Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
admin

Patch 30: Combat and boarding feedback

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Nobody, should be hitting anything at 700m and even long guns should be lucky to hit at 400m.  If we are going to have accurate damage (which I like) we should also have accurate accuracy.  You cannot equate cannon fire accuracy on land with the accuracy achievable from a platform moving in 3 dimensions to a target moving in 3 dimensions.

That is false.
The French frequently disengaged from engagements they didn't want *by* firing pointe en blanc into the rigging of their pursuers.

It wasn't guaranteed, and in the case of a close engagement that followed a failed attempt, they were overwhelmingly defeated during the close engagements... but many chases ended with the loss of spars and the escape of the chasee - and often only with one or two pieces engaged from the stern quarter(s). The same desultory fires often resulted in closer engagements when the chase guns succeeded in taking spars from the runner, from the chase guns alone.

Yes. In heavy seas all fires are inaccurate to significant degree, but with 'pointing' you can at least maximise the odds by firing at two moments - deck level or 'when line of metal bears' using quick powder, locks and quills to avoid the hang coming from the original powder train and slow match.

Dispersion increases with distance, so more shots are needed to hit a point (or linear) target as range increases... but hitting a particular point is easiest when aiming *at* that point rather than trying to guess at a particular 'hold off'.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lieste people are talking about single shot mast sniping with balls, which is in fact a fantasy. Rigging damage is totaly a different thing. 

Reduce single shot horizontal accuracy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mr. Doran said:

Even a perfect combat-model can only do so much in making unbalanced fights winnable; that is going to come down to fair ROE at the end of the day. What makes raking special when it is balanced correctly is that it acts as a force multiplier. If significant amounts of damage to crew, guns, and masts is allowed to be achieved through raking fire and not replenished a tool for skilled players is then created. Currently raking does act a force multiplier but not in the way it should be. As it stands now, through raking you achieve sinking not disabling; this is the false dichotomy I speak of. No matter if you target hull or rake you end up achieving the same result of sinking the target. 

ROE is not the only tool but definitely a nice one.

Skilled player and raking. This is the same thing as with mast raking and sniping. At some point mast damage was set so high that everyone started to do it. Also information was passed for all that it is the meta by far. Suddenly all magic was gone and everyone was taking down masts. It took next to 0 skill to do it.

It takes much more skill to win by side hull bashing only than raking. How can you win a bigger ship? Use your nice tool for skilled players? I think this is ok when a smaller ship is fighting vs bigger ship. That tool is there to make you able to take down bigger ships but I don't like the idea to take ships of your own size. When taking down bigger ship you have to proof your skills at raking as well. Taking care from all fights by raking, not fun.

If you hull bash only, you are exchanging broadsides. I would bet that it takes much more skill to be able to constantly outsmart your enemy so that he fires a bad broadside and you get a good one. Still, at least in history there were players who were able to do this. Maybe most players did not understand that as a skill to achieve, eventually wanted some critical points to aim and click.

Ability to diminish damage with skill but high damage. Sounds fair?

No ability to diminish damage with skill but high damage. Sounds unfair?

Naval Action has been using the "Sounds unfair" option in pretty many cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know what the spars are? They are the upper portions of the mast above the cross trees and fighting platform. Being much lighter than the masts (the portion between keel and the cap above the fighting platform/crosstrees) they are vulnerable to hits from fewer and weaker shot. They were frequently shot away in combat (despite being high above the decks) - and this indicates with a limited elevation (say under 8 degrees) that you would need to be outside 200m to even have a change of engaging them... and this is barely an additional 1.5 degrees elevation of the aimpoint at a pointe en blanc range for a frigate engagement (with the aim point now being at the cap of the mainmast (instead of middly of gun ports) with direct pointing and firing as each bears).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/3/2019 at 3:39 PM, Zlatkowar said:

Before patch you could engage a larger ship and still win if you play correctly.

You know that was the problem. It was easier to kill a Bellona with a trinco than a connie because you had a higher turn rate and could rake a Bellona all day long. A connie could not rake a Bellona so in certain situations a smaller ship was more of an advantage. Of course if the Bellona was manned by a good player this would be impossible. I like the fact that ship of the lines can defend themselves against good players now. There is nothing worse than game mechanics that favor the elite over the casuals. 

In real life an amateur captain would smash the most experienced captain if he had a far bigger ship. In real life an amateur captain was a good sailor to be fair but larger ships must be better than smaller ships. There is no comparison between a 2nd rate and a 1st rate. Otherwise they would not have built 1st rates. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

ROE is not the only tool but definitely a nice one.

Skilled player and raking. This is the same thing as with mast raking and sniping. At some point mast damage was set so high that everyone started to do it. Also information was passed for all that it is the meta by far. Suddenly all magic was gone and everyone was taking down masts. It took next to 0 skill to do it.

It takes much more skill to win by side hull bashing only than raking. How can you win a bigger ship? Use your nice tool for skilled players? I think this is ok when a smaller ship is fighting vs bigger ship. That tool is there to make you able to take down bigger ships but I don't like the idea to take ships of your own size. When taking down bigger ship you have to proof your skills at raking as well. Taking care from all fights by raking, not fun.

If you hull bash only, you are exchanging broadsides. I would bet that it takes much more skill to be able to constantly outsmart your enemy so that he fires a bad broadside and you get a good one. Still, at least in history there were players who were able to do this. Maybe most players did not understand that as a skill to achieve, eventually wanted some critical points to aim and click.

Ability to diminish damage with skill but high damage. Sounds fair?

No ability to diminish damage with skill but high damage. Sounds unfair?

Naval Action has been using the "Sounds unfair" option in pretty many cases.

There is not much out-smarting to do in a practice that can basically be distilled into an algorithm. There is almost always an objectively best turn to make or time to fire when it comes to dealing and mitigating hull damage; the nuance is minimal at best. What balances out the potency of raking fire when it is actually deadly is the relative difficulty of doing it compared to hull bashing. It is much harder to fight for the position necessary to  perform a rake than it is to force a pass on the enemy's broadside. What is currently wrong with the damage model is that sinking is the inevitability no matter if you pick raking fire or hull bashing; this applying to both a difference in ship size and ships of the same size. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Nobody, should be hitting anything at 700m and even long guns should be lucky to hit at 400m.  If we are going to have accurate damage (which I like) we should also have accurate accuracy.  You cannot equate cannon fire accuracy on land with the accuracy achievable from a platform moving in 3 dimensions to a target moving in 3 dimensions.

Do you guys know how far 400m are? Long range fighting is dead since multiple repairs because even now you cannot out DPS the repair because angeling works extremely well at those distances and you can always just turn away and kite. Pvp distance is actually dictated by the range of chain. If you cannot slow your enemy down he will escape the second he knows he will loose. In my oppinion chain damage still drops of a tiny bit to fast. I would prefer the devs buff chain range a tiny bit and not buff long gun damage. 

Share this post


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

So instead we just reinforce a mechanic that rewards those elite players even more by keeping them in first rates, when those casuals won't even be able to afford losing one let alone a few line ships a week?  

It's the interactions in the game systems that people are losing sight of when they focus entirely on the outcomes of a single battle.

The price of ship of the lines has nothing to do with this topic. I am extremely vocal about keeping 1st rates accessible to all but an elite player will always and has always been unbeatable in 1st rates because they're elite and because 1st rates are 1st rates... The current damage model favors the casual more because angles and repair meta are not as bad as they were. The old model was to forgivable and that goes both ways. The only bad thing about this patch is ai missions are harder but as admin said the k/d ratio of player to ai is 800:1 and that is absurd for any game. 

One last thing. Just cause ram dinark goes out and kills 10 noobs in a battle does not mean anything is wrong with the combat system. I have fought him and he is good but he sinks like the rest of us. It is not the games fault 10 complete idiots attack him 1 by 1 and basically give him marks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wraith said:

How can you write those sentences back to back and not see the logical dissonance?  The cost is directly related to accessibility. If even an "above average" player is killing average players at rates even close to 2:1, and it takes those average players a week to recoup the loss with absolutely zero chance of competing against that elite or above average player even with numbers and gear on their side, because they are forced into lower gunned ships...

By removing the incentive for those above average players to sail frigates instead of line ships (because line ships were inherently more vulnerable if not supported by numbers themselves) then you've inherently destroyed any balance in ship choice outside of RvR contexts.

It doesn't take any foresight at all to see that those average players will be quitting rather than getting ROFL-stomped over and over in ships they can't afford to replace.

What do you want? Free ships for casuals? Elites not being able to attack noobs? There is nothing you can do to stop good players from being good. There were no mods in sea trials and the elite still smashed the casuals. Its nature. You have any idea about the attitude those casuals have? They want to turn on the game and just win without putting any tactical effort into the game. The extreme seal clubbing screenshots are mostly since angles and repairs were added to the game. What part of the new patch has given the elite more advantage over the casual? 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Wraith said:

If even an "above average" player is killing average players at rates even close to 2:1

Show me a screenshot of "above average" players killing average players 2:1 and let me judge their skill myself please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AeRoTR said:

@Lieste people are talking about single shot mast sniping with balls, which is in fact a fantasy. Rigging damage is totaly a different thing. 

Reduce single shot horizontal accuracy.

 

Single shot demasting in game is there to simulate the captain of the gun aiming it toward the rigging of the enemy ship, in the hopes of making a mast fall.

We don't have rigging damage in Naval Action.

We don't have gun crews aiming each individual cannon to do what the skipper has asked them to do "Gun crews, take down his masts!"

 

What we do have is ability to aim the guns ourselves and make them hit the mast (or hull, or stern, or...). Yes, single shot sniping of the masts didn't necessarily happen IRL as it does in game. But we don't have IRL mechanics in game to accurately represent demasting.

 

"Sniping" masts is as much a gameplay feature as "stern camping." Yeah its gamey and yeah it didn't happen that way IRL, but some sacrifices have to be made for gameplay.

 

Further thoughts on demasting.

50m is too close as @Mr. Doran suggests. Many ships can barely even pitch the shot into masts at 50m, even being downwind (think first rate vs first rate....superstructure is too high for the 42pdrs to hit).

Demasting was best when the largest caliber gun the ship carried could demast that ship at 250m without pen mods. I.E. Constitution demasts Constitution at 250m with long 24s.

Masts should all be high-HP and low(ish) thickness. All mast HP mods should affect HP, and they should be large buffs because 20% of mast HP is nothing...not even one cannonball, in some cases.

 

In short, just roll back to the old damage model that worked reasonably well, fix the repair meta spam by limiting to 1/1 reps as myself and several others have suggested, and focus on more pressing issues in NA. :D

If we continue with this damage model, its going to take so much balancing and tuning that we're just going to end up having something very much like the old damage model, but HP and thickness and cannon pen values are all going to be higher...I'm not really sure what will be accomplished by this besides making battles shorter when one side has a significant advantage in broadside weight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, William Death said:

Single shot demasting in game is there to simulate the captain of the gun aiming it toward the rigging of the enemy ship, in the hopes of making a mast fall.

We don't have rigging damage in Naval Action.

We don't have gun crews aiming each individual cannon to do what the skipper has asked them to do "Gun crews, take down his masts!"

 

What we do have is ability to aim the guns ourselves and make them hit the mast (or hull, or stern, or...). Yes, single shot sniping of the masts didn't necessarily happen IRL as it does in game. But we don't have IRL mechanics in game to accurately represent demasting.

 

"Sniping" masts is as much a gameplay feature as "stern camping." Yeah its gamey and yeah it didn't happen that way IRL, but some sacrifices have to be made for gameplay.

 

Further thoughts on demasting.

50m is too close as @Mr. Doran suggests. Many ships can barely even pitch the shot into masts at 50m, even being downwind (think first rate vs first rate....superstructure is too high for the 42pdrs to hit).

Demasting was best when the largest caliber gun the ship carried could demast that ship at 250m without pen mods. I.E. Constitution demasts Constitution at 250m with long 24s.

Masts should all be high-HP and low(ish) thickness. All mast HP mods should affect HP, and they should be large buffs because 20% of mast HP is nothing...not even one cannonball, in some cases.

 

In short, just roll back to the old damage model that worked reasonably well, fix the repair meta spam by limiting to 1/1 reps as myself and several others have suggested, and focus on more pressing issues in NA. :D

If we continue with this damage model, its going to take so much balancing and tuning that we're just going to end up having something very much like the old damage model, but HP and thickness and cannon pen values are all going to be higher...I'm not really sure what will be accomplished by this besides making battles shorter when one side has a significant advantage in broadside weight.

The lower the required pen range is the more difficult it is to perform regular fire at lower sections because it almost begins to exponentially decrease your firing window. It is a good point that third rates and higher may have trouble pitching up against a lower section at 50 meters so the tables could be adjusted accordingly for that and it would not negatively effect the balance against smaller vessels as third rates and larger should be able to demast fourth rates and lower fire considerably longer ranges than the other way around. But 250 meters just pisses away so much of the skill and fun in demasting because the firing window is so long and in some cases constant. It is much more common for all of your gun-deck to be in range of an enemy lower section at 250 meters during a battle than it is to be at 50 meters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mr. Doran said:

There is not much out-smarting to do in a practice that can basically be distilled into an algorithm. There is almost always an objectively best turn to make or time to fire when it comes to dealing and mitigating hull damage; the nuance is minimal at best. What balances out the potency of raking fire when it is actually deadly is the relative difficulty of doing it compared to hull bashing. It is much harder to fight for the position necessary to  perform a rake than it is to force a pass on the enemy's broadside. What is currently wrong with the damage model is that sinking is the inevitability no matter if you pick raking fire or hull bashing; this applying to both a difference in ship size and ships of the same size. 

I admit that rake hull damage is high.

Your pdf file was nice. I read it years ago when I started to play. I think that many read it. Some parts were explained in slightly too complex way. It can be that I did not understand all. You could make a youtube video from it, I am sure it would be helpful for many.

Two players following the same algorithm but one is still always better. I don't think it is as simple as an algorithm. Much to out-smart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wraith said:

You're incoherent. I don't even know what you're arguing for or against here, since nowhere was I talking about trying to make good players not good.  

At the center of my argument is that above average players no longer have anything to fear about sailing first rates around whereas they used to.  New and casual players can't do the same because if they meet an above average player they will lose, with a ratio much less than 1:1.  Because of the cost of line ships you're thus locking them out of PvP, reducing action for everyone, because they can't afford to keep losing. Prior to the combat model rework those players could be effective in small frigate groups and afford to lose them every night. Now they can't be effective and they'll continue to lose without any positive feedback from a successful gank or two.. and quit.

Players still can be effective in small frigate groups...They just need to fight other small frigate groups. If their only content prior to the combat change was to go out in frigates and gank a solo SOL doing missions I cannot feel for them.  What else are a group of casual players in frigates going to kill? Casuals can only gank other casuals so someone will always be a victim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

45 minutes ago, Mr. Doran said:

The lower the required pen range is the more difficult it is to perform regular fire at lower sections because it almost begins to exponentially decrease your firing window. It is a good point that third rates and higher may have trouble pitching up against a lower section at 50 meters so the tables could be adjusted accordingly for that and it would not negatively effect the balance against smaller vessels as third rates and larger should be able to demast fourth rates and lower fire considerably longer ranges than the other way around. But 250 meters just pisses away so much of the skill and fun in demasting because the firing window is so long and in some cases constant. It is much more common for all of your gun-deck to be in range of an enemy lower section at 250 meters during a battle than it is to be at 50 meters. 

I think it should be around 100m for all ships and balance it with HP. It doesnt sound like alot but if an 18 pounder takes 9 hits to dismast an Endymion it can be a challenge especially if you are fighting someone that knows when to repair the mast. Those 9 can become 14 to even 17 hits if its a perfect repair. I kind of dislike the way masts go from 1%-100% the second you pop the rep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything but 250 meters would be an improvement; a range between 50 and 100 meters is definitely where the zone lay. We must first strike down these 1000 times folded Kiritimati first though. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

How can you be so obtuse?  It's exactly those players that will now be food for roving "above average," speed fit first rates. You clearly just don't play the game enough outside of your arranged fights outside of Tortue to realize that the vast majority of PvP in this game is non-consensual. And while below-average players in frigates will always be food, at least under the old damage and sailing model those above average PvP'ers were at least soloing in frigates instead of first rates, offering up some kind of parity.

I know I'd much rather meet @--Privateer-- in an Indiaman instead of a Santi, but now he has no reason not to sail solo his Santi with impunity... lol.

?width=928&height=392

365F9842A0D8F3D288D16800734770FDE63387E4

 

 

I really don't see an issue with him killing 2 BAIT players in 1 santi. Looks like privateer was not doing so well in that battle and just pulled the 2nd rate and won since he had a crew advantage, boarding mods and fought people that don't pvp alot. There is nothing special about that screenshot mate. Don't show me screenshots of players I have played with because I am very aware of their skills. It is not the games fault privateer won that battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wraith said:

The point is "mate" that people like Privateer, and the majority of us that will have docks filled with first rates, regardless of how expensive they are, shouldn't be sailing them around bashing anyone with a lower rated ship with impunity. It's bad for the game. Period.

And now that an aveage PvP'er like me can feel almost invincible against even a decent size group of equal or even slightly better PvP'ers in frigates... well.. it's game over if those players can't also afford to keep themselves in first rates.

What is so hard about this to understand?

 

how is he supposed to loose his first rates if he has the choice of when to sail it or not? How is he supposed to loose first rates with no RVR? How is he supposed to loose first rates if he as a player can set his ports to 3-6 and deny people attacking his ports like WO do? WO are so trash because they pick fights they can win. From what I know even @rediii with HAVOC trash smashed him. Its what sandbox is. If you have a solution to that please explain. How many hours does he have compared to a casual? It is mathematically impossible for a casual to have more ships since a casual plays 2 hours a day and an elite most likely 10. Elite can build 5 times more ships. If you consider yourself average in the naval action community you really do have no idea what you are talking about. If you know how the basics of PVP you are already in the to 10% of the player base. Your average naval action player watches a video of how to "manual sail" and thinks he can sail. Im sorry to say it but your average naval action player is complete trash and I always thought you were a decent player in the 2 battles we had. I am good at observing people. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Wraith said:

Prior to the combat model rework those players could be effective in small frigate groups and afford to lose them every night. Now they can't be effective and they'll continue to lose without any positive feedback from a successful gank or two.. and quit.

i sank a russian player inger with an essex sternacamping him a little...if you learn how to properly sail a ship, you still can sink a superior class ship.

so again, you must learn how to play correctly.  no more care-giving battles...

 

i also sank and ocean with a carros indef , but it was a mission bot...was really dangerous but with maybe 12-15 stern rake it died by water and less crew on pumps.  finally, it's all on tactics and good manouvers

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/4/2019 at 10:31 AM, Intrepido said:

1. what about the penetration values of carros (which make them too good even at medium ranges)?

2. I also read somewhere that you were going to adjust the penetration of all guns due to angling tactic a bit useless atm. Wont be patched soon?

I belive your first post is connected directly to your 2. post. So for 5. rates and bellow with carronades it is extremely hard to angle, but this is a carronade issue. I tested mediums and you might have to angle a bit more than before, but it is still possible. All they need to do is nerf the carronades because they are very strong right now.  

It is currently possible to take out a Lo/wo L'Ocean with cartagena and navy structure and solo the 1. rate group missions, 100 thickness + angeling makes it EASY. So please do not buff angling or thickness any more.

Edit: Group missions for 1. rates got it's difficulty increased so I no longer stand behind that statement xD 

Edited by Tiedemann
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Angus MacDuff said:

Nobody, should be hitting anything at 700m and even long guns should be lucky to hit at 400m.  If we are going to have accurate damage (which I like) we should also have accurate accuracy.  You cannot equate cannon fire accuracy on land with the accuracy achievable from a platform moving in 3 dimensions to a target moving in 3 dimensions.

Good argument for removing the gyro stabilization for aiming. It would take some real skill to hit a 400m. Not psuedo gunnery, some real rewarding gunnery to match the devastating DM. Actually I think this whole argument is centered around the cannon gyro, you guys are just dancing around the solution with things such as pen, range and whatever. Everything is using real world values EXCEPT for cannon aiming, well no shit there's your problem.

Edited by Slim McSauce
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Lieste said:

Do you know what the spars are? They are the upper portions of the mast above the cross trees and fighting platform. Being much lighter than the masts (the portion between keel and the cap above the fighting platform/crosstrees) they are vulnerable to hits from fewer and weaker shot.

Nope.  We may be having translation problems here.  Masts are vertical and hold the spars.  Spars are horizontal and hold the sails.  But yes, the higher masts (top Gallant masts etc), were thinner and more prone to damage from lucky (wildly inaccurate) ball. Because the higher masts and spars were much lighter, they could indeed be damaged by chain shot and brought down. 

 

20 hours ago, Lieste said:

Dispersion increases with distance, so more shots are needed to hit a point (or linear) target as range increases... but hitting a particular point is easiest when aiming *at* that point rather than trying to guess at a particular 'hold off'.

I stand by my statement that our accuracy is far too high.  The fact that you use the word "aiming" illustrates that you don't understand the nature of naval warfare in the late 18th century.  They did not "aim" their guns.  They got very, very close (pistol shot) and pointed them.  They did not have sights.  Moving a gun to try and "aim" it was too time consuming when rate of fire is what won battles, as the British proved on numerous occasions.  Yes, if a ship wanted to fire a broadside of chain at their enemy it would have an effect, because the area of the target (the entire rigging area of a ship is huge) was an easier target, but firing ball at mast and rigging was an incredible waste of a shot.  Especially since the best crews might get 3 shots off in 5 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Wraith said:

You’re seriously telling me that after 25 battles you didn’t once see sides melting off a lower gun weight ship as you were sinking them? Sigh.

You’re either being ignorant or obtuse just for the sake of grinding some axe towards people who actually test and think deeply about how these game changes interact with the systems it uses.

Well I am trading player so noticing that small detail when I mostly board is not something I noticed. it was in playing with a squadmate in the main server that it was noticeable.  His method of fighting is much different than my approach with long cannons.  I certainly looked at the 25 grind as chore but had to do it for the rewards because my 1 hour and 2 hour test trips on long trades for letter delivery, passenger delivery and local product rewards were definitely not to your liking test-wise.   

I can appreciate your vitriol attitude it is all the rage these days for those being like Trump for a player that doesn't play like you maybe not so much.  Really you should spend some time looking at how players are different and the game they like then maybe you could enjoy it more.  That way you could spend less time thinking you are so wonderful and thoughtful while doing more about how to make the game grow.  I am sure you like more to a game than just a small room circle of death battle royale, but then maybe not.  

Edited by angriff

Share this post


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

You certainly haven’t been paying attention over the last three years if you think I’m the kind of player who doesn’t think about play styles other than my own. Perhaps you should take some time away from your preconceived notions and actually do some reading and thinking of your own?

It sounds to me like you don’t actually test the game systems, you’re just here to play your game. That’s fine, but don’t expect to have your ignorance of the other parts of the game go unchallenged when you are clearly off base.

Don't worry I reported your bitterness

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.


×
×
  • Create New...