The ChaHulk meta
Comments
-
I understand, and I think I was mostly just reacting to others' talking points (I'm sure they'll pop up here soon). It absolutely is a multiplayer game though, it's just that some players try to unilaterally decide that it's not, and forget about all the other players -- those players exist and will continue to exist.
What's neat is that it actually can be sort of like those other games if you want it to be, it's just not super obvious how to do it and there's no easy way to learn.
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
1 -
@entrailbucket said:
If you don't hate everyone else who plays this game, what are we even doing here? It's a competitive game...I hate all of you, and all of everyone else, with the passion of a thousand burning suns. I want all of you to have an awful time, and I want all of you to quit.
I hear you! Finally another villain in the forum!
Come to the dark side and join me!
My affiliations are villains, White Knight, Top-Record-Flagged.By the way, you can play the game without using Line, like me. Perhaps you will realize that people hits you quickly although playing on S1.
1 -
MPQ PVP is an intricate soap opera which has been running for more than 9 years.
I'd wager your IGN matching your forum name might get you hit a little bit more than other randoms.1 -
@658_2 said:
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
People like to assume all sorts of things about the dev team, but to me it's Hanlon's Razor. If you look at the 5* tier, most of the characters are average. They're fine when not boosted and good when boosted. I'm pretty sure that's the dev team's goal. The buffs they've done have made those characters average. Most of the new characters are average.
Occasionally they make a mistake and a character is too good or too bad. The problem with the last few years is that they never addressed those mistakes, so people began to develop this cargo cult mentality and speculate about how it was all a part of some grand, overwhelming design.
I don't think it ever was and I don't think there's any reason they'd want to do things that way. They just make mistakes sometimes, and that's ok. They need to own up to mistakes and fix them, though.
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
@658_2 said:
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
People like to assume all sorts of things about the dev team, but to me it's Hanlon's Razor. If you look at the 5* tier, most of the characters are average. They're fine when not boosted and good when boosted. I'm pretty sure that's the dev team's goal. The buffs they've done have made those characters average. Most of the new characters are average.
Occasionally they make a mistake and a character is too good or too bad. The problem with the last few years is that they never addressed those mistakes, so people began to develop this cargo cult mentality and speculate about how it was all a part of some grand, overwhelming design.
I don't think it ever was and I don't think there's any reason they'd want to do things that way. They just make mistakes sometimes, and that's ok. They need to own up to mistakes and fix them, though.
Not "people".
One, very vocal, Poster.
He sees the grandiose plan behind every mistake.2 -
@658_2 said:
(outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).(Leonardo DiCaprio pointing meme)
I don't even care, I'm still right about Thor, I regret nothing!
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
@658_2 said:
(outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).(Leonardo DiCaprio pointing meme)
I don't even care, I'm still right about Thor, I regret nothing!
Which Thor now, though?
Both of them I guess.0 -
All of them. It's weird that Thor is perpetually the best character. When I started in 2013 it was 2* Thor, then lazy 3* Thor was really good, 4* Thor was dominant for a long time, and both 5* Thors are still top tier.
0 -
Still waiting for Thorverine 3.0
We're due a good Wolvie eventually.0 -
@entrailbucket said:
Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.
The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.
Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.
See you say this and then go on a diatribe about how you wish the game worked instead of how it has worked since the Gambit (as 5) and Worthy (as 4) nerf. So what four years? Three!? You want min maxing to not work but all the min maxers on Discord and Reddit point to their strategy being successful, since the beginning of the game, due to their top place finishes in PvE and PvP. This is the game the former developers chose to create and the current developers continue to suggest they want in their responses to questions.
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
All of them. It's weird that Thor is perpetually the best character. When I started in 2013 it was 2* Thor, then lazy 3* Thor was really good, 4* Thor was dominant for a long time, and both 5* Thors are still top tier.Thor IS the best character! That was his thing back in late 70s Avengers comic books and I guess even in the films (Infinity War especially) - team gets trashed, last page is Thor showing up to save the day! They even had one issue where Wanda even moans about it!
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
@658_2 said:
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
People like to assume all sorts of things about the dev team, but to me it's Hanlon's Razor. If you look at the 5* tier, most of the characters are average. They're fine when not boosted and good when boosted. I'm pretty sure that's the dev team's goal. The buffs they've done have made those characters average. Most of the new characters are average.
Occasionally they make a mistake and a character is too good or too bad. The problem with the last few years is that they never addressed those mistakes, so people began to develop this cargo cult mentality and speculate about how it was all a part of some grand, overwhelming design.
I don't think it ever was and I don't think there's any reason they'd want to do things that way. They just make mistakes sometimes, and that's ok. They need to own up to mistakes and fix them, though.
Take Okoye for example - she is good at fighting and has a spear. Not much to work with. So they decided that she embodies the spirit of Wakanda and that means she gets a boost power. It would have made sense though if that boost only applied to other Wakanda characters. All of a sudden, she is not a 550 target any more. Too late now though, she is never getting nerfed.
1 -
@Sekilicious said:
@entrailbucket said:
Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.
The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.
Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.
See you say this and then go on a diatribe about how you wish the game worked instead of how it has worked since the Gambit (as 5) and Worthy (as 4) nerf. So what four years? Three!? You want min maxing to not work but all the min maxers on Discord and Reddit point to their strategy being successful, since the beginning of the game, due to their top place finishes in PvE and PvP. This is the game the former developers chose to create and the current developers continue to suggest they want in their responses to questions.
Minmaxing has always been a bad idea, because the minmaxer is not in control of the game (unless you think the devs should "adapt the game to their rosters," hmmmm???) and has no alternative options if their one guy gets killed.
You know who you're NOT hearing from, on Discord and Reddit? All the players who maxed out Gambit, or OML, or xforce/4thor, who had no other options and literally quit the game because they couldn't play it after those nerfs. Minmaxing has been a bad idea since day 1, it's only in the last few years that it's worked at all, and only because they haven't bothered to fix their mistakes.
I don't "not want it to work," it simply hasn't consistently worked, and it's unlikely to do so in the future. I don't know why nobody has bothered to learn from the past and is so eager to get destroyed by a nerf again. I do know that I'm really going to enjoy fighting those players post-nerf, because I'm prepared for it and they chose not to prepare.
There is no evidence that any dev team encourages players to go all in on their mistakes, and in fact there's quite a lot of evidence that the intention is for all characters to be about the same, and for players to keep a diverse roster.
0 -
@DAZ0273 said:
@entrailbucket said:
@658_2 said:
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
People like to assume all sorts of things about the dev team, but to me it's Hanlon's Razor. If you look at the 5* tier, most of the characters are average. They're fine when not boosted and good when boosted. I'm pretty sure that's the dev team's goal. The buffs they've done have made those characters average. Most of the new characters are average.
Occasionally they make a mistake and a character is too good or too bad. The problem with the last few years is that they never addressed those mistakes, so people began to develop this cargo cult mentality and speculate about how it was all a part of some grand, overwhelming design.
I don't think it ever was and I don't think there's any reason they'd want to do things that way. They just make mistakes sometimes, and that's ok. They need to own up to mistakes and fix them, though.
Take Okoye for example - she is good at fighting and has a spear. Not much to work with. So they decided that she embodies the spirit of Wakanda and that means she gets a boost power. It would have made sense though if that boost only applied to other Wakanda characters. All of a sudden, she is not a 550 target any more. Too late now though, she is never getting nerfed.
Okoye is a fantastic, thematic, balanced and fun character in a game where you have to match tiles and cast stuff to do damage. If you have to choose between matching colored tiles to cast powers or team-up tiles to boost powers, you have to match carefully and consider what you're doing.
Unfortunately, by the time Okoye was released, the game had one guy who didn't have to match tiles to cast his powers, and then they introduced another guy who didn't have to do anything at all to do free AOE damage, and well...we see how that went.
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
@DAZ0273 said:
@entrailbucket said:
@658_2 said:
@entrailbucket said:
I'm really interested to see what they do too, but nerfs are always relative. The problem with Gambit (and most of the others, really) is that they took him from a 15 out of 10 down to like a 7 out of 10, while several other characters stayed in the 12 to 13 range. It felt like a huge hit even though they basically just made him average. If they make Chasm average and leave all the other overpowered guys around, it'll feel similarly huge.Yep. I remember the old lead dev coming on here many years ago and talking briefly about nerf strategy. He made the point (essentially) that if you nerf the most used character and he’s still the most used after, what was the point? I always thought that was either cynical (let’s sell some new meta!) or the way only someone very literal minded could think. People complain about use rate, and it’s not like it’s not a factor, but Thorkoye was ubiquitous and was one of the least complained about metas for a reason (outside of that one
guy who wanted Thor to go down).The Chasm nerf that is obviously coming is going to be super telling about how these new devs think. I’m guessing minor adjustments, maybe even just tweaks, rather than nerf to oblivion.
People like to assume all sorts of things about the dev team, but to me it's Hanlon's Razor. If you look at the 5* tier, most of the characters are average. They're fine when not boosted and good when boosted. I'm pretty sure that's the dev team's goal. The buffs they've done have made those characters average. Most of the new characters are average.
Occasionally they make a mistake and a character is too good or too bad. The problem with the last few years is that they never addressed those mistakes, so people began to develop this cargo cult mentality and speculate about how it was all a part of some grand, overwhelming design.
I don't think it ever was and I don't think there's any reason they'd want to do things that way. They just make mistakes sometimes, and that's ok. They need to own up to mistakes and fix them, though.
Take Okoye for example - she is good at fighting and has a spear. Not much to work with. So they decided that she embodies the spirit of Wakanda and that means she gets a boost power. It would have made sense though if that boost only applied to other Wakanda characters. All of a sudden, she is not a 550 target any more. Too late now though, she is never getting nerfed.
Okoye is a fantastic, thematic, balanced and fun character in a game where you have to match tiles and cast stuff to do damage. If you have to choose between matching colored tiles to cast powers or team-up tiles to boost powers, you have to match carefully and consider what you're doing.
Unfortunately, by the time Okoye was released, the game had one guy who didn't have to match tiles to cast his powers, and then they introduced another guy who didn't have to do anything at all to do free AOE damage, and well...we see how that went.
She is not thematic. Not even close. If she had thematic powers she would not buff every other character and she certainly would not heal. Those were game decisions not character based ones.
0 -
@entrailbucket said:
@Sekilicious said:
@entrailbucket said:
Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.
The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.
Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.
See you say this and then go on a diatribe about how you wish the game worked instead of how it has worked since the Gambit (as 5) and Worthy (as 4) nerf. So what four years? Three!? You want min maxing to not work but all the min maxers on Discord and Reddit point to their strategy being successful, since the beginning of the game, due to their top place finishes in PvE and PvP. This is the game the former developers chose to create and the current developers continue to suggest they want in their responses to questions.
Minmaxing has always been a bad idea, because the minmaxer is not in control of the game (unless you think the devs should "adapt the game to their rosters," hmmmm???) and has no alternative options if their one guy gets killed.
You know who you're NOT hearing from, on Discord and Reddit? All the players who maxed out Gambit, or OML, or xforce/4thor, who had no other options and literally quit the game because they couldn't play it after those nerfs. Minmaxing has been a bad idea since day 1, it's only in the last few years that it's worked at all, and only because they haven't bothered to fix their mistakes.
I don't "not want it to work," it simply hasn't consistently worked, and it's unlikely to do so in the future. I don't know why nobody has bothered to learn from the past and is so eager to get destroyed by a nerf again. I do know that I'm really going to enjoy fighting those players post-nerf, because I'm prepared for it and they chose not to prepare.
There is no evidence that any dev team encourages players to go all in on their mistakes, and in fact there's quite a lot of evidence that the intention is for all characters to be about the same, and for players to keep a diverse roster.
Hasn't Okoye been featured in like a record amount of special stores and vaults? If that isn't encouraging players to chase her I don't know what is. Interestingly I don't recall Chasm having such wide level of availability to rack up levels. I could be wrong - anyone know? All of this of course just distracts us from the Devs overall master plan - 550 Dr. Strange for all.
2 -
@DAZ0273 said:
@entrailbucket said:
@Sekilicious said:
@entrailbucket said:
Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.
The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.
Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.
See you say this and then go on a diatribe about how you wish the game worked instead of how it has worked since the Gambit (as 5) and Worthy (as 4) nerf. So what four years? Three!? You want min maxing to not work but all the min maxers on Discord and Reddit point to their strategy being successful, since the beginning of the game, due to their top place finishes in PvE and PvP. This is the game the former developers chose to create and the current developers continue to suggest they want in their responses to questions.
Minmaxing has always been a bad idea, because the minmaxer is not in control of the game (unless you think the devs should "adapt the game to their rosters," hmmmm???) and has no alternative options if their one guy gets killed.
You know who you're NOT hearing from, on Discord and Reddit? All the players who maxed out Gambit, or OML, or xforce/4thor, who had no other options and literally quit the game because they couldn't play it after those nerfs. Minmaxing has been a bad idea since day 1, it's only in the last few years that it's worked at all, and only because they haven't bothered to fix their mistakes.
I don't "not want it to work," it simply hasn't consistently worked, and it's unlikely to do so in the future. I don't know why nobody has bothered to learn from the past and is so eager to get destroyed by a nerf again. I do know that I'm really going to enjoy fighting those players post-nerf, because I'm prepared for it and they chose not to prepare.
There is no evidence that any dev team encourages players to go all in on their mistakes, and in fact there's quite a lot of evidence that the intention is for all characters to be about the same, and for players to keep a diverse roster.
Hasn't Okoye been featured in like a record amount of special stores and vaults? If that isn't encouraging players to chase her I don't know what is. Interestingly I don't recall Chasm having such wide level of availability to rack up levels. I could be wrong - anyone know? All of this of course just distracts us from the Devs overall master plan - 550 Dr. Strange for all.
I don't know about that one, I think she tends to win one slot in the polls, but not every time? She was just in the red envelope vault thing too, because she has a red costume. Dr Strange is in way more stuff than she is.
On her design -- it's just, like, a strategy/team spirit thing, she's a general after all. But she also fights on the front lines, so she wants to tank. I don't think it's a crazy concept for that character.
0 -
@Bowgentle said:
MPQ PVP is an intricate soap opera which has been running for more than 9 years.
I'd wager your IGN matching your forum name might get you hit a little bit more than other randoms.Perhaps for that reason I think MPQ is a skilled game. I feel sorry for your boring pvp experience, I guess.
I don't think devs are encouraging nothing. They want to sell so they put the characters people want.
Perhaps I'm being a bit unfair, but I'd wish BCS had being in charge since the start of the game.
Imo they are doing great although they are carrying previous burdens which nobody wanted to address.0 -
@DAZ0273 said:
@entrailbucket said:
@Sekilicious said:
@entrailbucket said:
Again with this...I do not want them to "change the rules" to "optimize my roster."There is only one rule, and that rule is "the developers can change any character they want, for any reason, at any time." They've turned the best character into the worst, and the worst into the best, many times over the years. They're in charge, not the players, and the decisions they make are arbitrary and capricious.
The only way to optimize for that "rule" is to make sure you have everyone and they're all high level. If you skip a guy, you risk them buffing him into the best character. If you go all in, you risk them nerfing him into the worst.
Minmaxing is, and has always been, a way to win in the short term, but it never pays off in the long term.
See you say this and then go on a diatribe about how you wish the game worked instead of how it has worked since the Gambit (as 5) and Worthy (as 4) nerf. So what four years? Three!? You want min maxing to not work but all the min maxers on Discord and Reddit point to their strategy being successful, since the beginning of the game, due to their top place finishes in PvE and PvP. This is the game the former developers chose to create and the current developers continue to suggest they want in their responses to questions.
Minmaxing has always been a bad idea, because the minmaxer is not in control of the game (unless you think the devs should "adapt the game to their rosters," hmmmm???) and has no alternative options if their one guy gets killed.
You know who you're NOT hearing from, on Discord and Reddit? All the players who maxed out Gambit, or OML, or xforce/4thor, who had no other options and literally quit the game because they couldn't play it after those nerfs. Minmaxing has been a bad idea since day 1, it's only in the last few years that it's worked at all, and only because they haven't bothered to fix their mistakes.
I don't "not want it to work," it simply hasn't consistently worked, and it's unlikely to do so in the future. I don't know why nobody has bothered to learn from the past and is so eager to get destroyed by a nerf again. I do know that I'm really going to enjoy fighting those players post-nerf, because I'm prepared for it and they chose not to prepare.
There is no evidence that any dev team encourages players to go all in on their mistakes, and in fact there's quite a lot of evidence that the intention is for all characters to be about the same, and for players to keep a diverse roster.
Hasn't Okoye been featured in like a record amount of special stores and vaults? If that isn't encouraging players to chase her I don't know what is. Interestingly I don't recall Chasm having such wide level of availability to rack up levels. I could be wrong - anyone know? All of this of course just distracts us from the Devs overall master plan - 550 Dr. Strange for all.
Chasm was in Latest for like, 84 years.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 45.3K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.6K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.5K MPQ General Discussion
- 6.3K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2.1K MPQ Character Discussion
- 173 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.4K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 13.9K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 529 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.5K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 99 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 441 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 306 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.8K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 401 Other Games
- 160 General Discussion
- 241 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements