Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Here is jeremy crawford regarding changing hit points on monsters:

[Linked Image]

Those are not the words of someone saying 7, 10, 12, its all the same /shrug. Hes saying if getting your ass beat is fun, go for it. Yes, I know hes referencing damage in that line but his point was that "range" is a slider and the end is considered lethal. Its not a small tweak. People use that number because its what the standard experience is centered around. For all of the math reasons regarding enemy DPR that I explained. Speaking of which, their math is not something I would putting a lot of faith in. Their modifiers and conditions are unreliable and even with that 80% hit (still not 100 and rules apply for not killing) I have had times where there is one person thats 45% and another thats 70% and its the white ring, no explanation on why its different. So, I have no idea how they get these things when youre running at level 4 a +6 to hit on an AC15 and its still telling you you have a 40% chance to hit. Im just not gonna run by their numbers as they defy the numbers on the character sheet v AC. The Novice Crusher is a boss and has 25 hp and 12ac, which is why hes easier to hit, other stats

Sharp-eyes, Three, One - 15 HP, 9 AC

Novice Muzul, Mrak (Shield) - 15 HP, 14 AC

Novice Greez - 12 HP, 8 AC

Lookout Nrog, Trinza (melee) - 16 HP, 12 AC

Lookout Tizg, Fezk (archers) - 13 HP, 9 AC

Novice Skrut (Boss) - 35 HP, 13 AC

Rozzak (Boss) - 24 HP, 16 AC

With a swing from 9-16 that 80 drops to a 60% chance at 15 ac, 55% at 16, etc...Now, to the point of this thread, you start adding in all of the disadvantage stuff and sight line issues and youre seeing that drop into the 30s and 40s. With the same # of enemies thats annoying even without all that bullshit. and the same HP that is annoying without it being pumped up. That is specifically the issue the enemy count + hp + ac + your mods + status + LOS + elevation can take what might be a fairly reasonable encounter otherwise and turn it into a drawn out clusterfuck where you just use cantrips because why bother wasting a spell half the time. Thats the issue. Its not whether or not you can beat goblins, its the gestalt of the factors theyve put into play except in this case, you end up lower than the sum of your parts because of the dampeners and hey while we are at it, make them harder to kill.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2017
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Mr Sharp,


As you I'm an old school player of PoE.


• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

Not altering 3 things (which I'd hate to have them changed the way they are right now because the game is supposed to be hardcore) when they've done hundreds of thousand other ajustments based in a client base is simply the worst argument in the world possible to justify yours concerning BG3.

Those 3 comments you've posted are like asking Pokemon to remove the Pokeballs. Asking Street Fighter to remove Ryu. Asking Dota 2 to be turn based and so on and so forth.

Why the hell is that comparable to ask a DnD5e game based to CARE about spell balance? lol

BG3 would get so much out of POE

Economy to begin with. Law of Scarcity in economics were perfectly implemented in that game. Scarcity is not a BG3 thing frown




Whilst I absolutely agree with you that PoE would be a much worse game to me if it ever did those things, that was not my point. My point was that, the developers for PoE have a vision for what they want the game to look like and they are nearly uncompromising on trying to achieve that and it is that vision which has made the game so successful. I imagine that if they were to try to make BG 3 they would have pillars here which they would be unwilling to compromise on as well, some of which, not everyone would agree on and those people would be voicing their dislike for those pillars very vocally on the forums, just like people are currently voicing their dislike for the lack of easy trade right now.

We do not know if these are changes that Larian are unwilling to compromise on (unfortunately, they are not very forthcoming. A "surfaces manifesto" giving their thoughts on things would be nice), but I expect that just like GGG, they have some "core design pillars" which they are unwilling to compromise on. We should absolutely complain about the stuff we don't like, but don't be too disappointed if something we don't like turns out to be 1 of these pillars. In my opinion, whilst there are some negatives to a game development company being uncompromising on certain design pillars, its the companies that do have these pillars which are ultimately producing the games with the most "soul" for the lack of a better word.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Tulkash01
Originally Posted by Orbax


My party is level 8 in Avernus and they are going to walk into a room thats 50' high and 100' wide (circular). 2 Erinyes that can polymorph into giant spiders, 2 phase spiders, a shadow demon, and a fomorian. The place is littered in webs that will halve the speed and the room is hot and gives them a level of exhaustion every 2 rounds on a failed DC12 Con Save. I don't really run easy fights haha. The 2 chain devils riding wyverns and dropping them from 200 feet after they were taking crush damage was a rough one, just some random encounter. By powerful I mean a fully charged party focusing on one thing is powerful. I ran tomb of annihilation. 5 level 10s almost killed a CR23 Lich AFTER fighting something that was a DC19 con save to not because exhausted every round and that thing had 250 hp of its own. Lich had power word kill, maze, all sorts of nasty shit. The way the map is though, he cant really move around. Thats crazy though. It why all bosses have escape, legendary, or minions because players will annihilate solos. That is the issue though is for every head you put onto the initiative tracker, that power gets more and more and more diffused. It should be a battle of skills, spells, and being clever. At a certain point a large number of individually mediocre enemies A. Isn't fun B. removes utility from a lot of abilities and spells as it just doesn't accomplish much. 100 skeleton? You thunderwave and kill 10. 90 left. Cool spell?

This is up to DMs and players as to what they enjoy, of course, but I have found over the years that a spell landing or an ability sticking having a marked effect on the field is a lot more gratifying.than saying "Hey I got Goblin 34 in hold person for like 1 round until I got hit, im out of spells now". People like seeing that impact, like having the spell slot that this forum and others have already hammered on needing to be more important (resting mechanic), so if Im going to use a spell it should be friggin important, I dont have a lot of those. Resting afterwards takes away that decision making but, realistically, people using spells should still be a cool thing and its a lot more toned down than what I am used to seeing from 5e casters.


Players dominate solo encounters because of action economy and when the DM allows them to reach those encounters with full resources. Playing the game as reccomended means whittling down player's resources with minor encounters forcing them to make hard choices not to face every encounter at full strength, otherwise yes they'll just wipe everything going nova. A single monster however powerful can't dish out the same amount of moves a group of 4 to 6 PCs can. That's why we give the BBEG minions. As for spells if a player wastes hold person on goblin #34 that's entirely his fault, if he uses that same hold person spell at the right moment against the right opponent (that pesky spellcaster NPC? That huge hill giant who's weak against wisdom saves?) then the spell is not wasted at all and allows the party to suceed.



We are in 100% agreement. With a note that if there are 34 goblins on the field you grabbing that one spellcaster doesnt matter as much because youre about to get 33 arrows in your face while you stand in acid getting -2ac while also being on fire.The reason someone is "key" is because they are a high value target. Every time you add another head to the initiative, everyone else gets a little less important. You can still have someone whos gonna ruin your day and you want to stop him, but at a certain point thats delaying the inevitable, the swarm youre fighting is too powerful as an entity to make reducing it by even a powerful 1 as important as your typical D&D encounter would. I say typical by using the D&D rollable encounter tables that they publish with their modules to give DMs playtested encounters that are area and level appropriate. Adjust at DMs discretion per what you feel justified given the players at your table. This is a playtest, they have posted maps about where peopel are dying, they are testing encounter lethality. They don't think it is perfect either and Im confused why people are defending it when Larian very reasonably could say "99% of our players die at the goblin camp, we have changed it". Yeah, its too hard. They probably will. The staunch defense of that encounter for what is supposed to be the beginning of a huge game where im sure youll get your ass handed to you later is just bizarre to me right now.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax



We are in 100% agreement. With a note that if there are 34 goblins on the field you grabbing that one spellcaster doesnt matter as much because youre about to get 33 arrows in your face while you stand in acid getting -2ac while also being on fire.The reason someone is "key" is because they are a high value target. Every time you add another head to the initiative, everyone else gets a little less important. You can still have someone whos gonna ruin your day and you want to stop him, but at a certain point thats delaying the inevitable, the swarm youre fighting is too powerful as an entity to make reducing it by even a powerful 1 as important as your typical D&D encounter would. I say typical by using the D&D rollable encounter tables that they publish with their modules to give DMs playtested encounters that are area and level appropriate. Adjust at DMs discretion per what you feel justified given the players at your table. This is a playtest, they have posted maps about where peopel are dying, they are testing encounter lethality. They don't think it is perfect either and Im confused why people are defending it when Larian very reasonably could say "99% of our players die at the goblin camp, we have changed it". Yeah, its too hard. They probably will. The staunch defense of that encounter for what is supposed to be the beginning of a huge game where im sure youll get your ass handed to you later is just bizarre to me right now.


I don't get your example. In BG3 there's a couple of fights where you are forced to deal with an horde, and the game provides you with ways to deal with said hordes easily enough (you don't have fireball yet... but you have flame spells and loads of explosives...). Goblin camp isn't an hard encounter, it's just terribly boring because those easy to kill goblin "moving targets" and their lumbering ogre friend take a long time to die as there are so many of them.

The game actually has some challenging encounters and they are not about hordes. One is in the Hag's lair (the party of 4 masked servants), the Duergars can be problematic if you can't focus the right targets at the right time, facing the kuo-toas without proper positioning may also be diffcult and the beholder fight can also be complex as long as the spectator manages to build itself enough servants. None of those encounters is an horde encounter though.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sharp
Originally Posted by Sludge Khalid
Mr Sharp,


As you I'm an old school player of PoE.


• PoE does not have an auction house. Players want an auction house. The developers have said, they will never add an auction house. Here is the trade manifesto for example, which illustrates this.
• Players want items to be easier to pick up. They want loot vacuums to suck in items that are around them. This is another example of something which the developers consider a core pillar of Path of Exile and have said would never change.
• Just recently (as of Harvest League) there was a massive outcry about players wanting deterministic crafting. Deterministic crafting goes against the core pillar that powerful items are hard to obtain and as of such, it is not going to happen.

Not altering 3 things (which I'd hate to have them changed the way they are right now because the game is supposed to be hardcore) when they've done hundreds of thousand other ajustments based in a client base is simply the worst argument in the world possible to justify yours concerning BG3.

Those 3 comments you've posted are like asking Pokemon to remove the Pokeballs. Asking Street Fighter to remove Ryu. Asking Dota 2 to be turn based and so on and so forth.

Why the hell is that comparable to ask a DnD5e game based to CARE about spell balance? lol

BG3 would get so much out of POE

Economy to begin with. Law of Scarcity in economics were perfectly implemented in that game. Scarcity is not a BG3 thing frown




Whilst I absolutely agree with you that PoE would be a much worse game to me if it ever did those things, that was not my point. My point was that, the developers for PoE have a vision for what they want the game to look like and they are nearly uncompromising on trying to achieve that and it is that vision which has made the game so successful. I imagine that if they were to try to make BG 3 they would have pillars here which they would be unwilling to compromise on as well, some of which, not everyone would agree on and those people would be voicing their dislike for those pillars very vocally on the forums, just like people are currently voicing their dislike for the lack of easy trade right now.

We do not know if these are changes that Larian are unwilling to compromise on (unfortunately, they are not very forthcoming. A "surfaces manifesto" giving their thoughts on things would be nice), but I expect that just like GGG, they have some "core design pillars" which they are unwilling to compromise on. We should absolutely complain about the stuff we don't like, but don't be too disappointed if something we don't like turns out to be 1 of these pillars. In my opinion, whilst there are some negatives to a game development company being uncompromising on certain design pillars, its the companies that do have these pillars which are ultimately producing the games with the most "soul" for the lack of a better word.


I’d never ask Pokémon to remove pokeballs. It’s just that Larian isn’t saying much about popular threads that are being debated.
GGG pairs with CD as the greatest studios nowadays because they’re simply honest to their concept and pillars. GGG due to their position regarding users feedback and CD due to their disruptive approach. Larian opened their early access to scrutiny. It’s up to them to show how compromised they are with this concept.

Glad to see that we could debate gaming without being aggressive to each other in the end.

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by fallenj
Kind of wonder where you get these percents at for advantage/disadvantage. I could be wrong but isn't the rule roll a additional d20 an high goes to advantage an low goes to disadvantage. If you have both it's nullified except for halflings that can reroll 1s.

If this is the case bless an the other spell will have more value than you say since the percent is not 100% accurate.


Statistical modeling is where understanding the effectiveness of Advantage/Disadvantage comes from.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

The chances of rolling a 10 or greater on a D20 are 55%. Every single number has a 5% chance to come up with a single roll.
If you have disadvantage, where you roll two d20 and take the lower, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater drop to 30.3%
If you have advantage, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater increases to 79.8%.

If anything, the OP's use of 10% increase for advantage is understating things.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Stabbey
Originally Posted by fallenj
Kind of wonder where you get these percents at for advantage/disadvantage. I could be wrong but isn't the rule roll a additional d20 an high goes to advantage an low goes to disadvantage. If you have both it's nullified except for halflings that can reroll 1s.

If this is the case bless an the other spell will have more value than you say since the percent is not 100% accurate.


Statistical modeling is where understanding the effectiveness of Advantage/Disadvantage comes from.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/

The chances of rolling a 10 or greater on a D20 are 55%. Every single number has a 5% chance to come up with a single roll.
If you have disadvantage, where you roll two d20 and take the lower, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater drop to 30.3%
If you have advantage, the chances of rolling a 10 or greater increases to 79.8%.

If anything, the OP's use of 10% increase for advantage is understating things.


Thanks Stabbey. I love to use the “dumb” math philosophy in DnD to simplify it.

Every +2 = 10%
Advantage as +4 = +20%.

Then why is it advantage bad for spell effectiveness if it’s an absolute increase of +20%? Because the impact of increasing 10% when you have 55% to hit is greater than a +10% over 75% basis smile it was explained in the main thread but here it goes again.

I’ve used bless average as a 2 but in fact is 2,5. That was done to simplify the calculation. Would that be a 2,5 the impact would be even greater.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.



Ive met a lot of people who've "played for 30 years" which usually means you played in middle school a couple times, twice in college, had a 20 year gap and recently decided to start playing again and have been having a hard time keeping a group together. How many games, groups, campaigns, and how many players have passed beyond the screen might be a better way to tack it. 15 enemies on the board that have different Hps for thousands of battles - what exactly is the method there and what on earth is the net benefit of spending that time for every single encounter? If you read what I wrote regarding that photo I mentioned that it was regarding the slider bar and specifically referencing damage as well, so I appreciate your reiterating what I said.

Last edited by Orbax; 01/11/20 09:45 PM.

What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by HakkaStyle
I have played D&D since the early 80s, played every version. I always roll HP for monsters. I will bump them up more in game if the party is steam rolling the encounters, and lower them if they are taking too much damage and using too many resources. To tell me that all goblins have 7 hp is laughable. They have a range.

The conversation given above regarding max DAMAGE does not equate to Max Hit points. IF I handed down max damage for every hit that would be really craptastically unfair.



Ive met a lot of people who've "played for 30 years" which usually means you played in middle school a couple times, twice in college, had a 20 year gap and recently decided to start playing again and have been having a hard time keeping a group together. How many games, groups, campaigns, and how many players have passed beyond the screen might be a better way to tack it. 15 enemies on the board that have different Hps for thousands of battles - what exactly is the method there and what on earth is the net benefit of spending that time for every single encounter? If you read what I wrote regarding that photo I mentioned that it was regarding the slider bar and specifically referencing damage as well, so I appreciate your reiterating what I said.



No, you never met me. I played for years straight all through HS (from freshman year to graduation, every weekend). In College we had a regular Sunday game that went on for years, rotating between 4 dms and campaigns it only ended breaking up as we graduated and moved away for work. Short gap when I moved for work but ended up playing regularly at a gaming store for years, and a few long trips to play with the College gang every now and then. etc. I played D&D, Arduin, Gurps, Rollmaster, ShadowRun, Cyberpunk, Runequest, etc.

But hey, great time with you taking that attitude right off!

Damage does not equal HP. Max Damage is a major increase. Max HP is not. You used a post about slider bar for damage and said it was basically the same for hit points. It is not. Even Jeremy Crawford stated in the Dragon Talk that he bumps hp up and down at will depending on what is going on in the game. The hp range is on purpose to allow customization. Quick and easy - use 7 hp, want more challenge up the hp. It is made that way on purpose.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Ok cool, so you have a lot of experience - how do you justify rolling each individual creature's HP and tracking it for every encounter over thousands of meaningless (sorry players!) encounters when its just there to give a little zazz to the game, get some XP, add some story, some items maybe, and now that theyre down some resources have a real fight that matters? Will I update a character sheet where its a creature 14 ac and 32 hp and a +5 to attack doing 1d6 and say these creatures at all 16ac, 40 hp, +7 to acck and its 1d6+3 damage? Yeah. But treating them as individuals? I honestly am interested in hearing how swapping HP and maintaining the same NUMBER you planned for combatants and saying "I dont care what I roll for these 5 creatures, I chose 5, and ill stick to that max hp or minimum hp" and theyre gonna have a cake-walk (kind of a waste of time) a normal or a hard (why was that so hard, we are just on our way to take a poop in the woods?). Because, again, DPR with an enemy that you cant quite kill in the same round economy means DPR is up, theyre taking N% more damage per round just with a little change that keeps 25% of the force alive 2 rounds more and now youre looking at lethal. Or...just follow the book. You want a harder fight? Swap in some hobgoblins. Add some wolves. Keep the headcount low and increase difficulty with abilities or auras, or any of the things the MM gives you. Adding a bunch of HP just to drag it out is just time consuming and miserable and rolling for the honor of wasting a bunch of time on a meaningless encounter...I don't see the upside.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Oct 2020
Really well done post OP.

Surprised long rest spam and spell slot economy wasn't mentioned as that's definitely a big factor. You don't have to be conservative with spells since you can get all your spell slots back after every encounter, which leads to casters outperforming martials easily. I think if they can put some form of a limit on resting, going back to 5e AC and hp values would be ideal.

I think elevation works for a defensive advantage like cover(as in +2 AC and dex), but not as an offensive advantage. Backstab should require flanking or stealth.

Now for surface effects, I'd really like for those to remain in the game as they add more complexity to fights. Would adding saving throws for surfaces and maybe making concentration harder to break be enough to balance out the surfaces?

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by HustleCat
Really well done post OP.

Surprised long rest spam and spell slot economy wasn't mentioned as that's definitely a big factor. You don't have to be conservative with spells since you can get all your spell slots back after every encounter, which leads to casters outperforming martials easily. I think if they can put some form of a limit on resting, going back to 5e AC and hp values would be ideal.

I think elevation works for a defensive advantage like cover(as in +2 AC and dex), but not as an offensive advantage. Backstab should require flanking or stealth.

Now for surface effects, I'd really like for those to remain in the game as they add more complexity to fights. Would adding saving throws for surfaces and maybe making concentration harder to break be enough to balance out the surfaces?


Hustle, I’m not fan of surfaces as is. We can definitely work them out in favor of the DnD rules. There’s the raw that says that you’ll only take damage if you end your turn over it. That would work. The other one is to add an extremely easy saving throw DC. But most importantly, If you miss the spell the surface won’t be created by it. So you guarantee that it’ll only be applied if you fail your attack save. The only thing that cannot pass is to have them in it’s current state. It’s just silly

Last edited by Sludge Khalid; 01/11/20 10:34 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
A single encounter involving 15 goblins all with different HPs sounds like a massive headache for the DM and players.

However, having a first combat with goblins all at 7HP, and then (X sessions or levels later) having another combat with goblins all at 10 or 12 HP, representing "elite goblins," is perfectly in line with the rules and an easy change the DM can make for more difficult encounters.


It’s easy to talk about HP and forgetting to talk about the AC 10 instead of 15 and how that damage the spell efficiency balance. Again, this is not about a problem generated by a single homebrew. It’s the problem generated by a combination of them. Elite goblins should have even higher AC by your terms (16 would do just fine)

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
No, just don't state stuff is useless "bless" when your stating a estimate on a roll. You want only 10s on a d20. Doesn't always run that way.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax
Originally Posted by fallenj
You still rolling an that percent is not 100% your examples are flawed.


Brilliant analysis, delete the thread I guess, no way to argue against that.


Guys, I was caught. I’m sorry for manipulating the math to make you have a worst game. I couldn’t imagine that Russel Crowe (beautiful mind) was playing the game and was participating in this very forum. Sorry to disappoint you all. Bye

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Bye

Page 4 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

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