Jump to content
unown006

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

Should automated static defences be added to duel universe? a means to a log off deffense system  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. Should automated static defences be added to duel universe?

    • Yes they are needed to balance the game
      74
    • Yes but there more nice to have but not needed
      10
    • No this would make orgs op and citys unraidable
      6
    • No this wouldnt be good for the game in general
      8


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, unown006 said:

Who said they would not cost orgs anything nor require upkeep? And by sizable force I mean Also by sizable force I cant be specific because the mechanics are not currently introduced in the game. So you will have to inure what a sizable force would mean.

Noone said that. And it's no argument either as in "large orgs won't have many because upkeep"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lethys said:

Because I don't rly know what you mean by "sizeable force". As explained. 

 

Static defenses should only deter a random pirate or a very small gang at most (4-5 ships). Otherwise they're too op and will be abused by everyone, especially large orgs. There's no argument for large orgs not to spam them everywhere (no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,....)

"no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,...." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lethys said:

Noone said that. And it's no argument either as in "large orgs won't have many because upkeep"

Ah but it can be depending on how its added for example NQ could if they deem is necessary impose a specific mechanic to make it harder to maintain for larger orgs now you may be thinking thats not fair but realize Thats what you would be asking for or some other "solution"

Just now, unown006 said:

"no limit it might have, no resources such defenses might cost, no upkeep, no energy consumption,...." 

you did here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, unown006 said:

Ah but it can be depending on how its added for example NQ could if they deem is necessary impose a specific mechanic to make it harder to maintain for larger orgs now you may be thinking thats not fair but realize Thats what you would be asking for or some other "solution"

you did here

Not going to work. Spam alt chars in a deadzone org, give them full RDMS in your main org, done. easy. circumvents any limit on how much an org can place, increase in upkeep would be irrelevant.

 

I said "there's no argument for orgs not to spam them". No upkeep cost in the world which NQ define now will keep orgs from spamming them. In eve they said titans will be a rare sight because of how expensive they are. Everyone and their mother has one now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lethys said:

Not going to work. Spam alt chars in a deadzone org, give them full RDMS in your main org, done. easy. circumvents any limit on how much an org can place, increase in upkeep would be irrelevant.

 

I said "there's no argument for orgs not to spam them". No upkeep cost in the world which NQ define now will keep orgs from spamming them. In eve they said titans will be a rare sight because of how expensive they are. Everyone and their mother has one now. 

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, unown006 said:

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

You don't even need to alt spam. A group of allied smaller orgs who give each other rdms access would have the same effect. And I think they would have a really hard time putting in a mechanism to stop that. It's a civilisation building mmo, people collaborating is a core concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sparktacus said:

You don't even need to alt spam. A group of allied smaller orgs who give each other rdms access would have the same effect. And I think they would have a really hard time putting in a mechanism to stop that. It's a civilisation building mmo, people collaborating is a core concept.

Thats a Alligence somthing anyone can do it nor do I see a problem with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, unown006 said:

Thats a Alligence somthing anyone can do it nor do I see a problem with it

So there's only issues with large numbers of players collaborating if theyre in the same org?

 

Whilst we know almost nothing about combat, I'm fairly confident that a 100 players from a single org, or 100 players from 10 co-operating orgs will have roughly the same effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, unown006 said:

Eve is also 16 years old so that would not be a very fair comparison I think what may be better for that would be either keep stars or a Palatine Keepstar  (as this could represent the cost of making a good to impossible deffence system as a reference however I see what you mean Now on the topic of alt spam That may not be possible do to future rules (NQ Banning it) And If they do Alt spam they still need to pay for dacs whitch may not be as viable as it is with eve

Maybe, maybe not. Rn they plan on having 3 chars per account so that's already 4 to 10 alts for deadzoning. That means that org can easily circumvent any limit NQ may have for large orgs. 

 

I seriously doubt they limit alts though, because it's revenue for them. Even more than a sub because of DACs (18€ compared to 14€ sub)

 

DACs may be more expensive than in eve rn, because we only have one real quanta faucet in DU. Then again,  ppl have more than one acc already (I have 3 lifetime packs for example) so it would be an unfair advantage if they did impose some kind of limit on defenses. I could then easily have 8 one man orgs to circumvent that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Lethys said:

Maybe, maybe not. Rn they plan on having 3 chars per account so that's already 4 to 10 alts for deadzoning. That means that org can easily circumvent any limit NQ may have for large orgs. 

 

I seriously doubt they limit alts though, because it's revenue for them. Even more than a sub because of DACs (18€ compared to 14€ sub)

 

DACs may be more expensive than in eve rn, because we only have one real quanta faucet in DU. Then again,  ppl have more than one acc already (I have 3 lifetime packs for example) so it would be an unfair advantage if they did impose some kind of limit on defenses. I could then easily have 8 one man orgs to circumvent that

I was unaware of this thank you ;)

 

8 hours ago, Sparktacus said:

So there's only issues with large numbers of players collaborating if theyre in the same org?

 

Whilst we know almost nothing about combat, I'm fairly confident that a 100 players from a single org, or 100 players from 10 co-operating orgs will have roughly the same effect.

Yes they would

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is supposed to be set in the 26th century, and you mean to tell me they don't have automated turrets in what is supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi mmo? 

 

I really don't see a problem with automated turrets, as long as they are balanced by the need to supply them with commensurate amounts of power.  The bigger the guns, the more power needed to use them.  Especially in the case of turrets mounted with energy-based weapons (together with the substantial purchase price and maintenance costs of an appropriately powerful reactor, in order to continually run them).  If the turrets are mounted with ballistic weapons, then you would probably not require such a powerful reactor to power them, but you would still need to purchase a reactor (albeit of lesser performance), and foot the bill for the accompanying maintenance costs.  You would also need to account for the cost of stocking and supplying ballistics mounted turrets with the ammunition that they're going to fire in the event of an enemy attack.  Raiding a properly defended city should never be an easy task.   It's an epic undertaking that should come with a correlative amount of risk.  A well thought out and designed defensive fortification would require one heck of a raiding party to topple it. 

 

Picture it, organisations would be able to showcase their impressive array of automated, twin-mounted turrets to prospective citizens/members, in addition to other security measures they have implemented, as part of their stated commitment to provide players  with a safe environment in what would otherwise be a very dangerous pvp universe in which to attempt to safely build anything.  Players would pay a tax to the organization in exchange for the provision of safety.  In marketing its defensive capabilities to players (along with offering additional benefits for those architects, builders, artists, engineers and strategists out there), an organization might be able to attract especially talented players who could help it develop some awe-inspiring cities that others players will surely want to come visit and spend their time in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

This game is supposed to be set in the 26th century, and you mean to tell me they don't have automated turrets in what is supposed to be a futuristic sci-fi mmo? 

 

I really don't see a problem with automated turrets, as long as they are balanced by the need to supply them with commensurate amounts of power.  The bigger the guns, the more power needed to use them.  Especially in the case of turrets mounted with energy-based weapons (together with the substantial purchase price and maintenance costs of an appropriately powerful reactor, in order to continually run them).  If the turrets are mounted with ballistic weapons, then you would probably not require such a powerful reactor to power them, but you would still need to purchase a reactor (albeit of lesser performance), and foot the bill for the accompanying maintenance costs.  You would also need to account for the cost of stocking and supplying ballistics mounted turrets with the ammunition that they're going to fire in the event of an enemy attack.  Raiding a properly defended city should never be an easy task.   It's an epic undertaking that should come with a correlative amount of risk.  A well thought out and designed defensive fortification would require one heck of a raiding party to topple it. 

 

Picture it, organisations would be able to showcase their impressive array of automated, twin-mounted turrets to prospective citizens/members, in addition to other security measures they have implemented, as part of their stated commitment to provide players  with a safe environment in what would otherwise be a very dangerous pvp universe in which to attempt to safely build anything.  Players would pay a tax to the organization in exchange for the provision of safety.  In marketing its defensive capabilities to players (along with offering additional benefits for those architects, builders, artists, engineers and strategists out there), an organization might be able to attract especially talented players who could help it develop some awe-inspiring cities that others players will surely want to come visit and spend their time in.

 

As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. 😉

 

The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what?

 

People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas.

 

People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities.

 

Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest.

 

Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun.

 

No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure!

 

The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"??

 

Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

As to the theme genre = sci-fi, No true sci-fi and all that? Hell there probably wouldn't even be human meat-sacks but some sort of AI transferrable over some new super fast wave form across robotic physical infrastructure! Let's not go down that road. 😉

 

The first assumption is that automated turrets are needed? For what?

 

People who want "cities in space" probably don't want combat but building. Hence it's already counter-productive to include PvP in such areas.

 

People who want combat probably will need to do so for economic reasons to make pvp integrated into the game for long-term (re-)cycling of gameplay. They'll be interested in actual human to human combat gameplay eg ships and base attacks of other pvp-economic groups who want to control the money and resources and networks in the game to supply the cities.

 

Hence auto-defences seem like a non-starter. If players are involved in the above, they'll need to grow into behemoth groups in the first place and with enough players online to either attack or defend - and inevitably be stretched thus creating natural distribution of groups in dynamic equilibrium of contest.

 

Anything else? It sounds like a lot of assumptions and complexity for a result that may not arise and may not even be noticed or even be fun.

 

No defences which can be automated with players around to run them from control panels in the base? For sure!

 

The question is? What permanent structure is ever going to be worth a pvp economic org's time? They'll put weapons and manpower up where it's at the sharp end - which presumably is a "movable feast"??

 

Just asking some "check questions?" Not necessarily asserting the above over other claims to the contrary... 🙂

 

Yeah, true.   Everyone will have their own take on what they'd like to see (and what they wouldn't like) in the game.  However, I'd like to think that there will be some organizations in the game that will recognize the exposure and prestige that will come with building, owning and running a great-looking, well-designed city, developed over time to be filled with a variety of interesting content and roles to play.  News of these places will spread throughout the community, and perhaps attract new players to the game via third party media sources.  Of course, those places would also attract tyrants, hence the need for adequate defensive mechanisms in place.  I think automated turrets are reasonable.  Some organizations, then,  are bound to see the value in providing players with fortified PvP safe spaces outside of the safe zones around the Arkship to build, in exchange for a payment of 'protection money' (i.e. taxes).  Heck, some organizations may even be role-playing oriented organizations, and may be open to the idea of creating cities in order to pursue their role-playing exploits.

 

Perhaps, the tax system (like in real life), could be tiered accordingly (tax-bracketed), based on a player's total income per a certain designated amount of time.  Then again, that kind of system might require too much in the way of administrative overhead for an organization, and be open to all kinds of accounting shenanigans.  A fixed system, where all members are charged the same amount of quanta per X amount of time, would probably be less of a headache to administrate.  Perhaps, the organizations themselves will employ someone to organize some direction in the building activities (in terms of zoning), so as to give the end result some coherence and structure (see, we have a role someone can play already! ☺️ ).  I don't think every PvP player simply wants to play the 'Dread Overlord' who has come to smash and pillage, and I don't think every builder/architect wants to play the hermit and hide in some sort of PvE ivory tower. 

 

I think (at least, I hope) that there will be a significant number of players who want to strike a balance between the desire to build relatively free of harassment, and wanting to get out there and get involved in building some places of interest for the development of some engaging and emergent story-telling.   In that case, the scenario I described above would be a mutually beneficial way of achieving that.  Novaquark have stated that they want DU to be a game where you can do anything.  I'd include deploying automated turrets to guard a fortified city inhabited (to a fair degree, hopefully a large one) by creative city-building types who want to build something that is altogether awe-inspiring in Novaquark's description of the intended purpose of the game.  This game is therefore going to attract all sorts, so it's only fair that if there are those (and there will be) who want to invade and conquer, it should be made bloody hard for them to do.  Empire building through military conquest , I would imagine, is a hard slog.  That will help retain the interest of those players who want to create and connect in peace, but don't necessarily want to limit themselves to a pitiful 20km radius.  The best sci-fi worlds created in popular culture are not just about blood, mayhem and military might and domination.  They're also the about the interspersing personal stories, within the overall narrative, of distinguished places, cultural belonging and human connection (as soppy as that may sound).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

However, I'd like to think that there will be some organizations in the game that will recognize the exposure and prestige that will come with building, owning and running a great-looking, well-designed city, developed over time to be filled with a variety of interesting content and roles to play.  News of these places will spread throughout the community, and perhaps attract new players to the game via third party media sources.  Of course, those places would also attract tyrants, hence the need for adequate defensive mechanisms in place.  I think automated turrets are reasonable.  Some organizations, then,  are bound to see the value in providing players with fortified PvP safe spaces outside of the safe zones around the Arkship to build, in exchange for a payment of 'protection money' (i.e. taxes).

Yes, this hits the nail on the head with respect to INTEGRATED PvP gameplay +/With Civilization (aka building "the sims") Gameplay. If this is the underlying basis then it makes sense for some form of fortification/defences eg automated turrets and timers and whatnot.

 

It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible?

 

So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones? That's an interesting question. I've tended to err on the side of parsimony: People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition. But a a halfway house, the idea that fortifications can create PvP cities for pvp'ers: It's a good call in that scenario though I doubt it will be the major scenario: Mostly a project of prestige or "power projection": Though such a project would be a flame to moths or more appropriately, a giant moth to many flames.

 

Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

It's an excellent point to assert before then suggesting how to defend eg turrets. Perhaps the strongest case is for such provisions outside safe zones to be possible?

So it goes back to what will be the right balance of safe zones to pvp fortified zones?

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.  Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  The rest of DU's infinite space is PvP area where players can be attacked, mugged and killed.   Fortified strongholds (whether they be planet-based or located in space stations) would be a viable way of encouraging players to venture out into the boundless expanse of PvP space.  Automated turrets would be a viable option for static constructs  on the basis that static constructs don't have the option to just get up and run away.  They either defend themselves or they are destroyed.  Automated turrets are a static construct's way of defending itself.  These turrets would be in addition to whatever manually operated assets (e.g. patrol ships) an organization sees fit to deploy.

 

18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

People who want to build want to build with 100% guarantees that their time and money investment is secure whenever they return to it and pvp'ers in general will concentrate on pvp and domination and competition.

Well, the great thing about DU is that its PvP gameplay will offer players a variety of perspectives in how they approach PvP.  For example, as you said above, a bustling, thriving city stronghold will probably attract would-be tyrants like moths to a flame, so pvpers will see plenty of action without necessarily having to always play the role of the war-mongering marauder who just wants to conquer and see the world burn 😉.  Some of those players (who decide to come and 'settle' in a PvP city) will themselves be PvP'ers, whose services an organization could employ in doing exactly what the PvP player wants to do most in the game: that is, to engage other players in competitive combat.  Hopefully distinguishing themselves in defense of the city if and when the city comes under attack.  They would in effect function as soldiers, and just like real life, soldiers could be recognized and rewarded for their achievements (both on and off the battlefield) with military decorations, rank, or even tax exemptions and other benefits.  So players could still PvP, but as defenders, rather than attackers.  It would all depend on what appeals to any given player.  DU will offer players plenty of choices that are only limited by a player's imagination.

 

18 hours ago, Borb_1 said:

Taxing for protection or security money is an interesting way to integrate cities and combat. Though as above, the problem is 2 different game plays ; what role cities to pvp'ers who would want to convert every profit into muscle power or hive fleet numbers and secondly even with protections it's almost as if such a project would attract even more interest by those who enjoy destroying! I mean to claim you sack a huge city and toppled it to the ground is probably one of the most rewarding stories possible in game to boast about... and thus paying taxes for this result is ultimately money down the drain proposition?

It all depends on what a player is looking for in the game.  All gamers, in the end, are role-players and a particular player may not be looking to play the role of a tyrant who wants to see a city burn to the ground.  They just might be looking to play the role of the hero who fights in defense of said city.   Then there's the imagination of players in trying to make some money in the game.  Some players may form organizations who go into the mercenary business of providing security-for-hire to anyone who can pay.  Where there is a demand, someone will provide a supply.  I could imagine a scenario where a security service oriented organization enters into an arrangement whereby it agrees to protect a city with its impressive inventory of military assets in exchange for access to a rich vein of some valuable mineral ore located within the hiring organization's territory.  Just an example, but DU will offer players so many options in how to play the game.  So I don't think we can say every player is going to PvP this way or that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

 

Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.  Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  The rest of DU's infinite space is PvP area where players can be attacked, mugged and killed.   Fortified strongholds (whether they be planet-based or located in space stations) would be a viable way of encouraging players to venture out into the boundless expanse of PvP space.  Automated turrets would be a viable option for static constructs  on the basis that static constructs don't have the option to just get up and run away.  They either defend themselves or they are destroyed.  Automated turrets are a static construct's way of defending itself.  These turrets would be in addition to whatever manually operated assets (e.g. patrol ships) an organization sees fit to deploy.

 

Well, the great thing about DU is that its PvP gameplay will offer players a variety of perspectives in how they approach PvP.  

 

It all depends on what a player is looking for in the game.  All gamers, in the end, are role-players and a particular player may not be looking to play the role of a tyrant who wants to see a city burn to the ground.  

One of the previous limitations was "no automated actions without a nearby player" to limit server load, to also consider with respect to static automatic turrets. Someone will have to be on hand, perhaps fingering the console control GUI (sorry conscious ape-thinking AI, you'll have to rise the robots in another universe!)?

 

So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, OldingDaGrund said:

Outside of that 20km radius around the Arkship where players start off, you have PvP space.  To my knowledge (correct me if I'm wrong), there is only one safe zone and it's that 20km around the Arkship.  

NQ said there will be the ASA "Arkship Safe Area" and also several MSA "Moon Safe Area" aka Sanctuary Moons.  Both will be PvE only areas.

 

IMO, automated defensive turrets for static constructs are only necessary if timer-based shields are uber expensive (which tbh they probably will be).  Regardless, balancing automated weapons will be a challenge, particularly to avoid spamming by large orgs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/2/2019 at 2:00 AM, Borb_1 said:

So we'll have to see what PvP players actually do, is my guess (to each other to note!). Perhaps in Alpha 3 we can "would you like to learn more?"? But noted with respect to the sheer amount of "space" that PvP'ers will operate over. That will be very interesting.

Yeah, I guess we'll have to wait and see.  It would be a shame to waste all that infinite space just for fighting.  I'd like to see a DU world with all kinds of activities going on: politics, war, industry and commerce, exploration and discovery, entertainment, education, even, and just plain ol' chilling in a bar (or some other meeting place) and getting to know people, talking about designs on projects you're working on etc...  Imagine someone holding classes, scheduled for a certain time, in some room they've rented from another player (or organization) who owns the building, in some street, in a part of some city, teaching LUA scripting in the game to interested players, for a fee (quanta).  That would be extremely cool.

On 3/2/2019 at 2:55 AM, SGCam said:

NQ said there will be the ASA "Arkship Safe Area" and also several MSA "Moon Safe Area" aka Sanctuary Moons.  Both will be PvE only areas.

I see.  I hadn't read the page that discusses 'Moon Secure Areas', interesting.  This is good news.  I was going on the assumption that the only safe space was the 'Arkship Secure Area'. This would severely limit and discourage players who want to get out there and enjoy the best of both worlds (pvp and civilization-building gameplay).  In that case, that changes the whole equation in terms of player incentives, and I understand Borb_1's reasoning a little better now.  It's unlikely that players are going to want to put the work into building a city in dangerous PvP space, when and if there are other safe spaces other than the areas around the starting point at the Arkship.  Although it's still possible. 

 

For example, an organization may wish to build a city in a space station (similar to Star Trek's 'Deep Space Nine').  Though these types of structure would more than likely be designed and intended for more military purposes, and so there'd be no need to build the kind of civilian-friendly city that I have in mind.    At any rate, those 'Moon Secure Areas' will serve as peaceful centres for 'civilization building', amongst other things (since no fighting will be permitted in those areas).  PvP players will duke it out in the vastness of PvP space for control of highly valued resources (since resources located in the secure areas will be of lower value), and then supply those high-value resources into the secure (PvE) areas, with which players can build things.  I hope Novaquark will elect to give some of those 'Moon Secure Areas' biomes that are a little more visually interesting than the barren dust-ball environment of Earth's Moon.  A place to build and interact, free of harassment with a terrestrial mix of biomes as diverse and interesting as Earth, would be amazing. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×