New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Warning: Theorycraft inside.

Moderators: Fridmarr, Worldie, Aergis, theckhd

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Durability » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:33 am

Personally, I'm maintaining 150k to be able to eat Arion's lightning blast (since on 10 it's fairly rare we manage to interrupt it). And of course, there are still heavy magical bosses like Nezir to consider. Certainly one can't completely abandon stamina in the name of mitigation, and the point that the scales tip depends very heavily on the content you're doing.
Durability
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2010 11:15 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby snoweagle » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:44 am

Is that 150k unbuffed or buffed?

Regarding content being done, lets set the scale to "available content", or at least normal or heroic, as one will have to eventually encounter the highest health fight. If that fight really can be covered by swapping in trinkets instead of re-gemming then I think that has rather a large impact on overall gemming goals, assuming people don't re-gem per encounter.
User avatar
snoweagle
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 3:25 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby theckhd » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:19 am

snoweagle wrote:
Now that I have around 190k health fully-buffed


I'm curious as to what makes 190k the turning point. Obviously it's your chosen spike buffer, but I'm interested in how you arrived at that number specifically...


Well, this for starters:
[23:25:08.724] Roflalot Beacon of Light Theck +0 (O: 5817)
[23:25:08.944] Onyxia hits Theck 30612
[23:25:09.119] Theck hits Onyxia 2461
[23:25:09.542] Theck Seal of Insight Theck +3962
[23:25:10.389] Theck Crusader Strike Onyxia 8682
[23:25:10.761] Theck Seal of Insight Theck +4126
[23:25:10.848] Onyxia Shadowflame Breath Theck 22050 (R: 10500)
[23:25:11.347] Nefarian's Lightning Machine Electrocute Theck 94773
[23:25:11.347] Onyxia Shadowflame Breath Theck 28350 (R: 3500)
[23:25:11.440] Theck hits Onyxia 3471
[23:25:11.539] Theck Avalanche Onyxia 510
[23:25:11.868] Onyxia Shadowflame Breath Theck 11674 (O: 13526, R: 7000)
[23:25:11.982] Theck dies


Now, admittedly, I should have been running a cooldown and wasn't; that's the hazard of raiding while sleepy. But the last few wipes before our kill last night all involved me dying to Electrocute + melee while kiting adds. For our kill, I finally managed to juggle cooldowns properly to handle each electrocute while not screwing up pathing badly enough to have as many mobs meleeing me during that period. Healer mana was never an issue, but spike damage was, and a good chunk of it was always magical damage due to Electrocute. Even with a 20% cooldown running, Electrocute can be dangerous if the healer hasn't had time to top me off.

Note that we also didn't have a priest, so I was only sitting at around 180k, I think. Fully raid-buffed I think I'm at around 187k. Other than this fight, that seems to be more than enough to prevent spike deaths on normal modes, which is why I'm considering shifting more stamina to mastery (either through trinkets, gemming, or both). So 190k isn't some sort of target, it's just a value that I've empirically determined is "enough" for normal mode fights, given my usual healers.

Whether it's still enough for heroic modes is an open question, which I hope to be answering soon. It's also worth noting that my gearing insight might be skewed a bit, for a few reasons:
  • The "main tank" and raid leader is prot/holy, and I'm prot/ret. So on one-tank fights, I normally end up going off-spec. Thus, I don't tank Magmaw, Val/Ther, Atramedes.
  • I often take the more annoying tanking jobs, which usually means "pick up and tank the adds." So I often fill an off-tank role, which means there are certain bosses I usually don't tank (Nef, Maloriak, Arion/Ignacius, Al'Akir)
That said, there are still a decent number of tank swap fights, and the other tank has similar gear and gemming choices. So I assume my insight isn't too skewed, since he doesn't die too much.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Sparan » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:33 am

It's significant to point at that there are no encounters present in Cata raiding (that I've encountered thus far, anyhow), that pose a serious threat to tanks through burst magic damage where that magic damage isn't both predictable and infrequent enough to allow for cooldown usage. Here are a couple anecdotes from what I assume will be some of the harder-hitting magic damage encounters:

-On HM CoW, North platform tanking involves fairly regular and intense magic damage intake. Myself and a bear druid were juggling North and West swapping sides immediately before the bosses' focus reached max each time. This means that the number of stacks incurred on north became pretty obscene, and Permafrost posed a serious threat. Fortunately, on this encounter pallies are completely OP since we have the option to bubble off the stacks of the frost debuff and 3 separate pure mitigation cds, including a 1 minute 40% magic damage reduction. In comparison to our bear tank my damage taken and the threat posed to me on North was significantly reduced, however, I was gibbed much more often than he was on West following the focus reset by the boss's melee swings. I chalk it to bad avoidance RNG, mostly, but the point is that unblocked hits translate into 2 shots with GAK up should give one pause.

-On HM Maloriak he has an added phase (black phase) where he basically spams a 7 second conal breath at your tank. The same bear tank was getting repeat gibbed after burning all of his CDs on this phase before we decided to swap around some tanking assignments so that I could sit on the boss. I had absolutely no troubles handling breaths with ~153k unbuffed HP and full mastery gemming. I used TB Trink -> glyphed Divine Prot -> Pain Sup -> 4-piece modified GAK (spanning 2 breaths) -> TB Trink -> glyphed Divine Prot, and was able to pocket my AD for another very useful pally-hax later on in the fight.

So, assuming those are demonstrative of the worst magic damage scenarios that T11 has to throw at us, I continue to feel very confident that stacking toward block cap and gemming for mastery as much as possible is the best option.
Sparan
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 9:37 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Wratihsavior » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:12 am

I'd like to chime in here as I play both healing roles and tanking roles on multiple class.

In the many... many... many... heroics I've been running on my resto druid here is what I have found;

Stam tanks (stacking stam)- Eat hard hits but with the large health pools can be topped up with a little more grace time for the longer cast times of current spells however they eat a ton of mana and require constant spamming of heals making it extremely hard to heal group damage without letting the tank die or come dangerously close to death. OOM can also be a problem for healers that are not overgeared for the encounter. Long and short of it is this style of gemming/chanting creates tank survivability at the cost of the rest of the group.

Avoidance tanks (stacking Mastery/Dodge/Parry)- Take far less damage and thus require less large heals during regular moments of a fight only needing the occasional top up when spike damage hits. This conserves a healers mana pool for those "oops" moments which can happen to everyone in the group at anytime. Gemming/Chanting this way however requires the tank to be more cautious with his survivability CDs and can be a bit more intensive for the tank's gameplay. Having 3 damage reduction abilities (and as of patch 4.0.6 a 4th for Dwarves) would seem to suggest however that this is the intended method Blizzard is looking for Pally tanks.

Both methods require WoG to be used to help ease the healer's job.

I've tried both methods myself on my pally tank and I've noticed a huge difference between them. Most high damage moves can be avoided and the ones that can't be are meant for a CD to be used versus "I'll just eat it and let the healer worry about it".

The reason I speak to heroics and not raids currently is that the majority of the people are not geared to run raids, though they still try, and heroics are what people are needing to worry about the most right now. The information should translate over to the raid environments however.

That's my take on the situation.
Wratihsavior
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:55 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby theckhd » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:25 am

Wratihsavior wrote:The reason I speak to heroics and not raids currently is that the majority of the people are not geared to run raids, though they still try, and heroics are what people are needing to worry about the most right now. The information should translate over to the raid environments however.


We've already had this conversation earlier in the thread. Heroics are a fairly useless benchmark as far as gem theory goes. A moderately competent group that uses CC intelligently and doesn't stand in fire can clear heroics very easily in level-appropriate gear (i.e. 333 blues and greens). Your gemming choices are irrelevant from the point of view of heroics, because you could gem INT in every slot and still succeed if you play properly.

You base a theory of gemming around the hardest content, which is going to be progression raiding encounters.

Or to put it bluntly (again), "Nobody gives a shit about server-first heroic Deadmines."
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Wratihsavior » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:41 am

That doesn't make the experience of healing in general less valid nor the experience of tanking in both style sets. Less damage is less damage no matter how you look at it.

It also doesn't change the mentality that stam tanking creates a more difficult overall environment for the healers to deal with raid damage and the "oops" moments that everyone can have, not just the tanks. There is a line that has to be drawn where mitigating the damage vs eat it and heal it becomes a factor. You talk about 190k health pools then link that shows a hit for 94k, which you eventually mitigate via CD. I'm going to assume it was the 50% reduction versus the 20% damage reductions.

What I am trying to say is this; People are using this site and a couple others as a bench mark in there gearing choices for both raiding and progression TO raiding. The issue comes where the other people in the groups are choosing a gearing style that may suit a specific set of raid encounters (mostly magic damage for example) versus something with AoE damage and physical damage that could have been mitigated.

The argument I'm trying to make is not one to discredit the validity of stam stacking as a concept but the viability of avoidance tanking as an option for those not running with fully raid geared healers who can treat this like WotLK never went away.

Edit: as I understand what is written in http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1550772#blog it would seem that they want us to worry less about the primary stats like stam and focus more on the secondaries to make our jobs easier. Stacking stam seems to go against that ideal as far as I can understand it. Though the blog does leave a lot of room for translation.
Wratihsavior
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:55 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Meloree » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:51 am

Wratihsavior wrote:That doesn't make the experience of healing in general less valid nor the experience of tanking in both style sets. Less damage is less damage no matter how you look at it.

It also doesn't change the mentality that stam tanking creates a more difficult overall environment for the healers to deal with raid damage and the "oops" moments that everyone can have, not just the tanks.


I'm going to take a swing at this one, again. For whatever reason, this doesn't seem to be trivially obvious to people, but it's important and worth understanding. In an environment where a healers choice is between efficient and inefficient, stamina is a mana conservation statistic, and "stamina stacking" does not equal "mana sponge". Is it as efficient as avoidance at saving mana? Depends on the encounter and the healer, and the quantities in question - sometimes it's more efficient than avoidance at reducing mana spent on the tank, in more than just edge-cases. Your experience, Wratisaviour, is noted, but it's anecdotal thus far, and you haven't provided enough data for us to really evaluate what you mean by stamina-stacking or avoidance stacking.

My own experience in heroic 5-mans is immaterial to the discussion, or I'd share - I either undergeared them (using primarily 277 raid gear), or overgeared the hell out of them, I never really did them "at level". However, you can't support the statement that stam tanking creates a more difficult overall environment for the healers to deal with in a raid - many healers would argue the opposite, and it doesn't follow directly from your experience in heroics, either.

I'll admit, my current bias is towards the stamina side. I don't have enough evidence or experience to support that point of view, nor will I recommend it until I do, but I gem stamina in blue, and hybrids in yellow/red, and I wear dual-stam trinkets as my default setup for a new boss, and adjust from there accordingly.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Njall » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:55 am

The thing is, if you reduce the amount of healing required, you are conserving mana. The size of your health pool, aside from basic survivability, has no influence on the amount of healing you require or how big a drain healing you will be on the healer's mana - the exception to this being over-healing, of course.

The only way to reduce the mana expenditure is to reduce the amount of healing required or reduce the length of the fight. That's either going to be increased mitigation/avoidance/CDs or ramping up threat to let the DPS go hog wild.

At least, that's the way I see it. It seems mathematically obvious.
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Meloree » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:03 pm

Njall wrote:The thing is, if you reduce the amount of healing required, you are conserving mana. The size of your health pool, aside from basic survivability, has no influence on the amount of healing you require or how big a drain healing you will be on the healer's mana - the exception to this being over-healing, of course.

The only way to reduce the mana expenditure is to reduce the amount of healing required or reduce the length of the fight. That's either going to be increased mitigation/avoidance/CDs or ramping up threat to let the DPS go hog wild.

At least, that's the way I see it. It seems mathematically obvious.


You completely missed it. Which is probably my failure to communicate (Strike one for Meloree), so I'll rephrase.

Increased health pools allow for increased reaction time allows for more appropriate spell choices allows for prioritizing efficiency. Conversely smaller health pools require faster reactions to return tank to safe health level requires fast and inefficient healing increasing mana spent.

In other words, the amount of healing required multiplied by the effective hpm of that healing results in the mana spent healing. Stamina can improve the effective hpm part of that. It seems mathematically obvious :P (Sorry, you deserved that).
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Njall » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:08 pm

Meloree wrote:
Increased health pools allow for increased reaction time allows for more appropriate spell choices allows for prioritizing efficiency. Conversely smaller health pools require faster reactions to return tank to safe health level requires fast and inefficient healing increasing mana spent.

In other words, the amount of healing required multiplied by the effective hpm of that healing results in the mana spent healing. Stamina can improve the effective hpm part of that. It seems mathematically obvious :P (Sorry, you deserved that).


Mm. True.

I think I said some of that. So long as your health pool is sufficiently large, you are allowing the healer better opportunity to use less mana intensive methods. However, this doesn't help with actual expenditure and amount healed - aside from reducing overheals. I'd consider my avoidance first, at least to the point of some level of diminishing returns, and worry about stamina second.
Image
Flight to Peru: £1000
Camping gear: £200
Native guide: £50
Sledgehammer to break down stone door: £12.99
Awakening one of the Great Old Ones: priceless.

There are some things man was not meant to know. For everything else,
there's Mastercard.
User avatar
Njall
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 4328
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:13 pm
Location: Thank heavens! Heavy Metal!

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Kelaan » Tue Jan 11, 2011 12:11 pm

The only way to reduce the mana expenditure is to reduce the amount of healing required or reduce the length of the fight.

I think that they were saying that if you have a longer window before death due to more EH (e.g., 6 hits to kill you instead of 5), healers can use a slower, more conservative heal rather than their Holy Shit Emergency button to heal you. Same goes if the Large Fire Breath leaves you with 40k health instead of 20k health, because you're not likely to get gibbed on the next swing.

If they can heal you with two Holy Lights instead of having to FoL or use other more expensive heals (probably a bad example, as I don't heal), it's less mana spent. Lower HPS, but much more sustainable.

I'm not sure what the breakpoints are for this on any given boss, but a larger pool of health gives healers more room to react to damage, especially if they are currently casting something on a raid member or are in the middle of an efficient heal. I recognize that such breakpoints exist ... I'm just not sure that I can reach one by changing my gemming strategy. Thanks for the reminder of double stamina trinkets, though -- I've been wearing mastery/crab and had forgotten I had a stam trinket.
User avatar
Kelaan
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:01 pm

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby theckhd » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:36 pm

Wratihsavior wrote:That doesn't make the experience of healing in general less valid nor the experience of tanking in both style sets. Less damage is less damage no matter how you look at it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "valid." If you mean, "this is good advice for tanks working on heroics," then sure, it's "valid." It's also irrelevant to end-game tanking, because the damage models are completely different. You're not taking 60k hits in heroics, you're taking a bunch of small 10-20k hits from multiple mobs. That sort of distinction is pretty important when you start considering what the tank failure modes of an encounter are.

I don't think it's worth spending much time dwelling on heroics. We already have a rough estimate of the "comfortable" EH thresholds, and beyond that it's very clear that stacking mastery and avoidance is very strong. Everything you could possibly want to know about how to gear for heroics is already covered in depth in the gear forum by Digren, yappo, and others. There really isn't much more to say about it, and it's certainly not worth trying to generalize that advice to the completely different environment we see in raids.

Wratihsavior wrote:You talk about 190k health pools then link that shows a hit for 94k, which you eventually mitigate via CD. I'm going to assume it was the 50% reduction versus the 20% damage reductions.


Did you miss the 30k melee and 96k shadowflame damage that accompanied that 90k nature strike within a 3-second period? I bolded them for emphasis for a reason.

A 20% cooldown is all I usually run for that if I'm at full health. And to be fair, not every Electrocute will be accompanied by a Shadowflame, but that was a "worst-case" scenario that actually happened to me.


Wratihsavior wrote:People are using this site and a couple others as a bench mark in there gearing choices for both raiding and progression TO raiding.


Right, but the point is that they're very different environments. You don't need to optimize your gear down to the very last gem to complete heroics. Many of us went in and cleared them in unenchanted, ungemmed leveling blues and greens. Heroics are not generally harsh gear checks, they are execution checks. They test whether you can learn, understand, and react to boss mechanics, play well in the "new" environment that rewards careful use of crowd control and focus-firing a marked target, and not stand in the fire.

If you pug a lot, you're likely to get stuck with players that don't play well. It's still not worth optimizing your gear to that level for them, though. Gemming avoidance, stamina, or mastery will not save you from death when the idiot hunter pulls 3 packs and breaks all of the crowd control. What will save you is playing well; using cooldowns, stuns, snaring and kiting, and other tricks to help reduce damage taken. You can't gear for that. You just have to learn through doing.

Someone just looking to get quick gem advice for heroics doesn't need a "Grand Unified Theory of Gemming." They need to go to the Gear forum, where there are already two or three excellent threads discussing your options and the trade-offs. Gemming for heroics is not "Advanced Theorycraft," because it's not worth analyzing in that depth.

I'm sorry if I'm being inflammatory with my "server-first Heroic Deadmines" comment, maybe Knaughty is rubbing off on me. But until people stop suggesting that their experience tanking heroics is somehow relevant to end-game gemming, I'm going to keep repeating it.

Wratihsavior wrote:The argument I'm trying to make is not one to discredit the validity of stam stacking as a concept but the viability of avoidance tanking as an option for those not running with fully raid geared healers who can treat this like WotLK never went away.

Nobody here is advocating simple stam stacking. Especially not me. However, you don't have to be "treating this like WotLK never went away" to note that 180k magical damage spikes (90, nature, 90k shadow) are not particularly strong situations to argue for stacking avoidance. And the early reports are that there are several similar situations in hard-mode encounters.

Wratihsavior wrote:Edit: as I understand what is written in http://us.battle.net/wow/en/blog/1550772#blog it would seem that they want us to worry less about the primary stats like stam and focus more on the secondaries to make our jobs easier. Stacking stam seems to go against that ideal as far as I can understand it. Though the blog does leave a lot of room for translation.

As much as I appreciate the feedback Ghostcrawler gives, I don't care what he thinks we should worry about. He's a game designer, and I'm sure he knows what he thinks we should be doing based on his design. But what works in practice is not always consistent with his goals.

For example, he thinks tank threat is in a good place, while any intelligent tank in a top-1000 guild can tell you threat is a joke. If threat is in a good place, why are we all shedding as much hit and expertise as we can, using SoI and WoG, and still holding aggro with Judgement, Crusader Strike, and auto-attacks? If we could reforge Strength to avoidance, most of us probably would at this point, simply because Vengeance is completely broken to the point that threat doesn't matter.

Until his opinions match up better with what the game mechanics are actually encouraging, I wouldn't try to base an argument on them.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby theckhd » Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:45 pm

Njall wrote:
Meloree wrote:In other words, the amount of healing required multiplied by the effective hpm of that healing results in the mana spent healing. Stamina can improve the effective hpm part of that. It seems mathematically obvious :P (Sorry, you deserved that).

So long as your health pool is sufficiently large, you are allowing the healer better opportunity to use less mana intensive methods. However, this doesn't help with actual expenditure and amount healed - aside from reducing overheals.


It does, provided by "actual expenditure" you mean mana.

(Healing Required)*(Large HPM due to slow, efficient heals) < (Healing Required)*(Small HPM due to fast, inefficient heals)

The actual mana expenditure is going to much higher if the healer has to resort to fast, "Oh Shit" heals. The argument is that this happens more often if your health is lower, because you're capable of dying to a shorter string of unavoided hits. Healers are not robots, they can and will react to a perceived "panic" situation by boosting their HPS at the cost of mana efficiency.
"Theck, Bringer of Numbers and Pounding Headaches," courtesy of Grehn|Skipjack.
Simcraft 6.x, Call to Arms 6.0, Talent Spec & Glyph Guide 6.x, Blog: Sacred Duty
User avatar
theckhd
Moderator
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 3:06 pm
Location: Harrisburg, PA

Re: New Theory of Gemming - Stamina vs. Mastery

Postby Meloree » Tue Jan 11, 2011 2:13 pm

Njall wrote:I think I said some of that. So long as your health pool is sufficiently large, you are allowing the healer better opportunity to use less mana intensive methods. However, this doesn't help with actual expenditure and amount healed - aside from reducing overheals. I'd consider my avoidance first, at least to the point of some level of diminishing returns, and worry about stamina second.


Strike two for me - you didn't say any of what you quoted from me, you in fact said exactly the opposite. I have failed, once more, to communicate effectively.

The equation for the amount of mana required to heal a tank over the course of an encounter boils down to:
Healing Required * Average Mana per health restored.

You can reduce the average mana per health by using efficient heals - low MpH, or conversely high HpM. These heals are typically not "fast". By increasing the reaction time available, the Average mana per health restored can be decreased. Thus, even if the healing required is higher, if the MpH is lower by a greater margin, then less mana is spent to heal the tank with a larger healthpool.

This "reaction time" is primarily dependant on healthpool and expected hit size. Therefore, this helps with "Actual mana expenditure".

In any given situation, avoidance may trump stamina as a mana saving statistic. I have in no way stated that stamina is a SUPERIOR mana saving statistic. It shouldn't be ignored or dismissed in this discussion, either.
Meloree
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1420
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2008 10:15 am

PreviousNext

Return to Advanced Theorycraft and Calculations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 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: No registered users and 1 guest