Jump to content
Eternal

An idea about construct vs construct

Recommended Posts

If an Avatar will have a progression-system in this game through EXP and will have stats based on level, so can a ship that is built physically from a blueprint. That is my idea. They will have their own progression-system until they are destroyed and then recreated again from the same-blueprint to restart again. So a ship that survived long will be more powerful based on stats because they have more accumulated-EXP than ships that are newer. How about that, eh? A history for a physical-construct. For example, the Black-Pearl-Ship in Pirates of the Caribbean, it survived and won many battles(including against the Flying Dutchman), so that ship must have accumulated a lot of EXP by now(if it's still afloat) and will build it's reputation in the community that people will fear. 

 

So an experienced-ship will be stronger stat-based until they are destroyed. For example, the Zumwalt-class-Destroyers of the United-states. We have 3 of them physically(they are all from identical-design); DDG-1000 Zumwalt, DDG-1001 Michael Monsoor, DDG-1002 Lyndon B. Johnson.

DDG-1000 Zumwalt(the lead-ship of the Zumwalt-class) have sank many ships and built an impressive record, until one day, it was defeated and sank. That ship will be gone forever, but it will go on our history, historians will write about that ship the same way we do about the Yamato-ship. That ship will be replaced and reconstructed from the blueprint under a different-name, but it will not be the same ship.

 

Make a ship gain EXP from destroying other ships. If it has many kills, that ship will be higher-level, and has the kill-records that it can boast about. Upon the destruction of that ship, the EXPs that are gain throughout it's service, will be gone, and if you reconstruct a copy from the blueprint, that ship will have to restart on the progression-system. 

 

An avatar progresses through the avatar-progression-system by fighting other avatars(A vs A). That will work differently, there will be no wipe after death for Avatar(the progression is persistent). You do not gain exp for avatar-progression-system by flying and commanding ships, instead, the ship instead will benefit from that (how can you, when the ship has so many crews?).

 

So to summarize;

A persistent Avatar-progression-system from A vs A and A vs C kills.

A Construct-progression-system from C vs C and C vs A kills, until that physical-construct is destroyed physically. (so they have to kill a lot and survive the process to become the Titans of EVE)

Add a kill-records to a construct that viewers can view. If you cannot do this, add a level that viewers can view(same-thing!).

To Avatars, do it the Call-of-Duty-way (# of kills and death). If you cannot do this, add a level that viewers can view.

Add a leaderboard.

 

That's my proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. This is terrible. You have zero idea on how progreI don
First, DU uses Timers for training, that's from EVE. You don't grind XP like a gullag inmate grinding rocks, that's what Korean MMOs do, DU is not a grindfest - nor a gullag, duh.

Second, a ship has a level - it's the average Skillpoints of its Crew (earned via the timers, even when offline). Also, their LITERAL EXPEREINCE IN COMBAT, makes them better than green crews.


A ship is just a ship, nothing more, nothing less. it's a piece of machinery - crew included. Thus a ship is just as good as the sumfo its parts. 

DU is about LEGITIMATE experience in the game, not "magical snowflakes".

Please, do look up the kickstarter video - since I am 101% certain you are not the kind of person to bother with DevBlogs after reading this.

I do recall you saying things like "I am here for the RP" and other PVE related topics. This only reinforces my idea of "carebears go grizzly real fast".

You thought the progression system was based on causing pure misery... holy molly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

I do recall you saying things like "I am here for the RP" and other PVE related topics.

indeed. And that's what EVE cannot offer that this game intends to include. Yes, I am kind of a carebear, kind of. I have no problem that this game have PVP, just include things that are not just for PVP. You people came from EVE, I came from Korean MMOs (Aion being my favorite), so our thinking here are different. I do believe that some of this systems can be implemented (why not if they bring immersion to a game? That's why some people are here for. I'm here more for the immersion TBH). 

 

I can understand why you people cannot like Korean-MMOs. I only like a certain. Why? Because some  of them have a good progression-system and immersion. Yeah you're right, I'm here more for the RP and building-progress (because I came from Korean-MMOs like you mentioned), some people are here more for the PVP and combat. If this is an openworld-sandbox-game with dynamic-community, then there is a possibility of roleplay. If I mentioned Trove here, you people will just laugh. What's wrong with having some of those kind of progression-system(just some) that can bring immersion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

You thought the progression system was based on causing pure misery... holy molly.

I never said that. I do recall that I said EVE's progression is misery though(not this game). Why? There is nothing in that game but war and destruction, nothing permanent to work towards. Here, we have Blueprints to work towards, some safezones, a player-driven-economy, so we have things to work towards that cannot be easily wiped. Hence, I like this much better than EVE. A game is about progression, so I am also here for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Eternal said:

I never said that. I do recall that I said EVE's progression is misery though(not this game). Why? There is nothing in that game but war and destruction, nothing permanent to work towards.

And LEVELING by grinding other people is OKAY? This is a whole new level of sociopathy. 

I seen less sociopathy by EVE Mercs, and even EVE Mercs don't enact your level of "Dehumanise the oppoenent". You disgust me, you do just that, dehumanise other people by viewing them as "grind for XP".


And EVE's problem is not in its core loop, which is that EVE is a PvP game, but the KILLBOARDS, which forces people to grind other people of any ship size or even capability to fight back, so they can have "nice stats" and look "better". You are advocating for the same thing. 

You are that thing you said is the problem in EVE, you are a grizzly carebear. Congrats, not many tilt me so much to put them in my blacklist. You are KoS now, cause I KNOW you will attack the moment I don't watch. Bravo, I seen your kind many times in EVE, people who say "I R A POOR FARMER/MINER/TRADER" and when you are told "hey, hop onto a fleet, let's go 50vs1" you immediately jump to the misery bandwagon.

You and your type of players are the reason EVE is a misery machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that's the PVP-part :) Gotta reward people who dedicate to it. Since, this is not even official, but just a suggestion, a higher-level-ship can be overcomed with more lower-level-ships. 

I already know that progression will be like EVE's training-skill, I just added points here for ideas to hybridize it. Titans and Capital-Ships are the dominions of EVE, with a good-ship-design created by good-designers and skilled-crews, they are more likely to turn that ship to a Titan/Capital-Ship because of capabilities. You have Titans/Capital-Ships in EVE that are grinded for game-changer and nobody complains. The design and the crew will also talk.

 

@CaptainTwerkmotor You will not see me in PVP :) (unless ofcourse I'm being drafted), I'm a constructor. seriously.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Eternal said:

Well, that's the PVP-part :) Gotta reward people who dedicate to it. Since, this is not even official, but just a suggestion, a higher-level-ship can be overcomed with more lower-level-ships. 

I already know that progression will be like EVE's training-skill, I just added points here for ideas to hybridize it. Titans and Capital-Ships are the dominions of EVE, with a good-ship-design created by good-designers and skilled-crews, they are more likely to turn that ship to a Titan/Capital-Ship because of capabilities. You have Titans/Capital-Ships in EVE that are grinded for game-changer and nobody complains. The design and the crew will also talk.

 

@CaptainTwerkmotor You will not see me in PVP :) (unless ofcourse, I'm being drafted), I'm a constructor. seriously.

 

Your logic is flaud to the point you sound more and more absurd.

Ships have levels of quality, eiter in scripts, or materials used. 

DU has no EXP bars nor REP bars. You'll have to earn the fact your ship is strong by actualyl recruiting smart people.

If NQ was to add Killboards , it would only make the game a hellhole and a Mad Max Universe - which is what EVE is .

Not to mention, your idea is poked full of exploits, by people farming 1 Core Unit "shios" to increase their ships level. 

Congrats, you hit Trash MMO Terrible Design Trifecta.

Grind + Grind for Power + Toxicity Inducing PVP.

PVPers are already rewarded with loot if they win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alright, so what is the stat-base for armaments of ship then? what factor will that mostly rely on? An example is a certain-naval-gun fitted to a ship. Do that gun just have a fixed-stats vs elements/armor of target-ship(which is also fixed?)? or this all rely on that EVE skill training system? (which is avatar-based) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eternal said:

alright, so what is the stat-base for armaments of ship then? what factor will that mostly rely on? An example is a certain-naval-gun fitted to a ship. Do that gun just have a fixed-stats vs elements/armor of target-ship(which is also fixed?)? or this all rely on that EVE skill training system? (which is avatar-based) 

both. It all depends on different variables like gun properties, your ingame skill level (and bonus to certain variables like tracking, velocity, damage,...) and your ships velocity and vector aswell as the enemies ship trajectory. (like it's done in EVE). You can't hit a small fast ship with huge guns when the small ship circles you. But you can hit it when the fighter pilot makes a mistake and overshoots you, turning around while coming to a standstill.

 

And I agree with twerk here, such a mechanic just introduces grind to the game. It's easily exploited and just creates an air of toxicity. Killboards from eve are an excellent example here. Everyone just looks at them and if you're not "gud" enough then you're not worth a dime to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Eternal said:

alright, so what is the stat-base for armaments of ship then? what factor will that mostly rely on? An example is a certain-naval-gun fitted to a ship. Do that gun just have a fixed-stats vs elements/armor of target-ship(which is also fixed?)? or this all rely on that EVE skill training system? (which is avatar-based) 

Depends. Can you read math?|

https://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Turret_damage

This is the system NQ wants to work towards. This is the EVE hit model.

It's a part of math called Set Theory -  it's how programmers determine data and cross-referrencing them.

The above entry (which is of the PLAYER RAN UNIVERSITY in EVE Online) shows you all the info on the subject.

In other words :

\pagecolor{Black}\color{White}\text{Chance to Hit} = {0.5^{\left({\left({\frac{V_{angular} \times 40000m}{WAS \times sig_{target}}}\right)^{2} + \left({\frac{max(0, Distance - opt_{turret})}{fall_{turret}}}\right)^{2}}\right)}}

This is the hit formula. This means that if yo ugto 100% tracking to enemy angualr, you get a 50% weapon damage on them.

The gun has stats, like :

1) tracking (radians/s)
2)Optimal/Falloff Range (Optimal the range witih nyou deal 100% of your weapon's damage before mitigation and Falloff if the range within your weapon loses damage down to 50% at the end of falloff range, past that, if your hit manages to connect, it deals 50% damge, we'll get to the infamous "Wrecking Shot" later on).
3) Rate of Fire, how fast the weapon fires.
4) HP on the weapon itself (yes, weapons in EVE got HP, is for when you voerheat the mfor more Rate of Fire).
5) Weight (the bigger the weapon, the heavier it is, thus adding more pain to oyur movement).

Tracking, Optimal/Falloff  and Rate of Fire, can be directly improved with Gunnery skills, like.. Gunnery, each levle giving you bonus dmg with turrets, as wel las each one of its 5 ranks unlocking the use of more in-depth gunnery related skills. Projectile Projections, gives you mroe tracking (you do do math for shots when space is involved after all) and thingsl ike specialisation, give yo uaccess to even MORE damage on your weappon of choice.

A fully trained gunner in Medium Railguns, will have a 50% total bonus damge on his weapon + Tracking + Optimal Range, compared to a person who's not traiend in that.

In EVE, that comes down to one person. In DU, that whole skill training is spread across an entire crew.

Also, Sig = Signature == the ship's crossection. The smellrer the ship and the faster it mvoes and the range of it from you, the harder it is to hit it. That's why Destroyers in eVE can be really powerful against ships that can't track them but are bigger.


Get Math'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Takao said:

Aren’t you throwing bonus hit and damage together here?

The Formular above is for the hit chance, not damage.

Yes. but that's how EVE calculates the damage done. Yoou should referr to the link I provided for more info.

Essentially, 0% means "miss", but 10%, means "you deal 10% damage"

It's not exactly like that -nor it's the proper forum to explain this. If you want a fully detailed explanation, the wiki link for UniWiki is in my post earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok.

I hope that will not be in du. I have played eve and the mechanic is very frustrating if you deal with battleships only a little bit damage to frigates even when you hit (especially with missiles!)

hit chance and damage should be generally separated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Takao said:

Ah ok.

I hope that will not be in du. I have played eve and the mechanic is very frustrating if you deal with battleships only a little bit damage to frigates even when you hit (especially with missiles!)

hit chance and damage should be generally separated.

UH... Explosions in space are not like in Atmoshpere.

Explosions work on a surfare area. It's not Star Wars, one missile CAN"T blow up a Death Star.


If your ship is only 1% of an explosion surface, and you are far off an explosion, you won't be affected. That's how PHYSICS  work. EVE is very accurate on how missiles work. In atmosphere, explosions like nukes, are itnesified due to the shockwave - the mechanical wave - being propagated via air mollecules. in Space, explosions are just intense heat, no kinetic displacement to actually cause intense damage.

Also, if you flew a missile boat in eVE, and yo udidn't use painters, of coruse you'd do little damage. I fly bobmers (torpedo frigates) and I can easily blow up other frigates with two Target Painters (increase the enemy's signature, thus the y take more dmg out of oyur missiles and other people can lock onto them faster, like Sniper Battleships from 250km ;) God Bless synergies in EVE).

So, I guess you just played before you got to the good stuff ey? It's okay.

 


Also, I don't know what you talk about, but Rokh sniper-fit battleship can explode Frigates at 250km with one volley or two. It jsut takes a metric f-ton to lock onto them - which can be helped by smaller ships painting the target so you can lock onoy them faster.

 


Thing is, this is a "vague idea". DU has far more intricate netcode and physics displayed, so NQ can advance the sytem.


But like it or not, a ship's speed makes it take less dmage. It's just physics, if you don't like physics, you can go check str Citzien ,where Recursion is not even an afterthought on how ships fly.

F = m * a.  That means the faster a ship goes, the more mass it has. And the more mass over a smaller volume, the more DESNE an obejct is. The more DENSE an object is, the more resilient is becomes when alternations are appleid to it. 

This iwhat the hit formula emulates in EVE Online. It's math. If you don't speak math,. you better not speak at all when it comes to algorithms.

The chance to hit IS the damage generator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Eternal said:

So Combat-system will be based on EVE's Tracking and Range. There is also just partial-damage(not 100%) if you do not hit directly. OK. I understand.

See?

Also, there is the "top-kek" as I like to call it, sniper gameplay.

If you can lock a target at 250km, but you got a short falloff, you can still hit them , if the target is not moving.

The hit formula guarantess that 1% of your hits, will deal 300% dmg, think of it like criticals in oter games, only the way you procur it is more "risky". That 1% Perfect Hit (now called Wrecking Hit), is a FLAT chance, meaning ,if you got 1% chance to hit, this 1% chance now is 100% on every hit you can pull off (1%).

But if the enemy target is not moving... now oyu get the idea. The maximum dmg model is "Smashing", at 150% damge, meant for Blaster ships or Pulser ships (or crazy a-holes who fly Autocannons). A sniper battleship, can dish out the same level of dmg as a brawler, by catching people off-guard.

Same thing works in DU if NQ so chooses to apply it, from AvA to CvC.

But I got a suspicion, given how Unigine has a lot of nice toys under the hood, they CAN do much more intricate things with the formula.


Still put you in a black list though, this suggestion of yours really tilted me. It's a recipe for toxicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Still put you in a black list though, this suggestion of yours really tilted me. It's a recipe for toxicity.

Does that mean you BOO's will not raid me? or the opposite? 

I would like to be ignored by BOO :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eternal said:

Does that mean you BOO's will not raid me? or the opposite? 

I would like to ignored by BOO

We ignore everyone. We don't actively hunt people. Just saying ,if I am out and I come across you, I'll shoot first, ask qquestions never. That's how I handle people who do have misery-generation in mind.

I am proactive like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

F = m * a.  That means the faster a ship goes, the more mass it has. And the more mass over a smaller volume, the more DESNE an obejct is. The more DENSE an object is, the more resilient is becomes when alternations are appleid to it

That is wrong.

the mass of an object, and therefore it’s density, is CONSTANT and not proportional to the objects speed, as long as the velocity is not relativistic (<0,1 c).

Space combat will take place below that speed.

Also, moving fast will not increase your resilience for damage, because if you get hit, the projectile that hits you will be faster than you or if not, you will fly into it at your high speed.

speed is relative: there is no difference when you fly at x km/h into a projectile with 0 km/h or when a projectile with x km/h fly into a ship with 0 km/h.

 

for explosion mechanics:

in eve the damage of missiles is spread out over the missiles explosion radius. If the target (signature?) radius is lower, you do proportional less damage. 

That mechanic is not very good and also misleading. The explosions main damage value should represent its force st point blank range and its explosions radius the max distance where the explosion can damage things. The damage is then correctly scaled over that distance (double distance = quarter damage). how much damage would cruise missile or torpedo (in eve) do against a stationary frigate?

 

Quote

Explosions work on a surfare area. It's not Star Wars, one missile CAN"T blow up a Death Star.


If your ship is only 1% of an explosion surface, and you are far off an explosion, you won't be affected. That's how PHYSICS  work. EVE is very accurate on how missiles work. In atmosphere, explosions like nukes, are itnesified due to the shockwave - the mechanical wave - being propagated via air mollecules. in Space, explosions are just intense heat, no kinetic displacement to actually cause intense damage.

That’s not what I’m talking about, see above.

Also, in the eve mechanics the explosion velocity of bigger missiles is significantly lower than of smaller ones.

Thats unrealistic and also, as far as I know, the calculation doesn’t take the missiles own velocity into account.

If the missile hits a target directly in the front, the explosion wave WILL hit the ship fully.

if the missile hits the back of the ship, it has to be at least as fast as the ship itself and therefor its explosion wave will be faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Takao said:

That is wrong.

the mass of an object, and therefore it’s density, is CONSTANT and not proportional to the objects speed, as long as the velocity is not relativistic (<0,1 c).

Space combat will take place below that speed.

Also, moving fast will not increase your resilience for damage, because if you get hit, the projectile that hits you will be faster than you or if not, you will fly into it at your high speed.

speed is relative: there is no difference when you fly at x km/h into a projectile with 0 km/h or when a projectile with x km/h fly into a ship with 0 km/h.

 

for explosion mechanics:

in eve the damage of missiles is spread out over the missiles explosion radius. If the target (signature?) radius is lower, you do proportional less damage. 

That mechanic is not very good and also misleading. The explosions main damage value should represent its force st point blank range and its explosions radius the max distance where the explosion can damage things. The damage is then correctly scaled over that distance (double distance = quarter damage). how much damage would cruise missile or torpedo (in eve) do against a stationary frigate?

 

That’s not what I’m talking about, see above.

Also, in the eve mechanics the explosion velocity of bigger missiles is significantly lower than of smaller ones.

Thats unrealistic and also, as far as I know, the calculation doesn’t take the missiles own velocity into account.

If the missile hits a target directly in the front, the explosion wave WILL hit the ship fully.

if the missile hits the back of the ship, it has to be at least as fast as the ship itself and therefor its explosion wave will be faster.

This is a conjecture of bad understanding of what Recursion is.

Density is as much a constant, as gravity is.

You don't need a faster projectile to hit a target, you need only tracking and leading. Leading targets is how snipers get to hit moving targets.  It's standar practise, and it is used on ship warfare IRL. You HAVE to lead a target. 

However, Newton's Second Law, means that if your bullet, was to hit a moving target, that is traversing a certain length of space with a certain force, and your bullet's Work is less than the target's Work, the target will displace (reduce its force of push / energy) the bullet.

In other words, the faster your kinetic energy the more it  CAN make bullets bounce off of you if you were to move fast enough.  That contributes to a virtual density of a target. Of course, this also means that a target, if they accelerate past a point of acceleration, they can shatter (literally explode) as if they would if they were to abruptly stop (decceleration is just acceleration to the opposite vector).

This means that EVE's model is accurate. You can track a target, you can hit a target, but if your leading is not right (expreessed with Ranges and Tracking), you won't do much damage.

This is why EVE has "smashing" and "hit" and "crushing" Hit Statuses. When it's "Smashing" it means the bullet hit on the 90% angle (full application of damage, no displacement, no bouncing off).

Welcome to math, it's fun here. 


As for missiles...

no missile explodes on point blank. No person building missiles would do that, that's brain dead thing to do with missiles.

Torpedos, missiles and other ballistic warheads, explode on proximity, NOT contact.

Yoru signature radius means "how well can this missile see you". If the missile sees a large signature, it will far easily find the "center" to land the warhead near the object.

If the Signature is small, then the missile will try and explode where it THINKS the target is, givenm the target is so small, it can barely pinpoint it.

Explosions, lose potency with the further they travel ,as of the Inverse Square Law (the reason why sound grows weaker and why light becomes dimmer at ranges). Ihis also means, that if a Missile was to deal 10 KiloTonnes worth of an explosion, that would be spread across its entire surface of the explosion for T1, then half that for T2, then hafl that for T3 and so on.

In EVE, the "explosion speed" and "explosion time" means how much the dmg wil lbe multiplied, depending on how fast the enemy goes.

Frigates going at 4000 m/s , hit by a 100m/s explosion, will take x% of the missiles explosion radius (meters of explosion per seconf oexplosion), mitigated even more by how much of the explosion the frigate caught on its b ody.

I don't know if you played EVE a lot, but these things are kinda not known by newbros - or some veterans I've seen =shudders=. 

There is a reason an in-game University exists in EVE Online to teach people all these things...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CaptainTwerkmotor said:

Just saying ,if I am out and I come across you, I'll shoot first, ask qquestions never.

Then I'll better watch out. As soon I see you in a hostile-zone, I'm retreating to safety(be it org-protection) because I know you'll shoot me :) 

I'm not even in the military(the ones who will do the PVP).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i can suggest a better alternative that might even please Twerk.

 

As an engineer works on the same ship for a long time they should uderstand the mechanisms more and should be able to improve them thus making the ship more effective and personal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will fit the kind of game play that DU is aiming for...

 

DU is all about doing things in a "realistically plausible" way. Inanimate objects like ships can't "learn" skills or become tougher to kill simply because they survived combat.

In DU that ship only becomes tougher to kill when the owner decides to upgrade the armour. The players themselves are the only ones who can learn new "skills" to improve their combat proficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, gyurka66 said:

I think i can suggest a better alternative that might even please Twerk.

 

As an engineer works on the same ship for a long time they should uderstand the mechanisms more and should be able to improve them thus making the ship more effective and personal.

That's still though, an aspect of what a gunner does. Engineers could do things like diverting power, or scripting better UIs for the gunners - which I have the suspicion might help in the long-run ,since not many people understand geometry). 

Alternatively, like EVE has "Tracking Computers", an engineer can operate that part of the ship, similar to how a "buffer" acts in other MMOs.

Ships in DU are after all just group PvP. Roles like "healer" and "dps" still apply,. but for the whole ship, and the whole ship acts as a role of its own in a fleet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it will fit the kind of game play that DU is aiming for...

 

DU is all about doing things in a "realistically plausible" way. Inanimate objects like ships can't "learn" skills or become tougher to kill simply because they survived combat.

In DU that ship only becomes tougher to kill when the owner decides to upgrade the armour. The players themselves are the only ones who can learn new "skills" to improve their combat proficiency.

That's what i was trying to combat in my suggestion. People should learn the ship.:)

Share this post


Link to post
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...