• Snag some vintage SPL team logo merch over at our Teespring store before January 12th!

Data ASB Feedback & Game Issues Thread - Mk II

Status
Not open for further replies.
HP Revamp:

I'll look into a bit of a middle ground below, with its boost on the stat and net effect.

Suggested Model:
Rank 1: 80 [No Change]
Rank 2: 90 [No Change]
Rank 3: 100 [No Change]
Rank 4: 108 (+8) [-2]
Rank 5: 114 (+6) [-6]
Rank 6: 118 (+4) [-7]
Rank 7: 122 (+4) [-8]
Rank 8: 126 (+4) [-9]
Rank 9: 130 (+4) [-10]
Rank 10: 133 (+3) [-12]


Why this model?

HP is basically as strong as Defense and Special Defense ranks combined, and with additive damage quickly becomes a piling on. What this does is keep Rank 4 Pokemon at basically the same bulk, but starts cutting into the HP at the high end ranks very quickly. I do not think a 6 HP or a 8 HP reduction in Pyroak or Snorlax is going to make a massive impact, but it will be significant. As far as the numbers themselves, sure, increments of 5 or 10 look cleaner, but as pointed out, ASB is additive. And, since you can kind of look at HP as a percentage, Chansey/Blissey have 33% More HP than your "average" Pokemon (Rank 3). This doesn't seem too far out of place when you consider how normalized ASB makes stats.

Weight:

Normalizing formulas (and making fewer of them) is probably the best way to handle this.

Suggested Formula Changes:
Current:
Brave Bird
BAP Formula: 10 + User Weight Class
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)

Double-Edge
BAP Formula: 10 + (User Weight Class / 1.5). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 6 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Flare Blitz
BAP Formula: 10 + User Weight Class
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)

Giga Impact
BAP Formula: 12 + (User Weight Class / 1.5) — Round up
Energy Cost Formula: 9 + (Weight Class / 2.5)

Head Smash
BAP Formula: 12 + (User Weight Class / 1.5) — Round up
Energy Cost Formula: 9 + (Weight Class / 2.5)

Volt Tackle
BAP Formula: 11 + User Weight Class
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)

Wood Hammer
BAP Formula: 10 + User Weight Class
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)
Updated:
Brave Bird
BAP Formula: 12 + (User Weight Class / 2). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)

Volt Tackle
BAP Formula: 12 + (User Weight Class / 2). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 7 + (User Weight Class / 2)

Double-Edge
BAP Formula: 11 + (User Weight Class / 1.5). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 6 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Flare Blitz
BAP Formula: 11 + (User Weight Class / 1.5). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 6 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Wood Hammer
BAP Formula: 11 + (User Weight Class / 1.5). Round Up.
Energy Cost Formula: 6 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Giga Impact
BAP Formula: 13 + (User Weight Class / 2). Do Not Round.
Energy Cost Formula: 9 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Head Smash
BAP Formula: 13 + (User Weight Class / 2). Do Not Round.
Energy Cost Formula: 9 + (User Weight Class / 2.5)

Additional:

Changing Weight Class 8 to go from 350kg-499.9 kg
Changing Weight Class 9 to start at 500.

The only Pokemon effected is Snorlax. Avalugg is 505.0 kg.

Effects: Essentially what this does is bring Wood Hammer and Flare Blitz into lone with Double-Edge, and still acknowledges the Pokemon using Brave Bird and Volt Tackle are generally lightweights. The weight change doesn't effect Snorlax's Double-Edge [8/1,5 =5.33, which still rounds up to 6], but does weaken its Giga Impact by 1 BAP with that move's formula change, and also takes 1 BAP off of Pyroak's Flare Blitz and Wood Hammer.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
If we were to change HP I think a simple change such as making every rank becoming +5, thus values change to become 90, 95, 100, 105, ..., 135. Thus the values become more normalized while Hp behemoths like Blissey are mostly unaffected, this makes for a simple (and let's admit it a more aesthetic change) that's easy to remember (which I think it's a problem with the proposed value), stuff like Pyroak & Collo become 110 (a lot more manageable) while underused pokes like Kingler and Cawmodore get a slight boost to 95. My only grip though is that stuff that's already good like Gengar and Starmie also get the boost but since many of these pokemon have not-so-great defenses to begin with and since this pokemon use other methods to deal with damage other than raw bulk (like endure, disable, torment, dive, etc...) then the point is moot IMO.

A potential fix I see for recoil moves it would be to make Rock Head make recoil moves cost more energy, since Rock Head makes them easily spamable moves without repercussions, so this could help the situation a bit
 
Why do we need to have weight based BAP's for the recoil moves anyway? Other than some silly flavour reason. Why can they not all just be 12 BAP flat and we run with that?
 
He meant the base power they have in game. Let's not be stupid here.

As a completely impartial user council member, I should probably reply beyond just liking a post. I think that Pyroak and co. are potentially bad enough for balance that ignoring flavor for the sake of improving gameplay is justified. HP and cut-offs and formulas were never really my thing, but HP can be a really big advantage in a game where most mons stats are pretty much identical, even with rankings. Additive advantage only slightly worsens that. This is especially notable in the cases where high HP correlates with above average stats, typing, and abilities. On the other hand, it brings some bulk to an otherwise highly offensive game. I am conflicted on this issue and could be swayed to either side.
 
Regarding Weight-based moves and HP: I'd like to say some things about the "Pyroak and Snorlax are borderline broken" sentiment. In-catridge, some Pokemons are bound to be better than others, whether in specific roles, or simply in overall performance. In ASB, it'd be funny if we don't see the same thing - like it or not, Snorlax is different from Watchog and one of them will be better than the other. Frosty said so himself -
... I mean, Throh and Musharna went from "NU" to "good" (which isn't bad for the metagame) and Snorlax, Pyroak, Krillowatt and Colossoil went from "good" to "Borderline broken" (which may be harmful for the metagame....or not) ...
Click to expand...
Sure, the metagame is not "balanced" if you take it to mean "every mon has an equal chance against each other". But that happens in-catridge too, just with slightly different mechanics. One way or the other, some mons are bound to get better usage simply because they are better at the game. So I don't see much need to go on the nerf warpath, honestly - it will produce the same end results (Pyroak will still have more HP than say, Lilligant, and will still be a better option generally).
 
There needs to be a greater reward to winning or some kind of deterrence to losing. The only difference in rewards for flash matches in 1 KOC, so people have created unwritten guidelines on how to badly poorly on purpose in order to speed up matches. By my understanding, Exploding on action 1 is illegal, but mindlessly typing "Shadow Ball x3" in a damage race you are certain to lose is not only ok, but recommended!
The only difference between these three flash matches is how much work the ref has to do and how long until you can do another.
Match 1:
Explosion.
Match 2:
Fire Blast x3, Fire Blast x3, Fire Blast x3
Shadow Ball x3, Shadow Ball x3, Shadow Ball x3
Match 3:
Fire Blast-Flamethrower-Fire Blast, Flamethrower-Fire Blast-Flamethrower, Fire Blast-Flamethrower-Fire Blast
Shadow Ball-Night Shade-Shadow Ball, Night Shade-Shadow Ball-Night Shade, Shadow Ball-Night Shade-Shadow Ball

In all 3, unless a crit/burn/sDef drop happens, then you know who wins from before the match begins. However, people find losing in 3 rounds preferable to winning in 6 rounds because you can have LOSE two 3 round battles and get rewarded more than winning a single 6 round battle. In addition to this, referees do not feel enthused to ref long battles for the same reward as reffing short ones.



Simple solution 1(refs): The average flash match lasts 2-4 rounds. Change the reward for reffing to 1 UC per round. This would make one 6 round match give the same reward as two 3 round matches. Also if you think about it, getting paid a 1 UC/round flat rate makes a lot more sense and is more consistent than 3 UC per battle. From what I've seen, some roleplay refs are already rewarded in this way.

Super Simple solution 2(battlers): Reward 2 KOC for KOs. The incentive to win right now is a measly 1 KOC. In your typical FE Flash, that means 5 MC instead of 4 MC. You're almost always best off just going all offense and not carrying if you lose. A 50% increase in rewards for the winner rather than a 25% could be tasty enough to deter kamikaze battles somewhat.

Alternate solution 2(battlers): There are 3 battle slots now. Under this change, 1 of those battle slots stays exactly the same, but the other two force you to "ante up." The second slot forces you to bet 1 CC while the third slot forces you to bet 3 CC. The first slot and roleplays can be used to generate CC to ante up for your second and third slots if you are down on your luck in losses or had to spend your CC. This way, you can be penalized by losing 3 CC and miss out on the reward of 3 CC without being forced to partake if you don't want to. You could always "play it safe," but this kills attempts to grind counters by not caring if you lose your matches and rewards people who want to win. To top it off, all ASB battlers could start with 3 battles of amnesty where you don't have to bet until you are used to the system.

Thanks for reading guys! :)
 
Interesting proposal. As someone who participates in flashmatches endlessly, there should be some sort of fix to the system. I'm not sure that any of them will result in the de-spamming of moves though. Often, your STAB option is your best move. That being said, trainers like Elevator Music and Frosty have good flashmatch W/L records because they use disruptive moves accompanied with offensive pressure to win quick matches. Rewarding that in some way sounds smart. I personally lean towards option two. It's elegant and easy to implement. Option 3 is very intriguing, and it does have the advantage of making us dependent on Battle Tower for flashes. If we get enough discussion here, I'll make a thread on the issue.

Also, we might wish to consider adding an extra slot for matches that are above two players. Events like melees and Rediamond's new gig are a ton of fun. The issue is that battlers are wary to take those matches because they take time and eat up a slot. We'd probably see a lot more community building in battles if we add an extra slot to allow for these superfluous sorts of matches.
 
Well, regaring yj's proposal:

IMO, solution 2 isn't going to help THAT much: you'll still see matches with people mindlessly spamming moves, and what you just did was give more people incentive to make flashes since they are getting even more counters when they manage to beat someone: the spammer lost nothing, and you are just allowing for faster counter farming.

Flashes are supposed to be that, flashes: they are used to train mons quickly for certain event or battle (gyms, qualifiers, tourneys, what have you). ASB is already slow: anyone with a big amount of badges had to work for a year or more to get them, even with them winning in their first try.

Birkal, who flashes endlessly, only has one badge (I think), and he obtained that one from the qualifier.

Also, the third option could stop a lot of people from battling as much: CC is needed, sometimes to buy Pokémon, and sometimes for items. If we make that, people who aren't that good or that are just starting will always be forced to only have one battle at a time, since using their other slots would result in losing the little CC they have earned, and thus losing the right to battle or buy what they want. Sincerely, I feel like that could drive people away from ASB, and could take a little fun from it. You want to get that Charmander, or you want to battle?

If a serious match is what you want, you can just post in the battle tower and ask for it: people can and will (or at least I do) play seriously in something not named flashmatch. Not defending people who just go Dazzling Gleam * 3 in all their orders, since that also annoys me, but defending the fact that, if people want to have fast matches, they should be able to have them.

Oh, and solution 1 could also end in too much UC being thrown around, or in too low of an incentive for reffing, and does not affect the combatants at all, since they will have the same results as they do now: this does not stop them from doing the same Fire Blast * 3. Just saying.


ALSO, why does everyone wants to nerf Snorlax. The poor thing hasn't done anything T.T

Now, seriously, I think that a fix to weight based moves is needed, since it is true that some things are just sick: there are more advantages than disadvantages for having a big weight. While I love my cute, little Snorlax, it is true that some (read: a lot) of its attacks benefit great time from its weight, sometimes to ridiculous levels. I will think of a proposal for this, and will edit it in later.

HP does seem more balanced in 90-95-100-105-110-etc, since then the stats becomes a little less important, because right now having a high HP stat is way more important than having a high defense. This also would allow some mons to hold their ground against more threats, with the HP difference not being as enormous.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I actually do not like any of youngjake's proposals. KOC is meant to be one per KO, and more than just one should not happen imo. Changing ref UC to per round discourages Doubles and larger formats. Forcing players to bet CC on battle slots 2 and 3 would prevent newer players (even ones like me that have seen a few months) from having multiple battles.
 
I'm interpreting this as something of a universal proposal, not just something to change the already poorly defined Flashmatches

While I like the idea of increasing UC rewards, we'd need to codify it in some way to avoid under-compensating or overcompensating refs. Perhaps the Current rates are the minimum, and once the number of rounds exceeds this minimum then the ref earns an additional 1 UC per round until they reach that formats' cap (which we will have to be determined if we choose to adopt such a plan).

Option two encourages smarter battling through higher rewards, but I would rather the winner's mons to receive a single additional KOC or have a reward like 1 UC. Some extra prize to really make winnag a match worth it

I don't like option three as I am a user to plan a purchase and as soon as I have the resources for it, buy it. Such a proposal would limit players such as myself to only a single match and I have a habit of taking few Flash Matches anyway so it hurts even more. The Option to Ante though is something I can see the appeal of though as it raises the Stakes.

Lastly to Birkal's proposal, I'd love the option of a fourth slot reserved exclusively for large scale battles; whether they be a Melee/Brawl or a 13v13 singles (again it would need codification). So that users can really enjoy some of the more exiting matches while still having the three matches for training.
 
OK, elaboration time. First, remember that none of these proposals would have to be implemented exactly as I've laid out and they can be mix-matched to create the desired effect rather than just picking one.

Solution 1: Doubles could simply reward two UC per round instead of 1. Also, currently the average flash match lasts about 3 turns resulting in 3 UC for singles or 6 UC for doubles which is pretty fair. If you think about it logically, every round of work that the ref does should be compensated. As it is now, refs that have a battle finish faster than the average are getting faster UC than average and with longer battles getting less UC than average. Rarely will a match last less than 2 turns, so the under-compensation point is kind of moot. We could however, adjust how much UC is given per round reffed to find something that works for us.
For example: We could have 3 UC flat rate and +.5 UC(6 and 1.4 for dubs) for every round reffed after the third one. Whatever we decide is fine, but I feel that 1 UC per round or 2 UC per round for dubs is the simplest and makes the most sense.

Solution 2: Again, it seems this is a matter of how we would go about it rather than whether or not its a good idea. We could change how much KOC is worth, we could award 1 UC to the winner, we could give 1 less MC to the loser, etc. The idea is to simply incentive winning a little bit more to deter spam commands that are only to get counters faster, not get rid of it completely.

Solution 3: People are concerned that betting your CC would mean not being able to use all 3 slots. However, all you would have to do is simply enter a battle in which the CC reward is at least as high as your ante. For example, losing a 1v1 in slot 2 would simply mean you are rewarded zero CC rather than not being able to use that slot at all. Similarly, a 3v3 in slot 2 would still reward you 2 CC if you lost(or zero in slot 3), but you would get 6 if you won! Under this system though, there wouldn't be a big inflation of CC because you are taking them from other people rather than being rewarded them.

Birkal's melee/brawl proposal: Honestly, when red posted that in the battle tower I was wondering if we already did have a slot for such events already. It makes sense.
 
Okay I really hate all of these proposals because we /just/ implemented a UC payout system we're all happy with. All of these suggestions are excessively complex too.

If the problem is flash matches we could always ban flashes. But seriously find some way to affect flashes other than UC payout.

And the three scenarios above are definitely different. Exploding turn 1 is exactly equal to forfeiting, which is codified as yielding zero counters. In flashes between higher movepool mons, there should never be a situation where a game is decided before turn 1. In lower movepool matches its almost always for training so who gives a fuck?

So yeah I'm not convinced at all.


I'll revisit this topic tomorrow when I'm less inebriated.
 
Can we seriously change Endure's CT to None already?

Endure as a combinant is something I personally will never allow irrespective of precedent, but other referees have been allowing Endure combinations... Which is bad... And a terrible/dangerous precedent imo... I am going to delve into Endure + Protect from here on in—which is apparently "allowed"—the most dangerous of those combinations from here on in. EN sink maybe, & you have to have enough EN yes, but the fact that you can almost completely cock-block an Endure Substitution directly that was supposed to act as a direct fail-safe to Endure while exposed... Not to mention, the amount of momentum it can bring to the user in the right situation...

Yeah I am probably just splurting out crap by now, but honestly, this was like the Protect + Bodyblock thing. Incredibly expensive, but when used correctly, i.e. every time it is used competently, it can easily turn the tide of a battle, & then you can spend the next turn either switching out or sacking your mon to minimise the opponent's ability to take advantage of second order in nearly every situation.

Yeah, just change Endure's CT to None already & move on imo. Why we are even allowing these to continue to run free, I do not know. Maybe I am mistaken & that they are already banned according to the description of Endure ("Enduring users may not use Combos" is kinda ambiguous), but even then, still change its CT to None for consistency's sake.
 
I agree with Texas about flashes - frankly, if you want a competitive setting where not spamming moves is the superior choice, you should not play flashes. However, I also agree with youngjake93 that the current distance between winners and losers is kind of shallow. Mind you, we did have a reason for this - i.e. if the gap were significant, constant winners would quickly get the jump over constant losers to the point where recovering would have been nearly impossible. However, this was more the case during ASB's beginnings. I'm not sure we have the same concern now.
 
Texas Cloverleaf said:
Okay I really hate all of these proposals because we /just/ implemented a UC payout system we're all happy with. All of these suggestions are excessively complex too.

If the problem is flash matches we could always ban flashes. But seriously find some way to affect flashes other than UC payout.

And the three scenarios above are definitely different. Exploding turn 1 is exactly equal to forfeiting, which is codified as yielding zero counters. In flashes between higher movepool mons, there should never be a situation where a game is decided before turn 1. In lower movepool matches its almost always for training so who gives a fuck?

So yeah I'm not convinced at all.


I'll revisit this topic tomorrow when I'm less inebriated.
Click to expand...
The problem is not with flashes. The problem is that you are encouraged to play poorly and lose to get counters faster. The three scenarios I posted were exactly the same... The mon with higher dpa is decided winner before turn 1. And continuing to spam even after you know before turn 1 that it will cause you to lose is the same thing as forfeitting, but with a little extra work for the ref. "In flashes between higher movepool mons, there should never be a situation where a game is decided before turn 1." < Exactly my point! However, even in higher move pool flashes, the strategy is to spam 1 or 2 of the same moves so that the ref can ref faster and both ppl die faster rather than actually win.

The first suggestion I made was less complex than what we currently have and the second was just as complex... The third one is as simple as "bet CC", but I could see that being seen as complex I guess.
I'm sorry if you're offended at me calling a relatively new system broken, but if people were happy with the current UC payouts, then why do so many ASBers grumble at the idea of reffing something longer than 4 turns? Getting rewarded less per turn than shorter matches is definitely part of why that is.

Anyway, forfeitting slowly is ok because its just training, but forfeitting fast is bad because the rules say so? Why not reward playing well to make winning matches a viable option for training. I see no point in preserving the spam to train method when you have the opportunity to make trying to win worthwhile. It would certainly make ASB more fun than getting chewed out everytime you use Substitute because it lowers everyone's counter gaining rate. You should be rewarded for making a smart move, not punished -_-

I really hope the course of action taken is not as dumb as "ban flashes" though... That makes no sense on so many levels.
 
Just for organizational purposes, we should probably get threads on the following topics over the next few days:
  • Stats / HP proposals (Frosty)
  • Rewards to encourage winners (youngjake93)
The stats proposal is a big enough change that we should discuss it formally. If we change the role of how HP is handled here in ASB, it'd be prudent to have a full discussion about it. jake's proposed topic is big enough that we should also discuss it in a formal setting.

Things we can push forward without needing a formal discussion:
  • Head approvers (Birkal)
  • Magician update (Gerard)
  • Updating critical hit changes (Dogfish44) Fishedit: Done!
I'll talk with IAR about the first category; that shouldn't be a hard shift. The latter two are just updates to NDA and Handbook, respectively. Anyone who has the ability to update those things should.

Let me know if if I missed anything!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just another slight inconsistency
Handbook's list of moves that use up a Recovery said:
  • Recover and its clones
  • Roost
  • Moonlight, Morning Sun and Synthesis
  • Swallow
  • Rest
  • Aqua Ring
  • Ingrain
  • Heal Pulse
  • Wish
  • Any move that activates the user's Poison Heal
Click to expand...
Poison Heal Toxic (Self) counts as a recovery, but Mollux's Water Gun (Self) does not (and similar things, such as Jellicent's Scald (Self)). Just a slight hotfix that can probably be changed by someone with mod powers without sending it through discussion.
I'll write up a full list of these combos later tonight probably.

Another thing along the same lines is the question of whether attacking an ally with a move that activates such an ability counts as a recovery.
 
Last edited:
I disagree that it should count as a recovery move. As Toxic is mostly permanent, Poison Heal would allow the mon to heal 2 HP per action until it faints or Toxic is somehow removed, but something like Vappy's Hydro Pump with a Bold nature recovers... less than 3 HP. I feel like self-attacking with water absorb and dry skin just recovers too little HP to be considered a recovery move. Similar thing with attacking an ally- just too little recovery to be considered a recovery move.
 
There's been a lot of talk on this on IRC, but we really need to talk about self targeting. The two biggest ones are Telekinesis (Self) and Heal Pulse (Self) that are being used to great extent competitively. It would probably be wise to have a conversation about these moves. Should we just ban some selectively? Should self target be banned entirely? What do we want to do with these moves as a community?
 
07:52:59 starwarsfan: o wut
07:53:05 starwarsfan: heal pulse self is a thing?
07:54:35 dogfish44: No
07:54:39 dogfish44: and if someone's reffed it as such
07:54:51 dogfish44: they've blatantly ignored the NDA stating that it is quite literally impossible

Yeah...no
later tonight I'll write up something on self telekinesis tho
 
I'd edit out Heal Pulse (Self) from that list, since to quote the NDA:

NDA said:
The user releases a wave of energy that restores 20 HP to a target Pokemon on the field. The user cannot target itself with this move. This move uses up one of the user's available recovery moves in a battle.
Click to expand...

That said, most ASB self targeting moves are rooted in flavour logic - Telekinesis (Self) makes sense as a makeshift Magnet Rise, and being able to float using Psychic Power is a fairly logical thing. How you want to handle categorising flavour actions is beyond me - a blacklist of moves seems appropriate, or if there's a regular enough usage of a move we can just codify that particular instance into the move.
 
Yeah, heal pulse is a no issue. Telekinesis though it's more of a flavor thing, why would you be allowed to raise an opponet but not youself. Other yhan flavor you have to consider the downsides of Telekinesis over Magnet Rise, namely that you can lose focus (so a multi hit move can make you fall to the ground) and that you basicly get no guard without the perfect acc
 
By the same sense, I am yet to see any WoG ruling indicating that Telekinesis (self) is allowed. Anyone saying that self telekinesis makes sense from a flavour perspective imho, has zero idea on what telekinesis is. Telekinesis by its very nature is a supernatural ability that grants a life form the power to manipulate objects with the power of their minds by focusing on the object in question. A limitation of telekinesis, according to the wiki on superpowers, is, quote: "May be able to move only the objects that they can see." Wikipedia (who refers to telekinesis as psychokinesis) seems to agree with this. Based on this logic, the very idea of being able to lift yourself into the air with the power of your mind is impossible, since you cannot see yourself in your entirety; only parts of your body. This in turn renders any idea that you can lift yourself into the air with your mind in ASB pretty much moot. By the same logic, you could allow Pokémon to use Double-Edge or Earthquake on themselves, even though it makes no sense flavour-wise, just like using Telekinesis on yourself.

Balance wise, the fact that you cannot avoid any attack is not enough compensation for the fact that you can fuck over anyone relying on seismic moves or dig. The fact that you have to sub around it is not a good enough excuse when there is no sub class it goes into, & also the fact that the same argument can be applied to the far more splashable protect, counter, endure, or even the super broken endure + protect that some referees have been allowing for some reason. It furthermore goes against the whole principle of the move, which is to lift another Pokémon into the air either for Earthquake immunity or to ensure that your Hypnosis will hit the target.

Heck if I had things my way, self-targeting moves would be banned, or at the very least, create a white-list for them, in order to stop these whole guessing games on whether something can be self-targeted or not. But even then, I feel like that using Telekinesis on yourself has no place in ASB from a competitive, intent, & flavour standpoint. Kill it with fire.

===

Also if anyone wants to object to Endure for CT: None, then do so now, or it will probably be implemented directly sooner or later.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top