Jump to content
yamamushi

Full PvP or allow player-created PvE zones? (outside of Ark)

Recommended Posts

@Klatu Satori

 

PvE has its merits. I mean, what's the point of exploration then? Sight-seeing of mountains? I can do that IRL.

 

 

Go to alien planets, kill everything that doesn't resemble our Lord and Savior, Rainbow Dash, skin their pelts or get the secret ancient treasure left by guys who blew themselves up with nukes ( bonus points if the planet is an irradiated wasteland) and move onward, all the while you have other guys on the planet with you who just wanna mine and shit.

 

Pure PvP is a stupid idea. Sure, you CAN go full PvP, I mean, many Friends & Family Guilds exist, who are casual playes who just like to log in, play Legons (in Spaaaaaaaaaace) and build neat things.  You could be offered a lucrative job as security detail like some sort of space cop, but PURE PvP is shit.

 

Sad truth is, in order to be a wolf, you need sheep. If there are no sheep, there are no wolves. The afformentioned sheep in this case, are PvEers, who don't wanna have a PvP, e-peen, boner. How long will a game last if wolf's murder each other? Will that be fun? Answer is no.

 

I'm not really sure what you are saying that is counter to what I am saying.  Your point about exploration looks like a typo... are you saying what is the point in exploration if there is no PvE?  I would say exactly the opposite (for this game).  

 

I am not saying that there should be no sheep.  Far from it.  What I am saying is that the sheep are PvPers too because they are affecting other players, organisations and territories in positive and negative ways with their exploits.

 

PvP does not mean combat, it means competition with other players.  PvE is the wrong term to use for safe zones because everything you do is in competition with other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devs already said that there are going to be a good balance between Pve and Pvp, so this game is not going to be 100% pvp, you already know that. 

Probably there's going to be a virtual place, where you can't be killed or nothing griefed, where you design ship (not build, just create the blueprint), and you can't do anything alse. 

There's going to be a safezone on the Arkship.

Then, there's no information about this, but I hope there's not going to be more safezones, it would ruin the game.

Then there's going to be a territory control system, that is effectively a safezone created by players to protect their base/stuff to avoid losing everything while offline, but ofc will be possible to attack thos kind of safezone, with a mechanic we don't know yet. In theory, if you are in a big and strong corporation, that land is going to be quite safe. 

 

So with the TCU, you can build your base and store your stuff kinda safely (sometimes you'll get attacked and destroyed, but you'll probably have the chance to defend yourself), but i really doubt you're going to be able to mine/explore/scavenge/wathever outside of your claim, without the risk of being attacked. Otherwise the game would just die in a few months (or less).

 

Any game that wants to last for a lot of years, has always had a good balance between pvp and pve. But remember, that is the social aspect of the game and the pvp, that keeps a game alive. Pve is what supports that, if in the right amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devs already said that there are going to be a good balance between Pve and Pvp, so this game is not going to be 100% pvp, you already know that. 

Probably there's going to be a virtual place, where you can't be killed or nothing griefed, where you design ship (not build, just create the blueprint), and you can't do anything alse. 

There's going to be a safezone on the Arkship.

Then, there's no information about this, but I hope there's not going to be more safezones, it would ruin the game.

Then there's going to be a territory control system, that is effectively a safezone created by players to protect their base/stuff to avoid losing everything while offline, but ofc will be possible to attack thos kind of safezone, with a mechanic we don't know yet. In theory, if you are in a big and strong corporation, that land is going to be quite safe. 

 

So with the TCU, you can build your base and store your stuff kinda safely (sometimes you'll get attacked and destroyed, but you'll probably have the chance to defend yourself), but i really doubt you're going to be able to mine/explore/scavenge/wathever outside of your claim, without the risk of being attacked. Otherwise the game would just die in a few months (or less).

 

Any game that wants to last for a lot of years, has always had a good balance between pvp and pve. But remember, that is the social aspect of the game and the pvp, that keeps a game alive. Pve is what supports that, if in the right amount.

 

I don't recall NQ ever using the term "PvE".  Again, I am just questioning the use of the term "PvE".  I am NOT saying that everyone has to be a fighter - far from it.  What I am saying is that builders, for example, are PvPing when they build stuff and sell it on because they are competing with other players, not with the environment.

 

I think we should avoid using the term "PvE" for this game because undermines the co-dependent relationship between creators and protectors/destroyers and the emergent player society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this comment by NQ on the PVP dev blog article:

 

If a player wants to have a very efficient base (installed near useful materials sources), there will be risk. Of course, it will be possible to set up powerful defenses to repel other players. But no defense will be designed to be completely unbeatable. Some hostile force can always be more powerful, either by numbers or by raw firepower. If such scenario happens, your base won’t be destroyed on the spot: When your base defenses will be running low, or about to be destroyed, your base will enter a temporary invulnerability mode. The duration of this mode is not exactly defined yet, but it should be at least 24 hours, to let the attacked player have time to react (calling his friends to defend his base, packing his base and relocating, etc).

 

Nothing is set in stone yet, but these are currently the main ideas of the concept :)

 

It would appear that they do want to add in some added protection for defending bases.

 

Here's what I think:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't put Humpty together again.

 

meaning that it is always easier to destroy something rather than putting it together. Even when carefully disassembling something, it always takes longer to put together. Why should DU be any different? If a base is apples-to-apples outgunned, it should be destroyed.

 

The dev blog article says that something to the effect of mutually assured destruction being the intended form of protection. "If they destroy our base, we'll destroy theirs." The fear of losing their base will keep yours safe. And on the other side, making alliances and growing the ranks/expanding an organization will make you stronger.

 

Perhaps this 24 hour safe zone should apply to newly claimed territories where an organization first needs to build something before being immediately attacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Velenka

 

 

Indeed good sir. But, it's always better to conquer than destroy Destroying infrastructure is never a desirable outcome if you plan to conquer a planet. 

Unless you want to exterminate any sign of their existense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Velenka

 

 

Indeed good sir. But, it's always better to conquer than destroy Destroying infrastructure is never a desirable outcome if you plan to conquer a planet. 

 

Absolutely. Although I'll mention that it's always easier to destroy than to conquer intact. Like Dragoon says it's also possible to conquer via extermination.

 

It provides another reason why enemies would not want to simply bombard your base from orbit. Perhaps they want to capture it instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dragoon

 

 

That's a waste of resources bruh. Why waste resources to destroy someone? Did he stole your wifu or sometihing?

 

That is a perfectly logical response Captain.  Unfortunately, not everyone is logical.  Some people are just.............

 

giphy.gif

 

Stolen "wifu" (what does this even mean?) not required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it the main problem with arkification is that while it is, to an extent, a good thing for single players, it would be totally abusable for large organizations. Being able to make your industrial backbone invulnurable would make raiding completely useless and remove one of the main ways a small organization might be able to damage a large one. This would mean you would have to actually defeat your enemy in battle to win a war and remove many alternate ways of winning a conflict.

 

And as for people who say arkification would only affect players and not structures that defeats the whole purpose of them, your character will most probably not be your most valuable asset in this game, your base and resources will be.

 

The only way I could see arkification being non-abuseable is if you were not allowed to build anything except a very limited amount of structures, basically what is needed for trade, and tiles that have been built on are not eligible for arkification. Basically every if you are allowed to build a sandcastle somebody else must be allowed to tear it down, otherwise you get a kind of asymmetrical relationship between construction and destruction which is not viable in the long term.

 

This is not to say I think you should not be able to defend your stuff, the defender, especially someone defending a small area, should have significant advantages over any attacker. To start with I think the arkships should defend their planets, or at least a very large part of them, from orbital attack, on other planets players should have to construct these kind of defenses themselves. Secondly shields should be cheap and require serious effort to break through.

 

I would also suggest the game make use of the "Shield generator outside the shield" trope. Basically there would be shields that are impenetrable unless you first destroy the shield generator outside it. I also think there should be some kind of reinforce mechanic like in eve online allowing the defender to set the time of the final engagement and allow things to be evacuated from a base under siege, unless the enemy can blockade it of course.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, hope my ramblings were somewhat coherent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Well, if PvP in DU is Like EvE, I won't be playing.

 

The option that's most appealing to me with regards to Arkification is:

Alien Ruins: areas on planets containing lost, deactivated alien technology that could be rebuilt/reactivated by players. Once the area is rebuild/reactivated, the area becomes safe and anything in it becomes untouchable by PvP Mechanisms.

 

 

My plan is to be an Ark30logist. Part of that will entail discovering alien ruins, part would be activating the tech that creates PvE zones for Builders.

But, part of the politics and non-combat PvP espionage should include rivals sneaking in to deactivate that tech.

Might be that the tech requires periodic replenishing of organic or in-organic resources to keep the PvE tech activated - so that it's not just a one-time activation.

Perhaps part of the challenge is ensuring that the resources aren't permanently depleted in that area - PvP enthusiasts may become eco-terrorists who destroy the necessary resources -indirect PvP- thereby pushing "Builders" to leave the PvE zones to resupply the resources on which the PvE tech relies.

 

It should be possible to support both styles of play.

PvP doesn't always have to be about direct combat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall NQ ever using the term "PvE".  Again, I am just questioning the use of the term "PvE".  I am NOT saying that everyone has to be a fighter - far from it.  What I am saying is that builders, for example, are PvPing when they build stuff and sell it on because they are competing with other players, not with the environment.

 

I think we should avoid using the term "PvE" for this game because undermines the co-dependent relationship between creators and protectors/destroyers and the emergent player society.

 

Wathever the real meanings of the terms PVE and PVP is, for most people pvp = fight, pve = farming/building/killing npcs (even if there's pvp involved). People will keep using the term pve, you have just to get used to it xD

 

And yes, devs used the term PvE. From the FAQs:

 

 

How is PVP and PvE handled?

 

In a virtual world like Dual Universe combat becomes an important aspect of risk versus reward gameplay. However, we understand that not everybody likes to get shot or have their work destroyed. We are working to provide a system of safe-zones in the game where players and their work will be protected. These safe-zones will provide infrastructure, commodities and consumables for the players who dare to venture the hostile areas. Meanwhile the players who roam the hostile areas will provide resources, protection, trade and expansion for the safe-zones, so hopefully both PvE and PvP can coexist peacefully (the irony).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall NQ ever using the term "PvE".  Again, I am just questioning the use of the term "PvE".  I am NOT saying that everyone has to be a fighter - far from it.  What I am saying is that builders, for example, are PvPing when they build stuff and sell it on because they are competing with other players, not with the environment.

 

I think we should avoid using the term "PvE" for this game because undermines the co-dependent relationship between creators and protectors/destroyers and the emergent player society.

 

 

The dev quote states that there will be "non-pvp" "secure" areas.

"Areas secure from direct pvp combat" may be more accurate, but pve is easier to type:

https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2016/02/20/builder-gameplay-voxel-tools-elements/

f a builder wants to build without risking being attacked by a PvP player, he will have the opportunity to do it in non-PvP, secure areas.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, I guess I just have a problem with the way "PvP" and "PvE" are used.

 

Even so, I think the point is still relevant. You cannot provide full protection for non-combatants without messing with the creation/destruction co-dependency.

 

However, from everything I've read from NQ I think they've got the right idea and will work hard to get a good balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this one more time,Pve players cant exclude themselves from the rest of the game,If they are being attacked maybe move to somewhere safer or more secluted or call for help from a Milicia or whatever.But excluding youreself from the rest of the game is basically enclosing yourself from other and affecting them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order for Dual to become successful (make money for continued development) it is going to need to appeal to both PVE'ers and PVP'ers. In a single shard universe this will be a design challenge no doubt, but it is doable.

 

If you remove the PVE aspect from people who just want to PVE, it automatically becomes PVP...It's sad that I have to point this out but that simple concept is being overlooked a LOT of people in this thread. STOP treating the PVE community like a bunch of care bears and start treating them like the team mates YOU are going to need to be successful in pvp.

 

There is no need for "dogs" to protect "sheep" from "wolves". There will be PLENTY of "Wolf vs Wolf" faction action going on to satisfy your desires and when you get your bottom handed to you in PVP and your ship is blown to hell, you are going to be buddying up to those PVE'ers pretty fast for the latest designs as the game will be ever evolving. Now if PVE'ers step out of that safety zone, then they might need protection. PVP'ers should willingly protect them. The smartest organizations will have both PVP and PVE players.

 

I am a PVP'er first and foremost. I have spent 95% of my 18 years playing online games or MMO's as a PVP'er. Whether it was BF 1941 DC Mod (I was god mode in the Iraqi Hind) or World/Battlegroud/Arena combat on my High Warlord in wow (old school high warlord, not the easy mode one) or storming the front lines on my OP as hell Black Orc in Warhammer. One thing I have learned in every MMO I have played is that the strongest communities are PVE based because the alpha mindset of PVPers causes rifts within guilds and they eventually dissolve and I say this from the alpha player PVP mindset.

 

The bottom line, is that in order for Dual to succeed it is going to need to cater to both PVP gameplay and PVE gameplay, but as I already stated if you FORCE PVE'ers into PVP, you just removed the PVE from the game and most likely the player, along with their wallet and their ship designs.

 

So, you have a choice. Continue to promote PVP only game play that disregards the interest of the LARGEST portion of the MMO community, or welcome them as brothers who are going to be helping YOU win wars with their designs.

 

Who knows, treating that PVE guys with respect might actually make them a PVP convert once they get a taste of blood in their mouth, but it's gonna need ot happen on their terms, not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. We don't want to turn away either kind of player. What I think most people are worried about is the PvPers taking advantage of the PvEers protection mechanics in some way. I would say that the 20km safe area around the arkship and the VR solution are sufficient to protect everyone's interests. In an emergent society, mutual protection is one of the benefits. There is risk, but it's much less than in an "each man for himself" situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is no need for "dogs" to protect "sheep" from "wolves".

While I agree with most of what you say, I have to disagree with this part. Wolves will of course fight other wolves all the time, but simply satisfying a blood lust is not what will make for the most meaningful interactions.

 

In a war between two factions, removing wolf vs sheep from the equation eliminates a whole host of interesting strategic options. Those sheep are an important part of the war machine - they run the factories, design the weapons, mine the ores, transport the materials - they are legitimate war targets. Removing the ability to strike out at any one of those makes war much less interesting, more predictable, and also makes the outcome more predictable (a bigger army will almost always win).

 

Even outside of a straight up war, removing wolf vs sheep style interactions eliminates certain gameplay styles such as pirate, and the arguably more interesting and complex privateer. It also affects to varying degrees guerrilla tactics, terrorism, renting, militia, and a whole host more.

 

Wolves obviously depend heavily on sheep, it makes sense not to artificially remove sheep's dependency on wolves.

 

As others have said, the ASA plus a virtual simulator or something similar should be enough to safeguard new players and intellectual/artistic property.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think:

 

To create a zone outside of the arkship's protection area that would make it impossible to kill any within, or damage their creations, would ruin the entire concept of "war". Supply lines are a vital part to the war effort, and they are one of the reasons a small kingdom could possibly take out a vast empire. The outcome of a war can be determined by many things, yes, but tell me: what war in history was won without bullets? Or without swords or spears? The supply line becomes the backbone of the entire armed force; if it fails, your army will have a significantly harder time winning the war, no matter who you're fighting. This provides a balance in the world, giving even the most powerful Empires an Achilles Heel. Make their source nigh invulnerable, however, and then war simply becomes a game of "who can muster the most fighters at any given moment". It ruins the concept of "strategic targets". The largest group would almost  be guaranteed victory, unless enough people banded together to match their numbers, or skill. There would be no need for complex strategy and tactics, or careful planning around which targets to attack, because numbers would define victory, in most cases.

 

I for one, would praise the lucky sod that destroys my hypothetical superweapon  before it's complete, and say "That guy is a smart man; he launched a preemptive strike on a target he knew he couldn't beat once it was complete, someone give this man a cookie!" or if someone were to destroy my hypothetical space factory that produces ships and ammo in record time, I'd say "That guy is a smart man; he knew he couldn't defeat my army head on, so he went after the resources that fueled it, genius! Give this man a cookie!"

 

Okay, I wouldn't actually praise them, but you get the point. 

 

These are my thoughts. Feel free to tear them apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I think:

 

To create a zone outside of the arkship's protection area that would make it impossible to kill any within, or damage their creations, would ruin the entire concept of "war". Supply lines are a vital part to the war effort, and they are one of the reasons a small kingdom could possibly take out a vast empire. The outcome of a war can be determined by many things, yes, but tell me: what war in history was won without bullets? Or without swords or spears? The supply line becomes the backbone of the entire armed force; if it fails, your army will have a significantly harder time winning the war, no matter who you're fighting. This provides a balance in the world, giving even the most powerful Empires an Achilles Heel. Make their source nigh invulnerable, however, and then war simply becomes a game of "who can muster the most fighters at any given moment". 

 

I don't think it would ruin the concept of 'war', it would certainly redefine it. Assuming that your enemy has found an Arkification token and made source invulnerable, they would still have to transport or move to the location of the conflict. You may not be able to destroy the base, but you can certainly destroy the line and attack them in transit. This could force the conflict to an area of your choosing instead of at your home.

 

 

 

I think the mentality of "Wolves" and "Sheep" is doesn't really help PVP and PVE community relations. It denotes a definitive predator vs prey mentality and while I think that it does accurately define how the some of the people in the communities feel about each other, it should be something we strive to move away from. 

    

I believe that PVP and PVE is really a matter of Risk and Excitement. When I have played PVP there is a huge thrill involved in the hunting or fighting someone who is as skilled as you, and with that comes the high risk of loss. For me PVP or high excitement high risk game-play while fun occasionally, is not really worth the higher risk. 

 

When I play in PVE, there is excitement in challenging the environment, and in other games it can be fun to fight large boss enemies and hordes of enemies that may be set to match your skill level, but there is less risk because these enemies operate on a set logic. Their strategies are limited. In other games being able to unleash your creativity and build amazing things is exciting. 

 

I look at it like this: In Minecraft there are 2 main modes, survival and creative. On single player these are both PVE. Creative mode is really fun, the possibilities are endless.You can experiment with different designs and setups and its great, but after you've created something awesome in creative mode, it's fun and challenging to bring these creations into Survival mode. You can still build amazing things in survival mode, but now you need to stay alive so that you don't lose your resources. Now there is small risk, and that makes creating, to me, more rewarding and exciting.

 

I think the Virtual Building, Ark Safezone, Arkification zones, and Territories are a good idea and that we really don't need any more protection than that, these are all things that the Developers have said even though I personally prefer to have player built shields with varying degrees of effectiveness in stead of Arkification Zones. For PVE their will usually be some kind of risk. (with creative mode minecraft being the only exception I can think of.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the mentality of "Wolves" and "Sheep" is doesn't really help PVP and PVE community relations. It denotes a definitive predator vs prey mentality and while I think that it does accurately define how the some of the people in the communities feel about each other, it should be something we strive to move away from. 

It's less "Wolves" and "Sheep" and more "Wolves" and "Foxes", in my opinion. Both are capable of having equal power/intelligence, but the Foxes on average have to be a bit more cunning to get a one up on the wolves, since they aren't full time fighters.

 

That aside, I get what you're saying. I think, however, that this game will be a great boost to PvP/PvE relations, purely because of the fact that they have to rely on one another. The PvP'ers would be nothing without the ships that the PvE'ers  produce, and the PvE'ers would be nothing without the protection of the PvP'ers. Which is also why I think adding invulnerable zones could prove a bad move; If the builders have a guaranteed safe space, they don't need PvP'ers. Naturally, there'd always be someone who would buy your ships, and many PvP'ers haven't the patience to build their own. So it'd make PvP'ers more dependent on the PvE community, while the PvE community wouldn't necessarily require the PvP community to need them. 

 

You did bring up a good point on actually getting the supplies from point A to point B, and the possibility of denying a person their supplies while in route, but that whole process counts on there being someone online at all times to maintain such a blockade, which is sometimes difficult to coordinate. Rather than take your enemy out at the source, you simply delay another shipment, and they wait until your numbers thin a bit.

 

It also reduces the... magnitude, of war for anyone within the protected zone. Ships can be replaced, not a terribly big problem (though, after a while a blockade would wear on a producer) but if your facilities were to be damaged, or outright destroyed, that'd have much more of an impact on builders. Everyone has their own opinions on the war system in this game, but personally, I believe war shouldn't be something so trivial that a group of players could sit under a protected zone and just wait out the storm. That's not how it works in reality. Yes, I'm aware that this isn't  reality, but the way things are looking, it will simulate real world politics, and economics, so why shouldn't it simulate real world war too? In the real world, nowhere is truly safe from war, and industrialists often see their factories destroyed by opposing bombers. It'd make sense for this to be something that happens in game too, no?

 

Now, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any arkified zones. Perhaps in every solar system there is at least one planet with an arkified zone on it. That's fine. I just don't think players should be able to create arkified zones themselves, or they'd abuse the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Halo381

 

I agree with you completely. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wants to see complex strategic warfare.

 

@Scruggs

 

I agree that the terms "wolves" and "sheep" are inappropriate and, to be honest, inaccurate in most cases. I used them here for convenience because someone else already used the terms. Better terms would be combatants and non-combatants.

 

I don't think it would ruin the concept of 'war', it would certainly redefine it. Assuming that your enemy has found an Arkification token and made source invulnerable, they would still have to transport or move to the location of the conflict. You may not be able to destroy the base, but you can certainly destroy the line and attack them in transit. This could force the conflict to an area of your choosing instead of at your home.

I don't agree that this is a valid argument. Supply line disruption would exist either way. You're not adding it in by removing destruction of military bases, industrial centres, and civilian areas. Removing destruction of supply centres reduces the complexities of war whatever way you look at it. And that isn't the only thing that is negatively affected by allowing organisations to have invulnerable territories.

 

I think the Virtual Building, Ark Safezone, Arkification zones, and Territories are a good idea and that we really don't need any more protection than that, these are all things that the Developers have said even though I personally prefer to have player built shields with varying degrees of effectiveness in stead of Arkification Zones. For PVE their will usually be some kind of risk. (with creative mode minecraft being the only exception I can think of.)

Only the territorial system and the Arkship Secure Area are confirmed. Arkification, alien relics and the virtual simulator are being considered, and probably one will be implemented. The reason they are not confirmed is because they all have far reaching negative consequences and need to be well thought out. Note also that NQ have said multiple times that arkification, if implemented, would not be intended to provide some kind of benefit for established organisations. Personally I am for the virtual simulator, but the other options can also work done carefully.

 

But for territory holding organisations, various defence options is all that's needed, each with their own advantages and drawbacks and counters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allow me to retract a previous statement. I included Arkification zones in the list of things I consider a good ideas, but I do not feel that way. I prefer player created shields and defenses. Entire planets that were Arkified, it would still present the problem of indestructible production, even more so than to just have a production plant arkified. 

 

I only stated that the Virtual Building, Ark Safezone, Arkification zones, and territories are things that the developers have spoken about, not that they said would be for sure implemented 

 

I agree that supply line disruption would be their either way, so yes, it doesn't really "redefine" warfare. My statement about this is assuming that there is arkification tokens in game, it hasn't been ruled out so I look at it as a possibility. When we are saying that all of the military bases, industrial centers, and civilian areas are all indestructible, we make an assumption about how large of an area could be Arkified in the first place. it is possible that the production area, bases, and mines are in different areas and that not all of them are Arkified. 

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...