Forum Index Feedback and Suggestions In 2019, Diablo 3 and Path of Exile are more alike than you realize.

History

"
MasterTBC wrote:
Its usually 2-3 builds that are viable per new content release


I think it depends a lot on the day of league. The moment Headhunter and Cyclone got combined, it took over "being better than others in 5-way battles".

Sure, early farming, ED+Contagion was better, maybe even Vaal Ice nova was better.

Some leagues in PoE expand the build variety with time, some leagues reduces it with time in the league. Legion is clear example that the end goal content is just busted in favor of one thing. Synthesis wasn't, Betrayal wasn't.

Marxone
Aug 22, 2019 18:08:47 PM

"
Baharoth15 wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase so even you can understand. What i was saying is: "It doesn't make sense to blame GGG for the choices of the playerbase."

So, you're saying that leaving a concrete block on the sidewalk with a hat over it is acceptable behavior and any resulting injury is entirely at the fault of the person that succumbs to the temptation of kicking it?

Furthermore, you're doing it in the shop you own and instead of laughing and saying 'gotcha' like any honest person would, you're playing dumb and claiming that the brick was left there because you had no time to move it away after the last renovation and that the hat just happened to fall over it.

raics
Aug 22, 2019 19:51:30 PM

"
gibbousmoon wrote:
But yes, I'd love to hear how you get on with Glacial Hammer in a red map Incursion. You don't need to record it; just share your experience. (I trust you.) I'm curious if it would actually work with maximal investment.

Glacial hammer has dmg,it's one thing it has.

With the jewel, it has also some AOE (and you could add shockwave,I personnaly like this gem a lot), so add in some additional chance to freeze, enough attack speed to jump everywhere + herald of ice linked with ele prolif ( you need to scale cold damage, at least a little bit of it ) and you make packs explode im shards of ice, real quick.

I've done it with trickster, and if my occutist version did not instant kill itself on reflect, I'd have some more experience as an occultist too.

I leveled up 3 90+ trickster in SSF HC in Synthesis, I think I deleted one though, the others should still be in my characters.


"
Baharoth15 wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase so even you can understand. What i was saying is: "It doesn't make sense to blame GGG for the choices of the playerbase."

We are not blaming GGG for the choices of the player base ....

GGG is heavily pushing players to be efficient, and then putting couple of obvious options that allows somewhat easy efficiency.
We are blaming GGG for their own choices,they literally decide what the best archetypes are going to be.


"
Baharoth15 wrote:
there was always that one strategy/build that was slightly better than the rest


Slightly ????
No,it isn't about "slight" differences at all, that's the problem.


"
Baharoth15 wrote:
THEY MAKE THE META. No, one else

Nonsense.

If I want to travel and take a plane to go over 3000km instead of taking a train that will take 5 times more time and cost three times more, should we consider that there is no reason to travel by plane instead of train ? or can we be honest and realistic for a second ?

When it comes to picking a build while keeping in mind certains objectives for a league, some choices are just not realistic for many/most.

Fruz
Aug 24, 2019 19:39:37 PM

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Ok, let me rephrase so even you can understand. What i was saying is: "It doesn't make sense to blame GGG for the choices of the playerbase."


Even with rephrasing it... it still makes sense to do that.
Not only is GGG enabling this kind of behavior, they actively let it prosper. In that case it absolutely is something the player should complain about.

A well-made game not only provides options but also steers the player in choosing a specific role. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to 'balance', everything could be done and nothing would be 'bad'.
Completely underpowered? Just don't pick that one!
Absolutely OP? Why complain, it's your personal choice after all, pick something else!

That's not how it goes though, the responsibility of the dev lies with balancing (hence this word) the options players have with the abilities mobs provide to give them a meaningful progression and enjoyable long-term feeling. Unless the game is set up to provide short-term enjoyment only. (Which obviously isn't the case in PoE though by their philosophy stated, hence a disparity which is bad)

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Sure their balancing is bad, the differences between builds are much bigger than they need to be. But at the end of the day it doesn't even matter.
If one build takes 4 seconds to kill shaper/clear a map/do the league content and the other needs 2 seconds, guess which one will be played more? It's the players choice to always want to have the best and fastest build to get the most rewards in the shortest amount of time. Just like it's their choice to spend days and weeks every league with trading despite GGGs efforts to deter them from doing that.


If the difference would only be the stated '2 seconds' which relates to a difference of 100% then sure, many people would go for the 2-second-build... but also still quite a sizeable amount for the 4-second-build.
The reality sadly is that some builds can do a phase of a boss in 5 seconds while others need 1-2 minutes. That's a disparity of 1200-2400%... which is massive. Obviously such a difference will not even be a case of choice, it's obvious which one to pick, doing it otherwise is just for personal enjoyment and challenge and not sensible in the case of efficiency.
And despite saying 'but just choose the less-viable build!' the actual case is: Gamers have an inherent thrive to pick the easiest solution available as this is what makes you 'efficient'. Being that means you're 'better' at a game in a certain aspect then the majority, hence everything else is a personal handicap and uncommon, thus needing the intervention of the dev to handle such a situation of getting out of control (which isn't done at the moment).

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

No, amount of balancing and balancing skill will ever change that. I've seen hundreds of metas in dozens of games, some of them very well balanced and there was always that one strategy/build that was slightly better than the rest and was played to the death by 90% of the players.


Obviously.
But unlike many other games playing another choice from time to time won't make you go 'ugh, this feels like utter garbage!' but rather 'let's try out a few fun things!'. PoE is very bad in making less-viable choices seem compelling.

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

You said it yourself, even shitty glacial hammer can beat that "dps check" so it's not like your missing out on something using that.


How much effort does it take to make it viable though?
Here we can go from availability of items versus price of them.
Sure, this can be a case of meta-based-inflation, but we can go with the general guideline.

Winter Orb was a prime example. Uber-elder viability was achieved with 2 exa... while a melee-build at that time needed roughly 10 exa in comparison. That's 5 times the amount, not something a beginner can easily afford after paying for all the maps along the way back then.

Or cyclone versus glacial hammer. Sure glacial can beat the content... but you'll need roughly 20 times as expensive gear to be on the 'same level' as that cyclone. This is a massive disparity.

As said, 20-50% is doable, 100+ isn't. We got more then 1000+% disparity, which is an awful state.

Kulze
Aug 24, 2019 20:41:53 PM

"
Kulze wrote:
"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Ok, let me rephrase so even you can understand. What i was saying is: "It doesn't make sense to blame GGG for the choices of the playerbase."


Even with rephrasing it... it still makes sense to do that.
Not only is GGG enabling this kind of behavior, they actively let it prosper. In that case it absolutely is something the player should complain about.

A well-made game not only provides options but also steers the player in choosing a specific role. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to 'balance', everything could be done and nothing would be 'bad'.
Completely underpowered? Just don't pick that one!
Absolutely OP? Why complain, it's your personal choice after all, pick something else!

That's not how it goes though, the responsibility of the dev lies with balancing (hence this word) the options players have with the abilities mobs provide to give them a meaningful progression and enjoyable long-term feeling. Unless the game is set up to provide short-term enjoyment only. (Which obviously isn't the case in PoE though by their philosophy stated, hence a disparity which is bad)

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Sure their balancing is bad, the differences between builds are much bigger than they need to be. But at the end of the day it doesn't even matter.
If one build takes 4 seconds to kill shaper/clear a map/do the league content and the other needs 2 seconds, guess which one will be played more? It's the players choice to always want to have the best and fastest build to get the most rewards in the shortest amount of time. Just like it's their choice to spend days and weeks every league with trading despite GGGs efforts to deter them from doing that.


If the difference would only be the stated '2 seconds' which relates to a difference of 100% then sure, many people would go for the 2-second-build... but also still quite a sizeable amount for the 4-second-build.
The reality sadly is that some builds can do a phase of a boss in 5 seconds while others need 1-2 minutes. That's a disparity of 1200-2400%... which is massive. Obviously such a difference will not even be a case of choice, it's obvious which one to pick, doing it otherwise is just for personal enjoyment and challenge and not sensible in the case of efficiency.
And despite saying 'but just choose the less-viable build!' the actual case is: Gamers have an inherent thrive to pick the easiest solution available as this is what makes you 'efficient'. Being that means you're 'better' at a game in a certain aspect then the majority, hence everything else is a personal handicap and uncommon, thus needing the intervention of the dev to handle such a situation of getting out of control (which isn't done at the moment).

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

No, amount of balancing and balancing skill will ever change that. I've seen hundreds of metas in dozens of games, some of them very well balanced and there was always that one strategy/build that was slightly better than the rest and was played to the death by 90% of the players.


Obviously.
But unlike many other games playing another choice from time to time won't make you go 'ugh, this feels like utter garbage!' but rather 'let's try out a few fun things!'. PoE is very bad in making less-viable choices seem compelling.

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

You said it yourself, even shitty glacial hammer can beat that "dps check" so it's not like your missing out on something using that.


How much effort does it take to make it viable though?
Here we can go from availability of items versus price of them.
Sure, this can be a case of meta-based-inflation, but we can go with the general guideline.

Winter Orb was a prime example. Uber-elder viability was achieved with 2 exa... while a melee-build at that time needed roughly 10 exa in comparison. That's 5 times the amount, not something a beginner can easily afford after paying for all the maps along the way back then.

Or cyclone versus glacial hammer. Sure glacial can beat the content... but you'll need roughly 20 times as expensive gear to be on the 'same level' as that cyclone. This is a massive disparity.

As said, 20-50% is doable, 100+ isn't. We got more then 1000+% disparity, which is an awful state.


I am not into quote wars and i don't think this will lead anywhere so i just want to ask you this:

What do you expect GGG to do? What do you think will happen if GGG went and nerfed all the OP skills to a "normal level" (like Moltenstrike, Tecslam or Lacerate) or even to Glacial Hammer level for a league? I tell you, there would be a massiv uproar in the community because half the people here probably couldn't even get red maps done without God Mode on.

Conversely if they lifted all the skills up to current cylcone level they would force their entire playerbase to play with god mode active and reap massive complains because the game is far too easy for many people.

Right now, by putting those discrepancys in skill power in the game they leave players the choice on how to play the game because contrary to what you seem to believe, enjoyment is actually a very subjective thing. Not everyone enjoys killing shaper in 2 seconds, not everyone is on that efficiency madness train that's running rampant here. If they removed that choice and balanced all the skills to a similar level, no matter which level, they would destroy the ability to enjoy the game for a part of the community.

What you all seem to forget is that this isn't a competetive PvP game where balance i.e similar powerlevel across different strategies is actually needed for a healthy competitive environment. This is essentially a singleplayer game and entirely uncompetitive and unlike with PvP games there are vastly different ways of playing and enjoying this game. Creating balance in terms of "everything is equal" is neither healthy nor neccessary in this case.

GGG is leaving everyone a choice on how to play the game by giving us "good" and "bad" skills. Even if they tried to align them, it wouldn't work anyway because perfect balancing in a complex game like this isn't possible and it would cause signifant amounts of colleteral damage. And ofc it would do absolutely nothing about our meta problems because the people who like efficiency will still play the best skills. To them it doesn't matter if the difference is 100% killspeed or 100000000% killspeed.

Baharoth15
Aug 25, 2019 08:25:46 AM

"
Baharoth15 wrote:
Spoiler
"
Kulze wrote:
"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Ok, let me rephrase so even you can understand. What i was saying is: "It doesn't make sense to blame GGG for the choices of the playerbase."


Even with rephrasing it... it still makes sense to do that.
Not only is GGG enabling this kind of behavior, they actively let it prosper. In that case it absolutely is something the player should complain about.

A well-made game not only provides options but also steers the player in choosing a specific role. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to 'balance', everything could be done and nothing would be 'bad'.
Completely underpowered? Just don't pick that one!
Absolutely OP? Why complain, it's your personal choice after all, pick something else!

That's not how it goes though, the responsibility of the dev lies with balancing (hence this word) the options players have with the abilities mobs provide to give them a meaningful progression and enjoyable long-term feeling. Unless the game is set up to provide short-term enjoyment only. (Which obviously isn't the case in PoE though by their philosophy stated, hence a disparity which is bad)

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

Sure their balancing is bad, the differences between builds are much bigger than they need to be. But at the end of the day it doesn't even matter.
If one build takes 4 seconds to kill shaper/clear a map/do the league content and the other needs 2 seconds, guess which one will be played more? It's the players choice to always want to have the best and fastest build to get the most rewards in the shortest amount of time. Just like it's their choice to spend days and weeks every league with trading despite GGGs efforts to deter them from doing that.


If the difference would only be the stated '2 seconds' which relates to a difference of 100% then sure, many people would go for the 2-second-build... but also still quite a sizeable amount for the 4-second-build.
The reality sadly is that some builds can do a phase of a boss in 5 seconds while others need 1-2 minutes. That's a disparity of 1200-2400%... which is massive. Obviously such a difference will not even be a case of choice, it's obvious which one to pick, doing it otherwise is just for personal enjoyment and challenge and not sensible in the case of efficiency.
And despite saying 'but just choose the less-viable build!' the actual case is: Gamers have an inherent thrive to pick the easiest solution available as this is what makes you 'efficient'. Being that means you're 'better' at a game in a certain aspect then the majority, hence everything else is a personal handicap and uncommon, thus needing the intervention of the dev to handle such a situation of getting out of control (which isn't done at the moment).

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

No, amount of balancing and balancing skill will ever change that. I've seen hundreds of metas in dozens of games, some of them very well balanced and there was always that one strategy/build that was slightly better than the rest and was played to the death by 90% of the players.


Obviously.
But unlike many other games playing another choice from time to time won't make you go 'ugh, this feels like utter garbage!' but rather 'let's try out a few fun things!'. PoE is very bad in making less-viable choices seem compelling.

"
Baharoth15 wrote:

You said it yourself, even shitty glacial hammer can beat that "dps check" so it's not like your missing out on something using that.


How much effort does it take to make it viable though?
Here we can go from availability of items versus price of them.
Sure, this can be a case of meta-based-inflation, but we can go with the general guideline.

Winter Orb was a prime example. Uber-elder viability was achieved with 2 exa... while a melee-build at that time needed roughly 10 exa in comparison. That's 5 times the amount, not something a beginner can easily afford after paying for all the maps along the way back then.

Or cyclone versus glacial hammer. Sure glacial can beat the content... but you'll need roughly 20 times as expensive gear to be on the 'same level' as that cyclone. This is a massive disparity.

As said, 20-50% is doable, 100+ isn't. We got more then 1000+% disparity, which is an awful state.


I am not into quote wars and i don't think this will lead anywhere so i just want to ask you this:

What do you expect GGG to do? What do you think will happen if GGG went and nerfed all the OP skills to a "normal level" (like Moltenstrike, Tecslam or Lacerate) or even to Glacial Hammer level for a league? I tell you, there would be a massiv uproar in the community because half the people here probably couldn't even get red maps done without God Mode on.

Conversely if they lifted all the skills up to current cylcone level they would force their entire playerbase to play with god mode active and reap massive complains because the game is far too easy for many people.

Right now, by putting those discrepancys in skill power in the game they leave players the choice on how to play the game because contrary to what you seem to believe, enjoyment is actually a very subjective thing. Not everyone enjoys killing shaper in 2 seconds, not everyone is on that efficiency madness train that's running rampant here. If they removed that choice and balanced all the skills to a similar level, no matter which level, they would destroy the ability to enjoy the game for a part of the community.

What you all seem to forget is that this isn't a competetive PvP game where balance i.e similar powerlevel across different strategies is actually needed for a healthy competitive environment. This is essentially a singleplayer game and entirely uncompetitive and unlike with PvP games there are vastly different ways of playing and enjoying this game. Creating balance in terms of "everything is equal" is neither healthy nor neccessary in this case.

GGG is leaving everyone a choice on how to play the game by giving us "good" and "bad" skills. Even if they tried to align them, it wouldn't work anyway because perfect balancing in a complex game like this isn't possible and it would cause signifant amounts of colleteral damage. And ofc it would do absolutely nothing about our meta problems because the people who like efficiency will still play the best skills. To them it doesn't matter if the difference is 100% killspeed or 100000000% killspeed.


It's interesting to hear someone defend this game's current state on the basis of "balance is bad." Cheers for that; at least you're original.

Please allow me to lock onto one comment you made, not to pick at your specifics but because I think it distills the premise upon which you come to the above conclusion:

"
Baharoth15 wrote:
What you all seem to forget is that this isn't a competetive PvP game where balance i.e similar powerlevel across different strategies is actually needed for a healthy competitive environment. This is essentially a singleplayer game and entirely uncompetitive and unlike with PvP games there are vastly different ways of playing and enjoying this game. Creating balance in terms of "everything is equal" is neither healthy nor neccessary in this case.


Here are two interlinking facts which contradict your statement directly.

1. Economies are intrinsically competitive. Pretty sure we can all agree on that.

2. Path of Exile is designed and balanced around the existence and utilization of trade (i.e., economic transactions). We may not all agree on that statement, but because Chris Wilson has said it explicitly, those who disagree are simply wrong.

The issue at hand is not complicated, by any means. 1000% power differentials have a real and evident impact upon the game's economy. This, again, is something which is difficult to deny, both on the basis of common sense and on the basis of what actually happens in any given League.

The net impact of this, predictably, is exactly what this thread complains about: Most meaningful decisions regarding your choice of build are, practically speaking, invalidated by GGG's game design.

gibbousmoon
Aug 25, 2019 08:53:52 AM

"
gibbousmoon wrote:


Here are two interlinking facts which contradict your statement directly.

1. Economies are intrinsically competitive. Pretty sure we can all agree on that.

2. Path of Exile is designed and balanced around the existence and utilization of trade (i.e., economic transactions). We may not all agree on that statement, but because Chris Wilson has said it explicitly, those who disagree are simply wrong.

The issue at hand is not complicated, by any means. 1000% power differentials have a real and evident impact upon the game's economy. This, again, is something which is difficult to deny, both on the basis of common sense and on the basis of what actually happens in any given League.

The net impact of this, predictably, is exactly what this thread complains about: Most meaningful decisions regarding your choice of build are, practically speaking, invalidated by GGG's game design.


I agree with your points but not with your conclusion. Yes the most popular/powerful builds will also be the most expensive to build, that's how economy works but i don't see a problem with that. If you don't want to pay that much you can always switch to alternative builds and/or make substitutes on specific expensive gear choices that yield very similar results. The choice is there and your choice actually has consequences. In a hypothetical world where all builds are equal then it would be like in D3, your choices have no consequence what so ever. It's also worth noting that your economy Problem won't go away, even in this perfect world. Even if all builds were equally powerful, there would still be differences in popularity and they would cause the similar economic results to what we have now.

I'd also like to point out that, while Chris evidently wanted to give players the ability to trade, he also evidently didn't want trade and economy to be the cornerstone of the game. So using economy as argument to say "i am forced to play the way i play" is a slippery road at best.

/edit after giving this some more thought i think this discussion is most likely fruitless. The two of us see the game from entirely different angles. Behind all your arguments and your point of view is the inherent assumption that everyone in this game is competitive, focused on economy and efficiency. And yeah, if that was the case, if that was the (only) playerbase GGG cared about your demands would be right and reasonable. From my perspective (let everyone play the way he wants) your just plain wrong and i am glad that GGG doesn't seem to share your point of view in regards to what the playerbase wants or even that there is only one homogenous playerbase in the first place.

Baharoth15
Aug 25, 2019 10:23:44 AM

"
Baharoth15 wrote:
Yes the most popular/powerful builds will also be the most expensive to build, that's how economy works but i don't see a problem with that.

The crux of the problem is that things don't actually work that way. You can spend hundreds of exalts on a perfect heavy strike build and it will end up outperformed by a 5ex FOTM build.

In a game that has economy, cheaper should ideally never be stronger, sure, to finetune something like that you need a firm grip on the market so I'm allowing for a lot of wiggling room. But, in the general case scenario, the current state isn't happening because of lack of market control as many builds use very similar items, it's happening because different skills and archetypes can be orders of magnitude apart in efficiency.

raics
Aug 25, 2019 10:44:30 AM

"
Baharoth15 wrote:
I agree with your points but not with your conclusion. Yes the most popular/powerful builds will also be the most expensive to build, that's how economy works but i don't see a problem with that.


This is demonstrably untrue. League after League the most popular/powerful builds are in fact not the most expensive to build. It is the off-meta which is expensive.

"
If you don't want to pay that much you can always switch to alternative builds and/or make substitutes on specific expensive gear choices that yield very similar results. The choice is there and your choice actually has consequences.


"Alternative builds?" What alternative builds?

I can do what GGG tells me to and own the entire game, or I can pick one of the other 90% of builds available to me and do 10% of the damage and/or spend far more time and currency getting to the point where I can do 20-30% of the damage, and perhaps still be shat upon by the League mechanic which is balanced around the meta. (Particularly if it uses a timer.)

This is not a real choice. <-- The point of this thread.

"
In a hypothetical world where all builds are equal then it would be like in D3, your choices have no consequence what so ever.


Be careful not to lock yourself into attacking a straw man. No one here is advocating that all builds be equal, for that is impossible. As Kulze stated above (and I agree with the statement), power discrepancies of up to 50% are perfectly acceptable--though some might say even that is too much.

A 100% differential is not acceptable, imo. That is a clear indication of a failure to balance correctly.

Most players agree that a 1000% differential is also not acceptable. (Seems, er, reasonable to consider this unbalanced, I think.)

For experienced players, the current state of the game's relative skill power differential is somewhere between 1000% and 10000% (depending on who you ask).

Criticizing this state of affairs != Advocating that all skills, builds, or build archetypes be equal.

"
I'd also like to point out that, while Chris evidently wanted to give players the ability to trade, he also evidently didn't want trade and economy to be the cornerstone of the game. So using economy as argument to say "i am forced to play the way i play" is a slippery road at best.


Sure, that sounds reasonable. But it in no way equates to your statement, "PoE is not a competitive game." PoE is a competitive game, as any game which utilizes economic transactions necessarily must be.

Incidentally, my above statements hold equally true to SSF, because--surprise, surprise--the game being balanced around an extremely limited meta invalidates the build-choice decisions of all players, not just those willing to trade.


Addendum:

An "I win" button is not a real choice.
An "I lose" button is not a real choice.

This thread focuses on the latter statement. If GGG lets an overpowered build through the cracks here and there, because they didn't anticipate a mechanical interaction leading to an OP build, I for one will not blame them: PoE is fucking complex at times.

It is the willful (what else could it be?) tolerance of 90% of the game's purported build choices being utterly garbage for a given League mechanic for which I blame them.

gibbousmoon
Aug 25, 2019 10:46:21 AM

You see, both this:

"
gibbousmoon wrote:


"Alternative builds?" What alternative builds?

I can do what GGG tells me to and own the entire game, or I can pick one of the other 90% of builds available to me and do 10% of the damage and/or spend far more time and currency getting to the point where I can do 20-30% of the damage, and perhaps still be shat upon by the League mechanic which is balanced around the meta. (Particularly if it uses a timer.)

This is not a real choice. <-- The point of this thread.


and this:



"
gibbousmoon wrote:


Sure, that sounds reasonable. But it in no way equates to your statement, "PoE is not a competitive game." PoE is a competitive game, as any game which utilizes economic transactions necessarily must be.

Incidentally, my above statements hold equally true to SSF, because--surprise, surprise--the game being balanced around an extremely limited meta invalidates the build-choice decisions of all players, not just those willing to trade.



Only even apply if your focused on efficiency. To players like me it doesn't even matter how much damage the best build does in relation to my own it's of absolutely zero concern. No matter how much GGG buffs or nerfs a given build, it has close to zero effect on how i play the game.

Same for the economy. It doesn't matter how expensive a given build is or isn't, because i am using the stuff i find anyway for the most part. If i can't afford something, who cares, i either find it or play something else.

And no, your argument does not apply to SSF. In SSF the meta does not even exist. You have to do with what you have anyway. A build costing 2 ex or 20 doesn't matter for an SSF player. It's complete nonsense to say that every economic game is inherently competitive and then claim that a mode without any economy is just as competitive. Your contradicting yourself here.

The only people who's build choices are even affected by GGGs bad balance are the ones that are obsessed with being competitive, economic and efficent in a singleplayer farming game. Which is precisely why i think all your problems are simply a result of your own mentality and not inherent to the game.

I fully understand that the current state of the game causes issues for your kind of play, but doing the changes you're asking for here, would cause even bigger problems for people who don't play the way you do, up to the point of excluding them from the game. As long as you can't see or accept the fact that there are players who don't think and play the way you do there is no point arguing. Hence let's agree to disagree.

Baharoth15
Aug 25, 2019 11:48:25 AM
  • Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • Next