs, the things I am interested in are matches played in recent seasons, and weightclasses played . Now if jarl's would distinguish between Solo and grouped, it would be even more informative - but I guess that data isnt provided by pgi/api .

Some people also hide behind forum account and play other accounts.

[Besh]

The Brewer, on 09 January 2024 - 12:14 AM, said:

I don't think I've ever seen a well reasoned, thoroughly vetted point be rejected outright. Hyperbole and lack of experience don't go too far though.

Probably read up on the first 8, 9 or so pages of this thread ?

Generally, its very interesting that as soon as a thread like this one has some interesting dialogue/debate, and some things being stated by "skilled, top tier players" are being pointed out as flawed/biassed...someone starts the "unskilled/uninformed" train .

Additionally, the arguments become more and more contradictionary . Thread basically derails into an "us vs you" ffa, people farm likes from their peergroup...and the factual discourse has died .

Would be great if "top tier skillfull players" would start realizing they are not doing any good by antagonizing the vast majority of players . After all, being in the 99, 95, 90, 80, 70 percentile means you are outnumbered . If by argument and decision you basically project "you dont matter 'cos you are bad at the Game"...well, think about what that does maybe ?

Edited by Besh, 11 January 2024 - 07:25 AM.

[Besh]

Curccu, on 11 January 2024 - 02:14 AM, said:

Some people also hide behind forum account and play other accounts.

Some very vocal Forum accounts show up as barely playing 1 QPGame a day . Some even show up as being retired . Those hiding behind forum accounts have to be regarded as disingenious imho by virtue of using an alt account for posting .

Other, regarded "bad/low skill" accounts play several 100s of QPGames per Season ( I did, the last 2 seasons) . Yet arguments and opinions of obviously very experienced in QP players (by sheer amount of Games played ) get dismissed effectively pointing at the MS metric by accounts who barely even play QP .

Not a good basis for healthy discourse imho . Esp when assuming the vast majority of Matches happen in QP ( I am not sure about that one, have no insight into actual Data, hence "assuming") .

Edited by Besh, 11 January 2024 - 04:46 AM.

[MechMaster059]

If there are any PGI employees in a lead or managerial position reading this thread, please take note:

Bassault, on 10 January 2024 - 10:14 AM, said:

Let's make this very clear. LRMs take no skill to play. Not less skill, not little skill, they take.no skill to play.

This is the 5th "Gold Champ" to come into this thread and heap scorn upon LRMs and, by extension, upon players who use them. Not just one, the 5th one. The attitude of these people is poison to your game. Do you really believe such people are capable of balancing LRMs in a fair and objective manner?

The end result of such people calling the shots is stagnation and neglect for LRMs and even more so for STREAKs.

In the past few weeks, after watching patch after patch flail around trying to balance HAGs, I've considered writing a post asking PGI to take control of weapon balance away from the Cauldron and do it in house. I think that time has come. The Cauldron can provide valuable advice on quirk changes because they have many more eyes and ears beyond the PGI staff for monitoring all the myriad of mechs and variants. But when it comes to weapons, the Cauldron clearly can't get it done. They're not trained as engineers and they expose this fact over and over with flaws/oversights in the changes they make and the attitude they display.

Here's but one small example, the last patch increased the ammo/ton on various ballistics. This was an AWESOME change that I advocated for a year ago and Lord Nothing advocated for 6+ YEARS ago. The inconsistencies in damage/ton of the various calibers was a fundamental flaw in the game and it was great to see it finally be fixed. The point isn't how much time it took to finally get this change implemented (though such a long time does not reflect well upon the Cauldron), the point is what they still missed in making this change. They didn't update the +ammo skills accordingly. As a result, the +ammo skills give significantly less benefit to the 2 and 5 caliber weapons as a percentage after the change, a stealth nerf. 2 caliber weapons previously and currently get +16 ammo/ton from skills. This number should have been increased to 16 --> 18 for UAC/AC2s and 16 --> 22 for LBX2s and a similar percentage for 5 caliber weapons to keep them normalized with the buff to ammo/ton.

Members of the Cauldron reading this are probably rolling their eyes. They probably think I'm being "nit-picky". I noticed the absences of that change almost immediately when I first read the patch notes. I noticed because I'm an engineer. The Cauldron didn't because they're not engineers. Even reading this now they probably still don't care and think I'm making much ado about nothing. Now that I've brought attention to it, will these +ammo numbers be updated in a future patch? I doubt it.

Guess how much benefit HAGs get from +ammo skills? +16 ammo/ton, a massive +33%, by far the most of any ballistic. This is overpowered. The Cauldron doesn't even know it's a problem. Taking this number down from +16 --> +10 ammo/ton, thus bringing it in line with 20 caliber weapons, is a brain-dead easy fix to help bring HAGs in line. The Cauldron probably won't make that change either even now that I've pointed it out.

=====

This thread is about LRMs so lets bring it back to LRMs. Radar Deprivation has been known to be very over powered by many people for a long time. Finally something is being done about it but the community doesn't know to what degree because the number changes haven't be released yet. This nerf to something that negatively effects LRMs, Radar Derp, is being paired with nerfs to things that positvely effect LRMs, velocity and trajectory angle. LRM velocity is already slow. LRMs already stupidly slam into various terrain features they should be able to get over. There is no need to nerf velocity and trajectory as "compensation" for nerfing Radar Deprivation because they're already bad and Radar Derp is VERY OP, not sort of OP, VERY OP. Radar Derp should be nerfed alone and if that causes problems, which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY, only then should the positive aspects of LRMs be nerfed.

=====

Going forward, I'm willing to offer my services for free, as a player and a fan of the game, to PGI as a consultant for making balance changes. I could provide advice for weapon/balance changes in email format directly to PGI for them to consider and do with what they will. I have nothing to say to the Cauldron. They are too slow and too far away from being able make effective change that there's no point in joining their discord channel. This is why I've ignored it despite having an account there.

- I know how to fix STREAKs.
- I know how to balance HAGs.
- I have ideas on how to make auxiliary items such as Targeting Computers, Command Console, and TAGs more useful.
- The recent change to lower UAC10 jam time (a change I advocated for a year ago) helped a lot but UACs still aren't there yet. They don't work well as single-mount weapons except for the C-UAC20. They really need to be paired to work well. I know how to make UACs MUCH better as well.

If you're interested in establishing a direct channel, please let me know PGI.

Edited by MechMaster059, 11 January 2024 - 05:04 AM.