SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Get help with your character's gear

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, Sabindeus, majiben, lythac, Digren

SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Harmacy » Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:15 am

{I apologize if this has been covered and answered in, say, Theck's Giant Compendium o' Math)

I'm aware that neither Shield Block Rating nor Value contributes much to your survival in ICC (or on most raid bosses). I also know that SBV is a strong threat stat, but this thread is focusing entirely on the survival aspect.

I'm just curious whether, because we get 30% block from Holy Shield, SBV would be slightly more useful (or less useless, to phrase it differently) for survival.

I'm currently using http://www.wowhead.com/?item=50794 with +18 stam as my default raiding shield (for when survival/EH is an issue), and http://www.wowhead.com/?item=46963 with +81 SBV for threat, or for trash or heroics. (I haven't brought this toon into any hard modes so http://www.wowhead.com/?item=47978 is out of my reach)

Would the block value on the latter shield have enough of an impact on my survival (I'm hesitant to use the term EH in this setting) to outweigh the stam and armor on the former? Or should I stick to my current setup?

And on a more theorycrafty note, how much block value would a shield need to have in order to outweigh the 180 armor and 12 stam difference between the shields? Or should I always completely disregard block (of any sort) in regards to survival, basically treating SBV as a pure threat stat and SBR as completely worthless for raid bosses?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

(http://www.wowarmory.com/character-shee ... Tailwaggle is my armory, I did not intend for this to be a "rate my armory" which is why I didn't post it in the Gear Check thread, however if you see anything out of place here I would certainly like to know via PM or something)
Harmacy
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby bashef » Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:34 am

SBR actually has some use in Icecrown because you won't be block capped. Elsewhere it's almost certainly useless because you will likely be block capped without additional SBR. As to which is better, if you cared to you could sit down and determine the relative survival benefits of blocking slightly more often, or for slightly more, for equal ipoints' worth of each stat. I suspect it would come out roughly equal, but I might be surprised.

The key point though is that, as you said, the first shield nets you 180 armour and 12 stam too. Since most people value these stats far more than block stats, it would take a good deal more block rating or value than we're ever likely to see on a shield to persuade me to make this trade.
Image
bashef
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 12:04 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Digren » Fri Feb 26, 2010 4:12 pm

For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to ignore differences between your shields and concentrate solely on the enchants, +18 stamina versus +81 block value.

+18 stamina is about 218 health. The typical paladin in typical high-end gear has around 32% block including Holy Shield.

Consider fights where you are seriously at risk of dying due to big, heavy hits.

  1. What percentage of the incoming damage is physical and blockable?
  2. Of the physical, blockable hits, what percentage will you block?
  3. How many would you need to block to prevent the loss of health equivalent to the health you gave up?

If you give up 218 health to take 81 block value, you'd have to block around 2.7 hits to end up with the same health remaining as if you'd just started with a larger health pool. Taking into account the 32% block chance, you'd have to take 8.4 hits (on average).

When tanking a big heavy-hitting boss, how many hits does it take to kill you? It's usually 2-3, and for modern content it's never as many as 8. Hence, block value is not as good as the stamina. If bosses hit one-third as hard (or if we had three times the health), the block value would start being useful. But they don't, and we don't, so it's not.
User avatar
Digren
Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Harmacy » Fri Feb 26, 2010 5:41 pm

Well Digren if I were to make Crystal Plated Vanguard my MT shield, I would definitely put +18 stam back on it for the extra EH. But I see your point (both of you), that the armor and stamina outweigh the block stats.

Thanks both of you for your replies, I think I'll stick to my current shield setup.
Harmacy
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:46 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Khayne » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:34 am

Digren wrote:If you give up 218 health to take 81 block value, you'd have to block around 2.7 hits to end up with the same health remaining as if you'd just started with a larger health pool. Taking into account the 32% block chance, you'd have to take 8.4 hits (on average).

When tanking a big heavy-hitting boss, how many hits does it take to kill you? It's usually 2-3, and for modern content it's never as many as 8. Hence, block value is not as good as the stamina. If bosses hit one-third as hard (or if we had three times the health), the block value would start being useful. But they don't, and we don't, so it's not.


Wait, why do you count it as "need to take 8.4 hits", i mean if you dodge/parry the hit, there's no difference in hp change for neither scenario (stam or bv enchant)?

Wouldn't it be better to count on "How many unavoided hits do you need to take", as in skip the avoided ones from calculations when comparing BV to hp in the ideal "everything is blockable" scenario. In previous tier's we were block capped so if say, XT swinged at me 3 times i knew i blocked them all so i could effectively just multiply my BV by the hits it took him (3) and know that i'd allways mitigate that amount before i'd die by BV (ok, that earthquake non-withstanding), but in ICC if i had for example 50% avoidance and exactly 30% block, it'd be somewhere along lines of "I block 3/5 of non-dodged/parried/missed swings". 218/(81*(3/5)) for the how many attached hits it'd take to gain same health with BV than starting with higher hp. Result would in this math be about 4,5 hits, and this is "average", it might take still only 3, or it might be 6, or 10+ if you get bad luck on those blocks so I wouldn't use the term EH in ICC when talking BV (just as OP was hesitant to name it EH, you're correct and you shouldn't).

The conclusion is same ofc, rather use the Stam in most cases due to ICC having quite alot of unblockable damage, us not being block capped without using sub-par gear and the BV % reduction of hits being quite low (taking 4-5 swings on average to have even same hp, and being subjected to RNG when you could choose not to be).

Just questioning the method of counting the needed swings on average here.
Image
Khayne
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby theckhd » Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:53 am

It should be 8.4 "incoming attacks" rather than "hits" (since "hit" implies it wasn't avoided).

Your intuition is correct about avoided attacks being irrelevant as far as the amount of damage taken (or pseudo-EH if you prefer) is concerned. However, avoided attacks are relevant to the question of survivability, because they cost the attacker time.

As an example to highlight why time is important, let's up the avoidance to 90% and decrease block to 9% (1% chance of unblocked attack). So now it takes 218/(81*.09)= 29.9 attacks on average for that 81 block value to prevent as much damage as you can absorb with 218 health, but it only takes 3.0 unavoided attacks.

Except in this scenario, you're not very likely at all to take 3 unavoided attacks in a row (0.1% chance with 90% avoidance). Since you're likely to get healed at least every 4 or 5 attacks, the more relevant question is "which of these gives me the most chance of surviving 4 or 5 attacks. Avoidance reduces the total number of blocked attacks that fall in this window, making block value weaker than the "unavoided" metric would lead you to believe. On the other hand, what we're asking is essentially what the "incoming attacks" metric gives you. Since each avoided attack prolongs the time window of a spike scenario, the "incoming attacks" metric should more accurately reflect the relative benefit of block value and stamina.

In short, the "number of unavoided attacks taken" metric isn't all that useful. It paints BV in a much better light, but it's also a less realistic measure of its worth because it ignores the average time taken.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Digren » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:48 am

Khayne wrote:Wait, why do you count it as "need to take 8.4 hits", i mean if you dodge/parry the hit, there's no difference in hp change for neither scenario (stam or bv enchant)?

Wouldn't it be better to count on "How many unavoided hits do you need to take"

Theck probably said it in more technical terms, but, basically, your healers cannot rely on you avoiding those "incoming attacks". That's part of the fundamentals of effective health.

Each time your health is topped up, the whole process resets. The fewer attacks between either death or top-up make block value worse and worse and health relatively better and better. Fights with more than 8.4 average attacks between death or top-up should not worry any tank, and thus no tank should gear for them.* Fights with less than 8.4 average attacks between death or top-up favor the health enchant over the stamina enchant, with the stamina enchant getting stronger and stronger the fewer attacks it takes to kill the tank or top them up.


* In your progression gear. Put the block value enchant on gimmick or trash gear and go to town if you want, but that's unimportant when talking about "survival" stats.
User avatar
Digren
Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Khayne » Thu Mar 04, 2010 5:35 pm

Digren wrote:Each time your health is topped up, the whole process resets. The fewer attacks between either death or top-up make block value worse and worse and health relatively better and better. Fights with more than 8.4 average attacks between death or top-up should not worry any tank, and thus no tank should gear for them.* Fights with less than 8.4 average attacks between death or top-up favor the health enchant over the stamina enchant, with the stamina enchant getting stronger and stronger the fewer attacks it takes to kill the tank or top them up.


IF you can live allways over 2 hits, how does health being topped off to full make health relatively any better than BV, as unless you ate more than 2 attacks in row you were never in danger of dying anyway if you allways can survive 2 hits. If we however can guarantee that those all attacks are blocked and we survive 2 Minimum (block capped (we aren't in ICC) and all physical, which again in ICC is 0 fights but we're talking theory here)) i dont see any problem at just dividing your health by boss maximum hit on you to see how many hits you allways and everytime survive, and multiply that with BV to see how much hp that one would equal at Minimum, it's also possible to be healed and not be topped off (even though rare, but it was also one of points in the armor vs. hp thread on whittling down deaths, BV would have similar effect if we were still block capped, even though usually more minor than armor increases often are), but if our minimum survivability (3 swings blocked as the avoided's dont drop hp) is same, there's no loss and BV would imo be better than the health.

I still don't really agree with your stance on that 8.4 attacks, as i could just as well point out that if you're allways topped off before 3rd attack lands on you (if we know we can allways survive attleast 2 attacks), you shouldn't be worried ever anyway and could just enchant for dps or spirit for shits and giggles.
When you're being topped off before 3rd hit and hit size isn't half of your hp, you shouldn't be worried either any more than of fights where you can eat 8 attacks without dying.

theckhd wrote:As an example to highlight why time is important, let's up the avoidance to 90% and decrease block to 9% (1% chance of unblocked attack). So now it takes 218/(81*.09)= 29.9 attacks on average for that 81 block value to prevent as much damage as you can absorb with 218 health, but it only takes 3.0 unavoided attacks.

Except in this scenario, you're not very likely at all to take 3 unavoided attacks in a row (0.1% chance with 90% avoidance).


Avoidance gives just as much time for the guy with BV, as it gives for the guy with health to be topped off.

If i were to avoid 90% of attacks and block last 10%, and have 100BV and 100 hp enchants, guess how many swings your formula would claim i need to have as good survivability?

100/(100*0,1)=x
100/10=x
x=10

You don't see any problem in that claim of, "if you block all hits, you need to be attacked 10 times before you have as much survivability as having 100hp more at start"?

Yeah, you do need to be attacked 10 times On Average to save that same hp, but unless hits were connecting you didn't need it before that time anyway. That bv will save the same amount of hp allready on the first swing that does connect (start of possible spike), not to mention the 2nd and 3rd while your formula paints a picture of 100hp being vastly superior due to "how often does boss swing 10 times before you're topped off?" with no regard to fact that until that first hit does connect, you aren't in need of any healing anyway. Standing at 60100 hp has no use over standing at 60k hp if the boss is swinging at 25k damage and you know you'll save 100 damage on those swings.

Extrapolating that block value enchant to 10k BV and 100 health enchant in a 99% avoidance, 1% blocked situation, it'd rate that 10 000BV as "as good", as having 100 health against 1 single swing in manner of:
x/(10k*0.01)=1
x/100 = 1
x=100
You block every hit on you, yet 100 hp is as good as 10 000BV?

You're merely average the BV over the chance to block with no regard to the incoming damage size or the chance you do block the hit if it is a damaging (landing) attack.
I find it surprising that you actually call that as any type of "more accurate" way of seeing the survivability.

Unblockcapped, which is the real WoW/ICC now, the "Average survivability", or "pseudo-EH" as you said, would follow same math ofcourse while adding the chance to eat pure hits, but when we're Not blockcapped (all of relevant raiding content atm) the biggest reason imo to not like BV, is the fact that it just became another layer of RNG avoidance (except tons weaker) that we can be spiked past (when we dont block what is a frequent occurrance).

So regardless of "on average i survive just aswell with BV", it is irrelevant as we mostly care about the times when shit hits the fan (spikes). We aren't dying if everything is going according to plan anyway, so adding extra rng is allways bad unless they payoff was extrapolated enough (Most consider mongoose best tank enchant even though that's rng, as opposed to the pure stats enchants that give static but more minor effects)

And maybe i were kind of maybe reading into it too much, but i would like to stress i'm not saying to use the BV enchant, just expressing my opinion about the "incoming attacks" metric you're using especially for those people that aren't in ICC and thus most likely are block capped. I'm not sure how to present that weakness of rng into non-block capped reality of ICC, but i'm firmly against the "incoming attacks" metric that is given in this thread due to it showing pretty insane numbers for the simpler blockcapped situations allready.

If something doesn't walk well, i dont really trust it to run like pro either.

Also sorry for the tons of ()'s and ramblings, mean't them for extra reasonings/explanations but i went abit overboard with 'em:P
Image
Khayne
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby theckhd » Fri Mar 05, 2010 7:33 am

Khayne wrote:Avoidance gives just as much time for the guy with BV, as it gives for the guy with health to be topped off.

If i were to avoid 90% of attacks and block last 10%, and have 100BV and 100 hp enchants, guess how many swings your formula would claim i need to have as good survivability?

100/(100*0,1)=x
100/10=x
x=10

You don't see any problem in that claim of, "if you block all hits, you need to be attacked 10 times before you have as much survivability as having 100hp more at start"?

Well, no, because the math is right. If you block 10% of incoming attacks, then on average you need to take 10 attacks to get 1 block. If you assume that death happens in a short window (say 5 seconds), then what matters is how many blocked hits fall within that window. If you're block-capped, then increasing avoidance reduces the number of blocked attacks in that window.

I see your point though. While the math is correct for an average, it doesn't reflect a worst-case scenario, and you're arguing that worst-case scenarios are what matters. The worst-case math would assume you take 3-4 unavoided hits, at which point BV starts looking a lot better.

However, we're not at block cap anymore. So even if we ignore avoided attacks and look at a "worst-case" scenario, we're only going to block around 2/3 of unavoided attacks (roughly estimating at 40% avoidance, 40% block with HS up, 20% raw hit). So you'd still need to be hit 218/(82*0.667) ~ 4 times during a burst to break even. That's still fairly large.

There's also the question of whether it's fair to include block in a "worst-case scenario" at all if you're not block-capped., since it's entirely possible to not block any of the attacks that kill you.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
MATLAB 5.x, Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 5.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 7849
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Digren » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:05 pm

Khayne wrote:IF you can live allways over 2 hits, how does health being topped off to full make health relatively any better than BV, as unless you ate more than 2 attacks in row you were never in danger of dying anyway if you allways can survive 2 hits. If we however can guarantee that those all attacks are blocked and we survive 2 Minimum (block capped (we aren't in ICC) and all physical, which again in ICC is 0 fights but we're talking theory here)) i dont see any problem at just dividing your health by boss maximum hit on you to see how many hits you allways and everytime survive, and multiply that with BV to see how much hp that one would equal at Minimum, it's also possible to be healed and not be topped off (even though rare, but it was also one of points in the armor vs. hp thread on whittling down deaths, BV would have similar effect if we were still block capped, even though usually more minor than armor increases often are), but if our minimum survivability (3 swings blocked as the avoided's dont drop hp) is same, there's no loss and BV would imo be better than the health.


Restating your several assumptions:
  1. The paladin is block capped, so that worst-case scenarios include block value.
  2. The paladin is taking purely physical mitigatable damage in exactly-equal hits (i.e. from one source)
  3. Worst-case scenario is considered (i.e. every hit is a block, as opposed to a miss/parry/dodge
  4. Gear is identical except for either +18 stamina (~218 health) or +81 block value
  5. Heals to full do not occur more often than every 3 hits or so

In that scenario, then yes, after 2.7 blocked hits, your health would be exactly the same regardless of the choice of +18 stamina or +81 block value. Actually that scenario would favor the block value a little bit, because your healers would have to heal you 218 health less to get you back to full health.

However, you've set up an unrealistic set of assumptions to ensure that your predetermined outcome results. Let me give an alternative set of assumptions:
  1. The paladin has about 30% block and about 45% avoidance (i.e. not block capped by 25%)
  2. The paladin is taking some portion of physical mitigatable damage in hits that vary in size, while also taking some portion of damage that cannot be mitigated by block (such as bleeds or magic)
  3. An average death condition is considered, because in the worst case every hit would be a full hit (not a block) due to being under the block cap.
  4. Gear is identical except for either +18 stamina (~218 health) or +81 block value
  5. Heals to full still do not occur more often than every 3 hits or so

I argue that this set of circumstances represents a more realistic death scenario. Moreover, I argue that more realistic death scenarios are more important to gear for than unrealistic scenarios given the current content. A horde of gnats stinging a paladin for 500 damage a pop requires very different gear than a giant gnat stinging a paladin for 50000 damage a pop.

Under the more realistic scenario, the worst-case scenario would have every hit as an unblocked hit. Clearly in this case block value is useless and health is better. Meanwhile, in an average scenario, only 30% of incoming swings would be blocked. This reduces the benefit of block value, which only applies for 30% of typical physical mitigatable hits, whereas health benefits every hit. Moreover, the background noise of bleeds, AOE damage, etc., that cannot be blocked further reduces the value of block value, whereas health remains applicable. The cumulative effect of all of these reductions in block value's effectiveness pushes the break-even point out past the heal-to-full point, which is the sign that block value is never more effective.

In summary, I readily agree that it is possible to craft multiple situations where +81 block value is better than +18 stamina. However, in content that exists and matters, +18 stamina is always better than +81 block value.
User avatar
Digren
Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Digren » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:13 pm

If we want to come up with more theoretical death scenarios, I can come up with one where strength is better than stamina or block value for survival. However, I would not propose that any paladin main tank regear for strength so that they could mitigate this particular death scenario. Theoretical scenarios that represent corner case or nonexistent content aren't worth gearing for in a primary progression tank set.
User avatar
Digren
Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Khayne » Sat Mar 06, 2010 4:34 am

theckhd wrote:I see your point though. While the math is correct for an average, it doesn't reflect a worst-case scenario, and you're arguing that worst-case scenarios are what matters. The worst-case math would assume you take 3-4 unavoided hits, at which point BV starts looking a lot better.


The start of your post had me worried we're talking past each other but yes, that is my point. If we had 90% avoidance with current tank damage, we would pretty much never Ever die anyway if hits land in average fashion as it'd take most bosses 20 seconds to land a new attack. We'd SoL&JoL through that averages. To say the obvious, if we aren't being damaged, we ain't dying. Maybe avoidance should be considered after first swing landing (due to it at that point starting to buy time for healers to heal you), but just blanket averaging avoidance isn't going to be much use either. Not to mention healing&avoiding being just as powerful (more powerful on heals part) for the block tank, so it hardly makes "it worse and worse in comparison" as in your orginal replies.

theckhd wrote:However, we're not at block cap anymore. So even if we ignore avoided attacks and look at a "worst-case" scenario, we're only going to block around 2/3 of unavoided attacks (roughly estimating at 40% avoidance, 40% block with HS up, 20% raw hit). So you'd still need to be hit 218/(82*0.667) ~ 4 times during a burst to break even. That's still fairly large.

I agree, i have written that on my previous replies even though without numbers (the "we're not block capped, nor we being able to block all incoming attacks as many are magic, i know block is shit in ICC").

It was never my intention to say "Yo guys, try block, is awsum!", my intention was to point out that just making "on average you need to be attacked 8 times", as inaccurate assumption aswell due to it, as we'd have to also mention "Oh and half your health gains as you only are being hit every 2nd hit" if we go by averages. You dont need any hp if you avoid the attack to survive, the extra hp does no more good than extra bv does if you dodge.

Not to mention while 4 is fairly large, it's still alot better than the original 8+ that we get if we use that formula that averages avoidances into it aswell.

theckhd wrote:There's also the question of whether it's fair to include block in a "worst-case scenario" at all if you're not block-capped., since it's entirely possible to not block any of the attacks that kill you.


I wouldn't, for that "we don't block everything anymore", and some being magic. However when looking at "Average survival" i feel your formula shouldn't account for avoided hits due to them giving exact same time to the tank to be healed.

For digren, the point #5 of your "This favours your scenario", as in no healing, is actually Worse for block guy due to every heal being more for him "his hp lasts longer due to having small mitigational advantage". Also, again, My main point is not to say get BV, but that your average of 8.4 swings is not good indicator either due to reasons mentioned in earlier replies to theckhd on this post. Sorry for underlining but i've added that same line in some way on pretty much every one of my posts to this thread and seeing replies as if i'd need convincing block is shit. I know it's shit. We just disagree on how bad shit it is.

Ofcourse BV is shit against magic, ofcourse it isn't reliable against anything in ICC due to aura. I'm only arguing about your formula to give it a number. In any previous tier we were blockcapped, and there are some fights where the most significant tank damage is melee. The formula used by theckhd and you just simply averages the bv gain, with no regards that in those tiers it would have been there for every single swing. Maybe i'm crazy, but i dont buy it that it just magically becomes correct when we start to eat unblocked hits.
Image
Khayne
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Khayne » Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:10 am

Actually, thought of another way to express my point:

If we try put a value to RNG value of extra 1% dodge at 40% avoidance, we don't just think "Oh, we will take 1% less damage now", we allways think of it as "hmm, instead of 60/100 hits i now take 59/100 hits, i take 1/60 less damage".
As in, "how much do we reduce the incoming damage relative to what we took before enchant", not "how much total damage does this enchant reduce"

Block is now in ICC also rng mitigation, if we go by same logic on these mitigations, we wouldn't use the "block% * BV", we'd go "how much of the incoming (connecting) hits do we reduce".

Maybe we just have to agree to disagree on the number at the moment.
Image
Khayne
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:48 pm
Location: Finland

Re: SBR vs. SBV as survival stats

Postby Digren » Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:48 am

We agree that, for fixed DPS, the value of block increases as the swing speed increases, yes? Taking 50k DPS in the form of twenty 2.5k hits per second greatly favors +81 block value over +218 health, while taking two hits per second for 25k each favors block value less?

Where, then, do you put the crossover in each of the following conditions?
  1. Worst-case damage intake (i.e. all hits)
  2. Average-case damage intake (i.e. based on a typical hit table)
If you have a different scenario to consider, define it and explain how it applies to progression tanking right now.

I'm sorry if you stated this earlier. Some of your paragraphs are a bit large and I was having trouble following the logic.
User avatar
Digren
Moderator
 
Posts: 2139
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:41 pm


Return to Gear Discussions and Advice

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marsbubble and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: marsbubble and 1 guest