These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon] Rapid Missile Launchers - v2

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#2341 - 2013-11-28 02:51:48 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know.

Did you seriously just say that a mechanic should be fun in EVE because it's fun in War Thunder?!

That's absurd. War Thunder is not EVE. It may be fun there because like you said, every plane has it, so you don't put people using that mechanic at a disadvantage.

War Thunder is also arena PVP where your plane respawns when you die. It's fun there, maybe it would be fun in EVE too!

The mechanic is not fun in EVE because waiting a long time for your only way of doing significant damage to the enemy to reload isn't fun.

Please don't ever use other games as justification for why something should be fun in EVE. EVE is not other games and we want it to stay that way.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2342 - 2013-11-28 02:59:31 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know.

Did you seriously just say that a mechanic should be fun in EVE because it's fun in War Thunder?!

That's absurd. War Thunder is not EVE. It may be fun there because like you said, every plane has it, so you don't put people using that mechanic at a disadvantage.

War Thunder is also arena PVP where your plane respawns when you die. It's fun there, maybe it would be fun in EVE too!

The mechanic is not fun in EVE because waiting a long time for your only way of doing significant damage to the enemy to reload isn't fun.

Please don't ever use other games as justification for why something should be fun in EVE. EVE is not other games and we want it to stay that way.

Planes also rarely get to shoot at each other for more than a few seconds at a time. So being unable to shoot for (at worst) 30 seconds is not a big deal.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2343 - 2013-11-28 03:06:15 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know.

Did you seriously just say that a mechanic should be fun in EVE because it's fun in War Thunder?!

That's absurd. War Thunder is not EVE. It may be fun there because like you said, every plane has it, so you don't put people using that mechanic at a disadvantage.

War Thunder is also arena PVP where your plane respawns when you die. It's fun there, maybe it would be fun in EVE too!

The mechanic is not fun in EVE because waiting a long time for your only way of doing significant damage to the enemy to reload isn't fun.

Please don't ever use other games as justification for why something should be fun in EVE. EVE is not other games and we want it to stay that way.


I totally agree, though I would encourage everyone to be a little less hostile now that Rise has actually shown he is still reading this thread.

But yeah, long reloads in an arena PVP game do not equate in any way to long reloads in EVE.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2344 - 2013-11-28 03:09:05 UTC
hujciwdupe22 wrote:
My last post today:


perhaps a viable solution is to balance the amunition,

like thorium charges for railguns balancing out the damage and range


buff expl velocity, radius give, slight increase ind dps, carying in each type of missiles lets say 3 types of missiles pro damage types,

problem is the speed of missiles

increasing it helps aplying damage, on the other hand you get the undesireble range buff at the same time,

its a tricky one but perhaps there is something doable with the missiles

Can anyone do the Math for it?


Speed and flight time can each be adjusted to create faster missiles without increasing effective range. And I agree that it's a good idea, especially with torpedoes.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2345 - 2013-11-28 03:10:48 UTC
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
hujciwdupe22 wrote:
My last post today:


perhaps a viable solution is to balance the amunition,

like thorium charges for railguns balancing out the damage and range


buff expl velocity, radius give, slight increase ind dps, carying in each type of missiles lets say 3 types of missiles pro damage types,

problem is the speed of missiles

increasing it helps aplying damage, on the other hand you get the undesireble range buff at the same time,

its a tricky one but perhaps there is something doable with the missiles

Can anyone do the Math for it?


Speed and flight time can each be adjusted to create faster missiles without increasing effective range. And I agree that it's a good idea, especially with torpedoes.

I'm not sure how much this still applies, but previously the problem has been increasing missile speed too much makes the server unhappy.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2346 - 2013-11-28 03:14:50 UTC
Astroniomix wrote:
Zvaarian the Red wrote:
hujciwdupe22 wrote:
My last post today:


perhaps a viable solution is to balance the amunition,

like thorium charges for railguns balancing out the damage and range


buff expl velocity, radius give, slight increase ind dps, carying in each type of missiles lets say 3 types of missiles pro damage types,

problem is the speed of missiles

increasing it helps aplying damage, on the other hand you get the undesireble range buff at the same time,

its a tricky one but perhaps there is something doable with the missiles

Can anyone do the Math for it?


Speed and flight time can each be adjusted to create faster missiles without increasing effective range. And I agree that it's a good idea, especially with torpedoes.

I'm not sure how much this still applies, but previously the problem has been increasing missile speed too much makes the server unhappy.


Might be. I still think the slower missiles like Torpedoes could use some love.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2347 - 2013-11-28 05:14:17 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Quote:
but atm we dont have a proper missile systems outside of spacialised frig owning system
and brawling HAMs, (yes you need webs to apply damage)


I mean if this is actually the root of a lot of the problem then that's a different issue that we need to address. I'm not totally sure it is, but I want to take a hard look at HML before the point release and make sure we're okay with where we're at. If that needs a tweak then we should be doing that, not focusing on RLML as a solution to a HML problem.
The issue of HML & RHML is very much related.
Since the changes to heavy missiles RLML have in a lot of situations replaced them, especially for newer players trying make make enough isk to buy new ships, skill books and even the odd bit of pvp. Running lower level missions does not pay millions of isk to start with so being able to run them quickly and cheaply is a major thing for new players without billions of isk behind them.

With T2 light missiles and meta 4 HML's, missile support skills all 4.
When running level 3 Blockade in a caracal with RLML,l used to warp out twice and complete the mission (looting included) in just over 1 hour. Running that same mission in a HML fit caracal I had to warp out 3 sometimes 4 times and took nearly 2 hours to complete. With HML I used a lot more missiles (heavy missiles are terrible at hitting frigates) at nearly 3X the price of light missiles.

The release of RHML was ok, it is a totally new weapon system. It can afford to be released and adjusted as needed at a later date.
RLML being changed totally replaced a current weapon with no alternative available. This too can be adjusted as needed at a later date but what do those who depended on this weapon for their bread and butter in eve (mission running) do in the meantime?

I would like to suggest, as an improvement for HML, with trade off's. Heavy Missile Launchers get a bonus to Tracking Computers & Tracking Enhancers. Fitting a Tracking Enhancer would mean dropping a BCU or DCU, affecting either overall DPS or tank.
Fitting a Tracking Computer would mean a trade off with prop mod, tank or ewar. Both modules would allow heavy missiles to apply their damage better without making them OP. It would also allow lower skilled players to use heavy missiles for missions more effectively (cost and time wise) and leave RLML to PVP'rs as a viable or not so viable "choice".

NB; Being totally selfish; I don't want to have to cross train or fly larger ships to effectively be able to do what I could prior to Rubicon in my caracal. I wanted to train this toon as a pure "Caldari" missile cruiser pilot.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2348 - 2013-11-28 06:44:29 UTC
Fourteen Maken wrote:
... and drones should be made to match the size of hull they are being used on so that light drones can not be put in cruisers.

... and when you call your damaged drone back you get a 40 seconds timer... I mean, one can't simply launch drones and then expect to use return command whenever he wants...
Niena Nuamzzar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2349 - 2013-11-28 08:09:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Niena Nuamzzar
CCP Rise wrote:

There's evidence pointing in a lot of directions, and I still like the idea of doing something different more than sticking with something very safe and normal. The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally.

Very well, in that case why stop with missiles? If burst damage and long reload is such a cool and fun mechanic, why not give turret pilots the same opportunity? You could start by turning medium blasters and autocannons to burst weapons with 50% extra damage, 4 times smaller clip (EDIT: more for AC's?) and - everyone's favorite - 40 seconds reload. I'm sure they will give you a positive and valuable feedback, expressing how happy they are with the change so the only question is what's stopping you?
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2350 - 2013-11-28 08:39:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
hujciwdupe22 wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
I'll try to hit a few points raised in the last page or two, sorry if it's not everything.

Few comments about ignoring feedback still. I think maybe this is just because the only thing that counts as acknowledging it is to act. You're right that a lot of people have said they don't want the change, and I haven't reversed it, but to me that isn't ignoring. I've listened intensely, not ignored, but I can see how lack of action based on a set of feedback isn't satisfying and feels like disregard. I'll just keep saying that it's not and that I value the feedback and it influences our decisions even when that isn't apparent.

On rolling out RHML with the new mechanic and leaving RLML - We definitely considered doing this but we really disliked the inconsistency. With both systems sharing a name and a lot of other patterns (fitting requirements, ammo use being down a size, etc) it seemed really bad to have them working in entirely different ways. I acknowledge that with those motivations aside, it would have been nice to try the mechanic on just RHML first.

On metrics - there's a few things that are getting pointed out which are absolutely true. A few small points on our use of metrics:
1. We look at a range of things including, but not limited to, mod activations, damage done by the mod type, amount bought/sold and some stats associated with the ships most likely to use the mod.
2. Metrics are very useful but also limited, we don't expect to get the whole story from them, especially considering how complex EVE is, but that doesn't mean it isn't a useful resource. Same thing could be said about using forum feedback I would say.
3. The big thing mentioned above that we keep in mind constantly is that a lot of the usage in EVE has momentum associated with something other than the powerlevel or immediate preference of the player. Skill training, access to assets, aesthetics and simply developing patterns around certain things all make the metrics a lot different than they would be on the test server where every ship looked the same and everyone had max sp. We try to keep that in mind always.

Finally, I just want to say that the 'fun' factor of the mechanic is very difficult to evaluate objectively. There's evidence pointing in a lot of directions, and I still like the idea of doing something different more than sticking with something very safe and normal. The evidence that says it is fun, since I'm sure you will be skeptical of that claim' is both direct (my experience and the experience of some players posting here or talking with me directly) and also the existence of similar mechanics in other games. War Thunder for instance has this mechanic on every single plane in the game and people seem to find that very fun generally. I'm still trying to gather as much info as possible and if you guys are using it and are able to say it's not fun (separate from it not being good, which is a different issue and could be corrected with numbers tweaks like 30s reload or more ammo per launcher) please post and let me know.




bla bla bla...

missiles stay broken,

bla bla bla warthunder bla bla bla


Rise Please,

the idea of burst missile spam is fine i like the idea alot,

But atm we dont have a proper missile systems outside of spacialised frig owning system
and brawling HAMs, (yes you need webs to apply damage)

just reverse the HM nerf and it all wil be ok



Wow. You really are a self important little prickaren't you hujciwdupe22.

I've met people like you in the past and CCP Rise is doing exactly what he should do with people like you and completely ignoring you.
Zamyslinski
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#2351 - 2013-11-28 09:03:11 UTC
No to TE and TC for launchers,

Guys do you even know what youre saying?

where are you going to put those on your caracal?

low slots are already filled with bcs nanos dmg controls, caldari ships need the shield mods amarr need the webs.

just change ammo as someone sugested before or do something with the formulas,

no need for aditional mods for those, unless you want to get a 200 dps tengu with no tank etc
Spugg Galdon
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#2352 - 2013-11-28 09:08:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Spugg Galdon
Aplogies for my last post but I'm getting ratty and loosing my patience with this thread. So many personal attacks that are unjustified (included my last post, sorry again) and assumptions about the behaviour of devs.

Most important points about everything in this thread:

RLML's were a problem pre-Rubicon. They needed a nerf and instead of a basic nerf, Rise and CCP in general came up with a new and interesting mechanic. They took away with one hand (sustained DPS nerf) whilst giving back with the other (burst DPS buff). I think this solution was better than a basic nerf.

The issues that need to be fixed before tweaking stats on RLML's are:
Ammo switching

Feedback on reload timers. Give us a count down please! I have one when using autoloaders in WoT and I use this to comunicate with my team to co-ordinate our offensive moves. Basically I call "Reloading: 25 seconds............. 15 seconds......... Back in in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1! I strongly believe having timers visible on the UI will help a great deal. It will let a player know exactly when he will be able to get back in the fight and will let them make more proper, informed decisions.

Heavy missiles are dogshitkabeb and their relationship with light missiles and HAM's is terrible. I believe, generally speaking; Light missiles have too much range
Heavy missiles have too poor application
This needs to be addressed.

On a side note. I think all weapon ammo needs a review. Especially hybrid and laser ammo. Having so many ammo types that more or less only offer slightly differring ranges is not very good in the Eve meta. This should be addressed.

Dual 150mm rails and Quad Light Beam Lasers (and their big brother battleship versions) should also be looked at. Would giving these weapons small weapon signatures work? Because they're pretty rubbish at the minute. I also think they should require the correct type of ammo (small) and the correct number of charges per shot/use. Quad = 4 Dual = 2.
Zamyslinski
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#2353 - 2013-11-28 09:11:39 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:
hujciwdupe22 wrote:
[quote=CCP Rise]



bla bla bla...

missiles stay broken,

bla bla bla warthunder bla bla bla


Rise Please,

the idea of burst missile spam is fine i like the idea alot,

But atm we dont have a proper missile systems outside of spacialised frig owning system
and brawling HAMs, (yes you need webs to apply damage)

just reverse the HM nerf and it all wil be ok



Wow. You really are a self important little prickaren't you hujciwdupe22.

I've met people like you in the past and CCP Rise is doing exactly what he should do with people like you and completely ignoring you.





lol? rise didnt ignore him at all, and he actually posted the best post in this thread

quoting

But atm we dont have a proper missile systems outside of spacialised frig owning system
and brawling HAMs, (yes you need webs to apply damage)

^^ i aprove this totally
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#2354 - 2013-11-28 09:29:25 UTC
Spugg Galdon wrote:


Wow. You really are a self important little prickaren't you hujciwdupe22.

I've met people like you in the past and CCP Rise is doing exactly what he should do with people like you and completely ignoring you.

Confirming that making balance decisions based on being buttmad about someone's forum post is a good plan.

Seriously dude, his reaction is over the top, but not entirely unjustified.

I appreciate him posting in the thread again, but I feel like we are just being talked over rather than being talked too.

The biggest thing is that he's STILL hung up on "fun" being the biggest problem rather than the 40 second reload making the weapon unable to perform in any situation that does not involve a lone t1 frigate. And even then it's questionable. It's not "new tactical options" it's just "go fit something else"
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
#2355 - 2013-11-28 10:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Moonaura
Astroniomix wrote:
It's not "new tactical options" it's just "go fit something else"


I think that is the problem. You can't really go fit something else. Its a case of leaving them behind entirely if you can.

This is the hub of why missile changes create so much frustration.


Consider that if you fly a gun based cruiser the choices you have:

First there are two categories:

Short Range and Long Range.

And in both of those categories, there are typically at least three choices of sized weapons, with different fitting, tracking, range and damage abilities.

Right off the bat, that is a lot of choice.

But also consider you can also fit any other races guns to you ship. If you fly a drone boat, why use cap heavy blasters when you can fit autocannons? So there is immediately a much broader choice.

Then there is a huge amount of ammo variety, allowing you to fit and change the range and tracking of your weapons, in combat as you require.

Then you have the choice of using tracking enhancers as well as DPS modules, tracking computers with in combat changeable scripts, webbing, target painters, critical damage multiplier mechanics, rigs, a whole race of ships with tracking bonuses, a whole race of ships with range bonuses, a choice of high alpha guns on one lot of them, or high DPS on another, or not even having to reload on another, with excellent ranges on even their close range guns and a 2 second switch.

So, gun based mechanics aside, what you have there is a huge scope to tweak and tune your ship to fulfil any sort of role and the options to tune it to counter any drawbacks.

Want an anti-frigate Cruiser with high tank. Fit scram, webs, tracking computer and either an AB or MWD, or both, and away you go. Its completely doable.

Want a cruiser that can hit both frigates and cruisers. Totally doable.


For a missile trained cruiser player:

You've got three weapon systems. RLML, HM, or HAM.

You can only increase damage with BCU's. Only rigs will offer minor improvements to their ability to hit a target, or expensive drugs (the skill book alone to make the most of them is around 320m upwards) or implants, webs and targeting painting (although many ships don't have the midslots after a tank to fit them) all of which gunnery based ships get as well.

Thats it. There is nothing else. No scripts, no enhancers, no wide option of different guns, no huge variety in ammo ranges and abilities, just faction or T2 Versions - both of which have drawbacks.

And now one of those options only carries 18 missiles and has a 40 second reload timer.

Combine that with the fact that the supposed mainstay of this group, the Heavy Missile, hits ships so poorly, even with precision ammo, and its easy to see why such a dramatic change to RLML causes so much frustration and why not having more choice over missiles and a Heavy Missile mechanic that was fair and functional, needs sorting out.

"The game is mostly played by men - 97%. But 40% of them play as women... so thats fine."  - CCP t0rfifrans 
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#2356 - 2013-11-28 11:02:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Astroniomix wrote:
No you did not.

Afraid so (the NPCs did get in some damage as well, but I was in the middle of a mission when he jumped me). Note "Caldari Navy Heavy Scourge Missile" (should've switched to Mjolnir).
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=20657877

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Zamyslinski
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#2357 - 2013-11-28 11:36:40 UTC
single asb = death while realoading
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2358 - 2013-11-28 12:01:28 UTC
Moonaura wrote:
Astroniomix wrote:
It's not "new tactical options" it's just "go fit something else"


I think that is the problem. You can't really go fit something else. Its a case of leaving them behind entirely if you can.

This is the hub of why missile changes create so much frustration.


Consider that if you fly a gun based cruiser the choices you have:

First there are two categories:

Short Range and Long Range.

And in both of those categories, there are typically at least three choices of sized weapons, with different fitting, tracking, range and damage abilities.

Right off the bat, that is a lot of choice.

But also consider you can also fit any other races guns to you ship. If you fly a drone boat, why use cap heavy blasters when you can fit autocannons? So there is immediately a much broader choice.

Then there is a huge amount of ammo variety, allowing you to fit and change the range and tracking of your weapons, in combat as you require.

Then you have the choice of using tracking enhancers as well as DPS modules, tracking computers with in combat changeable scripts, webbing, target painters, critical damage multiplier mechanics, rigs, a whole race of ships with tracking bonuses, a whole race of ships with range bonuses, a choice of high alpha guns on one lot of them, or high DPS on another, or not even having to reload on another, with excellent ranges on even their close range guns and a 2 second switch.

So, gun based mechanics aside, what you have there is a huge scope to tweak and tune your ship to fulfil any sort of role and the options to tune it to counter any drawbacks.

Want an anti-frigate Cruiser with high tank. Fit scram, webs, tracking computer and either an AB or MWD, or both, and away you go. Its completely doable.

Want a cruiser that can hit both frigates and cruisers. Totally doable.


For a missile trained cruiser player:

You've got three weapon systems. RLML, HM, or HAM.

You can only increase damage with BCU's. Only rigs will offer minor improvements to their ability to hit a target, or expensive drugs (the skill book alone to make the most of them is around 320m upwards) or implants, webs and targeting painting (although many ships don't have the midslots after a tank to fit them) all of which gunnery based ships get as well.

Thats it. There is nothing else. No scripts, no enhancers, no wide option of different guns, no huge variety in ammo ranges and abilities, just faction or T2 Versions - both of which have drawbacks.

And now one of those options only carries 18 missiles and has a 40 second reload timer.

Combine that with the fact that the supposed mainstay of this group, the Heavy Missile, hits ships so poorly, even with precision ammo, and its easy to see why such a dramatic change to RLML causes so much frustration and why not having more choice over missiles and a Heavy Missile mechanic that was fair and functional, needs sorting out.


Best post in this thread. If Rise reads anything in this thread it needs to be this.
Zvaarian the Red
Evil Leprechaun Brigade
#2359 - 2013-11-28 12:06:10 UTC
Zamyslinski wrote:
No to TE and TC for launchers,

Guys do you even know what youre saying?

where are you going to put those on your caracal?

low slots are already filled with bcs nanos dmg controls, caldari ships need the shield mods amarr need the webs.

just change ammo as someone sugested before or do something with the formulas,

no need for aditional mods for those, unless you want to get a 200 dps tengu with no tank etc



By this logic there is no room for tracking enhancing modules for turrets either.

And no one said that adding tracking enhancing modules for missiles should negate needed buffs to the missiles themselves. They probably both need to happen. It's probably not a good idea to do both at the same time however.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#2360 - 2013-11-28 12:32:55 UTC
Zamyslinski wrote:
No to TE and TC for launchers,

Guys do you even know what youre saying?

where are you going to put those on your caracal?

low slots are already filled with bcs nanos dmg controls, caldari ships need the shield mods amarr need the webs.

just change ammo as someone sugested before or do something with the formulas,

no need for aditional mods for those, unless you want to get a 200 dps tengu with no tank etc

That is a very narrow minded opinion. I do know what I'm saying and it isn't ideal but it could be another "option" "choice" for those wanting to use Heavy Missiles. I don't think a trade off of losing a little dps (or a nano) for better tracking and range is too outrageous.
Raw DPS is not always the best option, if it was everyone would be flying torp fit ravens.

If missiles were true "GUIDED" missiles then why could they not be enhanced by better tracking and range as fitting options. I would gladly drop dps or a web if I knew my missiles were going to hit their target with better efficiency. Yes you need to make fitting trade off but then doesn't every other ship in eve?? Fit a tracking enhancer to a cane, you need to drop a gyro, fit a tracking computer to a brutix, you need to drop a web and so on. People do use these modules for guns so they must be worth the trade off.

Why should missiles be the only weapon system that doesn't offer tracking and range enhancements (at a cost)?

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.