open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Proposal] Change the legion covert ops subsystem bonus
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.10.24 05:22:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Aamrr on 24/10/2010 13:10:08
TL;DR: Add a 7.5% range bonus to the legion offensive - covert reconfiguration to bring it on par with the 5% increase in RoF or damage provided by other covert ops pilots.

I'll admit it. This is a whine for a buff. But I think it's warranted. Let's take a look at the various covert ops subsystems available to our tech3 pilots:

Loki: +5% RoF. Adds an extra 33.3% DPS by turning 5 effective turrets into 6.66. No additional capacitor consumption from higher RoF.
Tengu: +5% RoF. See Loki.
Proteus: +5% Damage. Straight 5% increase, turns 5 turrets into 6.25. Again, no additional capacitor consumption.
Legion: -10% capacitor use per level. No affect on damage whatsoever. 5 turrets = ...5 effective turrets.

You could argue that the legion's bonus would allow it to use higher grade crystals and do more damage...except it ignores why people use lower-grade crystals in the first place: range!

Give the covert legion a second bonus, in the style of an apocalypse, to increase its optimal range. It does not have to be as strong as the liquid crystal subsystem -- even a 5% bonus would be enough to make us WANT to put lasers on our covert legions instead of the monstrosities that autocannons became during the projectile buff.

As a personal opinion, I think it should receive a 7.5% bonus to stylistically mirror the apocalypse. This would let the covert legion use X-ray where it previously used standard, achieving a 25% damage increase -- identical to the proteus and inferior to both the tengu and loki.

This tradeoff is, of course, only valid where the user can trade range for more damage -- if the pilot is already using multifrequency, there's not much to be done. This is stylistically interesting, balanced, and differentiates the amarr covert ops from its competitors.

If people feel that strongly that two bonuses isn't justified for a covert ops ship, then simply swap the capacitor use bonus for a range bonus and stick us with the higher cap drain. Or provide a only a 5% range bonus and reduce the capacitor reduction bonus to 5% as well. I'd just like them to remember that the tengu and loki get a 33% damage increase, and they don't have to pay ANY capacitor to fire their guns. And they have selectable damage types. And that they either have superior tracking or ignore it entirely.

However, SOMETHING must be done, because the current state of affairs is ridiculous. If Minmatar pilots were dealing 75-80% of their hybrid and laser brethren, they wouldn't have been yelling on the forums about it, they'd be storming Iceland with 200mm-vulcan autocannons crafted from chicken wire and duct tape. But that's precisely what is happening with the legion covert subsystem, and apparently it's "okay" because it's "not a combat ship in that configuration."

Fight for our freedom, Amarrian brethren! Throw off
the shackles of our capacitor reduction bonuses! Revolt!

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.10.24 05:27:00 - [2]
 

Supporting my own proposal.

Makumba Aki
Posted - 2010.10.24 10:08:00 - [3]
 

supported

Tactical Miner
Amarr
Posted - 2010.10.24 17:14:00 - [4]
 

yes

Saitone
Posted - 2010.10.24 18:05:00 - [5]
 

AMEN, one of the reasons I am leaning away from legion is lack of this balancing factor, this would make it a contender again in my mind.

Amarantha Morgana
Posted - 2010.10.24 19:36:00 - [6]
 

supported

Slimy Worm
The Skunkworks
Posted - 2010.10.24 20:23:00 - [7]
 

Supported, autocannons belong on Minmatar ships.

Avan Sercedos
Gunpoint Diplomacy
Posted - 2010.10.24 20:26:00 - [8]
 

how does +5% rof per level * 5 = 33.3% increase in dps (ignoring drones)

Faolan Fortune
Posted - 2010.10.24 20:39:00 - [9]
 

The covops system on the Legion really does need a little boost, so yes.

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.10.25 02:45:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Avan Sercedos
how does +5% rof per level * 5 = 33.3% increase in dps (ignoring drones)


Let's take a few examples. Suppose you cut your cycle time in half (a 50% reduction). That means you're getting out twice as many shots in the in the same time. You double your DPS.

What if you cut your cycle time to a third? That's a 67% reduction, and it triples your DPS.

Notice the pattern. If you get an "x" percent reduction, you get a 1/(1-x) increase in DPS. This is why RoF is preferred over raw damage increase, provided you can pay for it in reload time or capacitor use.

Wen Jaibao
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2010.10.25 16:58:00 - [11]
 

Supported as a legion pilot

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.10.25 17:06:00 - [12]
 

Wen Jaibo, do you use the covert ops subsystem regularly? If so, what weapon configuration do you use?

Data is not the plural of anecdote, but...Rolling Eyes

weeknieunknowing
Posted - 2010.10.27 22:49:00 - [13]
 

support

Saitwo
Posted - 2010.10.29 18:34:00 - [14]
 

legion.covert.fail--;
win++;

end

Alara IonStorm
Caldari
Posted - 2010.10.29 19:09:00 - [15]
 

o/ 10% is a crap use bonus!

Matalino
Posted - 2010.10.29 21:04:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
However, SOMETHING must be done, because the current state of affairs is ridiculous. If Minmatar pilots were dealing 75-80% of their hybrid and laser brethren.
However, that is not the situation here. The base damage for lasers is higher than the base damage for the other turret. Thus, a Heavy Beam fitted Legion can deal 92.4% of the raw damage of a 250mm Railgun fitted Proteus. While the Legion has slightly less base damage it has much better tracking (43.5%). Therefore in real combat, the Legion is likely to have better damage output than a rail Proteus. A artillery Loki has worse damage and worse tracking than Proteus.

With short range fittings, the difference in damage output is extreme, but then so it the difference in range. While the Proteus can deal 46% more raw damage than the Legion at the Proteus' otpimal range, the Legion will deal 90% more damage than the Proteus' at the Legion's optimal range. Damage output from an autocannon Loki at the Legion's optimal range is the same as the Legion. Going in closer gives the Loki an advantage, moving out further to the Legion's optimal + 1/2 falloff range and the Legion has a 2.8x damage advantage over the Loki.

There is nothing ridiculous about the current state of affairs. Each ship has its strengths and weaknesses. Put the Legion in the proper situation and it will shine, put in the wrong situation and it will die. This is the way it is for every ship, and is the way it should be. I see no obvious problem with the current bonuses.

If you have further arguments in favor of the proposed change, please ensure that they take a wholistic view of the ship and its fittings. Do not compare bonuses out of context.

Aeo IV
Amarr
Xomic OmniCorporation
Posted - 2010.10.29 21:41:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Matalino
However, that is not the situation here. The base damage for lasers is higher than the base damage for the other turret. Thus, a Heavy Beam fitted Legion can deal 92.4% of the raw damage of a 250mm Railgun fitted Proteus. While the Legion has slightly less base damage it has much better tracking (43.5%). Therefore in real combat, the Legion is likely to have better damage output than a rail Proteus. A artillery Loki has worse damage and worse tracking than Proteus.

With short range fittings, the difference in damage output is extreme, but then so it the difference in range. While the Proteus can deal 46% more raw damage than the Legion at the Proteus' otpimal range, the Legion will deal 90% more damage than the Proteus' at the Legion's optimal range. Damage output from an autocannon Loki at the Legion's optimal range is the same as the Legion. Going in closer gives the Loki an advantage, moving out further to the Legion's optimal + 1/2 falloff range and the Legion has a 2.8x damage advantage over the Loki.

There is nothing ridiculous about the current state of affairs. Each ship has its strengths and weaknesses. Put the Legion in the proper situation and it will shine, put in the wrong situation and it will die. This is the way it is for every ship, and is the way it should be. I see no obvious problem with the current bonuses.

If you have further arguments in favor of the proposed change, please ensure that they take a wholistic view of the ship and its fittings. Do not compare bonuses out of context.


I think the op's point is that each covert ops reconfiguration subsystem is increasing the damage of the weapons of the ship, in one way or another, where as the legion subsystem does not.

Unless you can show that the legion's Reconfiguration subsystem does not actually increase dps, or show that the other subsystem bonuses are not increasing dps? We're hardly talking about the base damage or the base tracking of the ship's weapons, rather, the op is pointing out, and I agree, that if you had four t3 cruisers, one of each kind, with similar set ups with the covert reconfiguration, and the racial offensive subsystem trained to 1 or more, the legion would be the least damaging of the four.

I support this proposal, but not the optimal range increase. extra range in theory is nice, but remember this ship is a cloaker, range in not necessarily useful.

Matalino
Posted - 2010.10.29 22:30:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Aeo IV
Unless you can show that the legion's Reconfiguration subsystem does not actually increase dps, or show that the other subsystem bonuses are not increasing dps? We're hardly talking about the base damage or the base tracking of the ship's weapons, rather, the op is pointing out, and I agree, that if you had four t3 cruisers, one of each kind, with similar set ups with the covert reconfiguration, and the racial offensive subsystem trained to 1 or more, the legion would be the least damaging of the four.
My point is that the Legion doesn't need a damage bonus. It is already built in to the gun's damage multipler.

Lasers have a built in bonus to damage along with a built in penalty to cap usage. You don't need a damage bonus from the ship to get comparable damage from lasers as you do from other turrets that do have a ship bonus. However, you do need a cap usage bonus to get laser's cap usage down to a level that is comparable with hybrids.

If you have the offensive systems skill trained to 5, the other ships have a small advantage for damage that is counter balanced by advantages that the Legion has in other areas. If you have the offensive systems skill trained to 4, they have approximately equal but the Legion retains its other advantages. If the offensive systems skill is 3 or less, the Legion has a damage advantage over the other ships, but has a cap usage disadvantage.

Comparing bonuses out of context does not work. You need to look at the attributes that the bonuses are being applied to. Working as intended.

Mishkaii
Posted - 2010.10.30 03:10:00 - [19]
 

Support, Legion has the weakest cov ops of them all.

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.10.30 04:51:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Aamrr on 30/10/2010 04:57:26
You forget that lasers pay for that small margin extra damage in capacitor use, in worse tracking, in inability to swap damage types, and in powergrid and cpu. If lasers were so zomgwtf powerful to justify such an anemic ship bonus, why are laser myrmidons the rarity while autocannon myrmidons are dominant?

Take a look at the omen. If lasers are so ridiculously powerful, I suppose we should remove the RoF bonus on that ship, too? Oh, right, I seem to recall another petition on these boards reminding people what a failure of a ship that platform is.

Yes, lasers do more damage than most other turret platforms at a more consistent range -- and they pay for it appropriately in the base module attributes. Saying that this compensates for a 20% loss in effective turrets is not only misrepresenting the facts, it's idiotic.

Matalino
Posted - 2010.10.31 05:03:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
You forget that lasers pay for that small margin extra damage

in capacitor use,
That is why Amarr ships need a capacitor usage bonus, so that the lasers cap usage is less than that of hybrids.

Originally by: Aamrr
in worse tracking,
Beam lasers have much ( 43% | 50% ) better tracking than Railguns or Artillery. So that is completely false for long range lasers. For short range lasers they have slightly less tracking ( 23% | 30% ) than Blasters or Autocannons. However, in the short range class lasers have vastly ( 233% | 400% ) longer optimal range.

Originally by: Aamrr
in inability to swap damage types,
Hybrids can't swap damage types either. The ability to swap turret damage types is unique to projectiles.

Originally by: Aamrr
and in powergrid and cpu.
Can you justify this statement with comparable fittings on Strategic cruisers. Where Lasers have worse fitting attributes, Amarr ships have better fitting attributes. Likewise where Hybrids or Projectiles have worse fitting attributes, Gallente and Minmatar ships have better fitting attributes. The ships are balanced to fit their intended weapon system. Comparing fitting attributes of turrets without looking at the fitting requirements of the ships they are used on is meaningless.

Originally by: Aamrr
If lasers were so zomgwtf powerful to justify such an anemic ship bonus, why are laser myrmidons the rarity while autocannon myrmidons are dominant?
The popular choice in fitting myrmidons is not relevant to the bonuses assigned to a covert ops Legion.

Originally by: Aamrr
Take a look at the omen. If lasers are so ridiculously powerful, I suppose we should remove the RoF bonus on that ship, too? Oh, right, I seem to recall another petition on these boards reminding people what a failure of a ship that platform is.
The problem with the Omen was that it was out done by the Maller. The Omen with a damage bonus had the same damage output as a Maller which had an extra turret slot along with a bonus to resistances. The Omen was given a 5th turret so that it could fill a distinct roll, by doing something better than the next closest Amarr ship.

I don't know where you are coming up with the idea that the Omen should have it damage bonus removed. Amarr ships can have damage bonuses, but generally they require a cap usage bonus first. The exception is the Abaddon, which was specificly balanced to be a damage dealer that had major cap problems. While such a balancing approach makes sense for a teir 3 battleship, it does not make sense for a covert ops strategic cruiser.

Originally by: Aamrr
Yes, lasers do more damage than most other turret platforms at a more consistent range -- and they pay for it appropriately in the base module attributes. Saying that this compensates for a 20% loss in effective turrets is not only misrepresenting the facts, it's idiotic.
What do you mean "a 20% loss in effective turrets"? That statement does not make sense. Did you miss a word or two in there some where. Where do you get the 20% loss of anything from?

Ambaseter Doggy
Posted - 2010.10.31 16:37:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Aamrr
You forget that lasers pay for that small margin extra damage

in capacitor use,
That is why Amarr ships need a capacitor usage bonus, so that the lasers cap usage is less than that of hybrids.

/quote]

Ok no i cant listen to this 1. hybrids already scuk so much why should lasers get to use less cap? If anything the hyrbrids should use less cap and the lasers do more damage. id say not range but more damage. hyrbids still should have there niche.Very Happy

King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous

Posted - 2010.10.31 21:52:00 - [23]
 

I'd prefer a 5% damage bonus but range is at least useful. If it were up to me, I'd remove the 10% cap usage bonus from all amarr ships. Range and tank are amarr's strengths, cap usage is their disadvantage. The abaddon is the only amarr ship that really matches their stated design philosophy. The rest are half assed versions that CCP wimped out on. And yeah, throw autocannons on a legion and you have nearly the same range, far superior tracking and about the same damage (and it's selectable). It's like the autocannon punisher/maller/prophecy, all of them need that cap usage bonus changed.

darius mclever
Posted - 2010.10.31 22:02:00 - [24]
 

+1

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.11.01 02:03:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Matalino

That is why Amarr ships need a capacitor usage bonus, so that the lasers cap usage is less than that of hybrids.



Yes, but that's hardly an excuse to deny them a proper damage bonus as well.

Originally by: Matalino

Beam lasers have much ( 43% | 50% ) better tracking than Railguns or Artillery. So that is completely false for long range lasers. For short range lasers they have slightly less tracking ( 23% | 30% ) than Blasters or Autocannons. However, in the short range class lasers have vastly ( 233% | 400% ) longer optimal range.



Considering that legions don't have the powergrid to use a beam laser configuration, I hardly see the relevance in comparing their long-range tracking characteristics. Rolling Eyes Besides, who ever heard of a covert sniper? This discussion is about the covert ops subsystem. Stay topical.

Originally by: Matalino

Hybrids can't swap damage types either. The ability to swap turret damage types is unique to projectiles.



And yet missiles can, as well. When 50% (Minmatar, Caldari) of Eve can change damage types, the inability to do so is a significant disadvantage to a given weapon systems. This is made worse by the fact that the laser damage is so variable in effectiveness (utterly useless against armor and T2 minmatar resists), whereas kinetic and thermal are always at least moderately useful...

Originally by: Matalino

Can you justify this statement with comparable fittings on Strategic cruisers. Where Lasers have worse fitting attributes, Amarr ships have better fitting attributes. Likewise where Hybrids or Projectiles have worse fitting attributes, Gallente and Minmatar ships have better fitting attributes. The ships are balanced to fit their intended weapon system. Comparing fitting attributes of turrets without looking at the fitting requirements of the ships they are used on is meaningless.



And yet when ships have powergrid and CPU to spare, they opt not to use the supposedly "better" laser weapons systems, instead going with autocannons. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Originally by: Matalino

The popular choice in fitting myrmidons is not relevant to the bonuses assigned to a covert ops Legion.



It is absolutely relevant. When ships lack compelling damage bonuses to their racial weaponry, they consistently choose autocannons. You see this not only on the myrmidon, but also on the Punisher, the Maller, and the Prophecy -- all ships which get a 50% capacitor bonus and ignore it entirely. I would wager that you could take capacitor out of the equation entirely (100% bonus) and they would still opt for autocannons because of the improved tracking, easier fitting requirements, and selectable damage.

Originally by: Matalino

The problem with the Omen was that it was out done by the Maller. The Omen with a damage bonus had the same damage output as a Maller which had an extra turret slot along with a bonus to resistances. The Omen was given a 5th turret so that it could fill a distinct roll, by doing something better than the next closest Amarr ship.

I don't know where you are coming up with the idea that the Omen should have it damage bonus removed. Amarr ships can have damage bonuses, but generally they require a cap usage bonus first. The exception is the Abaddon, which was specificly balanced to be a damage dealer that had major cap problems. While such a balancing approach makes sense for a teir 3 battleship, it does not make sense for a covert ops strategic cruiser.



I was OBVIOUSLY being facetious. The fact that you seriously thought I was suggesting nerfing the omen makes me question whether you have the grounds to discuss any turret platform, laser or otherwise.

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.11.01 02:22:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Matalino

What do you mean "a 20% loss in effective turrets"? That statement does not make sense. Did you miss a word or two in there some where. Where do you get the 20% loss of anything from?



I mean precisely what I said. The legion has 5 effective turrets, the proteus has 6.25. That's a 20% loss in damage output relative to the other covert strategic cruiser platforms. It's basic algebra, your inability to perform it probably has something to do with your position in this debate. When something lacks a 25% damage bonus, it has a 20% loss in DPS. Take the reciprocal. Rolling Eyes

Of course, if you want to compare to the loss of a 25% RoF bonus, then then it's actually a 25% loss in effective turrets. However, given the disadvantages of a high RoF (capacitor use, ammo use, reload time), I felt it more reasonable to compare it to the Proteus's bonus, rather than the Loki's or Tengu's.

And while you may certainly argue that examining effective turrets ignores the variations between turret types...haven't I already established that in the absence of any other determining factor (such as meaningful ship-specific damage bonuses, and abundant powergrid and cpu), autocannons are the short-range weapon of choice?

If I haven't, then let me make it abundantly clear: the punisher, the maller, the prophecy, and the myrmidon ALL USE AUTOCANNONS. Indeed, you will even see autocannons replacing blasters on caldari platforms like the merlin, the moa, and the ferox. They do it because their mediocre weapons bonuses don't give them sufficient reason not to. Projectiles offer superior tracking and range, combined with lower pg/cpu/capacitor costs and selectable damage type. When people can use them without giving up vital ship bonuses, they do.

Let me now remind you that the covert legion ALSO lacks compelling ship weapon bonuses. Doesn't the earlier comment about the myrmidon seem awfully relevant now? Yes, I believe it does.

What makes the covert legion subsystem so unforgivable is that all these other platforms have some OTHER bonus provided to them -- typically a resist bonus. That is a gank/tank tradeoff, something wholly inadequate for a covert strategic cruiser. Rolling Eyes

As such, the covert legion needs some laser bonus that compels it to retain its signature weapon type. A range bonus would let it use higher grade crystals and give it the DPS advantage necessary to make lasers a compelling alternative to autocannons.

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:09:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Aamrr on 01/11/2010 03:13:06
Originally by: Aeo IV

I support this proposal, but not the optimal range increase. extra range in theory is nice, but remember this ship is a cloaker, range in not necessarily useful.


The funny thing is that it's not about the range. Anyone who thinks that it is completely misunderstands the amarrian weapons system.

For lasers, more than any other weapon type, range IS damage -- because with an instant crystal swap, you turn turn any excess optimal into a higher damage multiplier.

The choice of a range increase was threefold:
  1. Provide a UNIQUE bonus that differentiates the covert legion from its counterpart T3s

  2. Remain consistent with the Amarrian tradition by adopting the offensive bonuses of the Armageddon

  3. Limit the scope of the buff to make it more psychologically acceptable. Heavyhanded buffing is bad. (PROJECTILESEvil or Very Mad!!)

Matalino
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:11:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Aamrr
If I haven't, then let me make it abundantly clear: the punisher, the maller, the prophecy, and the myrmidon ALL USE AUTOCANNONS.
Completely irrelevant! Produce an autocannon fitted covert ops Legion that out performs a pulse laser fitted Legion and it becomes almost relavent. Even then, the relavence of such a fitting pattern is to prove that the Legions bonuses do NOT need to be changed. If the problem exists on more ships than just the Legion, it is not the Legion that needs fixing, it is pulse lasers.

If you want to prove your point, then produce a viable comparison that shows an autocannon Legion out performing a pulse laser Legion. Otherwise, compare full fittings, not contextless bonues. The 20% difference that you cite is meaningless. You need to apply those bonuses to actually fittings for any comparison to have meaning. Provide a comparison of actual DPS, tracking and range if you want your comparison to be worthwhile.

Also remember the intended role of pulse lasers. If you want your turrets to work at bumping range, then you picked the wrong race to train for. If you want them to work at web or scram range, then you will find pulse lasers are at their optimal while the others are falling off fast.

Aamrr
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:27:00 - [29]
 

Very well, please allow me to do precisely that.

Consider the following legion fitting. It has a relatively impressive 102k EHP and boasts a 2218 m/s speed under MWD.
However, due it achieves only a lackluster 319 DPS with faction multifrequency, reaching out to a paltry 8.63+6.5km range. Tracking is 0.32 rad/s, and the high powergrid/capacitor requirements of lasers force two compromises onto the fitting:

  1. It has insufficient pg to use the augmented capacitor reservoir subsystem, and must instead utilize the power core multiplier

  2. It has insufficient capacitor to fly without a capacitor booster, even before you consider the dangers of energy neutralization.


[Legion, CovertLazor]

Legion Defensive - Augmented Plating
Legion Electronics - Dissolution Sequencer
Legion Engineering - Power Core Multiplier
Legion Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration
Legion Propulsion - Chassis Optimization

Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Heavy Pulse Laser II, Imperial Navy Multifrequency M
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II

Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon I Microwarpdrive
Warp Scrambler II
True Sansha Medium Capacitor Booster, Cap Booster 800
Tracking Computer II, Optimal Range
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed

Armor Thermic Hardener II
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
Imperial Navy Heat Sink
1600mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates I

Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

Wen Jaibao
Aperture Harmonics
Posted - 2010.11.01 03:33:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Wen Jaibao on 01/11/2010 03:37:09
Edited by: Wen Jaibao on 01/11/2010 03:34:49
Originally by: Aamrr
Wen Jaibo, do you use the covert ops subsystem regularly? If so, what weapon configuration do you use?

Data is not the plural of anecdote, but...Rolling Eyes


I don't use because I don't think its a good choice given its lack of 'zazz'. However, I'd be willing to try it some more if you are implying it is more useful than it seems, aside from the obvious tactical advantage a covops cloak grants pilots.

I honestly would rather fly a stealth bomber, from a cost effectiveness standpoint.

edit 1: wording

edit 2: stealth bomber comment added


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only