I was wrong: Alacrity not so bad for Bodyguards

[RuQu]

New metrics, new results. One should never be afraid to change their mind in face of new evidence.

 

Note: I should point out that I haven't converted the Merc section of my calculator over yet, but based on earlier findings I expect the results to be similar to these Commando results with the primary difference being that Alacrity and Surge will be closer in Tionese since Mercs have a large max-regen window than Commandos and therefore suffer less in a forced chain-casting situation.

 

The long version can be found here.

 

Short version (as short as I can do):

 

Boss DPS does not increase as your gear increases.

 

Therefore your necessary HPS over a fight is the same regardless of gear.

 

Therefore as gear increases, your time spent healing will decrease for the same amount of damage taken by the group.

 

Therefore, HPS is a poor metric for healing performance.

 

Therefore a new metric is needed which captures the benefit of increased down-time for the same healing output as your gear improves.

 

Discussion of that metric and the graphs and results are at the linked thread above. Short version of conclusion:

 

Alacrity is your worst stat at Tionese levels of gear, because your lower strength of heals means you are chain casting more often, and therefore running into issues from increased Effective Cost.

 

As your gear improves and you can afford more downtime, Alacrity approaches parity with Surge in Columi gear, and then slightly exceeds it by Rakata.

[Brad_Pitt]

and i told you this last week and you made fun of me the whole time?

 

geeee thanks

[Brad_Pitt]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PVrCJI7dRU&context=C4279efdADvjVQa1PpcFOIJcDTeA6Unl1QXmiVLJlhL_XVnv2lEZU=

proof you don't over heat and you heal more at the same time

Edited March 9, 2012 by Brad_Pitt

[Yazule]

and i told you this last week and you made fun of me the whole time?

 

geeee thanks

 

1) he admitted to being wrong (+100 for that fyi)

 

2) your conversation probably made him rethink it (+10 for you)

 

3) you didn't recognize item 2 (-11 for you)

 

4) an "I told you so" post (-100 for you)

 

5) I made this post (-10 for me)

 

looks like he is winning and you and I are losing

[Brad_Pitt]

1) he admitted to being wrong (+100 for that fyi)

 

2) your conversation probably made him rethink it (+10 for you)

 

3) you didn't recognize item 2 (-11 for you)

 

4) an "I told you so" post (-100 for you)

 

5) I made this post (-10 for me)

 

looks like he is winning and you and I are losing

 

yeah

 

i just apologized on the other thread.

 

dually noted good sir!

 

+ 100 internets to you:D

[ForceWelder]

1) he admitted to being wrong (+100 for that fyi)

 

2) your conversation probably made him rethink it (+10 for you)

 

3) you didn't recognize item 2 (-11 for you)

 

4) an "I told you so" post (-100 for you)

 

5) I made this post (-10 for me)

 

looks like he is winning and you and I are losing

 

No, number two is incorrect which then makes number 3 incorrect and thus invalidates even point 4.

 

The OP specifically says he redid his numbers as a result of plyaing his commando and he hasn't converted the numbers over to BH yet. Thus nothing that forum poster said made the OP change his mind.

 

So I would add a (-100) to you for missing the obvious.

Edited March 9, 2012 by ForceWelder

[RuQu]

No, number two is incorrect which then makes number 3 incorrect and thus invalidates even point 4.

 

The OP specifically says he redid his numbers as a result of plyaing his commando and he hasn't converted the numbers over to BH yet. Thus nothing that forum poster said made the OP change his mind.

 

So I would add a (-100) to you for missing the obvious.

 

To be completely clear, the new numbers generated themselves, I just drew conclusions from them. Advice from Soshla that an incoming damage estimation was needed, personal experience, and some discussions on the sithwarrior.com forums started pushing me in that direction, and further discussion with Shroudviel and on sithwarrior.com helped me settle on the better metric.

 

In BP's defense, he may very well have been trying to make this point, he just communicated it very poorly. He has also since apologized and made advances towards more constructive discussion, so I think handing out and confiscating internets is probably unnecessary at this point.

 

Let us move on to trying to, constructively, identify flaws in the current approach so that it can be strengthened through fire and maximize its utility to the community.

 

A BH version should be out in the next few days.

[TempestasSilva]

Sometimes its not what you say, but how you say it. But it looks like we are continuing to evolve the conversation after a second set of speed bumps and that is good for everyone.

 

So I tried Ewert's build and stacked alacrity si I had a 22% increase with critical reaction up. Results here:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=338252&page=2

 

Based on these here are my current thoughts:

1) You can get a 9% increase based on skill tree choices that have no real cost. In other words you are not giving up crit or surge or power to get them, so why wouldn't you always use them?

2) Weighing stats individually seems counter intuitive since we seem to get them in pairs. Its either crit and sure or power and alacrity. And since power is so good, even if Alacrity is close to surge, it would make gear with alacrity better.

3) As a BH healer, I feel that there are 3 scenarios. A) Easy - you are using a heat neutral rotation, plenty of time for RS. B) Burst - you are using cooldowns and generating some heat but can recover shortly after so going a little high in heat is ok. C) Crazy - Everything you have is not enough and your heat goes up with no time to recover and you become "heat locked" as I call it. It seems to me that A is irrelevant, B is more frequent and alacrity is great here, and C is the bane of our existence and alacrity makes it worse. As noted in the other thread, I only hit C once a week now and it is sort of self imposed. So C is kind of irrelevant too, at least to me.

 

So that leads me to wonder that if Alacrity is good for the times I need burst and it comes paired with power, why wouldn't I stack it?

 

I am sorry I dont have math or formulas to help, but that is how it "feels".

Edited March 9, 2012 by TempestasSilva

[RuQu]

Sometimes its not what you say, but how you say it. But it looks like we are continuing to evolve the conversation after a second set of speed bumps and that is good for everyone.

 

So I tried Ewert's build and stacked alacrity si I had a 22% increase with critical reaction up. Results here:

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=338252&page=2

 

Based on these here are my current thoughts:

1) You can get a 9% increase based on skill tree choices that have no real cost. In other words you are not giving up crit or surge or power to get them, so why wouldn't you always use them?

2) Weighing stats individually seems counter intuitive since we seem to get them in pairs. Its either crit and sure or power and alacrity. And since power is so good, even if Alacrity is close to surge, it would make gear with alacrity better.

3) As a BH healer, I feel that there are 3 scenarios. A) Easy - you are using a heat neutral rotation, plenty of time for RS. B) Burst - you are using cooldowns and generating some heat but can recover shortly after so going a little high in heat is ok. C) Crazy - Everything you have is not enough and your heat goes up with no time to recover and you become "heat locked" as I call it. It seems to me that A is irrelevant, B is more frequent and alacrity is great here, and C is the bane of our existence and alacrity makes it worse. As noted in the other thread, I only hit C once a week now and it is sort of self imposed. So C is kind of irrelevant too, at least to me.

 

So that leads me to wonder that if Alacrity is good for the times I need burst and it comes paired with power, why wouldn't I stack it?

 

I am sorry I dont have math or formulas to help, but that is how it "feels".

 

1) It may put you at a disadvantage early on, but I don't really have an opinion on this at the moment. It clearly provides a cost-free advantage later, though, so I'd recommend taking them.

 

2) You can get them in other combos. There are Power/Surge and Crit/Alacrity mods and enhancements. Our Rakata pants have a Crit/Alacrity enhancement in them.

 

3) I'm hoping the combat logs will give us some good data on the incoming boss damage. I want to get parses from tanks and get a DPS and swing time intervals for different tiers of bosses (story, HM, NMM), and then put in a check box to use the appropriate values for the content you run, instead of my current range largely pulled out of simply being trivial to lethal for the gear set I had in.

[Yazule]

No, number two is incorrect which then makes number 3 incorrect and thus invalidates even point 4.

 

The OP specifically says he redid his numbers as a result of plyaing his commando and he hasn't converted the numbers over to BH yet. Thus nothing that forum poster said made the OP change his mind.

 

So I would add a (-100) to you for missing the obvious.

 

what made him pay attention to it? probably arguing on the boards

 

i give you the -100 you wanted to give me for not realizing that a thorn in your side gets attention

[DukSaber]

Ive always stacked alacrity. IF there were logs i think people would be shocked. Some of us just ignored this guy who obv thinks he is a know it all, even though he cant know it all. NO LOGS!!!!!!. You speculate and have already completely changed your mind thats it.

 

Personally i think your wrong about the lower lvls for alacrity. A reduced activation time to rapid scan is a big deal. You reallly just look at it from a chain healing perspective which is wrong. In practice im always toping people off with rapid shots. Even if your eating some heat with the higher alacrity, its still manageable if the bh knows what they are doing.

[RuQu]

Do you start all conversations this rudely, or only on the internet where fear doesn't force you to conform to societal norms?

 

Ive always stacked alacrity.

 

Congrats. Since the gear comes stacked with it by default, I'm sure you did a really deep analysis before reaching this conclusion.

 

IF there were logs i think people would be shocked. Some of us just ignored this guy who obv thinks he is a know it all, even though he cant know it all. NO LOGS!!!!!!.

 

If logs existed from the beginning, these questions would have been far easier to answer. Run the same content with different stat setups, parse the data....compare.

 

You falsely assume that the absence of logs means the absence of any data. We know a great deal from reading the client files directly, we just have to do more work to get results out.

 

Once logs exist, we will be able to refine our models. Even so, the models will still have a purpose, helping to guide decisions. In fact, they will be more valuable as the logs should help us correlate the models to real data and better predict outcomes from a set input.

 

I have also never made any claim to "knowing it all," and, in fact, I welcome constructing discussion to improve the quality of my results. I gain nothing from a poor model, why would I want to perpetuate it when I can improve it by accepting improvements to my knowledge?

 

You speculate and have already completely changed your mind thats it.

 

You act as if this is a bad thing.

 

To pick a position and insist on keeping it despite new data is the act of a dogmatic fool.

 

In the absence of data, we must still make decisions. Since no hard data exists, that means using approximations. The quality of the conclusions are directly related to the quality of the assumptions.

 

I produced a model, and reported on the results of that model. Since no one else is currently doing any similar work, and there are no logs to provide data from in-game, this was the only data we had to go on. I can only make recommendations based on the data available, and it is up to the reader to accept those recommendations within the context of the model limitations and assumptions and make decisions accordingly.

 

Since then, the model has changed, and there is new data. As such, I must adjust my conclusions to match the new data. When logs come out, the model will be improved again to try and match as closely as possible, and the results will likely change again, although a smaller change is expected as the closer the model gets to "reality," the smaller the effect we should see from improvements.

 

Personally i think your wrong about the lower lvls for alacrity. A reduced activation time to rapid scan is a big deal. You reallly just look at it from a chain healing perspective which is wrong. In practice im always toping people off with rapid shots. Even if your eating some heat with the higher alacrity, its still manageable if the bh knows what they are doing.

 

Objectively, your statement is only an opinion based on anecdotal evidence (your subjective experience). Once logs are available, they may support your opinion, or they may not. They may support my position (based on modeling, theory, and my own subjective experience), or they may not. I think we can all agree that I am open to changing my conclusion based on that new data. Are you?

[DukSaber]

Do you start all conversations this rudely, or only on the internet where fear doesn't force you to conform to societal norms?

 

 

 

Congrats. Since the gear comes stacked with it by default, I'm sure you did a really deep analysis before reaching this conclusion.

 

 

 

If logs existed from the beginning, these questions would have been far easier to answer. Run the same content with different stat setups, parse the data....compare.

 

You falsely assume that the absence of logs means the absence of any data. We know a great deal from reading the client files directly, we just have to do more work to get results out.

 

Once logs exist, we will be able to refine our models. Even so, the models will still have a purpose, helping to guide decisions. In fact, they will be more valuable as the logs should help us correlate the models to real data and better predict outcomes from a set input.

 

I have also never made any claim to "knowing it all," and, in fact, I welcome constructing discussion to improve the quality of my results. I gain nothing from a poor model, why would I want to perpetuate it when I can improve it by accepting improvements to my knowledge?

 

 

 

You act as if this is a bad thing.

 

To pick a position and insist on keeping it despite new data is the act of a dogmatic fool.

 

In the absence of data, we must still make decisions. Since no hard data exists, that means using approximations. The quality of the conclusions are directly related to the quality of the assumptions.

 

I produced a model, and reported on the results of that model. Since no one else is currently doing any similar work, and there are no logs to provide data from in-game, this was the only data we had to go on. I can only make recommendations based on the data available, and it is up to the reader to accept those recommendations within the context of the model limitations and assumptions and make decisions accordingly.

 

Since then, the model has changed, and there is new data. As such, I must adjust my conclusions to match the new data. When logs come out, the model will be improved again to try and match as closely as possible, and the results will likely change again, although a smaller change is expected as the closer the model gets to "reality," the smaller the effect we should see from improvements.

 

 

 

Objectively, your statement is only an opinion based on anecdotal evidence (your subjective experience). Once logs are available, they may support your opinion, or they may not. They may support my position (based on modeling, theory, and my own subjective experience), or they may not. I think we can all agree that I am open to changing my conclusion based on that new data. Are you?

 

 

lol. T-gear has alacrity but stacking everything else is a decision. I went with how it felt. More alacrity makes it easier to keep groups alive,,that simple. You spent alot of time guessing and justifying yourself, only to change your mind completely. How about this. Dont say you KNOW something when you dont! Or maybe hold off forming an opinion on something until there is more info?

 

Even with what you did with the graphs. Its still all wrong. Maybe just keep throwing stuff at a wall and hope it sticks someday. Your graphs arent practical, because in practice its not all chain-healing, so heat cost isnt the factor you think it is. If a BH uses rapid shots to top people off and alot of kolto missle heat isnt this giant limiting factor even on the longer bosses. Then i Alacrity has a bigger impact even at the tion and colum lvl than what you are thinking. If you play bh correctly, even with all alacrity gear, by the time heat is an issue, the boss is dead. You may have some good points if bosses were 40min long. But they arent.

Edited March 9, 2012 by DukSaber

[Yazule]

lots of opinions but only one person seems to be dedicating time outside of "how it feels"... he should be put on our shoulders not called a "know it all"...

 

he presents not only his conclusions but his analysis... this is a "look at what i am doing" not a "do as I say" kind of guy.

 

all negative comments are an affront, he is leading the field in swtor understanding, by just defining his variables if nothing else

[RuQu]

lol. T-gear has alacrity but stacking everything else is a decision. I went with how it felt. More alacrity makes it easier to keep groups alive,,that simple. You spent alot of time guessing and justifying yourself, only to change your mind completely. How about this. Dont say you KNOW something when you dont! Or maybe hold off forming an opinion on something until there is more info?

 

Even with what you did with the graphs. Its still all wrong. Maybe just keep throwing stuff at a wall and hope it sticks someday. Your graphs arent practical, because in practice its not all chain-healing, so heat cost isnt the factor you think it is. If a BH uses rapid shots to top people off and alot of kolto missle heat isnt this giant limiting factor even on the longer bosses. Then i Alacrity has a bigger impact even at the tion and colum lvl than what you are thinking. If you play bh correctly, even with all alacrity gear, by the time heat is an issue, the boss is dead. You may have some good points if bosses were 40min long. But they arent.

 

Clearly you don't not grasp the concept of what we are trying for here, and my work will have zero benefit for you.

 

For others, for whom the purpose and benefit is blatantly obvious, I will continue working to produce better models, that more accurately reflect what is seen in game, and can provide better guidance.

 

I'd explain further, but I imagine it would be highly unproductive, and would only take time away from what I am currently doing at this moment...converting my Commando simulation to Mercenary.

 

I don't imagine there is much more you and I have to say to each other.

[Airial]

While this is certainly true, I would hope this is not the model Bioware continues into 1.2, as it just makes every encounter about beating the enrage timer, and a minor mechanic here and there.

 

As we all know, at this point they are miles behind in encounter development when compared to companies like Blizzard, but KP was certainly a step in the right direction. lets hope 1.2 is a step in the right direction and provides all of those on the fence a reason to play again!

[Yazule]

While this is certainly true, I would hope this is not the model Bioware continues into 1.2, as it just makes every encounter about beating the enrage timer, and a minor mechanic here and there.

 

As we all know, at this point they are miles behind in encounter development when compared to companies like Blizzard, but KP was certainly a step in the right direction. lets hope 1.2 is a step in the right direction and provides all of those on the fence a reason to play again!

 

realistically EA has a different buisiness model than Blizz...

 

EA is all about getting their $300,000,000 back right now and are not concerned about that game... they are businessmen

 

hopefully bio and origin can help keep the game on track for games sake but we will just have to see. Most time the deep pockets rule the world, not the idealists

[DukSaber]

Clearly you don't not grasp the concept of what we are trying for here, and my work will have zero benefit for you.

 

For others, for whom the purpose and benefit is blatantly obvious, I will continue working to produce better models, that more accurately reflect what is seen in game, and can provide better guidance.

 

I'd explain further, but I imagine it would be highly unproductive, and would only take time away from what I am currently doing at this moment...converting my Commando simulation to Mercenary.

 

I don't imagine there is much more you and I have to say to each other.

 

I notice you make alot of posts like this. I thought you liked criticism? If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

[RuQu]

I notice you make alot of posts like this. I thought you liked criticism? If you cant take the heat, get out of the kitchen.

 

I notice you omit, or are blind to, the word "constructive" that precedes criticism.

 

"I was right all along! You are clearly an idiot!" is not particularly helpful to anyone, and doesn't really warrant a response.

 

"Models are worthless!" is again not very useful, and someone of this opinion is unlikely to care about the results of any models, nor have anything useful to contribute to improving them.

 

I can list the names from memory of the people I've had to respond to in this manner. One has apologized for his delivery and started providing useful feedback. The other, like you, thinks math is the worst thing ever and prefers to rely on "feelings" about what is best.

 

I can't model your feelings.

 

I also have better uses of my time than continuing to argue with people who never learned to express themselves in a mature fashion. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and reply a couple of times, but if they insist on useless, childish posts filled only with ramblings, insults, and feelings, then, frankly, there are better uses of my time.

 

You want to provide criticism, then do so, but do it like an adult.

 

The purpose here is to make something that is useful for the community. It takes a lot of time on my part, and I get nothing out of it. If you think that it produces a worthless result, then list something that would be useful.

 

• You say Alacrity was always clearly useful. What metric did you use for that? Any? Just your feelings?
   
  
• You don't like my model. What's wrong with it? Disagree with the rotation? The logic? The concept that such a thing could exist? Provide alternatives.
   
  
• Disagree with the math? Which equation? What's wrong with it?
   
  
• Doesn't match what you see in game? What doesn't? What factors influence that effect in game? List them so we can see if they are included in the model.
   
  
• Don't agree with my current choice of metric? What do you suggest instead?
  

 

The above are just a small example of ways you can criticize my work while paving the way for it to improve.

 

Anything else is just you trying to tear something down to build yourself up. It's petty, childish, and unworthy of a response. As such, any further responses from you that insist on being non-constructive will simply be ignored. Anytime you want to actually contribute, I'm open to the criticism.

[DukSaber]

I notice you omit, or are blind to, the word "constructive" that precedes criticism.

 

"I was right all along! You are clearly an idiot!" is not particularly helpful to anyone, and doesn't really warrant a response.

 

"Models are worthless!" is again not very useful, and someone of this opinion is unlikely to care about the results of any models, nor have anything useful to contribute to improving them.

 

I can list the names from memory of the people I've had to respond to in this manner. One has apologized for his delivery and started providing useful feedback. The other, like you, thinks math is the worst thing ever and prefers to rely on "feelings" about what is best.

 

I can't model your feelings.

 

I also have better uses of my time than continuing to argue with people who never learned to express themselves in a mature fashion. I can give them the benefit of the doubt and reply a couple of times, but if they insist on useless, childish posts filled only with ramblings, insults, and feelings, then, frankly, there are better uses of my time.

 

You want to provide criticism, then do so, but do it like an adult.

 

The purpose here is to make something that is useful for the community. It takes a lot of time on my part, and I get nothing out of it. If you think that it produces a worthless result, then list something that would be useful.

 

• You say Alacrity was always clearly useful. What metric did you use for that? Any? Just your feelings?
   
  
• You don't like my model. What's wrong with it? Disagree with the rotation? The logic? The concept that such a thing could exist? Provide alternatives.
   
  
• Disagree with the math? Which equation? What's wrong with it?
   
  
• Doesn't match what you see in game? What doesn't? What factors influence that effect in game? List them so we can see if they are included in the model.
   
  
• Don't agree with my current choice of metric? What do you suggest instead?
  

 

The above are just a small example of ways you can criticize my work while paving the way for it to improve.

 

Anything else is just you trying to tear something down to build yourself up. It's petty, childish, and unworthy of a response. As such, any further responses from you that insist on being non-constructive will simply be ignored. Anytime you want to actually contribute, I'm open to the criticism.

 

I told you what was wrong,,,but you dont listen. I never called u anything you are quoting either which is pretty misleading and low. You obv have a problem with people tell you your wrong,,,,EVEN WHEN YOU ARE WRONG!!! Thats whats amazing. You defending your crit/surg arguments the same exact way. So no matter what you are saying, you defend it to the death,,,troll posts in order to get the last word, even provide fake quotes if needed to discredit anything that might disprove what your saying.

 

Id love to hear from one single person that gets anything from your new graphs.

 

And the math side of things ive always been apart of in WOW. From the resto druid perspective. Thats why i spot someone thats full of it. When we have the ability to analyze overall healing/overhealing ect then there will be plenty of answers. Until then,,,pls dont listen to this guy.

 

What drives me nuts is how many people listened to you about crit/surge. You should be banned. Even now your still wrong,,,alacrity is more important than crit/surge prior to the rakata lvl. Heat/cost just doesnt have the impact in practice that you assume it does

[RuQu]

I told you what was wrong,,,but you dont listen.

 

Please tell me again. Constructively. Calmly. Without ranting.

 

Lay out an argument in bullet points that we can examine, calmly, and discuss.

[DukSaber]

Please tell me again. Constructively. Calmly. Without ranting.

 

Lay out an argument in bullet points that we can examine, calmly, and discuss.

 

reread the last sentence of my last post. You seriously gotta be kidding.

[RuQu]

reread the last sentence of my last post. You seriously gotta be kidding.

 

Do you actually want to be helpful? Just asking since you are making me drag you kicking and screaming towards a productive conversation.

 

Heat/cost just doesnt have the impact in practice that you assume it does

 

Congrats. Step one is complete. You have managed to identify what you consider a false assumption.

 

Now for the remaining steps.

 

1) Identify a possible false assumption.

2) Make sure you understand what the current assumption is.

3) Identify the specific flaws in the assumption.

4) Suggest a better alternative.

 

Now, you could just skip to step 4, but if you don't understand the original assumption and the reasoning for it, your new suggestion may be no better. It's best to lay out all of the base facts and work from there without jumping ahead.

 

I'm assuming here, since you have not been clear (or polite) that you think I simply set up a static rotation and chain cast through it. Is this correct? What do you think my model assumes for casting behavior? Hint: The information is on display either in this thread or the one linked to in the OP.

 

Please provide a post either covering Step 2, which we can then discuss to make sure we are on the same page, or covering Steps 2-4 which may be faster but less efficient in the long run if we have to go back and correct anything at Steps 2 or 3.

[DukSaber]

Do you actually want to be helpful? Just asking since you are making me drag you kicking and screaming towards a productive conversation.

 

 

 

Congrats. Step one is complete. You have managed to identify what you consider a false assumption.

 

Now for the remaining steps.

 

1) Identify a possible false assumption.

2) Make sure you understand what the current assumption is.

3) Identify the specific flaws in the assumption.

4) Suggest a better alternative.

 

Now, you could just skip to step 4, but if you don't understand the original assumption and the reasoning for it, your new suggestion may be no better. It's best to lay out all of the base facts and work from there without jumping ahead.

 

I'm assuming here, since you have not been clear (or polite) that you think I simply set up a static rotation and chain cast through it. Is this correct? What do you think my model assumes for casting behavior? Hint: The information is on display either in this thread or the one linked to in the OP.

 

Please provide a post either covering Step 2, which we can then discuss to make sure we are on the same page, or covering Steps 2-4 which may be faster but less efficient in the long run if we have to go back and correct anything at Steps 2 or 3.

 

lol. You should listen to yourself. You seriously have issues. Im not using your 4 steps to tell you that either. lol.

[RuQu]

lol. You should listen to yourself. You seriously have issues. Im not using your 4 steps to tell you that either. lol.

 

I know right?

 

It's pretty absurd that I would devote this much effort into trying to get a troll to provide useful feedback. Those 4 Steps aren't set in stone. I just made them up on the fly to try and teach you how to think rationally and provide constructively provide feedback, since you had clearly have little experience with either.

 

What can I say? I'm just a nice guy like that.

Edited March 10, 2012 by RuQu