Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 07:57:55 -
[1] - Quote
Hello,
For this new year that begins, I hope that CCP will change the rules for ganking in high security zone. For one that does, It must not this terrorism attack be paying well. Solution : Remove the reward when this act is done in highsec area.
CCP must not encourage or promote terrorist or mafia actions in the game. CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
Who says game says fun and I'm not sure that those who are blow up their ships in the high security zone have fun.
Remember that the human and other species learn through play!
Fly safe! |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
517
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 08:39:50 -
[2] - Quote
I agree. The reward for ganking in high-sec should be removed.
So from now on, freighters should be treated as every other capital ship and prevented from taking high-sec gates. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
627
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 08:49:10 -
[3] - Quote
Shai'd Hulud wrote:CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
You're doing EVE wrong.
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
720
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 09:02:57 -
[4] - Quote
Calling it, troll post.
Follow up to OP suggestion, add back skill point loss with no med clones and no pods (ship explodes, you lose skill points forcing you to fight harder to win...will you pull the trigger while holding the gun to your head in a gank?) while removing a couple of guns from destroyers; at least get the riskless dudes hiding under CONCORD's skirt to buy something bigger (cruiser or BC ganking doesn't really bother me so much). Freighters also need more hitpoints (not for their protection, hell make CONCORD response longer if you want), remove their module and rig slots, and reduce the cargo capacity more....now it wouldn't be so worthwhile to gank for lulz, cost more in terms of isk and skill points, increase the risk, force freighter pilots to make even more trips, miners mine more (even more targets, but CCP should just feck them over and reduce reprocessing down to 25% after all skills/implants). Oh yeah, this would make EVE more hardcore....would love to see how many would stick around in this version |
Velicitia
XS Tech
2671
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 10:07:33 -
[5] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Calling it, troll post. Follow up to OP suggestion, add back skill point loss with no med clones and no pods (ship explodes, you lose skill points forcing you to fight harder to win...will you pull the trigger while holding the gun to your head in a gank?) while removing a couple of guns from destroyers; at least get the riskless dudes hiding under CONCORD's skirt to buy something bigger (cruiser or BC ganking doesn't really bother me so much). Freighters also need more hitpoints (not for their protection, hell make CONCORD response longer if you want), remove their module and rig slots, and reduce the cargo capacity more....now it wouldn't be so worthwhile to gank for lulz, cost more in terms of isk and skill points, increase the risk, force freighter pilots to make even more trips, miners mine more (even more targets, but CCP should just feck them over and reduce reprocessing down to 25% after all skills/implants). Oh yeah, this would make EVE more hardcore....would love to see how many would stick around in this version
Bit over the top on the changes there ... but, we'll let it slide, you're probably still hungover from new year's .
But yeah -- ganking is not a problem (nor has it ever been). The crux of the problem is that somewhere along the line, EVE (in hisec) has become "too safe" (and/or "too easy"), and has thus promoted the idea that you can mine (or haul, etc.) whilst being AFK -- or at the very least, not paying that much attention to the game. That mentality needs to change before the "problem" of ganking will be curtailed.
One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
|
McChicken Combo HalfMayo
The Happy Meal
185
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 11:20:01 -
[6] - Quote
Ganking is beautifully balanced, with the exception of faction police. Don't touch my ganking unless you're removing that.
~ Bookmarks in overview
~ Fleet improvements
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
8222
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:07:26 -
[7] - Quote
...
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5710
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:11:44 -
[8] - Quote
Ganking is already against Concord's rules. What more do you want?
You want to remove the reward for ganking? Don't carry the rewards and/or don't cry the tears.
Problem solved.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Truatho Bannon
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:23:07 -
[9] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Ganking is already against Concord's rules. What more do you want?
You want to remove the reward for ganking? Don't carry the rewards and/or don't cry the tears.
Problem solved.
You're a good dancer. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
14414
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:26:01 -
[10] - Quote
Concord should kill anyone who opens fire in high sec be they NPC or player. We must end this perpetual war between bears and rats in civilised space.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
630
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:37:10 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Concord should kill anyone who opens fire in high sec be they NPC or player. We must end this perpetual war between bears and rats in civilised space.
Yes.
Warps to site, drops MTU. Awaits free loots. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
94
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 12:39:58 -
[12] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:[quote=Aqriue]Bit over the top on the changes there ... but, we'll let it slide, you're probably still hungover from new year's . But yeah -- ganking is not a problem (nor has it ever been). The crux of the problem is that somewhere along the line, EVE (in hisec) has become "too safe" (and/or "too easy"), and has thus promoted the idea that you can mine (or haul, etc.) whilst being AFK -- or at the very least, not paying that much attention to the game. That mentality needs to change before the "problem" of ganking will be curtailed. Calling it, troll post.
Even if you're at the PC, gank is still completely unavoidable. A whole mining OP will be completely disrupted by a single clueless cracko in a destroyer. Ganking has been buffed quite a number of times in 2011-2013 - tags for sec, large guns bc's, removal of gravimetric sigs, etc - which enabled it to be done by lowest lifeforms we have in EVE.
AFK or not, no matter what, if you need to pass Uedama, you will be ganked. Nothing can prevent it. And don't give me that stupid "web your hauler" snafu, your webber will be instapopped by a tornado, and then they proceed to bump your hauler into oblivion, should it be worth it . Even though, due to recent hauler meganerf, it's harder to make it worth, it will be ganked for giggles anyway, because it's so retardedly easy to do. AFK or not, your frigate will be smartbombed on Jita undock if you carry something which makes it worth the bomb. AFK or not, single destroyer can ruin a whole mining OP, mining anywhere outside missions is now stupid. AFK or not, all industrial ships are useless due to ganks, except maybe pathetic cargohold blockade runners.
I do not say "remove ganking", but there must be something done to remove the stupid ease of it. I don't know what, but at least reduction of CONCORD response time for multiple attackers, so they have to bring less ships of bigger value to do it, and can't just do it swarming the target with multiboxing catalysts, which even my dog can manage. AFKers can be permaganked for all I care, but guys actively playing should be able to do at least something, except docking up and bleeding playtime and ISK every time a unicellular organism filling a destroyer decides to visit that system.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Beleth Drakesmile
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:00:09 -
[13] - Quote
I agree that it is far more rewarding to be a bad guy in this game than be a good guy. But you cannot use the argument of people learn from the game about real life because in real life I am not sure there are more good guys than bad guys. ;-) In fact the problem is that Concord is quite too cool with pirates. When you spend most part of your time stealing and ruining people you go to jail in real life. In this game you just have to buy back your standing... It is the only problem. It is too easy to buy your standing back. And if Concord would put Bounties and Killrights to players each time they loose Security Status paid with the ISK of the guy, I think things would be different. Imagine you destroy a freighter to loot the cargo and Concord tax your fleet 20% of the Killmail to place a bounty on each fleet members... |
Komi Toran
Paragon Trust The Bastion
517
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:05:42 -
[14] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote: AFK or not, no matter what, if you need to pass Uedama, you will be ganked. Nothing can prevent it. And don't give me that stupid "web your hauler" snafu, your webber will be instapopped by a tornado, and then they proceed to bump your hauler into oblivion, should it be worth it . Even though, due to recent hauler meganerf, it's harder to make it worth, it will be ganked for giggles anyway, because it's so retardedly easy to do.
Interesting. I move billions of ISK through Uedama all the time and have yet to be ganked. I guess I'm doing something wrong.
|
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
194
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:30:51 -
[15] - Quote
Shai'd Hulud wrote:
[b] CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
Are you stupid? This is EVE. There is no nobility anywhere.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
565
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 13:44:11 -
[16] - Quote
Ganking in empire is an economic control. Lacking this the average bear isk making would face no risks whatsoever.
The wh'er makes their billions, then loses some in pvp or pve losses. Not all 0.0 types print isk, some make their billions then lose some to pvp or pve if jumped. I lived paycheck to paycheck as it were myself quite a few times.
Ganking is empires case of a some players will lose some money here and there to keep that economic balance. Or as I like to call the sacrificial offering to the eve gods....they give you billions in isk, you give up some of that on the alter of pvp to appease them.
Or in my case (like others) the threat of gank alters how we play to reduce it happening or its impact. I for example favor a hard to find tengu setup for pve. Not an isk per hour monster. However....if by chance the day comes I see a new friend in my mission deadspace I do not have to wonder why they are there. As one does not max out skills, runs sisters gear and sisters virtue implants to vulture the wrecks I am making (what is needed to find my hard to find tengu. Day comes I see a new friend....I gtfo lol. He is the first of many I will see in my mission area. Take away from this story is to reduce gank I reduce my isk/hour.
Lacking that, watch the economy of eve get even worse. As then I'd run the ships that crap isk in missions. Or get sloppy in other areas of empire life. Some do this and don't get ranked even now. It be the people whose luck turns bad or do less than smart things who balance out the economy in some way imo.
|
chaosgrimm
Universal Production and Networking Services
172
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 14:05:13 -
[17] - Quote
I don't have a problem with non consensual PvP, but I do think that highsec ganking is not currently balanced in terms of risk v reward. Just a few examples of other professions:
* freighter pilot risks a 1bil hull and a bil or bil+ in assets just to hopefully make 5-20% off of their haul. This is at risk every jump. * miner is at risk for the entire time they spend mining * pos related stuff is nearly constantly at risk * pocos are nearly constantly at risk. * traders are at risk of market swings or other players manipulating a market.
Gankers.... There losses generally only take the form of opportunity cost.. They hide in stations til its time to gank, and stick to targets that guarantee profit. There should be added risk of loss to ganking imo |
Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 14:48:06 -
[18] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Shai'd Hulud wrote:
CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
Are you stupid? This is EVE. There is no nobility anywhere.
Stupid? No
Troll? No
This Is a touchy subject that must be discussed.
Do I want to eliminate this type of behavior? No, I just want this degrading gesture is not rewarded and encouraged.
I play this game since 2007 and I have witnessed the deterioration of the game in highsec area.
|
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
566
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:02:54 -
[19] - Quote
Shai'd Hulud wrote: Do I want to eliminate this type of behavior? No, I just want this degrading gesture is not rewarded and encouraged.
I play this game since 2007 and I have witnessed the deterioration of the game in highsec area.
The only way for this to happen is to have the ganked not make it rewarding tbh.
I do my part for example. I favor cheap pve ships. If ganked well enjoy the t2 gear that drops. If all did this in time your gankers would fall to just those who really like to see people whine in C&P....or these threads. You'd lose many who while they like these tears also like to make some money in the tear extraction process.
And empire deterioration they have only themselves to blame. long ago when ccp was just announcing in a future expansion they were removing insurance payout on concord pops I saw the bears rejoicing. I however was going you may not want this. I turned out to be right. Here's why. Before insurance was removed you got lots of uncoordinated low skill idiots trying and failing horribly at ganking. The had the insurance payout as back up so they cold be sloppy and not care. Sloppy gankers, less effective gankers.
When insurance was removed I said they will want the kills more. Ergo they would run better fits, actually work on coordinated tactics and other things to make sure their target(s) go boom. Lack of insurance made them step up their game. They got more lethal as a result. My basis for this prophecy that became true was piracy. Pirates know they will die to gate guns, they make damn sure when (not if) that happens end of the month their wallets are + isk flow after several dances with gate guns.
That and new players said fix dessies/give us new ones. Wish granted. then some said ccp new BC's please. Wish granted. They wanted play around new toys for pve or maybe stints in fw/rvb. Good for them, ti also gave gankers now options too. |
Dr Cedric
Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor
83
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:39:12 -
[20] - Quote
My take on it, having been the AFK-Target of gankers (a very long time ago) and now the At-Keyboard-Target of gankers (at least daily in 0.0):
Make 1.0 to 0.8 security space Concord protected. Immediate retribution for any acts of violence that are not sanctioned and consensual - remove everything but the puniest of asteroids and lamest of level 1 missions.
Make 0.7 to 0.5 security space Faction protected. Slower response, just as powerful, and add faction-based security standings losses. Kill enough people in amarr, eventually the police get the idea and run you out of town, try your luck in Rens.
0.4 to 0.1 stays the same
let people have their "safe-zone." Just make it a single solar system or two per faction so that 20000 people are fighting each other over the 100k units of veld that system supports for the day.
Probably won't really change anything, but it makes people feel safe, right!
Cedric
|
|
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
95
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 15:51:23 -
[21] - Quote
Dr Cedric wrote:My take on it, having been the AFK-Target of gankers (a very long time ago) and now the At-Keyboard-Target of gankers (at least daily in 0.0):
Make 1.0 to 0.8 security space Concord protected. Immediate retribution for any acts of violence that are not sanctioned and consensual - remove everything but the puniest of asteroids and lamest of level 1 missions.
Make 0.7 to 0.5 security space Faction protected. Slower response, just as powerful, and add faction-based security standings losses. Kill enough people in amarr, eventually the police get the idea and run you out of town, try your luck in Rens.
0.4 to 0.1 stays the same
let people have their "safe-zone." Just make it a single solar system or two per faction so that 20000 people are fighting each other over the 100k units of veld that system supports for the day.
Probably won't really change anything, but it makes people feel safe, right!
Welcome to the goonie "nerf hisec we're afraid of it" chorus.
Komi Toran wrote:Interesting. I move billions of ISK through Uedama all the time and have yet to be ganked. I guess I'm doing something wrong.
Yes, you're bragging on boards and not even trillions, pathetic.
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Euripedies
Hot Droppin Cherry Poppers
29
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:28:53 -
[22] - Quote
There is a problem in space and its called ganking.
the 20 seconds they get to do the job in a .5 is plenty of time to make the gank, Concord responds and kills their crappy T1 gank ship, then lets their pod get away. Gankers hang out in stations, untouchable, until their alt finds another target, where they repeat the exact same gank and repeat the process. It is mind boggling that a -10 character and their alt can continue to do this hundreds and hundreds of times. Whats really mind boggling is that the ganker and their alt continue to do this mind numbing activity over and over again.
gameplay in the form of ganking helpless ships is fun apparently for some. For those who get ganked its not so fun.
here is the issue. Ships cost isk, isk, at its roots, costs money. You wouldn't be there making isk if you hadn't paid money to get into the game.
gankers taking down your freighter or your retriever or whatever just cost you money in the form of isk. For the space rich its something you recover from and move on. for the space poor, it is frustrating and can easily lead to dropping your subscription and moving on to a game where people are not actively trying to destroy your space cash.
I read on the mittani today about a bowhead that was ganked by a solo player who used catalysts, shuttles and an orca to gank the bowhead. It was a clever use of the game mechanics to **** up someones brand new ship. hilarious, if you aren't the bowhead pilot. A bowhead is about 4 bil isk now? which is about 50-60 dollars. Who on this forum thinks throwing away 50 dollars is funny? My numbers may be off due to market fluctuations, but I think my point stands. CCP is creating a space sim where your money is getting thrown away for ganker giggles. Is that a game worth playing? Im having some real second thoughts about it.
|
Iain Cariaba
836
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 16:33:00 -
[23] - Quote
Celthric Kanerian wrote:Shai'd Hulud wrote:
[b] CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values.
Are you stupid? This is EVE. There is no nobility anywhere. Sure there are. Amarr has nobles. So OP is promoting the values of the Amarr nobles. Yes, slavery and genocide are good things for the game.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3370
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 17:12:03 -
[24] - Quote
Shai'd Hulud wrote:CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values. CCP already does.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2088
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 17:32:46 -
[25] - Quote
chaosgrimm wrote:I don't have a problem with non consensual PvP, but I do think that highsec ganking is not currently balanced in terms of risk v reward. Just a few examples of other professions:
* freighter pilot risks a 1bil hull and a bil or bil+ in assets just to hopefully make 5-20% off of their haul. This is at risk every jump. * miner is at risk for the entire time they spend mining * pos related stuff is nearly constantly at risk * pocos are nearly constantly at risk. * traders are at risk of market swings or other players manipulating a market.
Gankers.... There losses generally only take the form of opportunity cost.. They hide in stations til its time to gank, and stick to targets that guarantee profit. There should be added risk of loss to ganking imo
What you consider balance is human behavior, supply and demand.
Freighter hauling and mining pays low because its low risk, low maintenance and easy to do such that everybody does it. Maybe if the whiners hadnt asked for ganking to be nerfed so many times it would pay more because not every tom, **** and harry could do it whilst afk. And now your asking for further nerfs for ganking? pat yourself on the back...
The rewards for gankers are determined entirely by the haulers stupidity. If you want to hurt ganking rewards, stop painting bullseyes on yourselves.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2083
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 17:33:05 -
[26] - Quote
You forgot that ganking is torture, e-thuggery, cyberbullying, slavery and stuff.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
642
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 17:40:29 -
[27] - Quote
Shai'd Hulud wrote:
I play this game since 2007 and I have witnessed the deterioration of the game in highsec area.
The deterioration is present because of nerfs to content creative play styles which is exactly what you are trying to push here.
You are not the cure, you are the cancer in its most malignant form.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
755
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 18:26:19 -
[28] - Quote
I'm all for ganking. I've even dropped a few mission boats operating out of Apanake. Figuring out how to make it profitable was a fun math problem to work on for a few weeks. We only had a few guys and we weren't always successful.
Not always being successful brings me to my point. A hard -10 up through a -5 should have some chance of getting popped by concord when travelling though high sec. The hard -10 guys that spend all day in HS in cats or thrashers with zero chance of being popped by concord until they gank someone is unbalanced.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do it. I'm saying there should always be a reasonable chance that concord wonks them before they gank someone. There should be consequences to be flashy red - I suppose I'm saying there should be one more consequence.
You shouldn't be flashy red AND be able to fly around HS in a ship w/ guns 100% of the time. There should be no ship fit that allows you to have 100% chance to get that gank off.
There should be no thrasher fit that lets a flashy pilot fly around ALL DAY LONG w/out getting concorded. I don't care what the percent chance per stop is, but there should be some chance they get concorded.
My examples:
Mean Marty (sec status -10) warps back and forth between gates in Bearville (sec status 1.0) looking to gank a pod w/ his thrasher. There should be some percent chance that he gets nabbed by concord every time he comes out of warp. Let's say 10%. So in theory he can undock and warp between the gates 5 rounds (on average) befor concord pops him. If he's unlucky he gets whacked when he undocks and if he's super lucky he can get more than 5 round trips.
Ganker Gary (sec status -10) does the same thing in Dangerville (sec status 0.5). His thrasher has only a 5% chance of getting nabbed by concord. The lower true sec raises his survivability time.
I think the problem folks have w/ ganking (excluding 'he blew up my stuff') is that flashy red guys can fly around all day, and if they take some minimal precautions are pretty much safe from concord consequences until they engage in ganking someone. Add a small percent chance that concord can apprehend the flashy red ganker BEFORE they get the gank off.
This percentage chance of concord doing their job should satisfy everyone. Gankers lose their thrasher immunity. You just have to add 1 addition thrasher for every 10 you are using now to account for it, so it's not a huge change in the math to success. It's a simple die roll in the programming to see if they make it before getting into warp.
If you gank in a bigger ship, your chance of concord intervening goes up. Move from thasher to a thorax then concord's odds go up from 10% to maybe 15% or 20%. All this would be easily scalable based on shiptype and system truesec. Easy balancing for CCP to get the right numbers. |
Basil Pupkin
Why So Platypus
95
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 18:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:What you consider balance is human behavior, supply and demand.
Freighter hauling and mining pays low because its low risk, low maintenance and easy to do such that everybody does it. Maybe if the whiners hadnt asked for ganking to be nerfed so many times it would pay more because not every tom, **** and harry could do it whilst afk. And now your asking for further nerfs for ganking? pat yourself on the back...
The rewards for gankers are determined entirely by the haulers stupidity. If you want to hurt ganking rewards, stop painting bullseyes on yourselves. If you want to increase the rewards of mining and hauling, add risk and effort. Ganking is not further-nerfs, it needs finally-nerfs, it received a crapton of buffs recent years. The risk for gankers is NONE. The reward of gankers is ANYTHING they have the numbers for, at ZERO risk. Even the genius hauler cannot evade the gank, just raise the bar of cost a bit, but NEVER to the point even the stupidest of gankers can't shuffle. This is the problem: The risk for haulers is infinite(they can raise the bar a little bit, but even the stupidest ganker can still vault it), the risk for ganker is zero (scan, spreadsheet, go, no risk at all).
A crap ton equals 1000 crap loads in metric, and roughly 91 shit loads 12 bull shits and 1 puppy's unforeseen disaster in imperial.
|
Shai'd Hulud
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 18:34:17 -
[30] - Quote
ISD Ezwal wrote:Shai'd Hulud wrote:CCP should instead encourage and promote noble values. CCP already does.
This activity being very lucrative, CCP encourages indirectly the ganking. And I have as proof : the proliferation of corporations and alliances which behaviors of terrorists (gank) and mafia rules (Extortion) in highsec.
And if you look the killboard of these corporations and alliances, the big majority of vessels that are destroyed are vessels used by new player (Example : Retriever). It is very welcoming for our new players!
And if CCP already does how do you explain the proliferation of this degrading behavior ?
Fly safe!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |