Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Altai Saker
Omniscient Order
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 10:30:00 -
[61]
120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate... http://www.omniscient-order.com/
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 10:31:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Smagd on 19/01/2007 10:29:49 Love the basic idea. Weirda uses her brain to pwnzor generic tracking/range/signature copycat ideas. Here's to hoping our beloved Devs can do something with it.
Also love making Cap Flux Coils useful.
Cap batteries are dead anyway, haven't seen them used by anyone except people who can't figure why 15% bonus to recharge rate with easier fittings is preferrable to 15% bonus to volume. No idea how to improve them really. Shield extenders work for passive tanks, but since there's no cap charge reduction weapon I dunno what to do.
Neut drones will be more useful, too.
Edit: Actually, I think Weirda stole the ideas from mining lasers, but I just can't imagine her sitting in a belt, mining, puzzling about NOS.
ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN? |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 10:37:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Frools nice, only problem i can see is with neuts on a curse/pilgrim as it is the bonus means they kill an awful lot of cap and dont use that much in comparison with a 'nos rof' bonus they'd be killing the same ratio of cap on you and your target, making them far less useful
Yes, that would be my problem as well. Because of this I would actually prefer the curse/pilgrim bonus stay as they are - a neut is killing that last bit amount of cap just fine, or sucking frigs dry with 1 activation.
Although I wouldn't mind the pilgrim getting the range bonus instead of the strength bonus. It would make it actually more in line with the other force recons, too - those loose a dps bonus and keep their range bonus. The pilgrim keeps it's "dps" bonus (which increased nos power effeciently is since it kills the enemy tank faster) but looses its range bonus.
|
Arte
Warspite Developments
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 10:59:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kldraina but dislike the fact that it makes cap batteries less useful.
What if they used Wierda's idea in conjunction with the idea to make cap battery Capacitor values "protected capacitor" untouchable by nos
With that, there would be the development of setups that are "nos-resistant" (not immune) that use cap batteries to run their systems, even though they run into the likes of nos/nano-domi and nos/nano-phoon setups.
The only issue arising from that would be that Minmatar and Caldari ships would benefit to a greater extent as they can already do a great deal without cap, and amarr particularly but also gallente wouldn't benefit as much (but wouldn't lose out).
|
thesulei
Syndicate Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 11:45:00 -
[65]
I'd like to throw in another suggestion for a nos change:
Nerf range.
|
Nicholai Pestot
Gallente Havoc Inc
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 12:32:00 -
[66]
Weirda,you are sooo beautiful to meeeee, cant you seeeeee.
I like this suggestion.
|
Sirial Soulfly
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 12:48:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Arte
Originally by: Kldraina but dislike the fact that it makes cap batteries less useful.
What if they used Wierda's idea in conjunction with the idea to make cap battery Capacitor values "protected capacitor" untouchable by nos
With that, there would be the development of setups that are "nos-resistant" (not immune) that use cap batteries to run their systems, even though they run into the likes of nos/nano-domi and nos/nano-phoon setups.
The only issue arising from that would be that Minmatar and Caldari ships would benefit to a greater extent as they can already do a great deal without cap, and amarr particularly but also gallente wouldn't benefit as much (but wouldn't lose out).
This imo would be a usefull addition to Weirda's Idea, make cap batteries be untouched by nos.
|
DoomTaR
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 13:26:00 -
[68]
All in all Weirda, great post. Also, in regards to the cap battery vs nos idea...could work but the fitting req's on them are still kind of silly
|
Lord Violent
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 13:53:00 -
[69]
Guns are designed so that the biger they are the harder it is to criple smaller ships why nos are allowed to remain so different is a crime. Place almost any ship < bs up against a BS with nos and its game over.
One thing that i do think should change post haste is the range. Nos range should not exceed scramble range so heavy nos need to come back down to 20km with faction and officer scaled back to reflect this.
|
Emsigma
Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:06:00 -
[70]
This is, as usual from Weirda, a really thought out idea.
The fact that NB agrees makes me agree even more! ---
|
|
Kunming
Outcasts
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:14:00 -
[71]
I dont like Wierda's ideas at all. The problematic is not presented, the solutions are random ideas not aimed to solve the real problem.
NOS: - EVE should start considering NOS as a weapon instead of a utility module, it does dmg your capacitor. - Has 3 different sizes and even the largest one has no drawback vs smaller targets, it is a weapon which means it should have to worry about tracking and signature radius. - Eliminates cap on the target and creates cap on ur capacitor (aka the "dual benefit"), unlike neutz where you have to use cap to eliminate it, NOS is a WIN-WIN module everytime. - NOS, Neutz have no counter, just like missiles/drones, no wonder we see them in all the overpowered setups.
Suggestions: - Add tracking and signature radius to NOS, with heavy NOS having just the same effect as a small one on a frig. - Change the NOS not to suck cap but to reduce cap recharge on target ship by % and increase recharge on yours, this will make cap boosters the effective way of countering NOS, Neutz will still eliminate cap in exchange of your own cap.
Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
|
NeoFusion
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:25:00 -
[72]
Edited by: NeoFusion on 19/01/2007 14:27:21 Why not simply make NOS gradually take cap from the target over the cycle time? That way another ship has a small chance to escape but it still poses a problem if they hang around the target.
Example: Heavy Nosferatu I = 12 second activation, 100 cap = 8.4 cap drain per second.
This way a NOS'd ship will have a chance to escape, but they'll still get punished if they stay and continue to attack the NOS'er. They won't just completely have their whole capacitor removed immediately and be left sit there like a dead fish in the water.
This way the NOS'er still gets the same amount of cap in total, and the NOS'd still gets some sort of a chance to run away.
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:33:00 -
[73]
Erm.
Originally by: Kunming
NOS: - EVE should start considering NOS as a weapon instead of a utility module, it does dmg your capacitor.
Agreed. It's a weapon.
Quote:
- Has 3 different sizes and even the largest one has no drawback vs smaller targets, it is a weapon which means it should have to worry about tracking and signature radius.
File this under Suggestions, please. I disagree strongly. Smartbombs and scramblers and webifiers have the same "problem". Weapons, just because they're weapons, don't really need to regard signature and tracking. Talk about random ideas.
Quote:
- Eliminates cap on the target and creates cap on ur capacitor (aka the "dual benefit"), unlike neutz where you have to use cap to eliminate it, NOS is a WIN-WIN module everytime.
Agreed. That *is* the problem. Weirda is certainly aware of that.
Quote:
- NOS, Neutz have no counter, just like missiles/drones, no wonder we see them in all the overpowered setups.
Actually, you named the best NOS and possibly Neut counters under Suggestions: Cap Boosters. How you got the idea that drones and missiles have no counter escapes my attention. Shoot down drones with smartbombs, for instance, which can also work against missiles. I *may* agree that missiles are *harder* to counter than guns. Why we see NOS in many powerful (but not overpowered! I can show you a killmail of a Blasterthron vs. 2 NOS Dominixes in the same minute) is more because of the WIN/WIN in the previous point.
Quote:
Suggestions: - Add tracking and signature radius to NOS, with heavy NOS having just the same effect as a small one on a frig.
I disagree. Everybody says that, and it sounds boring.
Quote:
- Change the NOS not to suck cap but to reduce cap recharge on target ship by % and increase recharge on yours, this will make cap boosters the effective way of countering NOS, Neutz will still eliminate cap in exchange of your own cap.
All right, so how does THAT change the WIN/WIN problem? It actually makes it worse: Once the enemy is out of CAP, its CAP WILL stay dead (given maybe a single Neut) and yours will still get a recharge bonus?
Come on, you can do a little better than that if even I can, and Weirda certain bests the both of us.
ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN? |
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:46:00 -
[74]
Originally by: NeoFusion
Why not simply make NOS gradually take cap from the target over the cycle time? That way another ship has a small chance to escape but it still poses a problem if they hang around the target.
Example: Heavy Nosferatu I = 12 second activation, 100 cap = 8.4 cap drain per second.
This way a NOS'd ship will have a chance to escape, but they'll still get punished if they stay and continue to attack the NOS'er. They won't just completely have their whole capacitor removed immediately and be left sit there like a dead fish in the water.
This way the NOS'er still gets the same amount of cap in total, and the NOS'd still gets some sort of a chance to run away.
I see a problem with adding server load, really, but apart from that it could work only -
well wouldn't the small ship have a chance of escape with Weirdas idea, too? (To get a little back on topic maybe).
ATTACK, and crash: You lose. RUN, and crash: Why WIN? |
Kunming
Outcasts
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:49:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Smagd
All right, so how does THAT change the WIN/WIN problem? It actually makes it worse: Once the enemy is out of CAP, its CAP WILL stay dead (given maybe a single Neut) and yours will still get a recharge bonus?
Come on, you can do a little better than that if even I can, and Weirda certain bests the both of us.
This way NOS wont gain chunks of extra cap and the target ship wont lose cap unless it uses it, so NOS still helps you gain cap and the target is still negatively effected, but if the target ship has a cap booster or a high cap recharge rate he'll just laugh at the nos-boat. Neutz are different since they eat up ur own cap in the first place.
Missiles dont use cap or mind ur transversal, drones dont use cap, mind your transversal or use any HI slots, PG, CPU.. Drones have a counter of being destroyed, missiles have a counter of going ultra-fast. Mix NOS, missiles/drones, and high transversal (speed) and you can build an overpowered setup. I say "overpowered" because the components themself can ignore certain game mechanics like transversal, speed, and cap consumption.
If NOS gets a counter module, it will be fit on every ship cause NOS is being fit on every ship and soon we will be there where we were with ECM a month ago!
Quote: READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
|
Borasao
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 14:56:00 -
[76]
To all the Interceptor pilots that talk about tracking and range of the different NOS modules, as an above poster has said, webbers and warp disruptor/scramblers are the exact same things... weapons that have no tracking and no target signature considerations.
So, let's also propose changes to them all, and make them similar to the NOS ideas.
a) I'm not sure why warp disruptors/scramblers and webbers aren't considered a high-slot module with high-slot fitting requirements.
Small Warp Disruptor, range 5km, 1 point of warp disruption, tracking/signature, fittings, and energy usage considerations similar frigate ship fittings. (maybe tracking/signature and cap use of all these are in line with the appropriate sized Ion blaster while the fitting requirements are in line with shield extenders of the appropriate sizes).
Medium Warp Disruptor, range 10km, 1.5 points of warp disruption (note, this means that a ship with one WCS can't escape but one with two can). tracking/signature, fittings, and cap use similar to cruiser ship fittings.
Large Warp Disruptor, range 20km, 2 points of warp disruption, tracking signature, fittings, and cap use similar to large ship fittings.
Then, the scramblers can all be some multiple of effectiveness of their sized counterparts (maybe 1.5x or 2x or something)
Webbers should follow the same logic.
Small webber, frigate module fittings/stats, range 5k, small cap use. Medium webber, cruiser module fittings/stats, range 10k, medium cap use. Large webber, large ship module fittings/stats, range 20k, large cap use.
That way, it'll all be equal and small ships wouldn't be able to pin large ships down from far like that. Having an interceptor be able to neutralize a battleship's escape options at 20k range is just silly. Just think of the sizes of the engines on a battleship and those on a frigate and it costs the same energy from the same range to screw them up? Heck, the ships attributes state how large the engines are (even though they're kind of messed up even... but the afterburners and mwd show some difference... 100x difference between the frigate and the battleship).
Seen from the other side, Interceptor pilots just want to have their cake and eat it too. No danger from NOS but they still want to be able to tackle at the same range and at the same (absolute) costs of what even a battleship does. It just doesn't make sense.
|
Zeno Kang
Amarr Royal Knights of Khanid Order of the Khanid Crown
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 15:07:00 -
[77]
Weirda have good idea.
If Dev agree with Weirda, then Zeno see use for these.
-- Move every sig for great justice. |
Raste
Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 15:08:00 -
[78]
Good idea, Weirda.
===This is a sig=== "no matter where you are or what you're doing, you know that down in the southeast, LV and RA are trying to stab each other in the face." -- Cadiz ==============
|
Kovacs Caprios
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 15:08:00 -
[79]
I like the ideas... seem well thought out.
Anything to rebalance the game...
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 17:14:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Tsanse Kinske on 19/01/2007 17:13:17
Originally by: Weirda
@"THIS IS TOO MUCH - BS WILL SUCK" no it not, you keep thinking of something sitting at just under 100 cap forever (inty), while neglecting to realize that the reactivation that hit inty w/110 cap will knock it down to 10.
As Ernest Graefenberg pointed out, what about tacklers setting up so that they don't go above the heavy NOS threshold if they don't want to? For instance with the Stilletto, I can see a combination of Cap Flux Coils and weenie booster charges keeping them right below 100 with two Disruptors running without too much trouble, and there are probably better combinations. Though the nice thing about the injector is that it makes a Heavy Neut largely a pointless act of self-destruction too.
I still like the idea *a lot*, especially in terms of making cap warfare more interesting, and in a way I even like the idea of this reverse cap management coming into play, but it is a little odd. For instance, the MWD cap penalty actually becomes a positive. And Cap Xfer Arrays might become an offensive weapon. Anyway Weirda, I wondered what thoughts you had on how tackler setups would take advantage of this and whether it would throw things out of whack. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
|
Dwindlehop
F13
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 17:58:00 -
[81]
I'd like to see a the introduction of a module or tactic that makes nosferatus easier to defend against. Right now there's no effective counter to nosferatus except more nosferatus.
|
Keijo
Hobbit Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:12:00 -
[82]
I guess the OP's idea would be better than now. Still, better to just nerf nos into oblivion and forget it ever existed. Eve should be a game of pew-pew, not suck-suck.
|
Rooker
The Aussie Connection Corp
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:33:00 -
[83]
* hears the sound of a 1,000 Pilgrim/Curse/Domi pilots crying out in horror.
I'd rather see NOS take a percentage of cap, not a fixed number. Better named == higher percentage. Small == short range, Medium ==..... you get the idea. --- Space For Rent |
Death Merchant
InterGalactic Corp. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:37:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Death Merchant on 19/01/2007 18:34:48 Ok just thought of this(please think about it before responding).
Nos works as is, however if target only has lets say(using hypothetical #'s)20 cap and nos dries for 120, the NOS actually works in reverse against you sucking away 100 of your cap. The only reason I dont want NOS to work according to Wierdas model is that it seems to overpower frigs more than underpower NOS. Make the curse and pilgrim immune to this "drawback". Make cap batteries un-nossable. This will: a) Make NOS actually work against you if your sucking on a ship with no capacitor(like an inty). b) Keeps people from permanossing someone since it actually starts to work against you doing so. c) People with Nos dependant tanks have to micro a little more. d) One frig can hold a BS down, however it would need a cap battery and small nos to do so.
This would make: 1) Counter the frig both webbing and scrambling a BS and orbiting at insane speeds untouchably since it cant do that with no cap. 2) Ships would no longer hit the set it and forget it method on nossing each other continuously because it actually works against you to use nos or a target with no cap. 3) Frigs vs BS battle would need multiple modules to kill/hold each other. The BS would need scram,web,drones,nos. Frigs would need cap battery,nos,scrambler/web. 4) Cruisers with battery/cap booster combinations would be able to hold on in fights(even though alot of larger guns could still hit them). 5) If you dont specifically set yourself up to counter NOS then your still vulnerable.
hmm..had more thoughts but cant seem to put them into words at the moment.
|
Weirda
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:37:00 -
[85]
@All those who REALLY DON'T LIKE the idea: balance discussion is subjective, and very touchy. Weirda want to address people that think nothing should be done at all. you are right to you opinion - and Weirda very much respect, and encourage that. maybe a little clarification though (RE-HASH if you will):
maybe you miss the point that Weirda don't think that nos need a huge nerf..? Weirda try to make that clear, but some other miss that as well. as a matter of fact, Weirda's whole argument have NOTHING at all to do with any specific ship (domi/curse/phoon)... or setup(nos/nano)... or encounter(1v1 - 1v100 - 10v10). at all.
what Nos do need is some gameplay change. as they are you just let em all rip and that is it... the only thing you worry about is range. they are boring, they are dumb, require no significant skill (either skillbook or ingame skill) and once they are activated they require no management whatsoever. and for the amount of pain they inflict to opponent (who damned SURE have to start 'managing' thing) - well they are just too much of a no-brainer.
this change is suggested to push them into a place where they ARE being managed. where it does take some thought/in-game skill to completley neutralize you target - and where there are more gameplay element on both side.
weirda think of their 'suck amount' as their activation cost. why should they be able to activate when that 'cost' is not met? no other module can.
it really only make sense. it is NOT a huge change, just something that push them in the direction of how Weirda would LIKE to see them balance/nerf those modules in the future. with change like this, DEV can tweak CAP amounts (ALPHA CAP STRIKE) and Duration (ROF) accordingly to make sure that different class CAN (but not necessarily WILL) be left with a certain amount of CAP to operate on during the deactivation cycle.
all the Sig Radius/Tracking crap, Weirda is sick of applying to every friggin ship/module/state there is... it is boring, and in the case of this module - just plain stupid.
if a better suggestion is not made, and thought out - the Sig Radius/Tracking crap IS probably what we gonna end up with. And that will change nothing with the gameplay value of this module... just light them all up when you are in range and they will do their job... only slower.
WEAK.
oh and to add to the weakness - a 'capacitor hardener' might be added too (trying to stay away from slippery slope here - but that is one of the other prevalent idea on the table, coupled with the sig radius) - so that all of our setup have yet another module that need to be crammed into them.
WEAK x 2.
honestly - NOS are going to change... they NEED to change... the DEV want them to change... Weirda is only trying to present different reasonable direction for them to go off in so that they are not made into "every other module in EVE". this is actually a true change too, where every other presented change really equivalent to NOS doing exact same thing, only slower/less effectively. is that the kind of balance that everyone crave? it certainly not the one that Weirda crave.
give NOS 'play' elements, don't just have them do same, only slower. __ Weirda Nosferatu - Time for Change |
Wompm
Rogue Method Rogue Method Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:41:00 -
[86]
I love this idea!
One mod i thought would be cool to add to game would be a "Dirty Power" mid slot item, when you activate this mod it corrupts the power being syphoned from your ship and damagages the capacitor of the NOS'n ship. Would work well as a Nos equalizer because you never know when your Nos might end up hurting you more than your opponent, and it would have not effect on Nuet's at all.
|
Weirda
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:46:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Altai Saker 120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...
true - and this is very important point. hopefully this will open up way for DEV to tweak them with this new philosophy (the deactivation one). the 'alpha cap strike' can be raised on larger modules (with their ROF slower so same CPS). basically different element to tweak the balance (between the classes) better.
@Earnest and those that agree Weirda have GREAT respect for Earnest and he have very good point in this thread. it have even made Weirda consider some expansion to the KISS philosophy (though it still simple). this mostly to address the idea of frigs setting up their capacitor so that it is 'always under' the nos amount:
Think of the current NOS as Artillery... they have a big alpha and slow ROF (which can be tweaked even more - i.e. bigger alpha on larger ones then now and slower ROF). but that make it easier for Frigs to stay under the cap limit you say... well:
Add another Class of NOS Add the 'autocannon' version... lower 'alpha' but much faster ROF. these would be set up to drain cap at a slower rate (cap over time) but they would be fast firing for small amounts. These would be best to fit for VS small target cap warfare, but much less efficient in knocking out larger ship CAP (it would take longer, and without the large alphas you wouldn't jump them from 50% down to below their peak recharge in one go).
each class (small/medium/large) would retain the same range traits, so BS would still hit to distance they currently do.
With these you would fit to the type of warfare that you expect to be doing.
thank you Earnest for inspiring the new idea! __ Weirda Nosferatu - Time for Change |
Shamis Orzoz
Sniggerdly
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 18:55:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Weirda STOP LIMITING SHIP SETUPS FFS - when you remove absolute dominance of win buttons... you actually place less restriction - this is the best way
QFT
Nothing angers me more than ccp telling me what I can and can't fit to things. If you don't want a mod fitted on a particular ship or setup, make it harder to fit, or more difficult to use, NEVER remove it as an option completely.
|
Crellion
Art of War Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 19:03:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Weirda Edited by: Weirda on 19/01/2007 18:44:02
Originally by: Altai Saker 120 cap is still 0 cap for everything but a frigate...
true - and this is very important point. hopefully this will open up way for DEV to tweak them with this new philosophy (the deactivation one). the 'alpha cap strike' can be raised on larger modules (with their ROF slower so same CPS). basically different element to tweak the balance (between the classes) better.
@Earnest and those that agree with Earnest Weirda have GREAT respect for Earnest (and agree w/him too, as that have always been Weirda biggest fear about nerfing capwarfare - the relative invulnerability status of small fast ship vs bs) and he have very good point in this thread. it have even made Weirda consider some expansion to the KISS philosophy (though it still simple). this mostly to address the idea of frigs setting up their capacitor so that it is 'always under' the nos amount:
Think of the current NOS as Artillery... they have a big alpha and slow ROF (which can be tweaked even more - i.e. bigger alpha on larger ones then now and slower ROF). but that make it easier for Frigs to stay under the cap limit you say... well:
Add another Class of NOS Add the 'autocannon' version... lower 'alpha' but much faster ROF. these would be set up to drain cap at a slower rate (cap over time) but they would be fast firing for small amounts. These would be best to fit for VS small target cap warfare, but much less efficient in knocking out larger ship CAP (it would take longer, and without the large alphas you wouldn't jump them from 50% down to below their peak recharge in one go).
each class (small/medium/large) would retain the same range traits, so BS would still hit to distance they currently do.
With these you would fit to the type of warfare that you expect to be doing.
thank you Earnest for inspiring the new idea!
Will they also have much shorter range but considerable faloff... slippery slope calling Weirda Arguably my opinions represent to an extent the opinions of my alliance and in particular circumstances give rise to a valid "casus belli" claim. |
Weirda
Minmatar Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.01.19 19:07:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Crellion
Originally by: Weirda
each class (small/medium/large) would retain the same range traits, so BS would still hit to distance they currently do.
Will they also have much shorter range but considerable faloff... slippery slope calling Weirda
nope - all ranges would be same as their high alpha couterpart... with no falloff involved anywhere.
<3 you Crell __ Weirda Nosferatu - Time for Change |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |