A Case Against the Base Resist Chance

Prev1
Let me preface this post by clarifying that I love this game and appreciate the work the devs put in to improve the player base's experience. Characters kits and game mechanics have come a long way since 2016 and we've seen huge improvements recently made to the latter in the form of turn meter overflow mechanics. We are now sure of the relative turn orders of various characters hitting 100% TM at the same time instead of unnecessarily being at the mercy of RNG.

But we still have sources of completely unnecessary RNG with the 15% base resist chance and, to a lesser extent, the 2% dodge chance. The base resist chance's existence means two equally skilled players using the same counter to the same team with the same mods can achieve drastically different results for no reason other than RNG for its own sake. The 15% base resist chance harms players in all game modes, especially competitive, first-attempt-centered modes such as Grand Arena, Territory Wars, and Territory Battles, where failing to land one crucial debuff (e.g daze in the final wave of the GAS/Ahsoka P2 mission) or negative status effect spells doom no matter how well the player has otherwise prepared for the event.

Moreover, the benefits of applying or gaining effects such as tenacity down /potency up and modding for unit stats such as potency are greatly diminished due to the 15% resist chance. Given that a defending unit with 100% more tenacity than an attacking unit's potency will always resist that attacking unit's debuffs, it is disappointing that there is no way for an attacking unit to *always* land their debuffs on a defending unit (and vice versa for teams set on defense that rely on landing debuffs).

Of course, strategy is a major component. Players who lose battles due to basic misunderstanding of the correct strategy and blame the loss on RNG are not included. That said, an experienced, well-versed player can prepare, practice, and execute a counter as well as possible strategically, yet fail because the negative effect they critically needed is limited at an 85% rate of landing. The existence of the 15% base resist chance may seem insignificant to developers who do not play the game themselves, but those who do play it understand how problematic and arbitrary it is. It is a dated, unnecessary mechanic that injects RNG into competitive game modes for no justifiable reason and does not meaningfully improve the player experience.

Given that CG clearly has at least some intention of smoothing out previously very rough mechanics such as tm overflow, removing the 15% resist chance (or at least adding some way of circumventing it, such as modding a unit for potency 15% more than an opposing unit's tenacity) would be the logical next step in creating a more enjoyable SWGOH.

Replies

  • dgree
    395 posts Member
    100% agree (15% chance that I randomly decide to disagree with everything you said, just for the sake of chaos).

    It's hard to think of a benefit of this other than the joys of RNG hell, and as you mentioned there's a severe negative where players should be able to prioritize potency if they want to and get the benefits of that. For example, if players really want to stop wat, they should be able to mod a control toon for high potency at the expense of other stats to guarantee a control debuff landing.

    Potency/tenacity mechanics are often really misunderstood, but they work in a fun way apart from this major exception.
  • Fatal
    44 posts Member
    edited April 21
    Agreed as well. It's frustrating to make the correct move in a counter and have it blow up in my face with no warning. If a character is going to have something like evasion as a part of their identity, so be it, but it feels awful to use an ability and have it do nothing. Having it be present in every fight in every part of the game can feel pretty disheartening.
  • I agree with this wholeheartedly, the frustration of 15% resist is like no other. I personally believe it takes away from the game as a whole because many outcomes you would think are certain are not. Potency feels like a somewhat unhelpful and RNG dependent stat like no other if this change isn’t implemented, which in my opinion causes a lot of imbalance.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4113 posts Member
    Of course, strategy is a major component. Players who lose battles due to basic misunderstanding of the correct strategy and blame the loss on RNG are not included. That said, an experienced, well-versed player can prepare, practice, and execute a counter as well as possible strategically, yet fail because the negative effect they critically needed is limited at an 85% rate of landing.
    If your strategy can be unrecoverably foiled by one resist then you need a better strategy.
  • Between modding and increasingly complex character kits the game has changed quite alot since 2016, perhaps that 15% could be reduced or eliminated, it's an interesting idea.
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Of course, strategy is a major component. Players who lose battles due to basic misunderstanding of the correct strategy and blame the loss on RNG are not included. That said, an experienced, well-versed player can prepare, practice, and execute a counter as well as possible strategically, yet fail because the negative effect they critically needed is limited at an 85% rate of landing.
    If your strategy can be unrecoverably foiled by one resist then you need a better strategy.

    Is the GAS/Ahsoka P2 mission not an example of a strategy being more or less unrecoverably foiled by one resist? And I'll agree with you that most viable counters don't totally fall apart because of one resist, but they can go from, say, 58 banners to 49 really quickly for no reason other than RNG not liking you (I'm speaking specifically of competitive game modes such as TW, TB, and GAC rather than game modes like arena where a loss isn't 'permanent', so to speak). Lots of GACs are won or lost on these margins and I don't understand why you'd want the 15% base resist chance deciding it.

    I certainly wouldn't want to win a GAC because my opponent tried a smart counter to my team and either lost fully or dropped a lot of banners due to a poor resist happening at the wrong time. I'd want to win because I trapped them with better planning and squad placement.
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.


    Of course. See my above reply to RathTarr and the fact that I included "vice versa" in the original post. I'm well aware that the 15% resist chance can give me a defensive hold and thus a win in GAC. However, I don't think that my opponent should lose because of that. If they could demonstrate that they lost because of the 15% resist chance messing up something crucial for them, I'd consider that more or less the same as a loss due to a crash. It's pure RNG with no good reason to be in the game.
  • Amen!
    Adding 15% to the base Tenacity ("modding a unit for potency 15% more than an opposing unit's tenacity") seems like the easiest and fairest way to make this much better and make the game much more enjoyable. ~~Imagine DR beating SLKR 100% of the time~~
  • Vicarmar wrote: »
    Amen!
    Adding 15% to the base Tenacity ("modding a unit for potency 15% more than an opposing unit's tenacity") seems like the easiest and fairest way to make this much better and make the game much more enjoyable. ~~Imagine DR beating SLKR 100% of the time~~

    Yep. As Fatal and others mentioned, it's super frustrating to do all the right things in a counter and have it blow up in your face due to RNG simply not liking you. It's also blatantly false to suggest that only bad strategies/counters get screwed by the 15% resist chance. A small fraction of matchups in the game might be that way -- namely, either the use of 'hard counters' or extreme punchdowns -- but the vast majority of matchups are not free of the 15% ruining things big time.
  • Fatal
    44 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.
  • Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    Brilliant. This is all that needed to be said.

  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).

    I can't speak for the "everyone" you're referencing, but I made my opinion on situations where I benefit from the 15% chance clear: I have zero interest in winning GAC matches because of the 15% resist chance ruining my opponent's offensive run. I want to win only because I out-planned, out-efficiencied or trapped my opponent.

    And I don't understand how you think "it's bad for everyone" is in any way a viable defense of the 15% base resist chance -- it seems like an obvious reason to get rid of it if anything. Unless your opinion is that CG should try to make things bad for everyone (?)
  • Fatal
    44 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).

    Getting a hold on defense because of it means that somebody else got a frustrating loss because of it.

    They don't "cancel out".

    They create 2 annoyed players.

    It's not a zero sum game.

  • Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).

    Getting a hold on defense because of it means that somebody else got a frustrating loss because of it.

    They don't "cancel out".

    They create 2 annoyed players.

    It's not a zero sum game.

    Fatal spitting facts :vincearousedOMG:
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).

    Getting a hold on defense because of it means that somebody else got a frustrating loss because of it.

    They don't "cancel out".

    They create 2 annoyed players.

    It's not a zero sum game.

    That makes no sense. Why would the beneficiary of the outcome be annoyed?

    Yeah, they exactly cancel out because you either win or lose, so you're on one side or the other. Is this seriously a hard concept?
  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Fatal wrote: »
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    You know it goes both ways....

    It's fairly inconsequential overall, but it cause more defensive losses also.

    "It's bad for everyone" is an ambitious defense.

    It's also obvious. Everyone is looking at this from an offensive perspective, and not considering it will mean dropping in arena, TW losses, GA losses... I already said it's rather inconsequential overall, but still will have the occasional negative outcome (from the defensive perspective).

    Getting a hold on defense because of it means that somebody else got a frustrating loss because of it.

    They don't "cancel out".

    They create 2 annoyed players.

    It's not a zero sum game.

    That makes no sense. Why would the beneficiary of the outcome be annoyed?

    Yeah, they exactly cancel out because you either win or lose, so you're on one side or the other. Is this seriously a hard concept?


    Your original statement was implied a situation such as a GAC match between 2 players, where Player 1 gets screwed by the 15% base resist chance on offense against Player 2's defensive team, but one of Player 1's defensive teams held against Player 2's offense teams due to the 15% resist chance. You're saying that it cancels out in the end because the 15% base resist chance made everyone's experience worse, and due to the symmetry of the situation, it has no effect overall.

    My point is that if I were in, say, Player 1's situation, I would take little enjoyment in knowing that my team held against Player 2's counter because of a dumb resist -- largely because I know that such dumb resists could screw me over too. That's especially true if they modded their team specifically to counter my team, e.g by adding substantial potency to certain characters in order to land a critical debuff, but still failing due to the 15% resist chance. And if I were in Player 1's situation, I'd obviously be incredibly frustrated if I lost to Player 2's defensive team due to the 15% resist chance.

    More generally, the disappointment of losing on offense due to **** RNG >>> the satisfaction gained from **** RNG getting you a hold vs an opponent. The end result is 2 players whose experiences are both made worse by the 15% resist chance. It's 100% 85% a lose-lose situation.


  • Let me further explain the statement, "the disappointment of losing on offense due to **** RNG >>> the satisfaction gained from **** RNG getting you a hold vs an opponent", with a hypothetical GAC scenario.

    Say you have Rey/SLKR and set both GLs on defense, and your opponent has SEE/JML, who are both used on offense. If you set Rey in the front/SLKR in the back, and you bait your opponent into using JML/JKL or JML/JKR on your Rey in the front, he'll have nothing against SLKR in the back. Maybe he gets through with a pained multi-shot attempt, but you beat him hard on efficiency. That's the sort of win I'd be proud of getting in GAC. It's *purely* a result of me outplaying/out-thinking my opponent.

    Then consider a similar situation where the board is basically the same (you set Rey in the front, SLKR in the back, your opponent still uses JML on Rey and has SEE as his only GL left for the back), but your opponent has, say, DR and Thrawn left over on offense. That would be his best bet vs SLKR. If he fails due to not landing shocks on my tanks as a result of the 15% resist chance and only kills one or two characters, that's a hold for me... But the reasons behind that hold *suck*. I won because of RNG screwing over my opponent, not because I outplayed him. It's a lot different from the first type of win. Then, if I lose to one of his own defensive teams because of the base 15% resist chance (the situation your original response implied), that just just creates two unhappy players who got really screwed over by the 15% resist chance instead of a "net neutral" outcome where the 15% resist chance has no impact on player's enjoyment of the game.


  • I don't really mind the rng aspect, especially with resists. Part of strategy is understanding the risks involved if you must land a debuff that is resistable.

    The part that I hate is now irrelevant it makes potency and tenacity. Tenacity needs to be 16 higher than potency before it even gets factored in. On average, characters have higher potency than tenacity to start with as well. So outside of a few select characters that have uniques to boost tenacity, you need to fully commit to max tenacity with mods to get any significant impact there. It would be nice if adding just a single tenacity/potency set would actually do something for most characters.
  • I don't really mind the rng aspect, especially with resists. Part of strategy is understanding the risks involved if you must land a debuff that is resistable.

    The part that I hate is now irrelevant it makes potency and tenacity. Tenacity needs to be 16 higher than potency before it even gets factored in. On average, characters have higher potency than tenacity to start with as well. So outside of a few select characters that have uniques to boost tenacity, you need to fully commit to max tenacity with mods to get any significant impact there. It would be nice if adding just a single tenacity/potency set would actually do something for most characters.


    The 15% resist chance make potency far less relevant than tenacity if anything. I agree that the mod commitment to tenacity is pretty heavy if you want a character of yours to resist all debuffs from an opponent, but it's at least possible to mod them a certain way to achieve that outcome. An equal commitment to potency modding gets you at best an 85% chance of landing a debuff. The potency/tenacity check isn't symmetric at all.

    As to your point about not minding rng... why? It's not strategy if you're unable to land important debuffs due to the base 15% resist chance, even after modding characters for full potency. To make an analogy, consider a game of chess. The strategy is how you plan for and respond to your opponent's moves. The equivalent of the base 15% resist chance in a game of chess would be if, every time you moved a piece forward, it had a 15% chance of teleporting backwards in the opposite direction.

    The existence of that '15% teleportation chance' is obviously harmful to the development of a comprehensive strategy. You can't be certain that moving your pieces to a certain position actually moves them in the right direction. That's what the 15% base resist chance is in SWGOH. Capping the chance of a debuff landing at 85% is a fundamentally unstrategic game mechanic. It's almost like "rng-based strategy" is an oxymoron.
  • Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.
  • DarthWeevil2
    20 posts Member
    edited April 24
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
  • Rath_Tarr
    4113 posts Member
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.
  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%
  • Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Some people aren't a fan of rng that exists purely for the sake of existing, like the 15% resist chance and formerly, the 50% flip between characters that reach 100% tm at the same time. Some people (such as you, presumably) like it, and that's fine. I'm not judging or telling you to play a different game.


  • CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Not sure how this is relevant. We have turn meter overflow mechanics that make it so who goes first in tm tie situations isn't determined by a coin flip.
  • DarthMufasa4
    214 posts Member
    edited April 24
    Whilst dice games exist, i dont believe the rng being presented as the 15% resist is common in them. Taking dungeon and dragons 5e for example, you have a dc that you have to overcome. If you beat it, thats it. That would be the rng component, the specific role of the die.

    Whereas what being done with this is just an additional die roll where if you roll a d100, then it can resist as well. Now ill say this, in said dice games it would be a terrible mechanic if only because it would slow the pacing of the game and id only want it if it was a flavour to a specific spell, rather than an inherent mechanic to every spell in the game.

    Now to be clear, i think early game swgoh could have benefitted immensely from this before people had access to mods, this enables some chance for game modes like galactic war, or else the ls and ds nodes. However, if im going into lstb and i lose because of a 15% resist chance thats outside of my control, no one is happy about that. I could have 5000000% potency and that 15% still messes me up. And to be extra clear, i do not have control over members in certain squads, and therefore it seems even more messed up to provide a mechanic which will be net negative overall

    To cap it off, most people arent aware this base chance even exists, making the argument that players should account for it somewhat questionable
    Post edited by DarthMufasa4 on
  • DarthMufasa4
    214 posts Member
    edited April 24
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

  • CCyrilS
    5398 posts Member
    CCyrilS wrote: »
    Rath_Tarr wrote: »
    Just because something isn't 100% predictable and controllable doesn't mean that it isn't strategy. It's something you have to account for.
    Variance isn't inherently a bad. You cite chess, but how many strategy games out there involve dice? Everyone has different tastes, but IMO strategy games without some elements of chance are boring.

    Also, it has given the devs the freedom to not worry about infinite loops that need debuffs/TM removal.

    Fair. I personally don't get why people would find the game more enjoyable due to rng, but I guess that's up to them to decide.

    To me, having the 15% resist chance stick around makes about as much sense as taking out TM overflow so that taking turns after reaching 100% tm is once again a matter of rng. I don't want things to be decided on coinflips, whether that's a 15/85 ratio or a 50/50 one.
    Then you are playing the wrong game. Perhaps you would find Chess more to your liking.

    Are you kidding?! In chess they flip a coin to determine who goes first! He'll be wishing for 15%

    Theres issues to this line of argument
    1) In tournaments (ie competitive play), players usually play as both white and black for the same number of games, there are exceptions of course, but especially in tournaments where the result matter youll find this to be the norm

    2) That level of rng exists already in other forms in swgoh, people dont complain because in those scenarios its ok, as CG took care of the big issue with tm gain, the rest was fine. But if 2 characters have the same tm at the start, i believe its random as to who goes first. This is also something you can account for in the game by having a faster speed, but the same logic doesnt apply with potency/tenacity
    .

    Whoosh!
Sign In or Register to comment.