71 replies to this topic

[trycksh0t]

Here's a crazy thought.

The rapid-fire rule was added in to balance AC's in TT due to the way weapons fire is handled, of that I think we're all agreed. Now, here's my question...why would MW:O need a double-tap for standard ACs when combat is going to be real-time, not turns? Simply give ACs a higher ROF than their energy weapon counterparts and the issue is non-existent.

[Graphite]

trycksh0t, on 24 January 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Here's a crazy thought.

The rapid-fire rule was added in to balance AC's in TT due to the way weapons fire is handled, of that I think we're all agreed. Now, here's my question...why would MW:O need a double-tap for standard ACs when combat is going to be real-time, not turns? Simply give ACs a higher ROF than their energy weapon counterparts and the issue is non-existent.

Totally agree. The "rapid fire mode" (even for Ultras) is basically just an overall rate of fire increase. For a real time game it would be much more sensible to implement it that way rather than fiddling around with firing modes.

Edited by Graphite, 24 January 2012 - 05:27 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

trycksh0t, on 24 January 2012 - 05:22 PM, said:

Here's a crazy thought.

The rapid-fire rule was added in to balance AC's in TT due to the way weapons fire is handled, of that I think we're all agreed. Now, here's my question...why would MW:O need a double-tap for standard ACs when combat is going to be real-time, not turns? Simply give ACs a higher ROF than their energy weapon counterparts and the issue is non-existent.

That's pretty consistently the way it was handled in previous MW titles...

[Psydotek]

Shalmyan Moonsong, on 23 January 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

DPS??? This is not WOW, or Star Wars, there is not going to be "Tanks" or "Healers" or "DPSers" or "Pet Classes" in this game, your toon is as good of a DPS as you can aim. Do you think this is going to be an MMO like WOW where you press your number keys 1-9 for your attacks, and all you have to do is sit there and let the computer figure it out?

Of course I think this is going to be like WOW, or Star Wars Online. Both of which I've never played before.



What's wrong with the term DPS anyways? Does it not mean damage/second? Why can't I have a variety of AC/5 that all do approxomatly 5 points of damage, except perhaps one fires a single slug/second that does 5 points of damage while another model fires 5 smaller slugs/second with each round doing 1 point of damage?

Volume, on 23 January 2012 - 10:08 PM, said:

"This is not WOW" says the poster with a last name of "Moonsong" - you do realize "DPS" stands for "Damage per second" and is applicable to any game in any situation? He was talking about "Not every AC 10 is created equal" and I don't mean "OH I have the purple AC 10 with +30% damage, +20% reload time and +250 meter range compared to your green one," but like a TF2 item of "My AC10 fires 30 rounds per minute and does 10 damage each shot, but this other guy's AC10 fires 15 times per minute and does 20 damage each shot, therefore they have the same DPS but have different damage modifiers." Hell maybe they have different accuracy and heat too, but it's more of a player playstyle choice, not a "Need to gear up my Jenner with the superior cERML, gonna go raid Tukayyid again tonight."

I <3 U.

Edited by Psydotek, 24 January 2012 - 05:54 PM.

[Psydotek]

I'm going to double post here because perhaps there could be a "double tap" mechanism implemented which would make autocannons an attractive option. I know Ultra autocannons are out there and exist because of their ability to sutain a double rate of fire.

Maybe you could think of regular autocannons being limited in their rate of fire to allow the gun to cool down properly. Maybe this could be overridden to temporarily allow for a "double tap" or a quick second shot at the expense of a massive heat spike. An AC/20 generates 7 points of heat/round, the second follow up shot could produce 14 points of heat for a total of 21 points of heat that needs to be dissipated.

Also, you wouldn't be able to fire the weapon again until the gun has cooled down properly and/or the loading mechanism has caught up. So say you could normally fire 1 round/second. The "double tap" feature lets you fire a quick 2 rounds but then you'd have to wait 3 or 4 seconds before the gun would be ready to fire again.

Maybe it could be one of those unlockable pilot skills or an option that you toggle on the weapon before dropping into the combat zone (which would force you to make a choice while in the mechbay that you'd have to deal with for the whole mission).

[Solis Obscuri]

Psydotek, on 24 January 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

Of course I think this is going to be like WOW, or Star Wars Online. Both of which I've never played before. What's wrong with the term DPS anyways? Does it not mean damage/second? Why can't I have a variety of AC/5 that all do approxomatly 5 points of damage, except perhaps one fires a single slug/second that does 5 points of damage while another model fires 5 smaller slugs/second with each round doing 1 point of damage? I <3 U.

It doesn't presume you are restricted to moving or firing every ten seconds?

[Solis Obscuri]

Psydotek, on 24 January 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

I'm going to double post here because perhaps there could be a "double tap" mechanism implemented which would make autocannons an attractive option. I know Ultra autocannons are out there and exist because of their ability to sutain a double rate of fire. Maybe you could think of regular autocannons being limited in their rate of fire to allow the gun to cool down properly. Maybe this could be overridden to temporarily allow for a "double tap" or a quick second shot at the expense of a massive heat spike. An AC/20 generates 7 points of heat/round, the second follow up shot could produce 14 points of heat for a total of 21 points of heat that needs to be dissipated. Also, you wouldn't be able to fire the weapon again until the gun has cooled down properly and/or the loading mechanism has caught up. So say you could normally fire 1 round/second. The "double tap" feature lets you fire a quick 2 rounds but then you'd have to wait 3 or 4 seconds before the gun would be ready to fire again. Maybe it could be one of those unlockable pilot skills or an option that you toggle on the weapon before dropping into the combat zone (which would force you to make a choice while in the mechbay that you'd have to deal with for the whole mission).

Only works if the AC fires single shells. If they fire bursts, (per canon/MW3/MW4), then you don't really have a double tap, you have a longer burst (which turns an AC/5 into an AC/10), or a shorter cycle time between bursts (turning an AC/5 into an UltraAC/5).

[Graphite]

Solis Obscuri, on 24 January 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

Only works if the AC fires single shells. If they fire bursts, (per canon/MW3/MW4), then you don't really have a double tap, you have a longer burst (which turns an AC/5 into an AC/10), or a shorter cycle time between bursts (turning an AC/5 into an UltraAC/5).

Yeah. Just upping the rate of fire instead works regardless of whether they portray ACs as "cannons" or "machine guns".

I want this idea. Don't want to be forced towards beam weapons for competitive reasons...

[Dlardrageth]

Don't think "DPS" is all that useful a discussion base, not even when talking ACs. "DPM" is more likely to play a major role in MWO, I reckon. Unless you totally expect to able to blow up every enemy Mech in less than a minute...

Wonder why they ever came up with single-shot ACs in the first place, merits of that are debatable and not much "auto" about single-shot weapons. Could as well have used a variant of a Gauss instead of an AC for that effect, tbh.

[Graphite]

Dlardrageth, on 24 January 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

Wonder why they ever came up with single-shot ACs in the first place, merits of that are debatable and not much "auto" about single-shot weapons. Could as well have used a variant of a Gauss instead of an AC for that effect, tbh.

"Auto" just means the next round is loaded into the breech without assistance. Doesn't imply rapid fire...

[Solis Obscuri]

Graphite, on 24 January 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Yeah. Just upping the rate of fire instead works regardless of whether they portray ACs as "cannons" or "machine guns".

I want this idea. Don't want to be forced towards beam weapons for competitive reasons...

My $0.02 on how everything should work to be balanced:

Lasers:
Pros:
fairly lightweight
Easy to aim (little "lead" needed to hit, no recoil effects)
no ammo dependency
concentrate damage (may spread if group-fired*)

Cons:
low/moderate damage
moderate/high heat build-up on firing
relatively slow cycle time
don't tend to penetrate ablated armor

Autocannons:
Pros:
either high damage or long range
fast cycle times (second only to machine guns/flamers)
concentrate damage well when fired accurately**
low/moderate heat build-up on firing
penetrates to structure through weak armor
heavy ACs have high "impact" to target, may knock-down

Cons:
very ammo dependent
large, heavy weapon system
hard to aim (lots of "lead" required, recoil effects)
**may spread damage if fired inaccurately, or at extreme range
long-range versions suffer accuracy penalties inside minimum range; heavier versions have short range

Machine Guns:
Pros:
very lightweight
Almost continuous rate of fire
No heat build-up from firing
Low rate of ammo consumption (lots of ammo per ton)
"finds" holes in armor (by consequence of spreading damage)

Cons:
very short range
Low damage
hard to aim (lots of "lead" required, but no recoil effects)
Tend to spread damage around

SRMs:
Pros:
Self-guided (pointed, not aimed at target, no need to "lead")
low heat build-up from firing
moderate-high damage
moderate cycle time
"finds" holes in armor (by consequence of spreading damage)
fairly lightweight

Cons:
require ammo (but tend to consume it slowly)
tend to spread damage
short range
simple guidance causes some misses, and may be avoided by maneuvering

LRMs
Pros:
Self-guided (but require "lock" on target)
Long range
moderate/high damage
low/moderate heat build-up on firing
"finds" holes in armor (by consequence of spreading damage)
large LRM launchers have high "impact" to target, may knock-down
capable of indirect fire

Cons:
require ammo (and consume it faster than SRMs)
require time to "lock"
tend to spread damage
slow cycle time
minimum range restrictions
simple guidance causes some misses, and may be avoided by maneuvering
larger racks are heavy

PPCs:
Pros:
Long range
heavy damage
concentrated damage
penetrates weak armor
no ammo dependency
high "impact" to target, may knock-down
disrupts sensors/HUD of target

Cons:
Slow cycle time
very high heat build-up on firing
harder to aim (moderate "lead" required, a miss is a clean miss)
minimum range requirements (may be violated, at risk of disrupting own sensors/HUD)
moderately heavy (but compact)

Flamer:
Pros:
lightweight
no ammo dependency
high heat build-up on target
very fast cycle time
effective against unarmored targets
causes fires (which will overheat 'mechs standing in them)

Cons:
Very short range
moderate heat build-up on firing
No direct damage to armored targets

*Any group-fired weapons should independently calculate target impact point, potentially spreading damage


Also, if they get added in:

Gauss Rifle:
Pros:
Extremely long range
very heavy damage
concentrated damage
penetrates weak armor
high "impact" to target, may knock-down
no heat build-up on firing
no minimum range requirement

Cons:
moderate/slow cycle time
ammo dependency
harder to aim (moderate "lead" required, a miss is a clean miss)
large, heavy weapon system

Pulse Lasers:
Pros:
Easy to aim (little "lead" needed to hit, no recoil effects)**
short cycle time (similar to autocannons)
no ammo dependency
penetrate ablated armor better than ordinary lasers

Cons:
low/moderate damage
moderate/high heat build-up on firing
heavier than ordinary lasers
**may spread damage due to "bursts" of fire, due to movement or extreme range, as with autocannons

ER Large Lasers:
Pros:
Very long range
Easy to aim (little "lead" needed to hit, no recoil effects)
no ammo dependency
concentrate damage (may spread if group-fired*)

Cons:
moderate damage
high heat build-up on firing
relatively slow cycle time
don't tend to penetrate ablated armor

ER PPCs:
Pros:
Extremely Long range
heavy damage
concentrated damage
penetrates weak armor
no ammo dependency
high "impact" to target, may knock-down
disrupts sensors/HUD of target
no minimum range requirement

Cons:
Slow cycle time
extremely high heat build-up on firing
harder to aim (moderate "lead" required, a miss is a clean miss)
moderately heavy (but compact)

Streak SRMs:
Pros:
Self-guided (but require "lock" on target)
low heat build-up from firing
moderate-high damage
moderate cycle time
"finds" holes in armor (by consequence of spreading damage)
concentrate damage better than ordinary SRMs
hard to evade, and do not miss otherwise once lock is acheived

Cons:
require ammo (but tend to consume it slowly)
take time to "lock"
tend to spread damage somewhat
short range
electronic countermeasures may disable missle "lock", preventing use
heavier than ordinary SRMs

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 24 January 2012 - 08:40 PM.

[Trogusaur]

I thought UACs were more of a double-shot type of weapon, not necessarily rapid fire. Moreover, UACs are more difficult to master, considering aiming trouble with the weapon. Should rapid fire be realized, just make an aesthetic difference in the way regular AC's fire, such as a more "rotary" look while firing rapidly, and UACs get more of a MW4 pulse laser hiccup style spurt, and twice as quickly and likely to jam as a normal AC. This will distribute damage much differently, and will affect outcome based on user preferance. Everybody is happy

On top of that, I noticed BT seems to lack an assault rifle type weapon. The MG is nearly useless unless paired in groups or with pulse lasers, and it lacks good, sustainable range. Rapid fire would give the user more of a semi-automatic feel, something Battletech has overlooked until the Rotary AC came out.

rapid AC2: - ____ - ____ - ____ - ____ -
rapid UAC2: - _ - ___ - _ - ___ - _ - ___ - _ -
Underscore= recycle
Dash= projectile

Edited by Lord Trogus, 24 January 2012 - 09:43 PM.

[Dlardrageth]

Graphite, on 24 January 2012 - 07:16 PM, said:

"Auto" just means the next round is loaded into the breech without assistance. Doesn't imply rapid fire...

Not useful to nitpick here probably, but I always thought the "auto" part referred not exclusively to the use of an advanced autoloader mechanism. Which is sort of needed if (as by canon) the ACs in BT are burst-fire weapons that use ammo "cassettes" with a couple of rounds in them. But exactly that, the burst-fire mode of ACs makes them somewhat of an "automatic" weapon, doesn't it?

Thus having an AC turn into a single-shot weapon removes the "auto" part somewhat. As you could as well run those type of "ACs" belt-fed or whatever. Heck, if you really wanted you could probably design a single shot "auto"cannon with a pump-action mechanism!

[Graphite]

Dlardrageth, on 24 January 2012 - 11:27 PM, said:

Not useful to nitpick here probably, but I always thought the "auto" part referred not exclusively to the use of an advanced autoloader mechanism. Which is sort of needed if (as by canon) the ACs in BT are burst-fire weapons that use ammo "cassettes" with a couple of rounds in them. But exactly that, the burst-fire mode of ACs makes them somewhat of an "automatic" weapon, doesn't it?

Thus having an AC turn into a single-shot weapon removes the "auto" part somewhat. As you could as well run those type of "ACs" belt-fed or whatever. Heck, if you really wanted you could probably design a single shot "auto"cannon with a pump-action mechanism!

"AC" covers a wide range of weapons in BT. Some are burst fire, some aren't. So it's canon to present them as either.

Solis Obscuri, on 24 January 2012 - 08:40 PM, said:

My $0.02 on how everything should work to be balanced:

All these things have already been decided Solis, some of them for more than 25 years! These are all known quantities from the TT rules.

Edited by Graphite, 25 January 2012 - 12:07 AM.

[Psydotek]

Well i'm sure the devs could get creative with the unlockable pilots skills. Remember, they mentioned in the recent Q&A that there could be a skill that allows for better night vision clarity but a reduced night vision range? A positive balanced by a negative. A skill could be increased rate of fire for autocannons at the cost of drastically increased heat or even decreased accuracy due to overheating the autocannon barrel (not to mention the increased ammo usage). Kinda in line with possible PPC skill that allows you to disable particle field inhibitors at the cost of potentially doing damage to your own mech. Or a skill for LRMs that allow for hotloading missiles (at the cost of having your launcher go BOOM if it gets nailed with a critical hit).

As a MW1 veteran, AC/5s have a special place in my heart from piloting a Shadow Hawk quite often...

Edited by Psydotek, 25 January 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

All these things have already been decided Solis, some of them for more than 25 years! These are all known quantities from the TT rules.

Not really. Some TT rules had different cycle durations, some had 10s turns that ignored the differences, and then there are special rules like the ones being discussed here. In game titles, weapon effects have not been consistently applied either - in MW2, autocannons were ammo-guzzling machine guns, and MLasers fired three times a second. In MW3, autocannons fired bursts, reloaded between bursts, and lasers took several seconds to cycle between shots. In MW2, MPLasers fired twice as fast as MLasers, in MW3 they fired extended series of beams that did damage over time (if you could hold them on target!), and in MW4 they fired dinky little dashed-line beams that did almost no damage, but cycled much faster than ordinary lasers. I think there's a lot of apprehension right now because players aren't sure which path this game will take.

[Graphite]

Solis Obscuri, on 25 January 2012 - 01:57 AM, said:

Not really. Some TT rules had different cycle durations, some had 10s turns that ignored the differences, and then there are special rules like the ones being discussed here. In game titles, weapon effects have not been consistently applied either - in MW2, autocannons were ammo-guzzling machine guns, and MLasers fired three times a second. In MW3, autocannons fired bursts, reloaded between bursts, and lasers took several seconds to cycle between shots. In MW2, MPLasers fired twice as fast as MLasers, in MW3 they fired extended series of beams that did damage over time (if you could hold them on target!), and in MW4 they fired dinky little dashed-line beams that did almost no damage, but cycled much faster than ordinary lasers. I think there's a lot of apprehension right now because players aren't sure which path this game will take.

I wasn't referring to older MW games at all, just TT. Judging by the quote in my sig I think we have a pretty fair idea of how things might be.


This is getting OT. Thread is: should we boost ACs with the (official, optional) Tac Ops rapid fire rule, to stop them being second class weapons? (My paraphrasing )

Edited by Graphite, 25 January 2012 - 04:01 AM.

[Strum Wealh]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 03:58 AM, said:

I wasn't referring to older MW games at all, just TT. Judging by the quote in my sig I think we have a pretty fair idea of how things might be.

This is getting OT. Thread is: should we boost ACs with the (official, optional) Tac Ops rapid fire rule, to stop them being second class weapons? (My paraphrasing )

Well, having posted positions both for and against the implementation of the TacOps rule, I believe important secondary questions include:
1.) What type of modifications to the TacOps rule may be needed to ensure that Standard (and Light) ACs on high-ROF mode don't make Ultra ACs obsolete?
2.) What type of modifications to the TacOps rule and/or ACs themselves may be needed to ensure that the standard-ROF mode is still viable (or even generally-preferred) for Standard (and Light) ACs if/when high-ROF mode is available, while also making standard-ROF mode and high-ROF mode more-or-less equally viable (as determined on a per-situation basis) for Ultra ACs?
3.) What mechanism(s) can/should be put into place to prevent misuse/abuse of the variable ROF mechanic?

My answers to the above questions are contained in the two linked posts.

Your thoughts?

[Graphite]

Strum Wealh, on 25 January 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

Well, having posted positions both for and against the implementation of the TacOps rule, I believe important secondary questions include:
1.) What type of modifications to the TacOps rule may be needed to ensure that Standard (and Light) ACs on high-ROF mode don't make Ultra ACs obsolete?
2.) What type of modifications to the TacOps rule and/or ACs themselves may be needed to ensure that the standard-ROF mode is still viable (or even generally-preferred) for Standard (and Light) ACs if/when high-ROF mode is available, while also making standard-ROF mode and high-ROF mode more-or-less equally viable (as determined on a per-situation basis) for Ultra ACs?
3.) What mechanism(s) can/should be put into place to prevent misuse/abuse of the variable ROF mechanic?

My answers to the above questions are contained in the two linked posts.

Your thoughts?

Bearing in mind that the rule was written for the TT version but we're talking about using it in a real time game: if it were up to me to implement I'd remove random jams, and instead lower the rate of fire to compensate (which is what the risk of jamming accomplishes when rolling die) - I've posted this previously.

1. Ultras have 2x "normal" firing rate. Adjusting for the 17% chance of a standard AC jamming when firing rapidly the standard AC rate of fire would have roughly 1.5x "normal" - still outclassed by Ultras

2. Two different rates is only needed for TT where time is quantified into turns - real time has much higher fidelity: the rate can be adjusted by very small amounts. In short, there is only one RoF for UlACs, and one RoF for ACs.

3. There's no possibility of abuse.

[Strum Wealh]

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

Bearing in mind that the rule was written for the TT version but we're talking about using it in a real time game: if it were up to me to implement I'd remove random jams, and instead lower the rate of fire to compensate (which is what the risk of jamming accomplishes when rolling die) - I've posted this previously.

I disagree.

What the risk of jamming does is encourage player discipline - "let up on the trigger or you'll jam your weapon and won't be able to use it any more!"

What lowering the ROF without the risk of jamming does is let one fire continuously (at least, until one runs out of ammo), which encourages "lead-trigger"/"spray-and-pray" gameplay.

Without the risk of jamming (or some other, similar limiting mechanic, like worrying about "barrel overheating"), ACs turn into the continuous-fire "bullet hoses" that they evidently were not meant to be (that's what MGs are for), rather than burst-fire weapons.

So, no - just lowering the ROF does not, by itself, serve as a substitute for jamming (/barrel overheating/etc) in terms of gameplay mechanics.

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

1. Ultras have 2x "normal" firing rate. Adjusting for the 17% chance of a standard AC jamming when firing rapidly the standard AC rate of fire would have roughly 1.5x "normal" - still outclassed by Ultras

Well, at least we generally agree on that point - the higher-ROF mode for Standard/Light ACs should be on the order of 1.5x rather than 2.0x.

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

2. Two different rates is only needed for TT where time is quantified into turns - real time has much higher fidelity: the rate can be adjusted by very small amounts. In short, there is only one RoF for UlACs, and one RoF for ACs.

I disagree.

Looking at the description for Ultra ACs found in the Tech Manual (pg. 208):

Quote

The advanced Ultra autocannon system (UAC for short) was first developed at the height of the original Star League by Kawabata Weapons, Inc. of the Terran Hegemony. Capable of higher sustained rates of fire than standard or LB-X autocannons, Ultra ACs could dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time. Unfortunately, these weapons are prone to occasional misfires and arming failures when pushing their maximum fire rates—a factor that forced many UACs into early retirement after the fall of the original Star League. Nevertheless, the Clans (and the Inner Sphere, after encountering the Clans) found enough merit in Ultra ACs to expand the concept across all the same grades as standard-model autocannons. Even though they cannot use special munitions (their own magazines are tailored to the high-speed firing modes, which can be dangerous or detrimental to most specialty ammo), these weapons remain popular for attack and assault units.
Mydron, Imperator and Defiance—the big names in heavy autocannon technology—boast some of the most popular brand names seen today for Inner Sphere Ultra ACs. Not surprisingly, Clan-made Ultra autocannons are superior to those of the Inner Sphere in range, weight and size—explaining how they, together with LB-X models, completely supplanted the standard weapons among Clan toumans.

Part of the entire point of the Ultra ACs is that they have two different rates-of-fire: the lower-ROF setting, where they function identically to the same-damage-rating Standard ACs (while being heavier and having a slightly longer effective range) and the higher-ROF setting, where they double the ROF, putting twice as many shells in the air per unit time and allowing them to "dish out twice the punishment in the same amount of time" at the cost of increased ammo consumption, increased heating, decreased accuracy, and increased risk of jamming and disabling the weapon.

Likewise, the entire point of the TacOps rule under discussion is that Standard ACs may be able to (poorly) emulate the Ultra ACs' ability - they too would have a higher-ROF setting whereby they can put more shells in the air per unit time (which translated into increased damage per unit time) at the cost of increased ammo consumption, increased heating, decreased accuracy, and increased risk of jamming and outright destroying (rather than just disabling) the weapon as well as the much lower-risk "normal-ROF" setting.

Implementing variable ROF settings (especially when there are only two choices: high and low/normal) as a player-toggled setting could easily allow for this in a real-time setting, and (I would imagine) be fairly easy-to-do.

Graphite, on 25 January 2012 - 05:18 AM, said:

3. There's no possibility of abuse.

That depends on how robust the Devs make the game and its rules.

I suggest having a look at this thread (the OP is me), the article that inspired it (see here, the image of page 1 of 2 is on the right), the follow-up article by the same author (see here), and the people's reactions (see here and here).

As evidenced by the article, even the "fine-and-noble gentlemen's sport" of fencing is not immune to having its players attempt to game the system (or even outright cheating, as was (in)famously the case with Mr. Boris Onishchenko).

As such, I've no doubt that there will be individuals and groups that will actively look for any and every way to game/abuse MWO's system (up to and including outright cheating if they think they can do so and get away with it) in search of some competitive advantage; neither you nor I may be among them, but they will be there.

But, expanding on that is another discussion for another thread...

Edited by Strum Wealh, 25 January 2012 - 07:35 AM.