Broken MMR penalizes players for progress

Phumade

NeonBlue said:

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?p

pretty even battle really. slight edge to the 5*. The 5* has a huge advantage in match damage. but the 4* has the benefit of 5 covers in his powers. With the right boosts/tu. the 4* might actually be a slight favorite depending on the char. Honestly, the better question is 3 1 cover 255 5* vs 3 13 cover 4* at 255. In that battle, I think the 3 4* have the advantage over the 3 5*. Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that an experienced high level pvp player would have no problems beating 3 1 cover 5* with 3 synergized 13 cover 4* softcapped at 255.

According to the game, they are equal, since the game only considers levels when factoring in MMR.

According to...impact on a team, obviously the 13-cover 4* wins.

Even a champed 3* at 166 beats a single cover 5*, since abilities and synergy account for so much of this game.

Its a really close battle.  I think it depends on which 5* and what cover he has.  plus he has access to a tu library.  Head to head I think it comes down to the experience of hte player,  how well he picked his tus and the board.

If you gave me BB wtih 1 black cover, I'd stack 2 gambit purple tus and feel like I'm actually the strong favorite in a head to head battle.

I take you up on the 3* battle any day of the week.

but in a 3 char team battle,  I would give a decisive edge to the 4* and a good advantage to the 3* for the reasons you mentioned.

NeonBlue

Phumade said:

NeonBlue said:

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?p

pretty even battle really. slight edge to the 5*. The 5* has a huge advantage in match damage. but the 4* has the benefit of 5 covers in his powers. With the right boosts/tu. the 4* might actually be a slight favorite depending on the char. Honestly, the better question is 3 1 cover 255 5* vs 3 13 cover 4* at 255. In that battle, I think the 3 4* have the advantage over the 3 5*. Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that an experienced high level pvp player would have no problems beating 3 1 cover 5* with 3 synergized 13 cover 4* softcapped at 255.

According to the game, they are equal, since the game only considers levels when factoring in MMR.

According to...impact on a team, obviously the 13-cover 4* wins.

Even a champed 3* at 166 beats a single cover 5*, since abilities and synergy account for so much of this game.

Its a really close battle.  I think it depends on which 5* and what cover he has.  plus he has access to a tu library.  Head to head I think it comes down to the experience of hte player,  how well he picked his tus and the board.

If you gave me BB wtih 1 black cover, I'd stack 2 gambit purple tus and feel like I'm actually the strong favorite in a head to head battle.

I take you up on the 3* battle any day of the week.

but in a 3 char team battle,  I would give a decisive edge to the 4* and a good advantage to the 3* for the reasons you mentioned.

Yeah, but you only 1v1 in Clash. Everywhere else, you're slotting them into a team.

Phumade

NeonBlue said:

Phumade said:

NeonBlue said:

Question: 

is a 1 cover lv 255 5* on par w a lv 255 13 cover unchamped 4*?

if not, why does mmr treat them as if they were equals?p

pretty even battle really. slight edge to the 5*. The 5* has a huge advantage in match damage. but the 4* has the benefit of 5 covers in his powers. With the right boosts/tu. the 4* might actually be a slight favorite depending on the char. Honestly, the better question is 3 1 cover 255 5* vs 3 13 cover 4* at 255. In that battle, I think the 3 4* have the advantage over the 3 5*. Perhaps the more accurate way to say it is that an experienced high level pvp player would have no problems beating 3 1 cover 5* with 3 synergized 13 cover 4* softcapped at 255.

According to the game, they are equal, since the game only considers levels when factoring in MMR.

According to...impact on a team, obviously the 13-cover 4* wins.

Even a champed 3* at 166 beats a single cover 5*, since abilities and synergy account for so much of this game.

Its a really close battle.  I think it depends on which 5* and what cover he has.  plus he has access to a tu library.  Head to head I think it comes down to the experience of hte player,  how well he picked his tus and the board.

If you gave me BB wtih 1 black cover, I'd stack 2 gambit purple tus and feel like I'm actually the strong favorite in a head to head battle.

I take you up on the 3* battle any day of the week.

but in a 3 char team battle,  I would give a decisive edge to the 4* and a good advantage to the 3* for the reasons you mentioned.

Yeah, but you only 1v1 in Clash. Everywhere else, you're slotting them into a team.

I don't think the AI is smart enough to consider relative synergies.  I.e. the mmr looks at absolutes like level and tier, not color combinations and damage/ap rates.

In that context, I'm sure the devs just programmed it to look at total levels and not evalute it in terms of synergy or speed.

Daredevil217

Lystrata said:

Jwallyr said:

TL,DR version: MMR penalizes players in Versus mode for improving their roster, while Story mode gives players control to experience higher difficulties gradually as their roster improves.


...Then I tried to play the Eye For An Eye versus match, and apparently due to having a single (one) (1) champed 4* character (Rogue) along with a number of one-cover/non-leveled 5stars has bumped my MMR up where I am CONSTANTLY being matched against full-4*-champed teams, often boosted/champed 4stars in that event. Literally 24 hours prior, I was being matched against 3star champion teams, so with no change to my activity in Versus. I have heard discussions of a hidden MMR and its effect on players, but I figured that surely the single champed 4star wouldn't suddenly demolish any chances I have of playing predominantly 3* teams with maybe other 3*/3*/4* teams like mine would be, right? HA.

It might help to think about it in terms of 'ponds'. Or groups. Whatever. 

Before, with just your 3* champed roster, you were the big fish in the small pond. There were quite likely 2* players with one 3* champed, wondering how to beat your 3/3/3* champed teams (in fact, I know there would be, since that's roughly where my second account is at now).

Then, you added a four star into the mix, and you outgrew that pond. So you got pushed into the next pond. So now you're in the position of those 2/2/3 teams facing 3/3/3 teams. Except you're 3/3/4 facing 4/4/4.

PvP doesn't 'punish' you so much for improving your roster, but move you up into the next level of difficulty. If you happen to be at the lowest rung in that level of difficulty, then yeah. It sucks. You've gone from the easy pond, where you were the big fish, into the hard pond, where you're the small fish fighting the big fish.

Basically, as your roster improves, at some point you need to stop seeing the same teams you were seeing, and start seeing other teams in the next 'pond' of difficulty. Of course this just looks like 'Hey, I was previously fighting on level teams, then I changed one character and my whole game got thrown sideways'. Sure, it sucks when you jump ponds, but it needs to happen. Otherwise 5/5/5 teams would still be able to crush 2/2/2 teams. Which would be absurd. 

We all know it's difficult when you move up in the PvP world. And really, as whiny as this place can be, it's also super helpful. People are trying to give you suggestions, explanations, feedback. They're also trying to work out exactly when your problems with matching occur, which would help to provide even more feedback and help. But you've literally said you aren't asking for help, you just want to write about how bad it is. So... great. Now you're just another complainer. Way to go.

Was coming to post almost this exact same thing. Both in terms of the pond analogy and the complaining/bad attitude. 

One thing I’d add is a counter to the idea you get punished for leveling up. Going deep in the 3* tier allows you to hit 575 easily, 4s allow you to hit 900 easily and 5s will help you hit 1200. That’s measurable progress that comes from leveling up.  Of course it’s going to be hard when you have one character to choose from instead of 40+. 

Another thing is is having the “wrong” characters champed (Rogue is definitely not a wrong choice as she’s easily T10). If I were about to spend 100 on a game I for sure would be looking at character ranking lists to see more or less the characters I should focus on dedicating my hard earned resources to.  Idid this for every tier I transitioned to. 

Sabaton74

After selling off some soft leveled 3cover 2color 5*s my (4)4* champs started seeing evenly matched teams again. Decided not gonna miss starlord and hulk after all. Thinking about selling 5kingpin and black suit spidey too now. That'll make my 4 champs highest rated in the roster. Just gotta find those covers again... buncha 5s I havent leveled... after I heard and experienced the dread mmr calculations, wish I'd have rolled them back sooner coulda saved a couple covers.

ursopro

Holy necro bump, Batman!

bluewolf

ursopro said:

Holy necro bump, Batman!

Seriously....

@Sabaton74

It sure seems like a lot of your comments are on very old threads......

If you are interested in a topic that isn't fairly current (a month, maybe) it's usually best to create a new thread since the game does change.

Xair

ty for reviving this thread, i didn't realize that mmr operated this way, and from pretty much the start of the game i have been leveling my favorite 5*, thus making my pve experience better but my pvp experience much worse. finally it is too late for me to even consider selling my 5* because i relay on them so much. but it did cause me to play less pvp and more pve. 
reading this thread now really helped me to understand more clearly things i only guessed from how the game reacted to my leveling 5*. 
i have partially leveled  5* that are harmful in pvp but useful in pve because of chars like america chavez, and the buffed 5* char. 
in retrospect though i think i like pve more, and i enjoy having the buffed 5* pulling its weight, rather being stronger in pvp by facing better matched opponents.
what i am trying to say is fixing the mmr would do more to the game than telling player not to level their 5*. 

bluewolf

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

jp1

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Bowgentle

jp1 said:

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Without the people in LINE rooms building points, nobody would break 1200, ever.

Points trickle down, see S2 for what happens if there is nothing to trickle down.

jp1

Bowgentle said:

jp1 said:

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Without the people in LINE rooms building points, nobody would break 1200, ever.

Points trickle down, see S2 for what happens if there is nothing to trickle down.

Perhaps. I do wonder though if better engagement might change that. If changes made PVP more enticing for the masses, don’t you think they would bring an influx of points as well?

With the amount of players MPQ claims to have, PVP engagement is abysmal. There must be a flaw in a system that’s designed in such a way that most people don’t want to use it.

I play solo, and generally do alright. I definitely can empathize with those who don’t even want to go through the trouble though. I don’t have much fun with PVP...I only play for the resources. That’s not a great thing for me personally. Being a game, it should be designed so you are having fun while playing both halves.

Bowgentle

jp1 said:

Bowgentle said:

jp1 said:

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Without the people in LINE rooms building points, nobody would break 1200, ever.

Points trickle down, see S2 for what happens if there is nothing to trickle down.

Perhaps. I do wonder though if better engagement might change that. If changes made PVP more enticing for the masses, don’t you think they would bring an influx of points as well?

No.

Because 99% of players don't understand how points are built, and don't want to shield, so points would stay at the break even point, which is 1K, give or take.

HoundofShadow

Isn't that better rather than having to score 2XXX points for top 10? Back when I was playing in SCL 6, I was able to hit top 1 (8xx points) without any coordination. Points were organic.

Now, even when I hit 10xx points in SCL 9, it's usually a top 50. 

Bowgentle

HoundofShadow said:

Isn't that better rather than having to score 2XXX points for top 10? Back when I was playing in SCL 6, I was able to hit top 1 (8xx points) without any coordination. Points were organic.

Now, even when I hit 10xx points in SCL 9, it's usually a top 50. 

Don't play S1, then.

Go play S2, see how you like those lower score.
Hint: You still won't make T10.

Go to S1 for the easiest 1200 imaginable and forget placement.
There's slices for placement, but not 1200.

For most people 1200 >>>> placement.

bluewolf

The point system is built in such a way that players are able to move up the progression ladder with a lot of short steps/goals up until the big jump from 1000-1200.

This is not an accident.

For the majority of players who decide to play PVP, hitting 900, maybe 1000 is their goal.  Then most decide to stop, since the gap is by design going to force you to shield and hop to 1200 most of the time.  The people who are motivated enough to climb to 1200 are a minority due to difficulty and cost (HP).  Because most players stop playing and freefall or maybe shield out around 950, finding higher players will require a lot more time, skipping of opponents etc to find players out to hit.

It's probably worth considering that PVP is also meant to make you feel a direct desire to improve your roster.  Since it was not built around live play (which is good) it is and always has been mostly a roster measurement device.

So in other words, feeling like you can't succeed is part of its purpose.  Then you then might turn around and go spend some money and try to improve your roster, or keep playing at the bare minimum to see if you can catch up.

It's a tricky balancing act that the devs are playing here.  If they make it too hard to find equivalent rosters you would quickly give up, and many do.  If it's too easy and you can achieve high levels of success with your current roster you feel less motivated to keep improving.

So PVP should feel just frustrating enough.

The other issue of course is that PVP is often a match against player rosters that are of equal strength - aka some of the harder matches you'll play, in general, in the game.  PVE is a grind with lots of fairly easy matches (some need just a few seconds of play) but PVP matches are more time intensive, you are more likely to lose, and that also drives players away.

fmftint

Bowgentle said:

jp1 said:

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Without the people in LINE rooms building points, nobody would break 1200, ever.

Points trickle down, see S2 for what happens if there is nothing to trickle down.

On the other hand no one NEEDS 1200 when you can go 75 wins

bluewolf

fmftint said:

Bowgentle said:

jp1 said:

bluewolf said:

The MMR is the MMR.  The game is too far along to do much to change it.

It is very unfortunate that it is so hard to get info on how to level your characters and not negatively impact your PVP experience.

I agree it is basically a broken system when the game is in a real sense punishing you for leveling characters in an environment where dilution is so bad and where character quality can vary so dramatically.

I have seen rosters where their only champed 4 is Dino or Howard since they are the easiest covers to reliably get.  Imagine those players trying PVP.

Over on the subreddit there is a player wondering if they should champ their only covered 5's, Strange and Carol.  What a bad experience PVP would become for a player that did that.

I have always been of the opinion that while a meta is expected, it is extremely disappointing - almost inexcusable - for the developers to release sub-par 5's.  These characters are supposed to represent the top of the game, and while most players who are at the point of champing them will probably be pretty informed about which ones to champ or not, it should be possible to champ any one of them and do pretty well in the game.   Similarly, leveling them shouldn't be a dramatic decision that requires careful thought about how it impacts your gameplay in a positive vs negative way.

Finally, one of the big problems with PVP is lack of engagement, which I am sure continues to this day despite wins making it a little more accessible.  MMR functions best when there are a wide variety of teams to encounter and some of the issues, like finding appropriate opponents, would be less of a problem with more players.

I think this is an issue with the way things are set up. The PVP portion is so inaccessible with the “in” crowd always having an advantage. Not everyone has a lifestyle that allows them to sit around in Line rooms at specific times of day or is even willing to do that.

MMR is no help either. Matching you far outside of your actual roster strength. PVP is much more of a grind than PVE and that’s what people dislike in my opinion.

Without the people in LINE rooms building points, nobody would break 1200, ever.

Points trickle down, see S2 for what happens if there is nothing to trickle down.

On the other hand no one NEEDS 1200 when you can go 75 wins

It all depends on how you value your time.

The gap between 900 and 1200 is a pain but bridgeable with effort and playing the right matches (somewhere around 10, I often finish around 32 total when I hit 1200).

Grinding out 35 more wins is basically double the effort, feels horrible to me, takes forever.  I have done 75 in a few lately and hate it so much.

But that's the point!  To make the top prize so hard to get that most people don't.  And to make hopping (AKA using resources beyond your time) look more appealing in comparison.

Phumade

Each approach 75 wins or 1200 points just requires different strategies to execute well.  Both are equally straightforward but you’ll end up playing at different times and with different styles.
i.e. 75 win players should be playing very early to break mmr and spam matches.  I can knock out 75 wins while watching Sunday night football.

1200 points just means waiting until the average scores can support a climb to 1200.  I can just wait until avg scores are in the 1500 range to play 75 pointers to 1200.  Realistically I can get 1200 in under 20matches if I’m patient and willing to play when points are rising vs falling because of shield outs etc.

 Bottom line it’s reading the leaderboard comparing it with ques in skips and understanding how players in that shard will act.

Sabaton74

bluewolf said:

ursopro said:

Holy necro bump, Batman!

Seriously....

@Sabaton74

It sure seems like a lot of your comments are on very old threads......

If you are interested in a topic that isn't fairly current (a month, maybe) it's usually best to create a new thread since the game does change.

Thx for the courtesy tip, I'll keep it mind...

Now that I look, this thread was done 5 months before I found the game, seems like it's still a hot topic tho