Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 32 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:47:00 -
[571] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Yes thats exactly how mittens wanted it to sound. Looking at it from more perspectives shows that it will hurt empires in no way, allows them to lessen their space and effort. I'm not saying some of those changes arent good for null, but decreasing null vulnarability, even in used systems and making power projection harder are way more important. |
KatanTharkay
V I R I I Ineluctable.
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:52:00 -
[572] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:Enaris Kerle wrote:KatanTharkay wrote:I'm not in any way affiliated to TEST, but when they didn't wanted this type of gameplay (mega-coalitions) and tried to do something else, you crushed them, the "our way or the highway" style. Just saying. you'll have to explain to me how forming a mega-coalition from all of the people we threw out of their space over the years (Honeybadger Coalition) is TEST trying "something else" than mega-coalitions Creating a 3-rd party, 4-th party, n-th party instead of 2 giant gravity wells to polarize null-sec. Sadly, EVE is too much of a game that promotes "big is better" and no matter what CCP will do, they won't be able to nerf friendship. TEST tried to form their own mega coalition and failed. To claim they did anything else is naive. What some of you simply do not get it is people will gravitate towards each other for mutual benefit. Unless CCP gets rid of standings entirely - which they simply will never do - you will always have coalitions. It's just human nature showing up in a sandbox game. The ideas suggested as the Null Deal will simply mean those coalitions contract leaving empty space to be taken by smaller entities (who will no doubt have alliances and agreements between them, it's the meta game which is in fact what makes EVE, EVE) and it will not serve the purpose of the large coalitions to gas them out of existence.
Well, you just said what I was saying, only using more words. And ad-hominems are not something desirable in a debate, they will just make people ignore your input. There are big issues with the Null Deal proposals (occupancy and NRDS comes first to my mind) and as long as those issues are not addressed those proposals won't get much support.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:14:00 -
[573] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
And that 80% of dropped sov is going to be filled by who exactly? It's going to be more renters isn't it. Of course they won't "technically" be renters. They'll just have to pay you or PL or N3 protection money, or else.
It will be filled with whoever has the spine to take them. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Mordecai Murska
Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:16:00 -
[574] - Quote
hey,
i read about 10pages before writing this, so if someone already said this, too bad.
Ops wants npc stations for content, agents I figure, others are against stations so people dont get safe plases in 0.0
that could be easily solved so that when occupancy is high enough, Cosmos type agents fly there in their ships, light up a beacon
and start offering missions, if people dont work for said agents enough they move to some other system or go home wherever
their corp or alliance is from.
my cent for this... |
Bunka en Daire
Eminentia Griseus
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:20:00 -
[575] - Quote
Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT.
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
595
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:37:00 -
[576] - Quote
Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:40:00 -
[577] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect. How does it exactly hurt them so much? |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:41:00 -
[578] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right? Why would an AFK pilot be any safer because there's a gate between the interceptor and the ratter? Missions would generally mean you can't be anywhere close to as AFK, since it's usually split up into sections rather than being a mass of red crosses in one area.
You know what AFK means, right?
Speedkermit Damo wrote:I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined. The funny thing is, people have gone on for years about effort based sov, and now that Mittani has suggested it, suddenly those people are against it. By the way, how exactly is the game "ruined"?
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't. Why should we disband? You don't like us, but what give you the right to state that we should disband? EVE is a sandbox and can be played however people want. Forcing people to only bind together in tiny groups is not really EVE.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
595
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:42:00 -
[579] - Quote
Regatto wrote: How does it exactly hurt them so much?
They hold sov by power not presence and the absence of npc stations makes work of attackers much harder especially when they have to fight guerilla warfare.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything. |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:46:00 -
[580] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Regatto wrote: How does it exactly hurt them so much?
They hold sov by power not presence and the absence of npc stations makes work of attackers much harder especially when they have to fight guerilla warfare.
They hold sov with the threat of presence. |
|
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:48:00 -
[581] - Quote
Bunka en Daire wrote:Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT.
None of them currently. This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
|
Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:50:00 -
[582] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:And missions take place in deadspace pockets so all your AFK Ishtar ratters are nice and safe from those pesky ceptor roams. AM I right? Why would an AFK pilot be any safer because there's a gate between the interceptor and the ratter? Missions would generally mean you can't be anywhere close to as AFK, since it's usually split up into sections rather than being a mass of red crosses in one area. You know what AFK means, right? Speedkermit Damo wrote:I'm glad at least some people can see though the bullshit. The hypicrisy of Mittens, Grath and the other few dozen people responsible for the blue donut and botlord, and the stagnation in nullsec is astonishing. That they then have the brass neck to presume to dictate to CCP how to fix the game which they ruined. The funny thing is, people have gone on for years about effort based sov, and now that Mittani has suggested it, suddenly those people are against it. By the way, how exactly is the game "ruined"? Speedkermit Damo wrote:Lets say that CCP did do what Mittens want's, and lets face it CCP always does in the end. We get an occupancy-sov system. How is that going to make the CFC and N3 suddenly disband? It won't. How is that going to break up the massive AFK renter empires? It won't. Why should we disband? You don't like us, but what give you the right to state that we should disband? EVE is a sandbox and can be played however people want. Forcing people to only bind together in tiny groups is not really EVE.
So basically with (Mittens) occupancy based sov, there will still be a blue donut, there will still the blob, and there will still be botlord.
In other words just the same as now.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 11:57:00 -
[583] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:So basically with (Mittens) occupancy based sov, there will still be a blue donut, there will still the blob, and there will still be botlord.
In other words just the same as now. Pretty much. Just there will also be empty space. This has always been raised as the issue with occupancy based sov the several thousand times it's been raised before. You can't force people to not cooperate. Even if they took away all standing systems, we'd still cooperate using out of game systems. You should know being that you're CVA so you run a KOS checker for pilots in local.
The idea here is to lower the bar for entry, condense the larger groups into smaller space and limit how far the larger groups can project themselves. Occupancy based sov means you don;t need to put billions of isk in space assets out for people to destroy, you just need to show up in an area and start playing. I think the idea needs a lot of work, but its certainly a step in the right direction and shows CCP the type of change that the null groups would most support. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:04:00 -
[584] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: The idea here is to lower the bar for entry, condense the larger groups into smaller space and limit how far the larger groups can project themselves. Occupancy based sov means you don;t need to put billions of isk in space assets out for people to destroy, you just need to show up in an area and start playing. I think the idea needs a lot of work, but its certainly a step in the right direction and shows CCP the type of change that the null groups would most support.
It's an absolutely terrible idea. How about we limit force projection and not increase the value of systems? Maybe Goons or PL or whomever will have to, you know, not be so large in the first place if they want to keep all of their pilots happy. And whilst we're busy nerfing nullsec, let's make sure resources are no longer static. Let's make it so that if you want all the stuff, you have to keep fighting for it. CCP can make regional value dynamic and ever changing, including true sec and moon goo.
Why am I the only one suggesting this? How does dynamic content not force the blob to become dynamic too? If they want to make BOTLORDII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIV fine. Destroy the game you enjoy if you want. Nobody really cares all that much.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:19:00 -
[585] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:It's an absolutely terrible idea. How about we limit force projection and not increase the value of systems? Maybe Goons or PL or whomever will have to, you know, not be so large in the first place if they want to keep all of their pilots happy. And whilst we're busy nerfing nullsec, let's make sure resources are no longer static. Let's make it so that if you want all the stuff, you have to keep fighting for it. CCP can make regional value dynamic and ever changing, including true sec and moon goo. Force projection certainly needs to be looked at, but the value of systems would too. Everything is spread out at the moment because force projection exists. Nuke force projection and you have to shrink the spread of the content too.
And make resources dynamic? That would then mean you need a means of moving between content, so having billions of isk in structure you have to keep putting up and taking down seems to go against that, so sov needs to be tied to something else, like say activity?
The thing is, you can happily say move moon goo around and move true sec around and force people to have to run around all over null, because it doesn't affect you. You're perfectly happy for someone else's game to become a chore because it's no additional effort on your part. Why should people have to jump though hoops for content? For that matter, why would people continue to jump though hoops at all? Nullsec wouldn't take much of a nerf to become completely pointless as is, since blitzing level 4 missions can earn you just as much.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Why am I the only one suggesting this? How does dynamic content not force the blob to become dynamic too? Because without changing the way sov is held, they can;t be dynamic.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:If they want to make BOTLORDII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIII, BOTLORDIV fine. Destroy the game you enjoy if you want. Nobody really cares all that much. Apparently you care a lot. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:23:00 -
[586] - Quote
The suggestion is aimed to avoid conflict between powerful entities by letting them condense into far regions. The other regions will be filled by terribads who serve as food.
This way the leaders can have large ISK income without Sov costs, reimbursements, capital subsidies, strategic planning or any effort. The members of all groups will be denied fights other than dunking terribads that is just as much PvP as ganking highsec miners.
This proposal is a combined effort of all leaders to betray all their line members and turn them into ratting machines, while denying them the PvP content they joined for. My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
Ms Forum Alt
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
26
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:34:00 -
[587] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: And make resources dynamic? That would then mean you need a means of moving between content, so having billions of isk in structure you have to keep putting up and taking down seems to go against that, so sov needs to be tied to something else, like say activity?
Yes, effort. No, not activity. Activity can easily be subverted by for example, camping. Indeed camping will become the primary way in which you subvert someone's sov if it isn't already. You can make their space have zero value with the constant hotdrop threat. Another CCP "innovation" that wasn't fully thought through.
Lucas Kell wrote: The thing is, you can happily say move moon goo around and move true sec around and force people to have to run around all over null, because it doesn't affect you.
No, it would affect me. And when I said dynamic I didn't mean dynamic like PI, I meant over a longer period of time, like six months. And the value of that doesn't have to be as it is now. You can change the frequency and amplitude to fit. You don't have to keep everything else the same whilst fiddling with just that 1 variable. For example I think CCP really want to replace POS with something better. Well OK, fold that into the design.
Lucas Kell wrote:Because without changing the way sov is held, they can;t be dynamic.
What's the point of holding sov anyway? You get to name the station? Who cares.
Thanks for responding to my ideas. I've struggled to persuade on this even though I've had these ideas since CCP first released dynamic content (anoms) a looooong time ago. |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:40:00 -
[588] - Quote
Bunka en Daire wrote:Oh ask yourself how much of those who signed petition are RMT?
I bet on my life, that 99% of them are RMT. RIP you
Arya Regnar wrote:It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most. we also advocated for the tech nerf when we were one of the biggest tech moon empires in the game Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:48:00 -
[589] - Quote
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Yes, effort. No, not activity. Activity can easily be subverted by for example, camping. Indeed camping will become the primary way in which you subvert someone's sov if it isn't already. You can make their space have zero value with the constant hotdrop threat. Another CCP "innovation" that wasn't fully thought through. What effort would you consider as the solution? If someone was happily playing away in their area, and we came over and hellcamped them for 2 weeks, would they still hold the sov?
Ms Forum Alt wrote:No, it would affect me. And when I said dynamic I didn't mean dynamic like PI, I meant over a longer period of time, like six months. And the value of that doesn't have to be as it is now. You can change the frequency and amplitude to fit. You don't have to keep everything else the same whilst fiddling with just that 1 variable. For example I think CCP really want to replace POS with something better. Well OK, fold that into the design. So people would still follow around the content, and the complaint would turn from "CFC or N3/PL own all of the null space!" to "CFC or N3/PL own all of the good content in null space!".
Ms Forum Alt wrote:What's the point of holding sov anyway? You get to name the station? Who cares. Reduced POS fuel cost, restrictions over who can and cannot dock, Market/refinery/repair taxes, system upgrade (ihub) control.
Ms Forum Alt wrote:Thanks for responding to my ideas. I've struggled to persuade on this even though I've had these ideas since CCP first released dynamic content (anoms) a looooong time ago. No problem. The idea of dynamic content isn't a bad one for consideration, it just isn't a solution to the nullsec troubles in and of itself. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
4285
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 12:59:00 -
[590] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:The suggestion is aimed to avoid conflict between powerful entities by letting them condense into far regions. The other regions will be filled by terribads who serve as food. Conflict is already as avoided right now as it would be then. And whether or not occupancy based sov is considered, force projection needs to be wound down, so either way the effect is the same.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This way the leaders can have large ISK income without Sov costs, reimbursements, capital subsidies, strategic planning or any effort. The members of all groups will be denied fights other than dunking terribads that is just as much PvP as ganking highsec miners. Erm... what? There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. The thing you don't seem to understand is that many people WANT fights. We play this game for entertainment, not so we can stare at our wallet balance and fap while writing blogposts. The problem is that at the moment force projection pretty much means any fight will escalate into a 10% tidi brawl, and anyone outside of the major blobs stands very little chance of moving in to null without being crushed. By shortening the range of force projection and condensing the current superpowers they open up the floor to other groups moving in and growing into power themselves.
Gevlon Goblin wrote:This proposal is a combined effort of all leaders to betray all their line members and turn them into ratting machines, while denying them the PvP content they joined for. We get it mate, you don't like goons, thus you'll disagree with just about anything they say. The problem is that you have no idea how 99% of EVE mechanics work. You know how to trade and run mining missions, and that's about it. Take off the tinfoil hat and learn to play EVE. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
|
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:02:00 -
[591] - Quote
don't touch the poop Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Gevlon Goblin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
304
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:12:00 -
[592] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote: There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp? Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks.
Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL?
My blog: greedygoblin.blogspot.com |
Speedkermit Damo
GeoCorp. Curatores Veritatis Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:29:00 -
[593] - Quote
Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect.
It doesn't hurt them, or they wouldn't have proposed it.
Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:34:00 -
[594] - Quote
Gevlon Goblin wrote:Lucas Kell wrote: There would still be fights, reimbursments, capital ships, etc. Could you tell me who would the CFC fight with? Against Arthasdklol's mining corp? Would you call the current PL vs HERO/Provi encounters "fights"? Because I sure call them ganks. Fights needs able enemies who can shoot back. Who else can shoot back to Goons than N3/PL?
Anyone who want to try.
Just because you are spineless and dont like expending effort doesn't mean there are not tens of thousands who will. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13410
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:35:00 -
[595] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Arya Regnar wrote:Yes, yes and yes.
It surprises me that goons would propose this when it would hurt them the most.
Respect. It doesn't hurt them, or they wouldn't have proposed it.
So tell us, why did we push for the tech nerf when we held almost all of it? Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
429
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:36:00 -
[596] - Quote
KatanTharkay wrote:
Well, you just said what I was saying, only using more words. And ad-hominems are not something desirable in a debate, they will just make people ignore your input. There are big issues with the Null Deal proposals (occupancy and NRDS comes first to my mind) and as long as those issues are not addressed those proposals won't get much support.
Well if a claim is made to support an opinion on how something worked, and that claim is incorrect it's only fair to point that out.
NRDS is the personal choice of a single Bloc. It's up to them if they want to use NRDS, NBSI or NPSI. These are all fairly minor concerns, if at all. It's part of the meta game.
Regatto wrote:
Yes thats exactly how mittens wanted it to sound. Looking at it from more perspectives shows that it will hurt empires in no way, allows them to lessen their space and effort. I'm not saying some of those changes arent good for null, but decreasing null vulnarability, even in used systems and making power projection harder are way more important.
Look at it like this - and you have to assume CCP will do this right: If the CFC was to contract to say just Deklein, all that empty space currently owned by the CFC will fill up with new blood. Those guys will form groups and coalitions. One day they may have the numbers or the will to take on the CFC. If the CFC alliances chose to remain in far flung regions of space they won't have the support of the greater CFC. If the greater CFC comes to their aid, they risk lowering any defensive index on their home systems.
The principles of what has been suggested are sound. It remains to be seen in CCP can do something with them.
|
Steppa Musana
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:37:00 -
[597] - Quote
Love how you've pinged your alliance to +1 this thread. Reminds me of the time you guys did the same thing in the thread on freighter changes, thinking +70 from Goons in 1 day would sway Fozzie.
Goonies, masters of propaganda, and why no one really cares what they have to say. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13411
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:39:00 -
[598] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Love how you've pinged your alliance to +1 this thread. Goonies, masters of propaganda, and why no one really cares what they have to say.
So said the NPC high sec posting alt. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Toriessian
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
298
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:49:00 -
[599] - Quote
So has the anti-occupancy based sov camp come up with a better alternate idea yet? Thats something missing from this thread. |
Regatto
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 13:57:00 -
[600] - Quote
Did somebody mention some complete proposal how that occupancy based SOV would work? I may have missed it...everything i read was very sketchy and without any actual details |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 32 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |