Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Asmoday

Ideas to improve the game and implement PvE-PvP on a single server.

Recommended Posts

Well I have read many opinions, I have seen many complaints and many confrontations derived from an interesting mix between stupidity and pride ... I will not go into details, I only think about the game and how we can all bring ideas to improve it. I am a player that bets more on PvE because it is the basis of learning and acquisition of knowledge to be able to test it in PvP against other players.

I believe that it is possible to find the balance between PvE and PvP. I'm going to propose an idea that can be implemented on a single server and both PvE and PvP players believe that they will find it feasible and developers, given the level of programming they require, should have no problems implementing it.

 

The idea is simple only have to generate an area of hostility in the port to be conquered, this area is increasing as time goes by which can be accelerated thanks to the number of battles that we engage with the opposite faction, when it reaches its maximum level (we speak of an area that covers many kilometers) the port can be conquered in a PvP battle, players who avoid that area will not have problems and will be able to follow their normal path, those that enter will be in PvP and may be attacked by other players , those who enter and leave that area of hostility will be marked for 15-20 min as players in PvP status and may be attacked by other players at that time outside the zone of hostility. Everything will return to normal when a time of 15 - 30 days after the conquest of this port or the defense of the same takes place, during the course of this time the faction that to conquered or defended a port can not conquer or defend another port until the established time passes previously (This forces the players of each nation to think well which port they want to conquer or protect).

I also consider that seasons of conquest can be applied. Each season can last between 8 o 12 months and in them will win the faction that more ports or consquistas has realized and will give a maximum of 15 days in which the players can change of faction without losing all his progress in the game.

These two simple ideas mentioned above can greatly improve the gaming experience and give possibilities to new players and factions that previously had no great relevance or importance in the game.


I leave the example in this simple image of the map of the game. The affected area (Havana and its environs, a few hours or days have passed) is dangerous and PvP is present, the area outside it is safe. A cordial greeting and thanks for the attention paid. Less complaints and more solutions.

(The established times can be modified ... They are not definitive).

Client 2017-09-20 04-50-57-262.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept, one thing is for sure the movement and momentum for one server blending pve and pvp attributes is growing, which i fully support. i like my idea better but yours is yet another call to devs to rethink how they are doing the servers.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, it's not your idea. It's a copy of existing mechanics implemented into PotBS.

All could be fine but there is one main disadvantage of this solution. Distance. In PotBS we could pass a whole map within a 30-40mins. In NA it takes hours

Anyway, IMO its a worth to consider it as a base for further improvements.

Share this post


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

Interesting concept, one thing is for sure the movement and momentum for one server blending pve and pvp attributes is growing, which i fully support. i like my idea better but yours is yet another call to devs to rethink how they are doing the servers.

 

 

Thanks for your attention, your idea is also very interesting and does not really require excessive resources from the developers.

For my part I wanted to add within the same idea, the possibility that the clans could arrange with the payment of the corresponding gold (about 15,000,000) of a port fortress which can be updated and improved by providing benefits to that clan both in the PvE as in the PvP.

Port fortresses, like ports, can be conquered and looted, once the port is recovered, the clan will regain its fortress which has to be repaired and that will require about 15 - 30 days for such repair, at that time can not be attacked again by other enemy clans

Client 2017-09-20 04-51-08-483.jpg

Share this post


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

First of all, it's not your idea. It's a copy of existing mechanics implemented into PotBS.

All could be fine but there is one main disadvantage of this solution. Distance. In PotBS we could pass a whole map within a 30-40mins. In NA it takes hours

Anyway, IMO its a worth to consider it as a base for further improvements.

Good point, the last thing we want to see happen to naval action is to become like POTBS that will kill this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rychu Karas said:

First of all, it's not your idea. It's a copy of existing mechanics implemented into PotBS.

All could be fine but there is one main disadvantage of this solution. Distance. In PotBS we could pass a whole map within a 30-40mins. In NA it takes hours

Anyway, IMO its a worth to consider it as a base for further improvements.

Yes, but when a person makes a proposal, it is no more than a simple idea derived from something existing. Let's focus on this idea and give a constructive opinion to be able to between all the community without distinction of origin or flags to get together together to some conclusion. A cordial greeting.

Share this post


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

Good point, the last thing we want to see happen to naval action is to become like POTBS that will kill this game.

To be honest, old PotBS was and still is far better than NA in almost every single aspect except the graphics quality.

Share this post


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

Good point, the last thing we want to see happen to naval action is to become like POTBS that will kill this game.

No, the idea is not to copy to 100% of the totality of the game that you are quoting. The idea is to take these mechanics, or some of them to improve and introduce the PvE and PvP together. Remember that I have kept the time subject to modification and among all I think we can give a twist to improve said proposal. I apologize for my English is Spanish and unfortunately I do not defend myself as I would like.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not just go back to the flag system, if you want to PvP you turn on a flag and if you don't you turn if off. If you are PvE enabled, then you do not generate any hostility towards regions. And PvE can only be enabled for warships, trading vessels all have to be PvP, so you can't turn on your flag and go from one port to the next for econ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Asmoday said:

Well I have read many opinions, I have seen many complaints and many confrontations derived from an interesting mix between stupidity and pride ... I will not go into details, I only think about the game and how we can all bring ideas to improve it. I am a player that bets more on PvE because it is the basis of learning and acquisition of knowledge to be able to test it in PvP against other players.

I believe that it is possible to find the balance between PvE and PvP. I'm going to propose an idea that can be implemented on a single server and both PvE and PvP players believe that they will find it feasible and developers, given the level of programming they require, should have no problems implementing it.

 

The idea is simple only have to generate an area of hostility in the port to be conquered, this area is increasing as time goes by which can be accelerated thanks to the number of battles that we engage with the opposite faction, when it reaches its maximum level (we speak of an area that covers many kilometers) the port can be conquered in a PvP battle, players who avoid that area will not have problems and will be able to follow their normal path, those that enter will be in PvP and may be attacked by other players , those who enter and leave that area of hostility will be marked for 15-20 min as players in PvP status and may be attacked by other players at that time outside the zone of hostility. Everything will return to normal when a time of 15 - 30 days after the conquest of this port or the defense of the same takes place, during the course of this time the faction that to conquered or defended a port can not conquer or defend another port until the established time passes previously (This forces the players of each nation to think well which port they want to conquer or protect).

I also consider that seasons of conquest can be applied. Each season can last between 8 o 12 months and in them will win the faction that more ports or consquistas has realized and will give a maximum of 15 days in which the players can change of faction without losing all his progress in the game.

These two simple ideas mentioned above can greatly improve the gaming experience and give possibilities to new players and factions that previously had no great relevance or importance in the game.


I leave the example in this simple image of the map of the game. The affected area (Havana and its environs, a few hours or days have passed) is dangerous and PvP is present, the area outside it is safe. A cordial greeting and thanks for the attention paid. Less complaints and more solutions.

(The established times can be modified ... They are not definitive).

Client 2017-09-20 04-50-57-262.jpg

i believe the system what we have now is one of the best systems to use 

also the wars are not only in the Cuba area they are everywhere...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree that what the devs just did by making some ports unconquerable for each nation AND making a zone around those ports semi safe with the reinforcements. its perfect i hope they just keep it that way so we can move on to improving other parts of the game!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For have played in POTBS and played the same concept i disagree thats for NA

the reason? i thing all the waters can be good for pvp and fight and for pve , you need found the best way for, chose a safe area or be protected by others, clan, friends , fleets etc having an interaction with others...

making  peoples "unabale to be attacked" its a wrong way ...

you are going to make 2 games in one,  separates peoples in the same servers etc , ... peoples do all for safe area for guys can easy farming?  and thats finish the same of potbs , 10 guys asking for 1V1 near MT ? hum no

and sorry but flag....  in the paper thats fun, but a guy dont flag pvp, sail in enemy territory and change is flag? whats the interest ? ho yes can do safesmission in a enemy territor and trade easy without difficulty, hum personaly i like difficulty and found the best way for doing what i like

if pve = doing mission , have no interest for others peoples; only farm in easy mode, doing tourism in the map, = a servor only for that its  better

 

Edited by Morgane Drake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEV's can put multiple game worlds on one server by changing the existing .json files so they include a high level reference to which world they are to be used and to the code to make use of that specification. No changes to the map is required.  Put several PvP worlds in there as well.  It's simply one computer as a server running one application.  Whatever any player sees is limited to the game world -- and .json files -- he requested when he logged in.  It would be no different than running excel and opening two or three different spreadsheet files (they don't get mixed together, do they?  Same concept.).

 

Dev's get better use out of the servers they lease and PvE players don't get treated like second hand trash.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like this concept and it does have a lot of positive concepts that could provide a game for everyone.  I still think that the Dev's can accomplish a lot more with two servers...PvE can be made into one variant of the game and PvP can continue to grow based upon a balanced hostility system and economics based upon a wartime environment.  The PvE can be based upon an economic environment but would also be able to engage in limited combat such as raids.  Grasping both concepts and moving them forward could create a huge influx and offer players a variety of gaming experiences based upon their gaming needs.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what the devs have done with thsi last patch is good enough, they have areas for pve around unconquerable ports, they have the rest of the world for pvp, PERFECT. now they just need to work on ways to bring people together for pvp, those who WANT to pvp. such as i hope that new game they are working on that is like world of warships they should put it into THIS game so that players use their existing ships to do their pvp battles and this gives crafters LOTS of business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/20/2017 at 5:37 AM, Asmoday said:

Well I have read many opinions, I have seen many complaints and many confrontations derived from an interesting mix between stupidity and pride ... I will not go into details, I only think about the game and how we can all bring ideas to improve it. I am a player that bets more on PvE because it is the basis of learning and acquisition of knowledge to be able to test it in PvP against other players.

I believe that it is possible to find the balance between PvE and PvP. I'm going to propose an idea that can be implemented on a single server and both PvE and PvP players believe that they will find it feasible and developers, given the level of programming they require, should have no problems implementing it.

 

The idea is simple only have to generate an area of hostility in the port to be conquered, this area is increasing as time goes by which can be accelerated thanks to the number of battles that we engage with the opposite faction, when it reaches its maximum level (we speak of an area that covers many kilometers) the port can be conquered in a PvP battle, players who avoid that area will not have problems and will be able to follow their normal path, those that enter will be in PvP and may be attacked by other players , those who enter and leave that area of hostility will be marked for 15-20 min as players in PvP status and may be attacked by other players at that time outside the zone of hostility. Everything will return to normal when a time of 15 - 30 days after the conquest of this port or the defense of the same takes place, during the course of this time the faction that to conquered or defended a port can not conquer or defend another port until the established time passes previously (This forces the players of each nation to think well which port they want to conquer or protect).

I also consider that seasons of conquest can be applied. Each season can last between 8 o 12 months and in them will win the faction that more ports or consquistas has realized and will give a maximum of 15 days in which the players can change of faction without losing all his progress in the game.

These two simple ideas mentioned above can greatly improve the gaming experience and give possibilities to new players and factions that previously had no great relevance or importance in the game.


I leave the example in this simple image of the map of the game. The affected area (Havana and its environs, a few hours or days have passed) is dangerous and PvP is present, the area outside it is safe. A cordial greeting and thanks for the attention paid. Less complaints and more solutions.

(The established times can be modified ... They are not definitive).

Client 2017-09-20 04-50-57-262.jpg

one major problem with this is a set nation could create a massive blockade forcing pve type players to enter pvp zone by cutting off an entire section of a trade route like as this pic shows the large combat area for pvp completely controls the island of santa fe so any PVE player has to enter PVP to do trade from those ports and such this PVP method could be abused forcing any PVE player to have to either change where their outposts are to avoid PVP or to engage pvp just leaving their port.

 

A better idea would to be to implement a PVP status, so a good example would be from world of warcraft where on PVE servers u can flag for pvp combat and it's not instantly disabled you have to wait a set period of no combat against players for the PVP status to disable.  This would allow PVP combat on a PVE server but only between players that are flagged, also to only allow those that are flagged for PVP to enter combat. e.g. fleet of 3 ships 1 flagged for pvp, engages another player fleet of another nation only the ships that are flagged can be drawn into combat, even while grouped this protects the PVE players and only draws in the PVP players.  

This method gives a balance to the game and can set the whole player base one 1 server.  PB's would be PVP combat so only way to engage in a PB would be to flag for pvp combat. only those flagged can enter a PB, another feature would be hostility missions would require PVP status to be enabled this would prevent PVE's from raising hostilities on ports.  This feature would make more use of the PVP system as mentioned above more effective by creating a chance that the nation that owns the port to defend against the hostility missions by being able to reinforce but only those that are flagged for it.

 

Another possible feature would be the green on green since each faction is a nation like the pirates, we as the players should be able to decide as an entity within our nations if a player within our nation goes rogue or is spying for another nation, can be flagged by majority vote by setting up a central governing clan or tribunal of players within that nation to decide on the fate of that traitor.

Like a council of 5 or 7 heads of largest active clans can vote on the fate of a player that is suspected or is found guilty of spying or shooting other players within the nation. Would make green on green problems much easier to resolve within the player base of the server.  E.g. 'a pirate called sally is caught posting pirate fleet locations on global chat. the pirate tribunal or council of clans can vote to have sally marked as an outlaw to the entire pirate nation but only thru majority vote' another example 'US player mark is suspected of shooting other US players the US tribunal or council of clans can vote if mark should be tagged as an outlaw'.  

This would provide a system to handle friendly fire incidents and spying inside the nations without requiring an admin or GM to get involved over a small matter.  The way to setup the tribunal or council of clans is by adding in a feature to vote for which clans will make up the council but only from within that nation so that any other nation can't influence the polls' and to set up a minimum player rank required to vote, this will prevent some players from making new accounts or new characters just to vote repeatedly, each steam account would only get 1 vote each. Another point would be to have a vote for the council happen every couple months to make sure the current council heads are active, no point having inactive council leaders and would give chance for a different clan to take a position on the council.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to previous comment another option would be to incorporate OW with active combat so like IRL e.g. your a pirate sailing from mortimer to morgan's bluff you come across a mercury belonging to Great britain instead of having to chase it down for 15 second u can turn your boardside to the mercury and fire in open world, turning the OW concept into a active combat zone thats map wide this would give the NPC's more of a chance to defend themselves and would provide the Patrolling nation NPC fleets a ingame role as active defense of their nation.  E.g. ' US player mika comes across a Spanish player and engages combat a wandering nearby Spanish NPC fleet spots the combat say 2KM from the battle and redirects its patrol route to reinforce the Spanish player against the aggressive US player'  with this the NPC fleets become effective for there size.

A alternative idea for the NPC nation fleets is to enable them to attack players of other nations similar to how a player would attack an NPC fleet. This would permit the NPC patrolling fleets to defend their nearby nation ports from other nations players, making the large BR NPC's fleets belonging to each nation more of a challenge for players to attack starting ports and nearby trade routes. as with most pvp servers there is always the 'Seal clubbing' to deminish one faction or more's player count this would reduce what a enemy nation could do to a starting port for each faction and nearby ports.

E.g. ' 6xVictory, 6xStPavel,3x Bellona NPC fleet patrolling near Mortimer, US player Rear admiral in Santisma hunting for small starter players and local ships, is detected within combat range of the NPC fleet and the NPC fleet tags the US Santisma for defensive Combat. Preventing the US player from going after nearby starting players and main line of commerce around a Mortimer'. this provides a defense and provides a cost for players hunting starters and around starting ports is the higher risk of being tagged by a large NPC fleet. this option should bolster new players on the PVP servers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

what the devs have done with thsi last patch is good enough, they have areas for pve around unconquerable ports, they have the rest of the world for pvp, PERFECT. now they just need to work on ways to bring people together for pvp, those who WANT to pvp. such as i hope that new game they are working on that is like world of warships they should put it into THIS game so that players use their existing ships to do their pvp battles and this gives crafters LOTS of business.

Unfortunately this is a far cry from being perfect...this just continues to limit the potential of the game.  With the game as it currently stands it will not provide the experience that will attract a new player base.

 

Share this post


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

Unfortunately this is a far cry from being perfect...this just continues to limit the potential of the game.  With the game as it currently stands it will not provide the experience that will attract a new player base.

 

agreed lots of work yet to do, and your right its not perfect but step in better direction that six months ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ruby Rose said:

un problema importante con esto es un conjunto de nación podría crear un bloqueo masivo obligando a los jugadores de tipo pve a entrar en la zona pvp cortando una sección entera de una ruta comercial como esta foto muestra el área de combate grande para pvp controla completamente la isla de santa fe por lo que cualquier jugador PVE tiene que entrar PVP para hacer el comercio de esos puertos y tal este método PVP podría ser abusado obligando a cualquier jugador PVE a tener que cambiar donde sus puestos avanzados son evitar PVP o para participar pvp sólo salir de su puerto.

 

Una mejor idea sería implementar un estado de PVP, por lo que un buen ejemplo sería de world of warcraft donde en los servidores PVE u puede señalar para combatir pvp y no es instantáneamente discapacitado usted tiene que esperar un período establecido de ningún combate contra los jugadores por el estado PVP para deshabilitar. Esto permitiría el combate PVP en un servidor PVE, pero sólo entre jugadores que están marcados, también para permitir que sólo aquellos que están marcados para PVP para entrar en combate. por ejemplo, la flota de 3 buques 1 marcados para pvp, contrata a otro jugador de la flota de otra nación sólo los buques que están marcados pueden ser llevados al combate, incluso mientras agrupado esto protege a los jugadores PVE y sólo atrae a los jugadores PVP.  

Este método da un equilibrio al juego y puede establecer toda la base de un jugador de un servidor. PB sería PVP combate por lo que la única manera de participar en un PB sería la bandera para el combate pvp. sólo aquellos marcados pueden entrar en un PB, otra característica sería las misiones de hostilidad que requeriría el estado de PVP para ser habilitado esto evitaría que los PVE levanten hostilidades en los puertos. Esta característica haría más uso del sistema de PVP como se mencionó anteriormente más eficaz al crear la posibilidad de que la nación que posee el puerto para defenderse contra las misiones de hostilidad por ser capaz de reforzar, pero sólo aquellos que están marcados para ello.

 

Otra característica posible sería el green on green ya que cada facción es una nación como los piratas, nosotros como los jugadores debemos ser capaces de decidir como una entidad dentro de nuestras naciones si un jugador dentro de nuestra nación se hace pícaro o está espiando para otra nación, puede ser marcado por el voto de la mayoría estableciendo un clan o un tribunal central de los jugadores dentro de esa nación para decidir sobre el sino de ese traidor.

Al igual que un consejo de 5 o 7 jefes de clanes activos más grandes pueden votar sobre el destino de un jugador que se sospecha o se encuentra culpable de espiar o disparar a otros jugadores dentro de la nación. Hacer verde en problemas verdes mucho más fácil de resolver dentro de la base de jugadores del servidor. Por ejemplo, un pirata llamado sally es atrapado colocando localizaciones de la flota pirata en el chat global. el tribunal pirata o el consejo de los clanes pueden votar por haber sido marcados como un proscripto a toda la nación pirata, pero sólo a través del voto de la mayoría "otro ejemplo" la marca del jugador de EE.UU. se sospecha de disparar a otros jugadores de EE.UU. marca debe ser etiquetado como un fuera de la ley '.  

Esto proporcionaría un sistema para manejar incidentes amistosos de fuego y espiar dentro de las naciones sin requerir que un administrador o GM se involucrara en un asunto pequeño. La forma de establecer el tribunal o el consejo de los clanes es añadiendo un rasgo para votar por los clanes que formarán el consejo, pero sólo dentro de esa nación para que cualquier otra nación no pueda influir en las encuestas y establecer un mínimo jugador de rango necesario para votar, esto evitará que algunos jugadores de hacer nuevas cuentas o nuevos personajes sólo para votar en repetidas ocasiones, cada cuenta de vapor sólo obtendrá 1 voto cada uno. Otro punto sería que el voto para el consejo ocurra cada par de meses para asegurarse de que los jefes del consejo actual están activos, no hay punto de tener líderes inactivos del consejo y daría la oportunidad a un clan diferente de tomar una posición en el consejo.

Thank you for sharing your proposals and thank you for improving mine in a reasoned and constructive way. A cordial greeting.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/9/2017 at 1:12 AM, CaptainCaveMan said:

Me gusta este concepto y tiene un montón de conceptos positivos que podrían proporcionar un juego para todos. Todavía creo que el Dev puede lograr mucho más con dos servidores ... PvE se puede hacer en una variante del juego y PvP puede seguir creciendo sobre la base de un sistema de hostilidad equilibrada y la economía basada en un entorno de tiempo de guerra. El PvE puede basarse en un entorno económico, pero también podría participar en un combate limitado, como las redadas. Captar ambos conceptos y moverlos hacia adelante podría crear una enorme afluencia y ofrecer a los jugadores una variedad de experiencias de juego basadas en sus necesidades de juego.

I appreciate your contribution and the idea is that we can all be within the same server and enjoy new possibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to share new proposals and ideas, later propose ideas related to boat improvements, crew improvements ... I am currently squaring everything to explain it in a simple and understandable way.:)

 

Edited by Asmoday

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeating myself from other posts, IMO the dev's will never find the answer they are looking for -- a game system that doesn't allow one team to completely dominate the others, a game system where who is strong and who is weak shifts around over time, a game system that they don't have to intervene in every couple of months with big changes -- unless they change their thinking about losses. 

Consider: NA PvP today is no different than walking into a casino for an evenings entertainment.  You can win big... you can lose your shirt, a most importantly in many, many instances the guy who loses his shirt didn't want that confrontation in the first place.  His ship, many hours of game time to acquire, is permanently lost. His nation's port is lost to what is effectively permanent occupation.  No wonder the player count over the last 20 months is down to about 10% of what it once was.

IMO guys leave because too much time is expected of them to acquire the assets they want to use... and it that asset is lost, too much time is required to replace it.

IMO the idea to consider is to turn player assets into permanent asset the player can carry from map to map, from week to week, w/o regard to having it sunk last night.  Let players have  a limited number of ships they have crafted, captured, or purchased.  When one sinks, use a cool-down period, maybe 12 hours, maybe 24, maybe several days, but whatever the period is at the end of it the "lost" ship returns to the inventory.  Perhaps there is a small cost in gold, but the player does not have to spend a week of evenings grinding out enough gold and resources to rebuild that ship and the DEV's don't have to spend weeks on analysis and coding trying to make everyone happy again.

Similar w/ ports: Whoever wins the port battle doesn't permanently occupy that location but they do get a certain number of hours ... 12, 24, maybe more, to pillage it.  Some (not all) of the port goods are stolen... some, but not all of the warehouse goods are stolen... maybe even a tiny percentage of buildings are burned down... but then the port battle victors have to leave and that port remains a no-fighting port for some period of time, maybe a week, maybe a month.  The key point is it is returned to the country it originally belonged to.  IOW there is no need to make almost every port a neutral port and there are no circumstances where one team can wipe out another's resource base.

 

What this means is the human cost to engage in PvP combat is pretty much eliminated.  The whole game becomes more like a sports event: You may lose this weekend but you keep your equipment and play another game next weekend.  The way NA is today is when you lose this weekend you team loses its shirt, shoes, and equipment and you are just SOL.  And when you are SOL, why come back to play again?

Edited by Genma Saotome

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
Sign in to follow this  

×