Jump to content

Possible Game Updates Currently Being Tested


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm not big on detail work, but conceptually I really like Sketchy's suggestion about the difference between winner and loser impacting the damage/loot amounts.

 

If nuke can cause a defeat condition, I think their damage should be lowered. Especially if more than one becomes possible for a rogue, and if the changes to beiging mean that the nuke beige won't be as much of a tactical advantage for the person hit by them. I am biased, here, though: I've always thought that pressing a button to do a bunch of damage once per day is really boring and not what the war system should be.

 

Changing the loot amounts and conditions around strikes me as kind of superfluous. Active players routinely circumvent the looting mechanics anyways.

  • Upvote 2

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe all of this is a big distraction from what should have already been changed.

 

Where's the black market?

 

Where's the MIRV Project?

 

Where's the reworked spy program in where you can send in suicide nuclear terrorists?

 

These are much needed changes that should happen way before this one. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I was thinking to complement the system I suggested above it could work like:

 

  • The cap for spies is increased to 150 or 200 with a CIA.
  • Instead of the old system of expending spies to do operations:
    • Spies would need to be "embedded" inside a nation.
    • Espionage would work similar to war, in that you need to declare an espionage attack on an individual, before you can use espionage operations again them. This would be silent.
    • The amount of espionage attacks would have no limit, since the power would be in the spies.
    • Embedding spies would cost Espionage Action points.
    • An action to hunt spies would allow nations to kill a % of all spies currently embedded in their nation.
    • Each spy would increase the % of succeeding an operation by 1%. Embedding 100 spies in a nation would give you a 100% success chance. Failure always results in your nation name being discovered.
    • Since you only would get 150 (or 200) spies, you would have to decide where and how many to send out to nations, and the more you send out, the more EAPS it would use do so.
    • Adversely, the more spies you have embedded in a nation, the lower the chance of succeeding in pulling them all back to use elsewhere. This could simply be an invert percentage, 99 spies = 1% etc.

 

 

This is basically the system I see happening as well. With a few minor tweaks;

 

1) Embedded spies over time can reduce nation moral and change the government type, affecting the revenue.

 

2) If caught, the nation that caught the spies would have the chance to turn those spies into counterspies. So the spying nation would not know if they were caught or not. But the nation that was spied on would know and would have the option to either expose, or turn those spies into counterspies.

 

3) After building up enough points, spies would be allowed to conduct suicide missions within the nation. Also over time, the spies can conduct a revolution, plunging the nation into a mini civil war. 

Edited by Fraggle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

First, to everyone proposing brand new suggestions and major game mechanics changes - while I appreciate your input, that input doesn't belong in this thread. This thread is for discussing the proposed changes that already exist on the test server. If you have new ideas, please put them in their own suggestion thread. Otherwise we're never going to be able to discuss the specific changes that I've outlined for this thread.

 

I like the Dscord related change and the espionage one doesn't sound too bad either.

 

But almost all of the war-related ones are an absolute trainwreck imo, especially since missiles and nukes reduce resistance by a lot. Making missiles and nukes actually matter (+ giving an incentive to beiging) is just making the game simpler. I believe that, what you should be encouraged to do, is develop your traditional warfare skills. Like I've mentioned before, any muppet can lob missiles and nukes.

 

The beauty about this war system is that it rewards strategy and skill, making coordination absolutely crucial. With this change, good players trying to grind their opponents' military and infra consistently can easily be beiged by a missile/nuke lobbing scrub. Getting beiged in AA wars is awesome, don't get me wrong... But by increasing the benefits for players who beige (and really punishing the nation getting beiged), you're merely stupidifying the game, Sheepy.

 

Just my opinion anyways.

 

Neither missiles nor nuclear weapons are the fastest way to beige someone. If you're fighting an opponent who is only lobbing missiles/nukes at you, you can quickly defeat them in war through conventional war.

 

Just questions: Each sides starts the war with 100 resistance, and resistance is reduced through every attack. When your opponent's resistance reaches 0, you take 25% of their money, 10% of each of their resources. Reduced through every attack, so in theory one could lose every attack that one mounts but still take stuff? Or are results of an attacks important too?  Do 10% of each resource include credits?

 

In theory, yes, you could win by losing every attack (though there's a strong possibility that I will make utter failure attacks reduce enemy resistance by 0) and 10% of each resource does not include Credits.

 

I have a compromise system that I think could work.

 

How resistance and victory/loss should work

  • Instead of starting with 100 resistance, all fighters should start with 1000 resistance.
  • Instead of wars ending when resistance reaches zero, wars should end after the 3 day period.
  • The winner of the war is the person with the most remaining resistance.
  • The winner should receive loot, relative to the DIFFERENCE between the remaining resistances of each fighter. This keeps raiding a viable strategy by allowing people to still loot large amounts off of inactive or ill-prepared targets who aren't good at fighting.
  • Both players take infra damage. Infra damage is calculated based on the DIFFERENCE between the remaining resistances of each fighter. The wider the gap, the less damage the winner takes and the more damage the loser takes.
  • Normal attacks, including missiles and nukes, no longer do infra damage.
  • Missiles should be made targetable to hit certain units. Nukes should do a signficant amount of resistance damage, but should made less economically efficient as they are effectively a trump card.
  • Resistance should be expendable in order to do either more combat attacks or espionage operations.

How combat mechanics should work

  • ​Fortifying should be cumulative, the more successful fortifications in a row without interruption, the higher the fortification. (Capped of course)
  • Interrupting a Fortification requires an impressive ground or air triumph.
  • Ground control and air control should remain, but the advantages should be reduced dramatically.
  • To counter this, ground control and air control should be shared across fighters. Furthermore, the more people who gain air control and ground control, the greater the bonus. This creates more cooperative and coordinated combat.

How espionage should work

  • The current espionage system should be completely scrapped. It should add strategy to existing combat mechanics instead of emulating them but at a smaller and poorer scale.
  • Instead, espionage should play hand in hand with the new system.
  • Similar to war, espionage should also have "action points" which regenerate every turn and allow you to engage in various operations.
  • Operations should complement the current war system. For example:
  • Small espionage actions could include things like increasing your defense against ground or air attacks, so that their damage to your resistance is lowered, or increasing your damage to theirs. These buffs would be hidden, and allow you to specialize your units to be more effective in a certain area, or buff them evenly. Since the buffs would be hidden, an action to check what buffs your opponents have could help.
  • Larger espionage actions could include things like larger buffs, allowing you to catch your opponent unawares, or things like breaking your opponents air/ground control, blockade, or even gaining your own air/ground control.

 

 

Anyway this is just a rough idea, and some of the espionage changes are a bit more ambitious, but even without those I think the general concept is better and allows for more back and forth strategy between opponents.

 

You should throw these suggestions in a new thread, but I'll just warn you now that I really have no interest in changing game mechanics that significantly. I'm seeking minor changes that will improve the war system, not an entire mechanical overhaul.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Three things added since posting to help with balancing:

 

  • Nuclear weapons no longer send the opponent immediately to beige
  • When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.
  • Espionage operations targeting enemy spies have reduced enemy spies killed by 30%

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Neither missiles nor nuclear weapons are the fastest way to beige someone. If you're fighting an opponent who is only lobbing missiles/nukes at you, you can quickly defeat them in war through conventional war.

 

 

I know they're not the fastest, but let's just use this example (which happens fairly often in AA wars):

 

Player A and 1 or 2 other people are updeclaring on someone. In the beginning of the war they're getting owned and the enemy even gets some ITs against them. But then, through coordination and good skill, the smaller nations end up having the upper hand. With this new resistance system, the guy who loses the upper hand will have reduced his enemies' resistance considerably while he was ahead and, if he has missiles or nukes, he may end up beating his opponents by lobbing them while he's down.

 

You're literally punishing strategy (coordination, etc) and skill, by allowing the possibility of throwing all that hard work out the window. One of the primary examples of what I mentioned above was that war between 3 TEst guys and Ace. I don't remember very well, but Ace must have gotten a few ITs against those 3 nations. I can't even begin to imagine the degree of coordination and overall skill / grasp of war mechanics it must have taken to beat such a big nation.

 

With this new system (Ace belongs to one of my alliance's allies, but if there's sth I respect, it's good war skills), those 3 guys' hard work could have been futile if Ace had reduced enough of their resistance to let him finish them off with nukes or missles - don't know if he had them, but my point still stands - while he was down.

 

Not every aspect of this new war system is negative imo, but everything that simplifies the game, by actually making missiles and nukes matter in the outcome of wars, just punishes strategy and skill. I still can't put my finger on what's so wrong with the current war system, but your game, your rules. :)  

Edited by Insert Name Here
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In theory, yes, you could win by losing every attack (though there's a strong possibility that I will make utter failure attacks reduce enemy resistance by 0) and 10% of each resource does not include Credits.

 

Have you considered making utter failures reduce the resistance of the attacker? Right now it seems that resistance is meant to represent a physical capacity to offer military resistance rather than a psychological one. Making utter failures decrease the resistance of the attacker slightly and maybe increase the resistance of the defender slightly would be an easy way to add a representation of morale to the system.

 

You should throw these suggestions in a new thread, but I'll just warn you now that I really have no interest in changing game mechanics that significantly. I'm seeking minor changes that will improve the war system, not an entire mechanical overhaul.

 

Is this because you have limited time and other priorities in the near term or because you have no intention of ever making a change to the war system as large as what Sketchy has proposed?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Three things added since posting to help with balancing:

 

  • Nuclear weapons no longer send the opponent immediately to beige
  • When winning a war and sending an opponent to beige, if they are already beige you will not reset them back to 3 days, you will instead add 3 days to their beige time. This is a buff to players who are losing multiple wars.
  • Espionage operations targeting enemy spies have reduced enemy spies killed by 30%

 

 

Dr. Alex Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Conventional Alliance Warfare and Love the Bomb. 

Dio-wryyy.gif

º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸
¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I know they're not the fastest, but let's just use this example (which happens fairly often in AA wars):

 

Player A and 1 or 2 other people are updeclaring on someone. In the beginning of the war they're getting owned and the enemy even gets some ITs against them. But then, through coordination and good skill, the smaller nations end up having the upper hand. With this new resistance system, the guy who loses the upper hand will have reduced his enemies' resistance considerably while he was ahead and, if he has missiles or nukes, he may end up beating his opponents by lobbing them while he's down.

 

You're literally punishing strategy (coordination, etc) and skill, by allowing the possibility of throwing all that hard work out the window. One of the primary examples of what I mentioned above was that war between 3 TEst guys and Ace. I don't remember very well, but Ace must have gotten a few ITs against those 3 nations. I can't even begin to imagine the degree of coordination and overall skill / grasp of war mechanics it must have taken to beat such a big nation.

 

With this new system (Ace belongs to one of my alliance's allies, but if there's sth I respect, it's good war skills), those 3 guys' hard work could have been futile if Ace had reduced enough of their resistance to let him finish them off with nukes or missles - don't know if he had them, but my point still stands - while he was down.

 

Not every aspect of this new war system is negative imo, but everything that simplifies the game, by actually making missiles and nukes matter in the outcome of wars, just punishes strategy and skill. I still can't put my finger on what's so wrong with the current war system, but your game, your rules. :)  

 

The nations who were losing early on could simply extend the war by using the Fortify 'attack' and increasing their own resistance. They'd just need to factor that into their strategy.

 

Have you considered making utter failures reduce the resistance of the attacker? Right now it seems that resistance is meant to represent a physical capacity to offer military resistance rather than a psychological one. Making utter failures decrease the resistance of the attacker slightly and maybe increase the resistance of the defender slightly would be an easy way to add a representation of morale to the system.

 

 

Is this because you have limited time and other priorities in the near term or because you have no intention of ever making a change to the war system as large as what Sketchy has proposed?

 

To the first bit - I don't think that's necessary. That would discourage players from attacking at all, which is not what I hope to accomplish.

 

To the latter bit - a little of both.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Dr. Alex Strangelove or: How I learned to Stop Conventional Alliance Warfare and Love the Bomb. 

 

As I've already stated, using Missile or Nuclear Weapons is the slowest way to win a war. It is far more likely that if you try using Nukes/Missiles exclusively, your opponents will quickly win the war through conventional means.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nations who were losing early on could simply extend the war by using the Fortify 'attack' and increasing their own resistance. They'd just need to factor that into their strategy.

 

 

Regardless, this new system makes updeclaring even more difficult. As I said before, giving relevance to missiles and nukes by punishing conventional warfare is the worng way to go about things imo. If anything you should be making the war system more complex, by encouraging people to get increasingly better at conventional warfare.

 

You have a few interesting ideas regarding this new war system, but from my point of view you're making changes that are way too drastic. At the end of the day I know conventional warfare will still be the best option, but anything that takes away from it and empowers nukes and missiles or encourages beiging just makes things worse. Good luck with it tho!

Edited by Insert Name Here
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we're likely to see in the next two-three weeks is a large war system update, along with a couple of other minor changes.

 

I'm seeking minor changes that will improve the war system, not an entire mechanical overhaul.

 

These aims seem contradictory to me. Would you mind clarifying?

 

It may be that I'm only seeing these changes now, but I don't understand what the aim behind them is, so I have trouble giving an honest opinion on if they are good. My gut reaction is if you're not sure, don't change anything, since I'm averse to the rules of a game being changed in the middle of it without a clear benefit for everyone. I'm not sure what's "broken" about the war system in people's eyes, which makes it impossible for me to assess if these changes "fix" it.

 

I'm not trying to be derogatory. I think everyone should keep in focus that you made a game almost totally by yourself that thousands of people play, and that you care about it enough to put effort into improving it. I'm sure people appreciate that, though we sometimes have an odd way of showing it. :P

  • Upvote 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure why there's a need to change a system that is winnable if people are smart enough to play it right.

 

Always nice to see changes that are blatantly to hurt Mensa's current play style.

☾☆

Priest of Dio

º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¸ GOD EMPEROR DIO BRANDO¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¸ DIO BRANDO GOD EMPEROR¨°º¤ø„¸

¨°º¤ø„¤¤º°¨ ø„¸¸„¨ ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸¸„ø¤º°¨¨°º¤ø„¸

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should throw these suggestions in a new thread, but I'll just warn you now that I really have no interest in changing game mechanics that significantly. I'm seeking minor changes that will improve the war system, not an entire mechanical overhaul.

 

That seems kind of counter-intuitive when the goal of this thread is to discuss the changes you proposed. I proposed an alternative that fixes some of the imbalances with your current idea in the same thread because generally discussion involves some sort of compromise and or counter-proposals.

 

Just cutout the espionage part. Now it's not as significant. The idea of taking 10% infra damage off of people whilst also doing normal infra damage from attacks is just moronic. Wars are already way too damaging, this is just getting worse.

 

The compromise I suggested makes closer wars damaging for both players, whilst larger victories are less damaging for the victor and more damaging for the loser. 

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

That seems kind of counter-intuitive when the goal of this thread is to discuss the changes you proposed. I proposed an alternative that fixes some of the imbalances with your current idea in the same thread because generally discussion involves some sort of compromise and or counter-proposals.

 

Just cutout the espionage part. Now it's not as significant. The idea of taking 10% infra damage off of people whilst also doing normal infra damage from attacks is just moronic. Wars are already way too damaging, this is just getting worse.

 

The compromise I suggested makes closer wars damaging for both players, whilst larger victories are less damaging for the victor and more damaging for the loser. 

 

Under the proposed system, wars are far shorter. It's a race to win the war, as it should be, and as such wars won't be 5 days of obliteration - it'll be quick rounds of ground attacks, airstrikes, and naval battles. In alliance wars, the goal is to destroy as much infrastructure as possible, and to prevent alliance wars from being twice as long due to reduced infrastructure damage, adding infrastructure damage to the loser of the war suffices instead. Additionally, it gives incentive to want to win a war - instead of avoiding victory for as long as possible.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

These aims seem contradictory to me. Would you mind clarifying?

 

It may be that I'm only seeing these changes now, but I don't understand what the aim behind them is, so I have trouble giving an honest opinion on if they are good. My gut reaction is if you're not sure, don't change anything, since I'm averse to the rules of a game being changed in the middle of it without a clear benefit for everyone. I'm not sure what's "broken" about the war system in people's eyes, which makes it impossible for me to assess if these changes "fix" it.

 

I'm not trying to be derogatory. I think everyone should keep in focus that you made a game almost totally by yourself that thousands of people play, and that you care about it enough to put effort into improving it. I'm sure people appreciate that, though we sometimes have an odd way of showing it. :P

 

Issues we are trying to improve upon here are general war balancing, and making wars more fun by making them both more graphical and logical (incentive to win wars, not avoid victory) and making individual wars shorter.

Is there a bug? Report It | Not understanding game mechanics? Ask About It | Got a good idea? Suggest It

Forums Rules | Game Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Issues we are trying to improve upon here are general war balancing, and making wars more fun by making them both more graphical and logical (incentive to win wars, not avoid victory) and making individual wars shorter.

Pretty sure some one will find a way to make the wars last the full three days to do as much damage as possible instead of aiming for victory and making the wars shorter sense the goal of war is to destroy your enemy. Basically someone will find a way to fight a war the same way we fight wars now, make them last 5 days and bomb infra and once they find out how to do it, everyone one will do it.

Amidst the eternal waves of time From a ripple of change shall the storm rise Out of the abyss peer the eyes of a demon Behold the razgriz, its wings of black sheath The demon soars through dark skies Fear and death trail its shadow beneath Until men united weild a hallowed sabre In final reckoning, the beast is slain As the demon sleeps, man turns on man His own blood and madness soon cover the earth From the depths of despair awaken the razgriz Its raven wings ablaze in majestic light

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the proposed system, wars are far shorter. It's a race to win the war, as it should be, and as such wars won't be 5 days of obliteration - it'll be quick rounds of ground attacks, airstrikes, and naval battles. In alliance wars, the goal is to destroy as much infrastructure as possible, and to prevent alliance wars from being twice as long due to reduced infrastructure damage, adding infrastructure damage to the loser of the war suffices instead. Additionally, it gives incentive to want to win a war - instead of avoiding victory for as long as possible.

Most of which is included in my counter-proposal.

  • Wars would be 3 days.
  • Instead of a race to win the war, it would be a race to do as much resistance damage, whilst maintaining as much of your own as possible.
  • The system I suggested balances infra damage out better. All your system does is further screw the loser (and 10% is a HUGE difference), when they already would be losing from infra damage, since you've weighted things like nukes and missiles higher.
  • My counter-proposal also encourages winning the war, but it also encourages winning the war by a large margin as infra damage and loot would be directly tied to the size of your victory.

 

Also, what about raiding? Now all raids will effectively end in the victim receiving 10% of their infra destroyed, despite the goal of a raid to be to loot not destroy. Neither system does that well.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure some one will find a way to make the wars last the full three days to do as much damage as possible instead of aiming for victory and making the wars shorter sense the goal of war is to destroy your enemy. Basically someone will find a way to fight a war the same way we fight wars now, make them last 5 days and bomb infra and once they find out how to do it, everyone one will do it.

No one disputes that people will try their best to maximize their damage, but the idea that people that were able to run 16 bomb runs and then continue to stagger their opponents will be matched in a system that automatically ends the war with a beige period after 9 bomb runs seems mathematically improbable. On the top end, throwing 10% extra damage into the pot can make the math different on that but it could probably be fixed with a regressive sliding percentage scale that gives a smaller percentage at higher, more expensive levels and a larger percentage at lower, cheaper levels. Possibly just switching to a flat penalty would be simpler?

 

I also question this idea that it will make larger nations more difficult to take on. In the previous scenario, a much larger nation facing three smaller nations could with some luck zero his three opponents out and then hold them at war for the rest of the five days while he restocked, essentially slot filling himself. In this new system, the benefit of holding nations to slot fill yourself that can also restock themselves with your attacks to keep them subdued makes this a potentially rough balancing act. If the larger nation subdues his three smaller opponents and then can be hit with three more who are fresh, that opens up even more ability to exhaust larger nations. Which in itself might be unbalancing.

Edited by Auctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

using bots and scripts isnt against the rules, so long as a player is actually logging in and completing an action. Anti-nuke scripts are within the rules, as it just tells you when someone has built a nuke - it doesnt actually spy away the nuke itself. A player does that.

 

 

Yeah, no.  We went so far as to alter our sleep cycles to buy at ridiculous times of day.  Once someone was targeted by a script cheater, it didnt matter when they bought it, the nuke was spied away within 2-3 seconds of it being bought, not even enough time to load the launch screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i've used the tool before. I know how it works, im from australia, there are people from england, "time of day" doesnt apply internationally. there was always someone to target it. The bot links you directly to the espionage screen so all you have to do is click the espionage button to get rid of the nuke. 

 

 

Also, Alex, if that tool is legal, it needs to not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why 10%? I thought we all agreed 5% was better than 3%?

 

Also, I'm completly fine with the biege extending, but if you do that biege should be 2 days, not 3. Since 6 days is more than enough to max your forces, 9 days is just silly

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you achieve Immense Triumphs, the shortest a war will go for is what, 48 hours? I am truly boned, fella's. Time to find an alliance and only play once a week instead of every day like I do now. And on that note with the nukes, I've had the near-instant nuke disarm happen to me multiple times. It seems pretty widespread throughout the game. How things like this are allowed I'm not sure...

Edited by Mageofpie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.