Dawdler.8521 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Sleepwalker.1398" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > The situation that the OP is describing is where the sides have a similar number of players, but one is inside the building and the other is attacking, I think. > > > > > > > > > > This. > > > > > > I find it hilarious how people are claiming that at even numbers defenders are not advantaged. > > > > > At even numbers, what generally does happen during defending is you get double teamed with 3rd server hitting another structure. > > So either you risk losing 1 or both structures. > > > > > > You assume that the third server will hit your structure. And you assume they dont. Fact remains one server will always be outnumbered two to one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Sleepwalker.1398" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > The situation that the OP is describing is where the sides have a similar number of players, but one is inside the building and the other is attacking, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > This. > > > > > > > > I find it hilarious how people are claiming that at even numbers defenders are not advantaged. > > > > > > > At even numbers, what generally does happen during defending is you get double teamed with 3rd server hitting another structure. > > > So either you risk losing 1 or both structures. > > > > > > > > > > You assume that the third server will hit your structure. > And you assume they dont. > > Fact remains one server will always be outnumbered two to one. Which has nothing to do with any side being advantaged... In fact I assume nothing. I am saying that one side being 2on1ed is no argument for or against defenders or attackers advantage. I even proceeded to explain how even in this 50-50 scenario, the defenders are better off. Feel free to disagree and actually give viable advantages attackers have at even numbers. Besides the choice of objective. Which is in part negated by scouting or white swords. Everything past that initial advantage is in favor of the defender, from upgrades, to objective access, to siege, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Spook.5847" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > **Following changes are necessary:** > > #Reduce passive defending: > > - Nerf claim buff to ground (especially movement speed), even replace whole claim buff with non-combat buffs like siege taking less supply to build and out of combat movement speed > > - Reduce gliding speed in combat or remove ability to glide in combat. Remove this toxic playstyle, there used to be massive negatives standing on the walls midcombat with pure caster builds like staff ele (and now dps guard). And now you could be fully wipe defenders that lose fight or escape on the wall, deservably. > > - Increase upgrade times of keeps and castles by 100% and 300% respectively while reducing incoming supply. No logic in every objective requiring same amount. > > - Fix packed dolyaks that they don't count towards 2 for the upgrade. But make them carry 4x supply to make up for the incoming supply nerfs. > > > > #Increase active defending: > > - Remove shield gens ability to block siege but instead make it pulse like 30% damage reduction that also affects siege > > - Increase siege damage to siege some because siege health got doubled vs siege for no reason in condi/crit change. > > - Increase health of upgraded walls/gates (was nerfed for no reason to make up for defensive powercreep by other things introduced with HoT) > > - Increase supply cost of guild golems to 80 > > > > So overall powershift in so that attackers take longer to breach outer and inner walls but if they manage to do, the fighting ground is somewhat equal outside defender having supreme stealth engages, ability to use keep portals and cloud in the lord room. You will maybe take the keep in 1 time out of 6, like in the past, not just get onepushed by equally strong group. And big nerf to clouding playstyle because reworking claim buff will mean one needs permaswift. > > > > And please, do not think these changes are unfair, they are for good of WvW and will affect enemy servers as well... > > This is exactly the opposite of what is needed. Making stuff actually hard to take is better - but add some bonuses too. Eliminate the horrifically vulnerable designs of the fortifications would be nice too (seriously - anyone who designs games like this should be required to study the history of true castle battles). Farms especially need some updates. No objectives should be soloable. Make siege immune to hand weapons, etc. Quit exposing cannons and other things to easy pickings - make them truly useful - and DEADLY. There needs to be a strong counters to blobs, and artillery fire should be one of them - just as it is IRL. Eliminating the ability to treb keeps from other keeps is also a must. Yes stuff will be harder to take with studier walls, shield gens not blocking all defensive siege and increased siege vs siege damage. I wonder if you even read the suggestions. Defending _won't be just outpowering enemy with combat advantages_ but you actually have to activate your braincells, organize a bit and build some siege to fend off stronger groups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawdler.8521 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > @"Sleepwalker.1398" said: > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > The situation that the OP is describing is where the sides have a similar number of players, but one is inside the building and the other is attacking, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This. > > > > > > > > > > I find it hilarious how people are claiming that at even numbers defenders are not advantaged. > > > > > > > > > At even numbers, what generally does happen during defending is you get double teamed with 3rd server hitting another structure. > > > > So either you risk losing 1 or both structures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that the third server will hit your structure. > > And you assume they dont. > > > > Fact remains one server will always be outnumbered two to one. > > Which has nothing to do with any side being advantaged... > > In fact I assume nothing. I am saying that one side being 2on1ed is no argument for or against defenders or attackers advantage. I even proceeded to explain how even in this 50-50 scenario, the defenders are better off. > > Feel free to disagree and actually give viable advantages attackers have at even numbers. Besides the choice of objective. Which is in part negated by scouting or white swords. Everything past that initial advantage is in favor of the defender, from upgrades, to objective access, to siege, etc. If the defenders have 50 people and push into 50 enemies and the defender commander get moad, pulled into the enemy and instantly killed, would this be considered advantage for the enemy? If yes then there you go, the advantage of being defenders meant exactly nothing. An advantage that doesnt actually give you an advantage isnt that good an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyninja.2954 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > @"Dawdler.8521" said: > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > @"Sleepwalker.1398" said: > > > > > > @"Cyninja.2954" said: > > > > > > > @"Svarty.8019" said: > > > > > > > The situation that the OP is describing is where the sides have a similar number of players, but one is inside the building and the other is attacking, I think. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This. > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it hilarious how people are claiming that at even numbers defenders are not advantaged. > > > > > > > > > > > At even numbers, what generally does happen during defending is you get double teamed with 3rd server hitting another structure. > > > > > So either you risk losing 1 or both structures. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You assume that the third server will hit your structure. > > > And you assume they dont. > > > > > > Fact remains one server will always be outnumbered two to one. > > > > Which has nothing to do with any side being advantaged... > > > > In fact I assume nothing. I am saying that one side being 2on1ed is no argument for or against defenders or attackers advantage. I even proceeded to explain how even in this 50-50 scenario, the defenders are better off. > > > > Feel free to disagree and actually give viable advantages attackers have at even numbers. Besides the choice of objective. Which is in part negated by scouting or white swords. Everything past that initial advantage is in favor of the defender, from upgrades, to objective access, to siege, etc. > If the defenders have 50 people and push into 50 enemies and the defender commander get moad, pulled into the enemy and instantly killed, would this be considered advantage for the enemy? If yes then there you go, the advantage of being defenders meant exactly nothing. An advantage that doesnt actually give you an advantage isnt that good an advantage. I'm really not sure if you are trolling or not at this point. Everything you wrote applies to the aggressor as well. Advantages are things which are given to one side which the other side does no have access to. Aka, better positioning, availability of better siege possibility, movement advantages, stats bonuses, etc. Everything else which is based around players skill is NOT an advantage. That is player skill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchonWing.9480 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 Wat, you people have to be kidding me. Defender Advantages: Portal Access, can weave in and out if low, can stealth behind portal. As long as your group isn't complete trash you have infinite tries to stealth bomb. Can Repair Walls Glide Closer Spawn advantage; some objectives are not conquerable without a massive numbers or skill gap because the defender can just endlessly run back. Of course, this is not true regarding southern objectives without a way point and oh dear you have to use strategy. (the horror!) Closer spawn point also means that some defenders can leave the structure to counterattack something else and then just go back to spawn--> keep when needed. If it takes them 5 minutes to break in, you don't have to just sit there in the keep for 5 minutes. You have 3 minutes to backcap something else or break a wall elsewhere. Emergency WP Mortars Guild stat buff Banners (actually a good change to make them strictly defensive. ) Supply Drop Lord that scales with numbers and can be ress'd Attacker Advantages: Can periodically pull inattentive players off walls, which can just respawn or develop reaction skills faster than potato. Can rally off guards More rewards Defending is boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Svarty.8019" said: > They don't have to go nuts to bring back defending. ACs could go back to hitting more targets instead of 15. Manning oil could give you "Determined" buff, like being in spawn (you can still be pulled, so you'd probably need perma-stability, too, while manning it). These easy, small changes could have a great impact AND shake things up again. Both those changes would go some way to helping small groups defend against the blob server. Those of us in small squads, because anything other than reset and the day after reset can be a nightmare to get numbers, particularly OCX, may be able to defend better. We already leave when we come across a blob defending, so it can't unbalance that situation any worse than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Ubi.4136" said: > The balance has never favored defenders. > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > The balance has never favored defenders. > > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. > > have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? Yea, that has been my point why people who stack aren't at fault, but the system itself! If you need 30+ people to do anything, defend or attack, it is kind of forced to stack on a server so you have at least something to do _so you can choose the timezone instead of the timezone choosing you_. Also as commander there are very little to do if you have small numbers so building up from small to large isn't viable, WvW people just don't log in unless they already see 20+ people on voice comms and know we can do something. If you could _at least buy decent amount of time_ with smaller group manning siege and whatever, at least you would feel like you have an impact. Maybe even separate your group into even smaller and have a couple of players drain their supply sources, flip stuff on their bl and whatever. But now large groups just walk in and take everything easily. And it is even more annoying for large groups as it is because defending is stat/numbers reliant that defenders don't even usually need commanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > The balance has never favored defenders. > > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. > > have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. The problem with the game mode is the heavily out-balanced server numbers. Which then leads to back-capping objectives as the smaller number of people start havocing and trying to avoid the blobs. _This isn't directed at you:_ This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? And fighting smaller numbers as a blob? Because, the few times I am in that situation, I find it 1. boring and 2. feel very sorry for the people on the other server. There's no skill involved, you can pretty much autoattack and it's all over for the other side. Even if you try, you can't get one rotation in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 26, 2021 Author Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > > @"Ubi.4136" said: > > > The balance has never favored defenders. > > > Instantly, people flock to a link to make a bunch of megalinks that rarely can lose a fight, because they know the enemy has 1/4th their numbers and the attacker has the advantage. > > > > have you ever tried to take a fully sieged structure with less then a zerg? its impossible. maybe a lot of those transfers are due to this fact. imo the game mode is dying cuz people would rather play siege wars then fight each other in pvp combat. both should be viable, but when you have to have a zerg to take anything, are they both really viable? > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > > The problem with the game mode is the heavily out-balanced server numbers. Which then leads to back-capping objectives as the smaller number of people start havocing and trying to avoid the blobs. > > _This isn't directed at you:_ > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? And fighting smaller numbers as a blob? Because, the few times I am in that situation, I find it 1. boring and 2. feel very sorry for the people on the other server. There's no skill involved, you can pretty much autoattack and it's all over for the other side. Even if you try, you can't get one rotation in. Whole point is to shift the balance so teams can have fights within objectives. As it is, if defender can't gather decent numbers defending (mostly due to walls being paper and attacking siege being overpowered so you don't have time), they can't provide you any content open field either. So overall objectives need to be good spots to have fights, so nerf passive defender stats and ability to glide fast meanwhile defenders need more time to match attacker numbers, buff wall/gate hp and siege vs siege damage. So go back closer to Pre-HoT objective balance, and believe me, it was much better back then: 1+ hour sieges against keeps because both sides were having fun and weren't feeling desperate because massive siege/stat advantages. Another reason to nerf claim buff is that even if you manage to wipe attacker with 800 extra stats, there is absolutely no way you can deal with the enemy objectives on the map, as they will have +400 or +800 stats there instead. So there will be like 20% damage and 30% survivability swing, which is ridiculously massive. So you're forced to just sit in your keeps. Most of pugs and guilds have already realised that and are 90% of the time in defense mode and don't take any risks going near enemy stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Hesione.9412" said: > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group? t3 structures aren't even approachable without at least 30 people, which plenty of people would call a zerg or blob. why would you assume a scenario where there aren't people manning siege? obviously there is no difficulty in taking said structure. whats even less fun for the majority of the wvw populace (as evidenced by the fact that there are way more people band wagoning/ in big zergs) are siege wars that take an hour but the fight takes 3 min. when the majority of someones time is taken up by dealing with players thru siege (not everyone can get on siege much less have the desire to do so, so they're just standing around), what reason is there to stick around? they aren't there for siege wars. if we're talking about a good keep siege where there are enough defenders to put up a counter resistance with their own zerg then siege wars are tolerable, but often enough this isn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? > > tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group? I should have clarified, my second sentence was referring to towers and keeps with siege, but not enough players to use all of it. You can have 5 superior or guild arrow carts available for use, but only 2 players in the structure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroud.2307 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 I feel like attacker/defender balance is extremely situational, and therefore not as in favor of one or the other as some people say. It is entirely dependent on the creativity and knowledge of each, though objectively I do think defenders have the edge. Taking anything is going to be difficult if you're always building siege in predictable/easy to counter locations, allowing yourself to get Marked before you're ready, not tagging Waypoints, etc. Just like defending anything is going to be difficult if you're building excessive amounts of useless siege, people aren't using siege, and everyone is staying inside instead of having some outside to cut away the easy to kill stragglers. One of the biggest problems isn't defense or offense however, it's Mounts. Which ever side has the numbers to steamroll is going to do it faster and faster due to the speed they can traverse the map(s). If they're rushing to defend, the attackers won't have the time to even dent what ever they're attacking. If they're rushing to take something, the defenders won't even have time to start using their siege or rally numbers. The problem of Mounts is particularly significant in EBG where I believe they shouldn't be allowed at all. At least in Desert and Alpine the maps are large enough that the mobility of Mounts isn't such an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subversiontwo.7501 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 > @"Shroud.2307" said: > I feel like attacker/defender balance is extremely situational, and therefore not as in favor of one or the other as some people say. It is entirely dependent on the creativity and knowledge of each, though objectively I do think defenders have the edge. In all fairness, defenders always have the advantage. Anything disadvantageous in defending could always be circumvented by just exiting the objective and going open field. There is never a situation in which a group that holds an objective and is strong enough to put up a fight open field does not benefit from holding the objective. Whether they then decide to use that advantage or uses it effectively is another question. It is never bad to hold an objective, if it ever was you could just choose not to hold it. With that said, looking past the unecessary phrasing of the OP, this time around Threater's arguments or suggestions are not necessarily bad. At least not the spirit of what he is trying to say. The passive system has not proven to be superior to the older active system or to not warrant a third system that builds upon what is good but reintroduces more active "stocking" or preparations. At the end of the day though, as with everything else, the real problem for PPT is coverage. It doesn't matter if it is passive or active if whatever you are trying to achieve with it is unfairly slated when you go to bed, work and school. Everything regarding passive, active, fun or unfun upgrades are secondary to the problems related to night-capping and population imbalance. I would start with mechanics dealing with that whether it is simply applied to score or more intricately and creatively applied to the objective mechanics somehow. I favour score because it is a simple db change but I could certainly see arguments being made for why outnumbered mechanics could be used to directly affect objective upgrade processes and vulnurabilities. Perhaps not so outright as to make them uncapturable when outnumbered but they could easily twist parameters of upgrade pace, timers etc.m if they wanted to and indirectly affect scoring through upgrade time. Considering that score has not been properly addressed in 8 years, it is an aim-small, miss-small issue for me though and I'd keep it simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stand The Wall.6987 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > > > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? > > > > tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group? > > I should have clarified, my second sentence was referring to towers and keeps with siege, but not enough players to use all of it. You can have 5 superior or guild catapults available for use, but only 2 players in the structure. alright, i've felt that pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hesione.9412 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > > @"Stand The Wall.6987" said: > > > > @"Hesione.9412" said: > > > > The only time it is difficult to take a fully sieged structure without resorting to a blob is when there is a blob defending it. Siege without players is just useless structures. > > > > This is what I don't understand: is it fun being in a blob and taking everything as a blob? > > > > > > tell me, how do i build 6 catas/ rams 2 shield gens and a balli or 2 with a small group? > > > > I should have clarified, my second sentence was referring to towers and keeps with siege, but not enough players to use all of it. You can have 5 superior or guild catapults available for use, but only 2 players in the structure. > > alright, i've felt that pain. I was thinking arrow carts, but typed catapults. I've updated my comment, but your quote has my old text (unsurprisingly). You probably wondered why I mentioned catapults instead of the more usual defensive siege. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manu.7539 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 oof, all these guys using the title of my post, that is amazing! I said in my post I created a monster, didnt expect that much! O.O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manu.7539 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 So what is the next post? NPC'S IN WVW: SADLY NPC'S RULE THE GAME THEY KILL ME AND SABOTAGE MY FUN! I just cant believe it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crux.6137 Posted February 27, 2021 Share Posted February 27, 2021 > @"manu.7539" said: > oof, all these guys using the title of my post, that is amazing! I said in my post I created a monster, didnt expect that much! O.O Satire: noun the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. Congratulations on becoming a meme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manu.7539 Posted February 28, 2021 Share Posted February 28, 2021 > @"Threather.9354" said: > Yes we know the balance heavily favors the defender in fights, Well, isnt only logical? What do you want? No walls? A free ticket into lord room? I totally agree about the kdr farmers.. such a boring stuff sometimes. Stalled for an hour at the same spot.. really not what I'm looking for in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threather.9354 Posted February 28, 2021 Author Share Posted February 28, 2021 > @"manu.7539" said: > > @"Threather.9354" said: > > > Yes we know the balance heavily favors the defender in fights, > > Well, isnt only logical? What do you want? No walls? A free ticket into lord room? I totally agree about the kdr farmers.. such a boring stuff sometimes. Stalled for an hour at the same spot.. really not what I'm looking for in this game. FIghting balance should be relatively equal outside positioning. All passive stats (claim buff at least) should be removed or nerfed to ground. Having free casters and siege on the walls while forcing enemy to push or going for superior stealth engages are good enough defender advantages. Of course defending needs corresponding buffs to siege as with introduction of claim buff, faster upgrade times and gliding, they soon nerfed siege damage and wall/gate health. They basically scrapped the perfect siege/objective/upgrade time balance they achieved over years after release just to market new stuff. You cannot outplay claim buff with better movement and counter siege, you can do so however with siege and positional advantages. So basically attacker has no option to just outthink enemy but also have to be much better players. Obviously it feels great beating much better players defending but losing to worse players that didn't outplay you in any way makes everyone feels terrible thus makes any competitive player shun objectives and open tags. Claim buff also causes the problem that if you barely defend your keep/castle/tower with 400 or 800 extra stats _even without siege or using positional advantages_, going to enemy objective and having good fight is nearly impossible because they will have those stats _and advantages_ instead. This leads to "defending only meta". Do note that claim buff isn't just inside objective walls but even taking 1 step on open field might lead to 800 stat difference. It is easy to see why dueling died as 10% extra damage and survivability for one player changes 50-50 winrates to more like 80-20. Also people adding in duels are 90% of the time in the server that owns the objective youre dueling near, and 20% worse players can succesfully interrupt duels and come out victorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now