Jump to content

AccuNut

Alpha Team Vanguard
  • Posts

    258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    AccuNut reacted to borzol in Weapon types   
    i am hoping that at least energy based weapons would be capable of overload ... like you have a lot of spare energy so you will overload the weapon. It will take a lot more energy but also it would do a lot more damage but the weapon itself would take damage everytime it fires. 
  2. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from Dinkledash in Anti-ship Plantery cannon   
    You are correct, however..from what I understand, you might miss if your targeting stats aren't as high as the opponent's evasion stats. I could be wrong, but that is how I understand it.
  3. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from DaSchiz in Organizations, size, visibility, power, themes and more - your preferences?   
    Well said DaSchiz. This is exactly the type of group I enjoy playing with as well.
  4. Like
    AccuNut reacted to DaSchiz in Organizations, size, visibility, power, themes and more - your preferences?   
    To me size doesn't matter (that's what she said) but it is all about the people. The name, logo, anything meta game like rpg stuff doesn't matter much to me ... people give that stuff meaning. 
     
    So not sure if this is really what you are asking but all that stuff in the thread title doesn't mean much to me.  Within the same org or not, I like to play with people who have some degree of respect, honor, trust, relaxed for the most part but still goalish type oriented; knows when to play/relax and knows when it is srs time to be srs. These people like to compromise and work well with others. 
     
    If you have a group of people like that then whatever highs or lows come along you all have people to rely on.  Stuff some orgs make mandatory like contributing to the org monetarily or devoting time to some organizational project or risking own property to defend the organization's interests. .... these things are dictated in some orgs but the people I like to play with WANT to do these things.  It isn't asked of them but  it is offered by them. 
     
    Like in Eve, I have a solo corp but a tight group of many good people across many orgs big and small and we do things together because we want to not just because we are under the same banner. Those situations I have been fortunate enough to be a part of are the most satisfying to me.
  5. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Ripper in Weapon types   
    Given a certain caliber, they would do the same amount of damage.
     
    A .50 caliber machine gun will do the same amount of damage per round when fired at full-auto, verses semi-auto, and slapping a scope on the machine gun will only increase accuracy.
     
    A .50 caliber sniper rifle MAY change the performance of the bullet depending upon the length of the barrel and possibly the rifling. But this is a change to the gun. Not the bullet.
     
    I'm trying to think of a time, where full-auto would impart less force on the bullet. POSSIBLY due to the recoil of the previous round, but if you think about it, the gun doesn't fire until after the recoil is expended and the bolt slams forward again.
  6. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from nidan007 in Dealing with Griefers/Resource Depletion   
    This would be a player-driven system, where players who want to protect the appearance/resources of the area would actually have to get actively involved in doing so, I like it!
  7. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Anopheles in Dealing with Griefers/Resource Depletion   
    What you call griefing I may call warfare or piracy.   I should, in a sandbox, be able to play the bad guy.
     
    Having said that, I would hope that there are safer zones (not entirely safe zones that are narratively dead), but consequences for bad actions just as my piracy should be the consequence of carelessness or greed.   
     
    In short, a proper sec system like EVE's where over here all bets are off, but over there the police are 'fierce'.     
  8. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from VerZalj in Ship-to-ship repairs...?   
    First off, I see a lot of potential for the ideas posted here. I think that quite possibly, all of the repair concepts that have been mentioned could be used. Also, if a player wants to perform in-battle repairs, there would be a risk, but that is when his team needs to work on protecting him.
     
    Just like there are different kinds of engines and weapons, there could be different kinds of repair tech, each with advantages and disadvantages. Maybe the repair arms could handle massive hull repair quickly, but not system repairs. Meanwhile, nanites might be able to do the system repairs, but be insanely slow at armor reconstruction. It would really open up the possibilities to have multiple repair forms. It would also give birth to methods of slowing down an enemy repair procedure: EMP systems (Electro-Magnetic Pulse, in case you were wondering. ) to knock out the nanites, residual energy damage to armor blocks that inhibits new material form bonding, etc.
     
    As to energy transfer, that is an interesting concept. It could be used for more than just shield recharge too. You could have a ship that utilizes some exceptionally powerful energy weapons, but doesn't have the energy storage necessary to use them for extended periods of time. But if there is a recharge ship nearby..voila...longer shoot-time.
     
    As far as "energy leaching" goes, that would, again, give rise to counter-leaching systems. Even if their leaching tech is more advanced than your defense system, there is a chance you could "overload" their ship by sacrificing a large burst of energy directly into their leach mechanism. (If you can't defend against it, you will eventually lose it all anyway, right?  )
     
    Another thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is extending an energy shield to encompass another ship. Energy drain would be immense, but it would provide yet another option to consider when building/using a support ship. "Do I want to shield my ally and do minor/slow repairs, or large/fast repairs with no extra protection?"
     
    And then there is the question of remote-controlled constructs and/or autonomous drones. If NQ does implement those, they could be used to repair/shield/recharge ships in combat with less risk to the actual support vessel. Enemies would have to get creative with their tactics in order to take out the drone "mother ship".
     
    This is definately an interesting topic, and one I hope NovaQuark considers.
  9. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from Hubris in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    Very true, and a convincing argument!
     
    I agree, this would eliminate a lot of the confusion, since the "planet name" is staying the same, but would still allow for some kind of naming.
     
    Here is yet another option: the original discoverer gets INDIRECT naming rights with the final name being decided by regional or planetary vote.
    Here is how it would work: someone discovers a planet. At this point the planet is given a procedurally-generated designation or name.(HS4-RD, Yavin-IX, etc.) The way I understand it, the universe (multiverse?) will be divided into "regions" containing multiple planets each. If this new planet is in an established region, he can call for a vote right away. He suggests a name, and it either passes or not. If not, he can continue to suggest options until one does pass, or he gives up and transfers naming rights to someone else.
     
    If it is a new or unestablished region,(meaning; a region needs X-number of players in it to become established,) then he can either wait for it to become established, or call for a vote from the nearest established region.
    This system would avoid stupid and organization-based names,(for the most part,) give the original discoverer the satisfaction of choosing the name, and get a large amount of the community involved in the process.
     
    Alternatively, it could be a planetary vote once, say, 60% of the planet is claimed.(Not necessarily controlled.)
    This option unfortunately still leaves the door open to an organization discovering a planet, then flooding it with their own people so that any name they choose passes, but it is another way to do it.
     
    Or even a combo of one of these and the prefix/suffix/inix idea. The name is chosen as above, but can be partially modified like you suggested!
     
    However they decide to do it, I think there should be recognition given to the discoverer. Maybe some fine print under the planet name whenever it is displayed: "discovered by: XXXX".
     
    Gotta say Semproser, genius idea on the fixed name with prefix/suffix/inix being rename-able! Just so long as it still comes up by it's fixed name when you are searching the planet database for it.
  10. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Semproser in Lets talk about Gravity   
    Nicely pointed out, I hadn't considered that option:
     
    *Avatar specific gravity*
     
    It would be certainly perfect for the things I'm suggesting building wise. The only downside really is that occasionally while working in your office building someone might just casually walk up the wall and through your 80th floor window. haha.
     
    As for your problem AccuNut with other gravity sources nearby, somehow I doubt their engine will actually employ a universal gravity field. It will probably be more in the sense of "if within X Radius of planet, affected by gravity of planet" for people and constructs, and a different model entirely for the space stations as they are supposed to just orbit the nearest large cosmic entity (or so someone said, I've got no sources on that). This would mean that on ships it would be likely gravity is handled in a way similar to "Everything inside this cuboid is affected by construct Y's gravity", where the cuboid is just big enough to encapsulate the construct. This is the most likely, as pretty much every other free roam space game does it like this. This would also mean that the cuboid gravity of the construct overrides the gravity of the planet entirely, otherwise things would become extremely strange in orbit. 
     
    However "gravity emitters" like I suggest wouldn't use a cuboid that by default encapsulates the entire construct, but would give the user the ability to put a shape somewhere and anything inside that shape is affected by a certain gravity simulating force. Thing is, if this shape is a square (like in Space Engineers) my cuboid city idea still couldnt be employed perfectly as the corners wouldn't be covered properly without extra, diagonal facing gravity emitters. Which would be rather strange. This is what that would look like: http://www.printablee.com/postpic/2014/04/square-box-template-printable_116047.png - the important part here is the lack of gravity at the corners. 
     
    However if the shape of the gravity emitters would be customisable, that would lead to a lot more fun. For example, gravity parcour maps, multidimensional command stations/bridges (which I have several concepts for), and of course cuboid city ships. However actually doing that even with the given tools might be hard, as the "correct" gravity field shape for a cuboid would be what I can only describe as an inverted square based & topped trapezoid sided pyramid. Like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/B3D/2/JPG/figure19.jpg
    Specifically 6 of them, one for each face, this allows for no gaps in between, and would look like this: http://www.mathaware.org/mam/00/master/essays/dimension/JPG/figure28.jpg
     
     
    So in the end (and TL;DR) : 
     
    Although it would lead to quite a lot of creative outlet to have customization of shapes from gravity emitters I imagine, it would probably be a great deal simpler and easier for the developers to just have user-set gravity, allowing any client to orient themselves however they want when off-planet. Probably locking this to 6 axis or so would be advisable. 
  11. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from Semproser in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    Very true, and a convincing argument!
     
    I agree, this would eliminate a lot of the confusion, since the "planet name" is staying the same, but would still allow for some kind of naming.
     
    Here is yet another option: the original discoverer gets INDIRECT naming rights with the final name being decided by regional or planetary vote.
    Here is how it would work: someone discovers a planet. At this point the planet is given a procedurally-generated designation or name.(HS4-RD, Yavin-IX, etc.) The way I understand it, the universe (multiverse?) will be divided into "regions" containing multiple planets each. If this new planet is in an established region, he can call for a vote right away. He suggests a name, and it either passes or not. If not, he can continue to suggest options until one does pass, or he gives up and transfers naming rights to someone else.
     
    If it is a new or unestablished region,(meaning; a region needs X-number of players in it to become established,) then he can either wait for it to become established, or call for a vote from the nearest established region.
    This system would avoid stupid and organization-based names,(for the most part,) give the original discoverer the satisfaction of choosing the name, and get a large amount of the community involved in the process.
     
    Alternatively, it could be a planetary vote once, say, 60% of the planet is claimed.(Not necessarily controlled.)
    This option unfortunately still leaves the door open to an organization discovering a planet, then flooding it with their own people so that any name they choose passes, but it is another way to do it.
     
    Or even a combo of one of these and the prefix/suffix/inix idea. The name is chosen as above, but can be partially modified like you suggested!
     
    However they decide to do it, I think there should be recognition given to the discoverer. Maybe some fine print under the planet name whenever it is displayed: "discovered by: XXXX".
     
    Gotta say Semproser, genius idea on the fixed name with prefix/suffix/inix being rename-able! Just so long as it still comes up by it's fixed name when you are searching the planet database for it.
  12. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Semproser in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    Obviously nothing is perfect. But what I was really trying to avoid is some idiot coming along, being the first to a planet because he happened to drift there first, and naming is "RANDOM LOLOLO XD XD" and that being one of the 5 core important planets. Then with that name stuck forever, the rest of the community has to deal with the immaturity of a single person who just got there first. Also if there are 4 or 5 big corporations on a planet, if my first suggestion is used then the biggest of them will probably name is "Star Conferdacy Planet 3" or something as it puts their factions name in the planet, asserting their very slight dominance. But if my second suggestion is used, it would be a lot more community focused and hence a lot less likely to be named after the richest lot there and more what the people of the planet want. 
     
    Actually come to think of it, a better solution would be to only be able to rename a prefix, postfix or infix, for example the most they could do would be "Star Confederacy controlled Yavin-XI" Where the generated name for the planet was Yavin-IX. By having a name checker that requires the original name to be in the new name somewhere? That way people can be creative about it and have it in a more appropriate part of the name. So even "The Peoples Republic of Yaxin-IX and Star Alliance" would be acceptable to the system. I reckon that would get good results. 
  13. Like
    AccuNut reacted to ATMLVE in Gravity "element" suggestion   
    I always thought Space Engineers way of gravity was a little awkward, what with just a big box. If two ships of differing orientations but 1g downward gravity get close to each other, and the wells extend beyond the ships, then things get goofy for both ships. I personally would prefer a gravity generator placed on a ship to make gravity happen in a specific way according to the voxels on the ship, so that the gravity would extend a certain height above every single section of the ship, and not have gravity out in space in the ships vicinity. Then also available would be a way to have radial or spherical gravity, but it all would depend on the voxels connected to the generator, not merely the proximity of the generator.
     
    So rather than a gravity generator having its own field, a gravity generator would cause each voxel the generator is connected to to have its own individual gravity field. This would make close fleet battles, something hopefully a significant factor in the game, less awkward in terms of gravity.
     
    For something like cylindrical radial gravity, you could have the center be through the gravity generator, and then all voxels would have a gravity field away from that center line.
  14. Like
    AccuNut reacted to NQ-Nyzaltar in Forum Rules   
    We want this forum to be a place where everyone feels empowered to have an open and friendly discussion with us (the Novaquark team) as well as other community members.  To help make this possible we have created rules we feel will keep things positive and ensure that proper netiquette is observed.

    By posting on this forum, either publicly or through private message or other means, you explicitly agree to follow the rules and guidelines posted here. If you do not agree with these rules – in whole or in any part – then do not post. All members will be treated as if they have read and understood these rules and guidelines.
     
    (I) Be respectful and courteous.
    The Dual Universe forums and community site are provided for Dual Universe players and those interested in discussing topics directly related to Dual Universe. We understand that community members may disagree with each other, and even with us, but we expect opinions to be expressed in a reasonable and polite manner.  It is important to maintain an atmosphere of civility and respect, so that all voices may be heard.
     
    (II) Communicate constructively.
    All communication, whether between players, moderators or Dual Universe staff, must be constructive. Posts without constructive commentary can distract from the topic at hand, reduce the visibility of valuable communication, and discourage others from participating in the conversation.
     
    (III) Following actions are prohibited:
    Posting off-topic replies or replies that are likely to drag the discussion off topic. Necroposting on old threads (unpinned threads in which the last reply is older than 2 months). Spamming on a specific topic. This includes creating multiple discussions on the same topic in the same or multiple forums. Cross-posting a specific reply. This is also a form of spamming. Posting an image without a meaningful text. A meme is not a response to a discussion. They are usually disruptive and can be easily misinterpreted. The same is true for animated GIFs. Calling out other players or community members by name to shame them for actions or opinions you may disagree with. Naming and shaming is not tolerated. Posting in any manner that disrupts an official thread. Official threads are topics created by the Novaquark team for the purpose of collecting feedback and opinions. Threatening legal action. Unfortunately, this kills all conversation immediately as we must refer all further discussion to our legal team. To preserve the conversation intact and unaltered these types of responses may be immediately archived. Trolling (provoking) people. Flaming (insulting, attacking) people. Picking fights isn’t a good way to make your point. It usually means you don’t have one and are just trying to cause trouble. Using profanity. Including creative spelling or character substitution to bypass word filters. Using the report system in an abusive manner. This is a form of harassment and a tremendous waste of time for both staff and moderators. Discussions and comments involving real life politics, ideology or religion. These can be incendiary topics and will usually lead to inappropriate behavior and uncomfortable situations. Publicly posting any private discussions, conversations, or other material between a user and a Novaquark employee (confidentiality policy). Refusal to follow the directions of Novaquark staff or representatives.
    The use of an alternate account to circumvent a forum suspension is forbidden at all times. Additionally, the use of alternate account(s) to influence or misrepresent opinions is strictly prohibited. All forum accounts must adhere to the forum rules and Code of Conduct. Failure to comply can result in disciplinary actions against all associated accounts.
     
    Violating these guidelines may trigger a warning, followed by either a temporary or permanent suspension of forum privileges depending on the severity and frequency of the violations.
     
    (IV) The following actions may result in the immediate suspension of forum privileges:
    There are some actions severe enough to result in immediate temporary or permanent suspension of posting privileges without prior notification. Serious or sustained offenses may result in suspension of not only the user's forum account but game account as well.
     
    Threatening other members or Novaquark staff. No, “just joking’ is not a defense. We take this very seriously. Publicly revealing account or personal information of any person, community member or Novaquark staff. Posting harmful links pointing to viruses, malware, worms or trojans. Posting sexually explicit content. Including posting links to such content. Hate speech is not tolerated in any form. Attacking any ethnic group, religion, gender or sexual preference/identity. Promoting exploits, cheating programs, piracy or any sort of illegal activity. Attempt to impersonate Novaquark staff or another member of the community.  
    Violations of these rules may result in further steps taken with outside authorities or agencies. This may include your Internet Service Provider (ISP) and local or national Law Enforcement agencies.
     
    (V) Abide by moderators and Novaquark employee’s instructions.
     
    If you disagree with a moderator or employee's actions, do not discuss or challenge the matter in forum posts. Send an e-mail to forum@novaquark.com, and be sure to include your forum handle (name displayed on the forum), but NOT your password, and clearly state your concerns.
     
    IMPORTANT: Forum content is moderated at Novaquark's sole discretion, and content may be modified, removed, or otherwise restricted by Novaquark employees and/or moderators.
     
    Best Regards,
    The Novaquark Team.
  15. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from Hotwingz in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    Both of these are interesting suggestions, but have some previously mentioned pitfalls.
    Mainly, it allows the planet name to change multiple times, and almost continually if the right conditions are met. This could become very confusing to players as they travel the known universe. It would also wreak havoc on any type of industry that delivers goods, since "Lot 98 on Planet Zorg" just became "Lot 98 on Planet Whatcha-ma-call-it".
    Especially if a particular name is popular, any given planet could receive the same name at different times.
     
    For example: let's say 5 different planets are to be named. On those five planets, the majority of the people like the name, "Asgard". Only one of them can be named Asgard, and the rest find different names.
    Fast forward six months, and the vote to retain the name Asgard doesn't pass, or another organization takes over and renames the planet. Meanwhile, on the neighboring planet of Sardis, (which originally wanted the name Asgard,) the controlling organization/majority of citizens realize that the name is no longer being used, and hastily rename their own planet Asgard.
    We now have two planets in the same system, in the same general​ area, (yes, I realize they will still be light-years from each other,) that have been named the same thing at some point. And this could keep happening until a new fad name surfaces, then the cycle starts all over.
     
    I see this becoming very disorienting to anyone who is trying to find a certain planet, and just plain annoying for everyone else. It would be the equivalent of being given an address to go to, and getting to the area only to find that all the streets, even the name of the town has changed! You would be totally lost.
     
    That seems to be one of the major concerns of non-permanent planet names, and I think it is quite valid.
  16. Like
    AccuNut reacted to ZeroCool in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    I agree that changing the name several times could be tricky for mapping purposes, but allowing the name to change a total of 3 times (initial generated name, first claimant and first organization.) should not cause that many issues and would be a way to follow a logical path.  In our universe we have found a potentially habitable planet - Kepler-186f.  Should mankind make a journey to that planet and find it uninhabited, it will likely get a new name given to it by the first settlers, or the people financing the colony.
  17. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Lord_Void in Naming Planets and Star Systems   
    What about randomly generated names like HS4-RD or that sort of thing? Easy to implement and takes the pressure off people to figure out names for planets. Otherwise, I like the idea of having the first person to put a TCU on it gets to name it. Perhaps there could be moderator approval before the name is finalized?
     
    Or what if whoever controlled the most TCUs on the planet got to set the name? So if you took over the planet you could change the name.
  18. Like
    AccuNut got a reaction from Lord_Void in How Should Markets Make Money?   
    That makes sense.
    Another thing to consider will be the difficulty of obtaining the item(s) and how quickly the item tends to sell.
    To use your example, lets say item "A" only sells for $20 per cubic unit, but is easy to craft and sells quickly. Meanwhile, item "B" sells for $100 per cubic unit, but is much harder to craft and sells more slowly. The MO charges $5 per cubic unit of space taken regardless of item type.
    If seller "A" sells 400 cubic units of his item per day, he makes $6,000 after the market takes their cut.($2,000)
    However, seller "B" only sells 40 cubic units of his item per day, and as a result only makes $3,800. ($4,000 - $200 Market Fee.)
    So, in this case, seller "A" made more profit in one day than seller "B", even though he paid more in market fees.
    Also, the market made more off of the sale of item "A" ($2,000) than item "B" ($200). If anything, this would encourage the market to favor item "A".
    It would come down to whether seller "A" deems the percentage of his profit lost to the market acceptable compared to his potential total profit.
     
    That being said....this scenario is purely speculative. I am not necessarily defending the use of the price-per-cubic-unit method, just presenting another angle to consider. It might very well play out as you described.
     
    Very well-thought-out post!
  19. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Bluestorm in Reputation system/Curriculum Vitae   
    I second that as well, being private lists and not public it would encourage player interactions like "Asking around if they know someone competent for this job" while removing the burden of having to remember it by heart.
     
    Such list should have player-created tags and comments addable to detail more why such individual was better or worse than others like :
    - Player X [builder] [Fast] [bit expensive]: Best ship I ever ordered! It was a little expensive but worth the money. The job was lightning fast!
    - Player Y [Troll] [Rude]: Ruined my base for giggles and insulted me.
    - Player Z [Guard] [bounty hunter] : Very efficient at his job whether it is guarding against or eliminating a target.
  20. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Violet in How Should Markets Make Money?   
    The way I see it happening is that there are likely going to be specialist markets based around the types of goods looking to be brought and sold.
     
    Someone might operate a refinery with an attached market unit buying ores at one price and selling refined metals at another with no fees
     
    There will be specialist metal exchanges where people buy and sell moderately refined metals that take a lot of space but aren't really much of a target for pirates, who steals a ton of nickel?? These will be fairly common.
     
    Then there will be high security, high value commodity markets with thick as hell walls that sell the sort of low volume high value items that pirates love and they will have top of the line defenses and well paid 24/7 police patrols watching them, these are likely to be super rare.
  21. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Phroshy in How Should Markets Make Money?   
    What's stopping people from building a competing marketplace next door?
  22. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Velenka in Contract / Agreement Function   
    A contract system might not work so well for rather vague deals, i.e. a privateer. A privateer might get hired to "harass" another corporation. It would be impossible for a computer to say when that was accomplished.
     
    I would suggest that verification be a third party system. Whenever a trade or deal is made, all the information about the deal is contained in a parcel of information called a "trade packet." With a trade packet you get a unique ID generated. Call it the trade ID. NQ would be the third party responsible for storing the packet and the ID.
     
    The two players making the trade get tagged behind the scenes with the trade ID. Anyone with the trade ID tag can look up the trade packet from NQ. Using this, it would be then possible to independently verify details of a trade. You could tag your boss and say "Yes I did deliver, look here." The boss could then use an in-game lookup function to look at the trade packet. Using a system like this would enable you to verify, but not enforce contracts.
  23. Like
    AccuNut reacted to Starkontrast in How Should Markets Make Money?   
    My brother AccuNut and I will be running a market once the game is released and have been thinking about how market owners will make their money.
     
    We have come up with a few ideas on how this should work, as their has been nothing mentioned as of yet on this subject.
     
    Here they are:
    Market owner (MO) takes a percentage of the sales. (ex. Item sells for $10. MO takes 1%. Seller gets $9.90.) -- thanks ATMLVE MO is paid per each listing by the seller. (ex. $10 to post one item for sale, $10 to post 1,200 items.) MO is paid per each item listed by the seller. (ex. $10 to sell one item, $20 to sell two, $30 for three, etc.) MO is paid based on cubic units of storage space taken by the items sold. (ex. at $10 per cubic unit, a listing occupying five cubic units of market storage would cost the seller $50 to post for sale.) MO establishes listing "types" (raw resources, ship parts, blueprints, etc.). seller is charged using any of the above methods based on item "type". (ex. raw resource listings charged using method #1 cost 1% of sale, while blueprint listings cost 5%.) --This option allows the most freedom to the Market Owner as they could use different charge methods for each listing "type". (ex. MO uses method #2 for raw resource listings and method #1 for blueprints.) What are your thoughts on these methods? We'd love to hear your own ideas on how markets should make a profit as well.
    Let us know what you think!
     
     -Don't forget to "like" the post!

    ​Thanks for reading,
    ​Starkontrast
×
×
  • Create New...