test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Developer Blog: Classes Intro

124»

Comments

  • raiderone000raiderone000 Posts: 62Member Arc User

    I've never played DDO, but if mod 16 is anywhere near as bad as I think it will be that's where I'm headed.

    DDO is very good game. It's way more complex than NWN's. It depends on what you like. DDO is free to play, but not like NWN. You can only play limited amount of quests before buying Adventure Packs. NWN is a bigger money drain than DDO in the long run. And NWN is definitely more pay to win.
  • pitshadepitshade Posts: 4,099Member Arc User
    Why are you referring to this game as Neverwinter Nights? Not the same game.
    "We have always been at war with Dread Vault" ~ Little Brother
  • mwkmwk Posts: 105Member Arc User
    I'm really confused by no feat trees and other things. Developers are making me rethink everything and I'm typically a type of person that doesn't like huge changes by something I'm not used to. If my eyes are correct? The total wipe of used to gameplay, which is daily powers, at-wills, encounters, and in with the new? I mean :s :# :'( I'm really confused, skeptical, and don't know what to expect? So call me paranoid. Yes I'm feeling paranoid. Urggh having to rethink everything! That's what I don't like! Or is this just feat design with 70-80 only?
  • raiderone000raiderone000 Posts: 62Member Arc User
    pitshade said:

    Why are you referring to this game as Neverwinter Nights? Not the same game.

    Old habit. yah old game single player. Sorry NW :)
  • raiderone000raiderone000 Posts: 62Member Arc User
    edited February 22
    mwk said:

    I'm really confused by no feat trees and other things. Developers are making me rethink everything and I'm typically a type of person that doesn't like huge changes by something I'm not used to. If my eyes are correct? The total wipe of used to gameplay, which is daily powers, at-wills, encounters, and in with the new? I mean :s :# :'( I'm really confused, skeptical, and don't know what to expect? So call me paranoid. Yes I'm feeling paranoid. Urggh having to rethink everything! That's what I don't like! Or is this just feat design with 70-80 only?

    If they want to go 5e, then here are some options for Fighting Style. This is Paladin from 5e. Which I understand kills my argument for switching between styles. I just want more options within Classes.

    Although they are taking away AC. Which doesn't make sense to me...

    Fighting Style
    At 2nd level, you adopt a style of fighting as your specialty. Choose one of the following options. You can’t take a Fighting Style option more than once, even if you later get to choose again.

    Defense
    While you are wearing armor, you gain a +1 bonus to AC.

    Dueling
    When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon.

    Great Weapon Fighting
    When you roll a 1 or 2 on a damage die for an attack you make with a melee weapon that you are wielding with two hands, you can reroll the die and must use the new roll. The weapon must have the two-handed or versatile property for you to gain this benefit.

    Protection
    When a creature you can see attacks a target other than you that is within 5 feet of you, you can use your reaction to impose disadvantage on the attack roll. You must be wielding a shield.
  • soulaeterrsoulaeterr Posts: 3Member Arc User
    i m really excited but i hope they dont HAMSTER up the feats. how they explained it atm it feels like they re just gonne be discount boons with not a lot of actually fun choices...
  • wisper2048wisper2048 Posts: 160Member Arc User
    Do I understand it correctly that there will be no more slottable passive powers (yellow powers)?
  • mithrosnomoremithrosnomore Posts: 577Member Arc User
    edited February 23

    that only PnP D&D, no matter the edition, is "real" D&D.

    I disagree that switching between THF and Sword & Board would create game imbalance. Because a Tank is not DPS
    to begin with. And would only have slightly more DPS while using THF. A DPS toon with THF would still have more DPS.
    Options are never bad.

    And switching between fighting styles is not multi-classing.

    Read the forums and you will see that many folks are complaining that Simplistic Toon's are becoming more Generic.

    And whats the point of axes, swords, maces etc, if they all have the same damage type. And no differences besides appearance.

    So you want to be able to play a tank that is bad at tanking because it has no shield?

    You want to make DPSers that are bad at DPSing because they are using lower-damage weapons?

    Is this where this is all going?

    Including inherently bad options is a false choice.
    Maybe you want to run through some zone that is well below your level while poorly equipped just for kicks, but that doesn't mean that the game engine should be reworked to support that choice.
    There are a lot more important things to spend time and money on.

    Different damage types for weapons don't matter because there is no need for slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage to bypass DR.

    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than the fact that you are not sitting around a table playing with friends?
    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than some monsters and races not being in the game?
    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than excluding a number of FR dieties from our list of choices?
    I could list a great many things that D&D has that this game doesn't. So what? Whether this game is "D&D" or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you enjoy playing the game.

    Just answer me this... What difference does it make if they were to add that this weapon did this type of damage and that weapon did that type of damage if there is nowhere in the game where it matters?

    So go ahead and shoot arrows at the skeleton. It's okay.

    D&D is just a brand name to put on the box. They could change all the names to something else and the game would remain.

    And if you can not get over that then maybe you should try WoW or ESO or something. They don't claim to be D&D so maybe it will help you get over the psychological scars that not having slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage seem to be causing you.
  • vendoodvendood Posts: 77Member Arc User
    I'm gonna guess that they simply can't do much more with the old code, since none of them actually understand it and nobody is going to pay them to take the time to learn it.

    Thus, they are going to take out all the old code, and insert all the new, written-by-them code. Which seems to mean they will have some sort of understanding of the new code, but they still won't be able to fix the bugs in the new code anyway because they have been showing us consistently over the past 8-9 months that they are perfectly capable of putting in new code with new bugs that they ignore feedback on and then don't fix anyway. Or break it further if they do fix it.

    Let's be honest, this code is being developed by the same devs that have a hard time getting dates to match on announcements, end things early with no warning, can't/don't fix bugs that have been issues for weeks.

    My advice would be, don't expect improvements, don't expect a cool new way of doing things, don't expect it to actually work, and don't get upset when bugs pop up. Expect a simpler, less flexible system, with some ongoing problems and issues, that will still be mostly playable, but won't be as good as what you can do now. Expect to learn new ways of building and running your character, and putting together teams that can complete content successfully.

    The worst that can happen is you will get what you expect, in that case, and the best is that you might be pleasantly surprised once the dust settles.
  • wylonuswylonus Posts: 2,305Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    creatures need different types of weapon resistance,

    example earth-form solid should resist piercing or slashing but more vulnerable to blunt weapons that can hurt.
    water or air base creatures are more vulnerable to piercing or slashing of they have specific elemental damages that can hurt.

    the cost of switching the enchant gems need to go away, it is outdated, devs are in the wrong way putting the cost on enchants, workshop are draining gold coins pretty fast, and it is time to shut down the cost of switching the enchants. it is gone out of style. it would had retired on Patch update Mod 12.

    we need different elemental damage type gems to deal with specific mobs, no one want to carry 5 different swords if the cost of switching still active. i remembered my old online game that i had to carry 5-6 swords, it take away inventory slots when we only need 1-2 main weapons.
  • wylonuswylonus Posts: 2,305Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    edited February 24
    Mith, talk about arrows on undead skelletons, there is types of arrow, i know it not in this game, but other games did, use blunt head arrows that would shatter them.
    and some creatures with scales can be killed with "Y" type frog arrows since they penerate any scale type armors and piercing is "A" type heads.
  • dionchidionchi Posts: 750Member Arc User
    edited February 24
    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    DD~
  • cococyacococya Posts: 153Member Arc User
    dionchi said:

    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    Except they never said they were new classes, you're misinterpreting...well, everything. They are changing the names of all existing classes to better suit 5E names, since they will be adapting skills/feats as well to go more by the rules of that edition.

  • dionchidionchi Posts: 750Member Arc User
    cococya said:

    dionchi said:

    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    Except they never said they were new classes, you're misinterpreting...well, everything. They are changing the names of all existing classes to better suit 5E names, since they will be adapting skills/feats as well to go more by the rules of that edition.
    The blog is Class "Intro", rarely does someone or something known require an introduction, that plus the fact that players have been asking for a Barbarian as a new class for quite a while... Although Guardian Fighter to Fighter may not be much of a departure of class nomenclature, Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian certainly seem to be, to me at least but yes it is quite probable I misinterpreted...
    DD~
  • theycallmetomutheycallmetomu Posts: 1,861Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    dionchi said:

    cococya said:

    dionchi said:

    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    Except they never said they were new classes, you're misinterpreting...well, everything. They are changing the names of all existing classes to better suit 5E names, since they will be adapting skills/feats as well to go more by the rules of that edition.
    The blog is Class "Intro", rarely does someone or something known require an introduction, that plus the fact that players have been asking for a Barbarian as a new class for quite a while... Although Guardian Fighter to Fighter may not be much of a departure of class nomenclature, Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian certainly seem to be, to me at least but yes it is quite probable I misinterpreted...
    I don't get why people have been asking for a Barbarian other than as a name issue. The fact that their tab is "Get bigger and angrier and smash things" means GWF is already a Barbarian in the most important way-the main concern is that they need to change all of their equipment to match Barbarian equipment.
  • havlockehavlocke Posts: 222Member Arc User
    edited February 25
    dionchi said:

    cococya said:

    dionchi said:

    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    Except they never said they were new classes, you're misinterpreting...well, everything. They are changing the names of all existing classes to better suit 5E names, since they will be adapting skills/feats as well to go more by the rules of that edition.
    The blog is Class "Intro", rarely does someone or something known require an introduction, that plus the fact that players have been asking for a Barbarian as a new class for quite a while... Although Guardian Fighter to Fighter may not be much of a departure of class nomenclature, Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian certainly seem to be, to me at least but yes it is quite probable I misinterpreted...

    You do realise this thread was made by just another player right? They called it class intro because, what else were you going to call it? They even said they are just changing the names of the classes, they NEVER said they were new classes. You are drawing a pretty tenuous link so say these are new classes.

    As for Barbarian as a new completely different class. Why the hell would we need one. The GWF walks like a Barb, hits like a Barb, frenzies like a Barb. Its already a Barbarian in everything but name. And they've just fixed that.
  • havlockehavlocke Posts: 222Member Arc User
    wylonus said:

    Mith, talk about arrows on undead skelletons, there is types of arrow, i know it not in this game, but other games did, use blunt head arrows that would shatter them.
    and some creatures with scales can be killed with "Y" type frog arrows since they penerate any scale type armors and piercing is "A" type heads.

    And this is completely irrelevant to THIS game.

    I personally think Neverwinter a pretty good representation of 4th ED DnD. I've been playing in a Pen and Paper 4th Ed campaign for close to 10 years now. Its not perfect, but its good enuf. BTW, just for reference, there is no slashing/piercing/bludgening damage in 4th Ed.
  • havlockehavlocke Posts: 222Member Arc User
    vendood said:

    I'm gonna guess that they simply can't do much more with the old code, since none of them actually understand it and nobody is going to pay them to take the time to learn it.

    This is probably the best most accurate theory I've seen. I'll bet you are 100% dead on.

    There are a couple of coders in my group of friends and we've long joked about how we reckon the bugs are cuz they are working with a game code so old nobody there actually knows it anymore. Wasn't there a Dilbert episode like this? :)

    On the other hand, I am a bit more optimistic about this. I think its a lot better to have the current team work with THEIR code and knowledge than to try and paper over the widening cracks that was the old Neverwinter.
  • pteriaspterias Posts: 661Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    I've always liked Barbarians and felt it was a shame we couldn't have them because GWFs were Barbarians wearing Fighter clothing. I mean, Determination? That is very obviously Rage.

    I know it may be a bit too much too soon to do it all right now, but I hope they slowly shift the class to be even more Barbarian-ish. Maybe change all Sword Knots to Totems and rename some of the powers and feats.
  • kiraskytowerkiraskytower Posts: 408Member Arc User

    Do I understand it correctly that there will be no more slottable passive powers (yellow powers)?

    So I noticed this too .... the classes Blog post only mentioned At-Wills, Dailys and Encounters.

    From the Blog Post:

    Each paragon path now has:

    2 unique At-Wills
    2 shared At-Wills
    5 unique Encounters
    5 shared Encounters
    2 unique Dailies
    2 shared Dailies


    No mention at all of Passive powers. This could just be information we don't have yet, or they could have changed/removed them. I can imagine quite a few players being very unhappy if they did indeed remove things like the paladin Auras or the CW's Storm Spell passive.
    PandorasMisfits_Logo_175_zpskpytcqxc.png
    Winter Lily (CW) / Winter Rose (DC) / Winter Ivy (HR)
    Pandora's Misfits Guild Leader
  • kangkeokkangkeok Posts: 1,082Member Arc User
    cococya said:

    I've never played DDO, but if mod 16 is anywhere near as bad as I think it will be that's where I'm headed.

    I wouldn't recommended, played it a bit before Neverwinter, oh lordy, did it suck, and not in a good way.
    I would have to disagree. Its depends on what u seek from the game. I started trying out DDO since mod14 is introduced in this game and I m still playing it. If u are playing it for graphics and arcade style of gameplay, then Neverwinter might better suit u. if u are looking for complex D&D pnp style and dungeon crawling kind of gameplay then DDO is the one that should interest u more.

    that only PnP D&D, no matter the edition, is "real" D&D.

    I disagree that switching between THF and Sword & Board would create game imbalance. Because a Tank is not DPS
    to begin with. And would only have slightly more DPS while using THF. A DPS toon with THF would still have more DPS.
    Options are never bad.

    And switching between fighting styles is not multi-classing.

    Read the forums and you will see that many folks are complaining that Simplistic Toon's are becoming more Generic.

    And whats the point of axes, swords, maces etc, if they all have the same damage type. And no differences besides appearance.

    So you want to be able to play a tank that is bad at tanking because it has no shield?

    You want to make DPSers that are bad at DPSing because they are using lower-damage weapons?

    Is this where this is all going?

    Including inherently bad options is a false choice.
    Maybe you want to run through some zone that is well below your level while poorly equipped just for kicks, but that doesn't mean that the game engine should be reworked to support that choice.
    There are a lot more important things to spend time and money on.

    Different damage types for weapons don't matter because there is no need for slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage to bypass DR.

    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than the fact that you are not sitting around a table playing with friends?
    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than some monsters and races not being in the game?
    How does that make the game "not D&D" any more than excluding a number of FR dieties from our list of choices?
    I could list a great many things that D&D has that this game doesn't. So what? Whether this game is "D&D" or not doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not you enjoy playing the game.

    Just answer me this... What difference does it make if they were to add that this weapon did this type of damage and that weapon did that type of damage if there is nowhere in the game where it matters?

    So go ahead and shoot arrows at the skeleton. It's okay.

    D&D is just a brand name to put on the box. They could change all the names to something else and the game would remain.

    And if you can not get over that then maybe you should try WoW or ESO or something. They don't claim to be D&D so maybe it will help you get over the psychological scars that not having slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning damage seem to be causing you.
    I don't get what u are fussing about when all raiderone000 said are true. This game only use certain of D&D elements. It doesn't fully follows D&D rules all the way. Like he said, just the names and the Forgotten Realm setting. From the way I look at it, this game is designed to be played as arcade style. Complex D&D rule doesn't fit in so the developer put it aside and makes their own rule.

    If the developer would implement D&D rule, this game would be more complex than having 2 at will, 3 encounter and 2 dailies. You probably go from 8 button to press to maybe 30+ button to press. That will makes this game loses its concept of arcade playstyle. So yeah, like raiderone000 said, things are pretty regulated in NWO compare to actual D&D rule and for a reason.
  • mithrosnomoremithrosnomore Posts: 577Member Arc User
    wylonus said:

    creatures need different types of weapon resistance,

    example earth-form solid should resist piercing or slashing but more vulnerable to blunt weapons that can hurt.
    water or air base creatures are more vulnerable to piercing or slashing of they have specific elemental damages that can hurt.

    the cost of switching the enchant gems need to go away, it is outdated, devs are in the wrong way putting the cost on enchants, workshop are draining gold coins pretty fast, and it is time to shut down the cost of switching the enchants. it is gone out of style. it would had retired on Patch update Mod 12.

    we need different elemental damage type gems to deal with specific mobs, no one want to carry 5 different swords if the cost of switching still active. i remembered my old online game that i had to carry 5-6 swords, it take away inventory slots when we only need 1-2 main weapons.

    So you want to add damage type resists and vulnerabilities to the game, at whatever expense and however long it takes to get it done, and then want to make it as easy as possible for players to exploit the vulnerabilities and avoid the resistances.

    Do you not even consider what you type before you post it?
    wylonus said:

    Mith, talk about arrows on undead skelletons, there is types of arrow, i know it not in this game, but other games did, use blunt head arrows that would shatter them.
    and some creatures with scales can be killed with "Y" type frog arrows since they penerate any scale type armors and piercing is "A" type heads.

    So you acknowledge it's not in the game. This gets tiring.

    We all know what "arrow" means in this game, and in "real" D&D if someone says arrow does anyone think anything other than standard arrows? If they meant that they were using a "broadhead" arrow then wouldn't you expect them to say that? If they were using some sort of magic fireball arrow wouldn't you expect them to say that?
    So if someone says "I'll fire an arrow" isn't the assumption that they are using the most basic arrow in their quiver and that they would be called out if they rolled high and then tried to claim that it was an arrow of slaying or whatever?

    Or are you suggesting that Rangers should have to carry arrows and that they then introduce all sorts of exotic arrows so that they can get around all the resistances and exploit vulnerabilities as easily as everyone else, once again spending time and money on a system that will mean absolutely nothing in the end?

    If we are going that route wouldn't it just be easier to pretend that our Rangers are all carrying arrows of all sorts in their quivers already and that they always have a few blunt-head arrows to deal with skeletons and special broadhead arrows that deal slashing damage along with their regular arrows that deal piercing damage?

    As I see it, they can spend time and money making a thing that everyone will get around, or you can use your imagination and pretend that everyone is getting around it already.

  • wylonuswylonus Posts: 2,305Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User
    no mith, you didnt understood me, i meant for other games they used types of arrows, i am old school player. it was just info i just let everyone know how bloated other game by carry several weapons.
    not really to carry arrows, just 3 new bow enchant gems,
    just for bows, Blunt, Pierce and Slash, no leveling or refine needed, new concept for bows with a new socket "ammo slot", cost less gem, just 1 gem and you can shoot blunts all day.
    other combat weapons dont need it since they are made specifically.
  • pteriaspterias Posts: 661Member, NW M9 Playtest Arc User

    dionchi said:

    cococya said:

    dionchi said:

    Speaking for myself I don't really see how changing the "Guardian Fighter" to a "Fighter" - or a "Great Weapons Fighter" to a "Barbarian" constitutes "New Classes" instead of modifications to current classes, particularly since all the supposed new classes have the same basic core elements as existing classes with modifications to class attributes...

    Scourge Warlock... that was a New Character Class.

    Guardian Fighter to Fighter and Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian are just changes to existing character classes disingenuously hyped as New Character Classes as far as I'm concerned.

    But maybe that's just me.

    Except they never said they were new classes, you're misinterpreting...well, everything. They are changing the names of all existing classes to better suit 5E names, since they will be adapting skills/feats as well to go more by the rules of that edition.
    The blog is Class "Intro", rarely does someone or something known require an introduction, that plus the fact that players have been asking for a Barbarian as a new class for quite a while... Although Guardian Fighter to Fighter may not be much of a departure of class nomenclature, Great Weapons Fighter to Barbarian certainly seem to be, to me at least but yes it is quite probable I misinterpreted...
    I don't get why people have been asking for a Barbarian other than as a name issue. The fact that their tab is "Get bigger and angrier and smash things" means GWF is already a Barbarian in the most important way-the main concern is that they need to change all of their equipment to match Barbarian equipment.
    They don't really need to change any of the GWF gear to Barbarian gear. They could add some flavor along the way or change Sword Knots to Totems or something, but overall they use the same gear. I have a 5E Barbarian character and he's wearing Scale Mail RIGHT NOW, lol. As for appearances, after wearing the Chult gear for a while, I forgot my GWF wasn't a Barbarian.
  • akemnosakemnos Posts: 458Member Arc User
    wylonus said:

    no mith, you didnt understood me, i meant for other games they used types of arrows, i am old school player. it was just info i just let everyone know how bloated other game by carry several weapons.
    not really to carry arrows, just 3 new bow enchant gems,
    just for bows, Blunt, Pierce and Slash, no leveling or refine needed, new concept for bows with a new socket "ammo slot", cost less gem, just 1 gem and you can shoot blunts all day.
    other combat weapons dont need it since they are made specifically.

    Sorry but this is a terrible idea. why would you force one class to need extra items just to keep up with the other classes? Lets just take a look at a Tong as an example. you start off fighting Yuanti. you would probably want piercing damage for these so you slot piercing ammo. great. except for after 3 groups of Yuanti now you are fighting undead. so you change your ammo to blunt, meanwhile your team has run ahead and is already fighting the next group. Maybe you switch quickly and catch up or they wait for you, great so you use your blunt ammo on the skeletal enemies and they go down quickly leaving zombie types (hulks, zombies) but now you have to switch ammo again as zombies have 50% resist to bludgeoning damage. not to mention if it is a gem socket like you mentioned than it will probably cost gold to change everytime which causes even more of a headache.

    Even if you go the other way and have this type of thing affect all classes and not just HR's it means you are devaluing different dps classes for every single dungeon. TR's for example would only do piercing damage (daggers) any dungeon with Undead they are now doing 50% of their possible dps due to damage types. All this would do is force us back to the mod 3-5 days of tank/heal/3 cw teams.

    The only reason to even have different types of damage is if we did have the ability to carry around multiple different types of weapons which is exactly what you seem to be against.
Sign In or Register to comment.