Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 28
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Good intention to please who ?
Probably not those that buy this game as a D&D game...

Just check at 6:40. That's so ridiculous...



Damn, I almost wish I hadn't seen that video. Perfect examples of so many development choices going wrong, if you're doing a DnD ruleset game.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.

wow, probably because it's a game? you dnd fans here have forgotten one important thing, this is a video game, and video games are not only played by dnd players. you forget that some people have never played dnd at all and don't know what it is, but still play role-playing games. that's why, it's quite possible that for a video game, it's not that important.

surely Larian will take some wishes and change some mechanics (they have already done this at some points), but cry because we dont have of the cycle of day and night???? my God...


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Larian are making this game appealing to the widest audience possible - so you have the full extreme player base from super D&D elitists who believe that anything not exactly 5e is outrageous to the I hate D&D it’s so boring & everyone in between.
You just have to roll with it - let’s face it the only person the game really has to suit is yourself. Play the way you want to and enjoy it.
I find this game to be very D&D personally - a bit of self policing & it’s an awesome experience already.
104 hours in and I still get wiped by some of the tougher encounters- I could use certain mechanics to make it a lot easier but who wants that ?

Joined: Oct 2020
A
stranger
Offline
stranger
A
Joined: Oct 2020
Edit: this comment is meant for the Solarian game ...

the thing I don't like is how Solarian does darkvision. But it IS Core. Darkvision doesn't really work in Dim light, which is pretty counter intuitive, but that is RAW.

Last edited by Annshadow; 31/12/20 06:04 AM.
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

D&D is supposed to be the tool of BG3 wink
Nothing in this video belongs to D&D, but I guess you just don't know a thing about it.

wow, probably because it's a game? you dnd fans here have forgotten one important thing, this is a video game, and video games are not only played by dnd players. you forget that some people have never played dnd at all and don't know what it is, but still play role-playing games. that's why, it's quite possible that for a video game, it's not that important.

I'm not a fan of D&D. I never played D&D.

But I read the PHB a lot to understand what this game is about and video games or not... It's not hard to understand that D&D combats are way more interresting and deep than those customized by Larian.

You don't have to be a D&D player to enjoy video games that looks a bit serious and that offer more possibilities/strategies in combats instead of a few (sometimes silly) OP mechanics.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 31/12/20 08:13 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
You don't have to be a D&D player to enjoy video games that looks a bit serious and that offer more possibilities/strategies in combats instead of a few (sometimes silly) OP mechanics.

This exactly... im still dealing with 5ed not being as deep as 3.5ed... i try to keep that in mind while playing this to not make my 5ed complaints into to BG3 complaints.

Most of us d&d players realize how much a few of the changes needlessly took out of the game... this isnt about it just being d&d rules, its about the d&d rules making a better combat system with more possibility like you say... they put AOO in the game to allow for more strategic possibilities in positioning... choke points... etc. Then went and completely negated this aspect with things like free action jump disengage... there are other things but this imo is the biggest single...

...and any company who takes on a d&d title knows what they are getting with us and they still go ahead... we must be worth it! ;D

Last edited by Llev; 31/12/20 01:07 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
M
member
Offline
member
M
Joined: Oct 2020
I think there have been many things pointed out that contradict and hinder the DnD ruleset in this thread, but let's not think about that and just yell the killer argument "gEt goOd At iT!!!". One could wonder how humanity ever came so far. Why would you want to hunt with a spear, bow or traps? Just get good at hunting bare handed!

I also don't see the point being made that not every player is a DnD veteran. So what? So is not every DnD player. Afaik people starting playing DnD are neither born DnD veterans nor have they studied hundreds of pages of reference material to prepare themselves. They are just new to it and start playing and get everything explained and taught to them on the go. Same you can do in a video game with (good) tutorials.

But back to topic: +1

You can make fun additions to an existing game system such as DnD that enhance it or you can make additions that contradict it. As stated many times already the dipping mechanic makes zero sense and just bloats the system even more by unneccesarilly adding elemtal damage to your weapon for zero costs and making it spamable. It doesn't enhance the player's experience the same way it hinders and contradicts the already existing DnD rules and diminishes many spells and effects of many items. Why should I feel lucky for finding this flaming sword when all it does is just saving me the time of dipping my regular longsword in a torch for a second? There are many more things already mentioned that Larian added (or took from DOS 2) that might look interesting at first glance but fall apart quickly when you compare them to the existing rules and mechanics of DnD. These issues will only get much more obvious the more content gets added to the game, such as classes, spells, items and so on.

And I'm not saying this as a "DnD elitist" or "hardcore PnP player". I only have a basic understanding of DnD, not having played an actual pen & paper game, but having played many RPGs and being interested in things like game design.

Joined: Dec 2020
M
stranger
Offline
stranger
M
Joined: Dec 2020
+1, I agree with the OP.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Disclaimer: I use the D&D Rebalancing Mod, which fixes a lot of these issues.

1. Agree on Bonus Actions.
2. Jump is supposed to be tied to the Tadpole, so I can forgive them taking some liberty with it.
3. If you "dip" your bow in real life, it would catch fire not add fire damage to opponents. Swords would not catch fire, unless they were oiled up, then you'd probably burn your hands. Though, there are many examples of archers dipping their arrows, in real life and fantasy. I just don't use the sword dipping, rarely use bow dipping, and I don't use exploding barrels either.
4. Shove, hide and disengage- completely agree. And it diminishes Rogue's Cunning Action greatly.
5. I use food to fix another problem, Long Rests. If I don't have a unit of food for every party member, I won't take a long rest. This makes the game more challenging, as I'm not at full strength for most combats. Though later in the game, I'd imagine this becomes less of an issue. I'll just have to limit how much food I can carry until it spoils.
6. Agree on magic scrolls.
7. You shouldn't gain "Advantage" from high ground. I've played D&D TT from Basic and Expert box sets through 2e. We never used a z axis. But throughout military history taking the high ground, always gave significant advantage to that side. And Larian was highlighting the verticality of the game early on. So I agree with people who think that Advantage should be replaced by some +/- to hit system.
8. Yeah but if you can't turn and face the opponent behind you, what good does it do you to know they are there. Not advantage but maybe a minor (+1?) bonus to hit. Once my group started using miniatures, vinyl maps, and erasable markers; we starting using a facing and flanking system.
9. When and what reactions to use. This is a serious flaw in Larian's combat system.
10. They use line of sight. But I wish they would use cover and half cover.
11. Larian's version of the Help Action, makes familiars much less useful than they should be. Speaking of which, I really want Ritual Spells.
12. Well low level monsters do have way too many grenades.
13. Actually 5e is supposed to be balanced around a 4 person party, to make combat flow faster. Personally I've always found 5 to be the perfect number.
14. "healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons" I haven't experienced this "bug" yet.
15. They tried to give us a sense of time passing. Companions complaining about wasting time resting, wondering why we haven't changed yet. It's always dark when you go to camp. But I agree a day/ night cycle would be better. But Larian has stated that's not going to happen. So I'll settle for a long rest fix.

Last edited by Merlex; 31/12/20 01:49 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Merlex
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Originally Posted by Tav22
For those of us unfamiliar, can you be more specific about what has changed from the core ruleset?

- In D&D you just have an action, bonus actions are bvery specific features you have to use wisely. In other words in D&D bonus actions are bonus actions, not a second action.
- Jump and disengage have nothing to do in D&D. One is for jump, the other is to disengage. None of them are bonus actions.
- Dip doesn't exist. In the reality of the Forgotten Realms you can't dip your sword in the fire of a candle/torch/... To create a magical fire sword.
- shove, hide and disengage are actions (with a few exceptions)
- you can't eat during combats in D&D
- those that never use magic can't use magical Scrolls
- an attack from highground doesn't give an advantage.
- an attack on your opponent's back doesn't give an advantage if he know you're in its back
- you can choose when to use your reaction
- D&D have a cover mechanic
- D&D have a better variety of actions : shove to prone, help to have advantage, dodge, ready, administrer a potion,...
- In D&D every single goblins or monster doesn't have magical stuff (arrows, potions,...)
- In D&D you can usually play from 4 to 6 characters (many campaign are designed arround 5 if I'm not wrong)
- In D&D items aren't completely WTF (healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons)
- Time exist in D&D, such as night and meteo... not in BG3

That's a short list..

Disclaimer: I use the D&D Rebalancing Mod, which fixes a lot of these issues.

1. Agree on Bonus Actions.
2. Jump is supposed to be tied to the Tadpole, so I can forgive them taking some liberty with it.
3. If you "dip" your bow in real life, it would catch fire not add fire damage to opponents. Swords would not catch fire, unless they were oiled up, then you'd probably burn your hands. Though, there are many examples of archers dipping their arrows, in real life and fantasy. I just don't use the sword dipping, rarely use bow dipping, and I don't use exploding barrels either.
4. Shove, hide and disengage- completely agree. And it diminishes Rogue's Cunning Action greatly.
5. I use food to fix another problem, Long Rests. If I don't have a unit of food for every party member, I won't take a long rest. This makes the game more challenging, as I'm not at full strength for most combats. Though later in the game, I'd imagine this becomes less of an issue. I'll just have to limit how much food I can carry until it spoils.
6. Agree on magic scrolls.
7. You shouldn't gain "Advantage" from high ground. I've played D&D TT from Basic and Expert box sets through 2e. We never used a z axis. But throughout military history taking the high ground, always gave significant advantage to that side. And Larian was highlighting the verticality of the game early on. So I agree with people who think that Advantage should be replaced by some +/- to hit system.
8. Yeah but if you can't turn and face the opponent behind you, what good does it do you to know they are there. Not advantage but maybe a minor (+1?) bonus to hit. Once my group started using miniatures, vinyl maps, and erasable markers; we starting using a facing and flanking system.
9. When and what reactions to use. This is a serious flaw in Larian's combat system.
10. They use line of sight. But I wish they would use cover and half cover.
11. Larian's version of the Help Action, makes familiars much less useful than they should be. Speaking of which, I really want Ritual Spells.
12. Well low level monsters do have way too many grenades.
13. Actually 5e is supposed to be balanced around a 4 person party, to make combat flow faster. Personally I've always found 5 to be the perfect number.
14. "healing someone never coat poison on your target's weapons" I haven't experienced this "bug" yet.
15. They tried to give us a sense of time passing. Companions complaining about wasting time resting, wondering why we haven't changed yet. It's always dark when you go to camp. But I agree a day/ night cycle would be better. But Larian has stated that's not going to happen. So I'll settle for a long rest fix.


Great points!

Joined: Sep 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.

I disagree with your second point completely. The 5e rules are streamlined and simplified, and they function like a flowchart which is perfect for making a computer simulation particularly because you have the whole flowchart in front of you. The programmers get to be the DM when it comes to making the rulings on rules as written or rules as intended as they see fit, but that shouldn't change the fundamental way in which the game works (action economy, bounded accuracy). It is quite literally the simplest of the hardbound rulesets to date, if programmers could successfully make previous editions of the game both fun to play and sticking to the basic rules of the game(they did BTW), then this should be a no-brainer. And it really is a no-brainer because the Solasta team has done it. You can argue about the polish and the presentation, but at the end of the day the gameplay of Solasta is 5e. There are no abilities or interactions in the game that can't be done via computer, because the roll 20 system ultimately arbitrates a simple boolean answer to any interaction: True or False - did you succeed? Beautiful dialogue, story, etc.. it's all based on that simple answer and exactly what computers are designed to do, and do well.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Khultak
Originally Posted by ZetaZeta
Originally Posted by Tav22
I don't understand why every class can hide and pick locks. I had the wrong character try to pick a lock (a cleric) on accident and they succeeded. This actually broke my immersion and is made no logical sense.
Any class can hide and pick locks in 5e D&D (in fact this has been true in all editions since 3e.) You don't even need proficiency. And this is a good thing - otherwise players would be forced to take specific classes. It makes logical sense, too, since most of the locks in the setting are not terribly complex.

Anyway the tabletop rules are designed to be easy to adjudicate for tabletop purposes. It would be a mistake to rigidly adhere to them in a computer game, which runs very differently. In particular the game's engine has access to complex field interactions that would be unreasonable to track on tabletop - are you suggesting they should rip that lovely system out? And with it, naturally aspects of the game have to be rebalanced. Similarly, there are some abilities and interactions that can only be adjudicated by a human DM, which requires that a computer game handle them differently.

Computer games should be designed with an eye towards what computers can do well, not what a human DM could do well.

I disagree with your second point completely. The 5e rules are streamlined and simplified, and they function like a flowchart which is perfect for making a computer simulation particularly because you have the whole flowchart in front of you. The programmers get to be the DM when it comes to making the rulings on rules as written or rules as intended as they see fit, but that shouldn't change the fundamental way in which the game works (action economy, bounded accuracy). It is quite literally the simplest of the hardbound rulesets to date, if programmers could successfully make previous editions of the game both fun to play and sticking to the basic rules of the game(they did BTW), then this should be a no-brainer. And it really is a no-brainer because the Solasta team has done it. You can argue about the polish and the presentation, but at the end of the day the gameplay of Solasta is 5e. There are no abilities or interactions in the game that can't be done via computer, because the roll 20 system ultimately arbitrates a simple boolean answer to any interaction: True or False - did you succeed? Beautiful dialogue, story, etc.. it's all based on that simple answer and exactly what computers are designed to do, and do well.


Agreed!! =)

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
HONESTLY, just do more things like they do in Solasta!!!! <3

Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Duchess of Gorgombert
Offline
Duchess of Gorgombert
Joined: May 2010
Location: Oxford
Originally Posted by bullse
Yes, indeed, Maximuuus, its called using the tools that have been given you to succeed. Duh.
Learn. To. Play. And. Get. Good.

We can do without the "git good" assertion, thank you. It's not very helpful and annoys the moderators.


J'aime le fromage.
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
I'm going to offer some suggestions as I have been pretty critical of BG3 combat. I realize huge changes are impossible at this point so my suggestions will be realistic considering the current state of the game.

1. Remove the current height advantage. If you must, reduce it to +1 and no more.
2. Remove acid, ice, fire ground effects from arrows and other elemental attacks (unless specified in 5e). Each attack offers a special condition so there's no reason to create additional difficult terrain. Fire does pure damage so it does the most damage. Acid reduces armor (it should just be a splash but whatever), ice slows you down, necrotic prevents healing...etc, so no reason to provide even more bonuses.
3. Nerf barrels and make it more difficult to carry them.
4. Bring back action economy. You shouldn't be able to disengage and attack in the same round. That's a core rogue ability and allowing any class to do so, takes away the reason to keep a rogue. Shove shouldn't be a bonus action either. Try to stick with 5e rules if possible.
5. Remove advantage just because you can move your character behind something. I don't mind if you use variant flanking rules so fighting two creatures (they should be in opposite sides but to make it simple just make it two creatures anywhere), they both get advantage to attack.
6. Food shouldn't heal. And if you must, only heal out of combat.
7. Remove the jumping sound effect or change it. Our characters sound like the Hulk jumping from far away when they land.
8. Remove dipping. Seriously, it's ridiculous. Flame weapons from candles? Additional effects are significant in 5e which is why Flame Tongue doesn't have any hit/damage bonuses.

Some people will like my suggestions and some will hate it. I just hope Larian takes a look and makes a critical assessment.

Last edited by spectralhunter; 01/01/21 01:22 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.

They are not placeholders. You can't simply copy and paste code into a completely different game ruleset. Yeah, some basic code lines are the same, but its in no way less work then implementing the already existing D&D rules. Every part of the gameplay is something Larian had to actively decide they want in there and add it. The whole action economy - basically the whole game mechanics - have nothing to do with what was in DOS2. Every ability, every skill, every attack or other action had to be written from ground up - and yet they made key changes based on DOS2 ideas.


Them correcting it based on player feedback is what the EA should be for. If they wouldn't listen at all to palyer feedback what would be the point of all this? wink

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
I'm going to offer some suggestions as I have been pretty critical of BG3 combat. I realize huge changes are impossible at this point so my suggestions will be realistic considering the current state of the game.

1. Remove the current height advantage. If you must, reduce it to +1 and no more.
2. Remove acid, ice, fire ground effects from arrows and other elemental attacks (unless specified in 5e). Each attack offers a special condition so there's no reason to create additional difficult terrain. Fire does pure damage so it does the most damage. Acid reduces armor (it should just be a splash but whatever), ice slows you down, necrotic prevents healing...etc, so no reason to provide even more bonuses.
3. Nerf barrels and make it more difficult to carry them.
4. Bring back action economy. You shouldn't be able to disengage and attack in the same round. That's a core rogue ability and allowing any class to do so, takes away the reason to keep a rogue. Shove shouldn't be a bonus action either. Try to stick with 5e rules if possible.
5. Remove advantage just because you can move your character behind something. I don't mind if you use variant flanking rules so fighting two creatures (they should be in opposite sides but to make it simple just make it two creatures anywhere), they both get advantage to attack.
6. Food shouldn't heal. And if you must, only heal out of combat.
7. Remove the jumping sound effect or change it. Our characters sound like the Hulk jumping from far away when they land.
8. Remove dipping. Seriously, it's ridiculous. Flame weapons from candles? Additional effects are significant in 5e which is why Flame Tongue doesn't have any hit/damage bonuses.

Some people will like my suggestions and some will hate it. I just hope Larian takes a look and makes a critical assessment.


Agreed!!!

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by biomag
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by andreasrylander
I know, it's been said before, but.... arrrgh! I just wish they'd make it far more accurate to the core rules, their changes are screwing up so many things about balance, familiarity and fun. smirk

More than likely a lot of the changes to the game that seems like DOS atm are probably placeholders, last patch or patch before that already removed barrelmancy or whatever, it's EA give them time.

They are not placeholders. You can't simply copy and paste code into a completely different game ruleset. Yeah, some basic code lines are the same, but its in no way less work then implementing the already existing D&D rules. Every part of the gameplay is something Larian had to actively decide they want in there and add it. The whole action economy - basically the whole game mechanics - have nothing to do with what was in DOS2. Every ability, every skill, every attack or other action had to be written from ground up - and yet they made key changes based on DOS2 ideas.


Them correcting it based on player feedback is what the EA should be for. If they wouldn't listen at all to palyer feedback what would be the point of all this? wink

So they couldn't say take previous code and build on top of it say a new game and leave elements of that said previous code for I don't know EA? Well call this code placeholders where they will replace that eventually down the road.

Joined: Oct 2020
B
member
Offline
member
B
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
...

So they couldn't say take previous code and build on top of it say a new game and leave elements of that said previous code for I don't know EA? Well call this code placeholders where they will replace that eventually down the road.

Examples for placeholders would be the way they handle inventory, some of UI, the basic player profile approach (having save files connected to profiles), the re-used containers and artworks - things that can be plugged in and work even if the mechanics of the game are different. So for example you don't need to worry about how the weapon stats work as long as they have a weight and an icon you can put them into the inventory (and containers) probably with little change (if any at all) to what they had in DOS2-code.

When it comes to gameplay, DOS and D&D work too differently in detail (in the sense that you ain't damaging proctetive values before you can hit health, the abilities are not on cool-downs but connected to D&D resources in-between-rests,...). So when you want to have barrels & surfaces the changes might not be huge to the code, but in truth adding these things is simple in the first place. Wether you copy and paste them or just rebuild them to fit the new code structure won't be a big difference (I would assume) - the bigger question is how or if you would use them and this is where DOS2-mentality comes into play. You had explosive grenades in BG2 as well as far as I remember, but they were not omi present and did not offer as waste possibilties to cheese the game.


If you are talking about placeholders in the sense of 'balancing left to do' then I see what you mean. But in this case I would go and call most of the EA as placeholder since it might be tweaked smile

Last edited by biomag; 01/01/21 04:28 PM.
Page 5 of 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27 28

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5