安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题









While it’s true that that a point in a stat you don’t want or need is wasted because it could have been better used in a stat you do want (and every stat point gets more difficult to gain in rune cost), it’s not true that a stat at a random level is “costing you value” or that you “want” a desired stat as low as possible. The stat must be built up regardless and the “value” of the stat is different from the effect of the input point. The ideology has gotten so bad that people can’t even see that something ISNT a ROI scheme.
“ Why should you trust what I say over anyone else? Because I always offer you access to the raw data for you to see for yourself.”
That fact only answers why people should trust your numbers shown. It doesn’t support the idea that people should trust your qualitative claims or advice statements.
"Increased Dexterity scaling when assigning Ashes of War with corresponding weapon Affinities."
21:9