Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 23:35:00 -
[1]
I've been given a bit of time to think about POS warfare, and the cost of getting involved in it (yes we're shooting a pos). It has occured to me that we've had to bring tens of billions of isk worth of ships, to knock into reinforced a POS costing the same as a few battleships.
I think most of us would agree that there are too many of these wretched things in the game, and that the time spent shooting at them needs to be reduced. My suggestion would be to greatly increase the cost of the large POS, increase the medium a bit, and leave the small where it is.
This would make POS spams less financially viable, and reduce the time we spend staring at the damned things, without greatly reducing the availability of industrial POS. It would also mean that the huge POS killing blobs would be less needed, as medium and especially small POS are much easier to assault with no cap support.
Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
|
Merdaneth
Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.02.11 23:54:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Algey
Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
Greatly reduce the cost, and reduce the time needed to destroy one even more.
The few POS that are actively defended against an initial assault are far and few between. Why require a lot of time for the attacker to damage modules or put it into reinforced. The numbers required to make the initial assault are often too big to bring ad-hoc reinforcements to counter the assault.
Reducing the number and type of ships required to attack might actually get a response from the defenders. If not, the true battle only begins once the POS comes out of reinforced anyway.
Oh, any increase in the ability to damage a POS should have a corresponding increase in ability to repair it easily. No point in having both parties spend lots of time damaging and repairing which both parties don't like. ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 00:52:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Algey Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
all the dev's gotta do is reduce HP for all anchorables, tower, station services... enough said, JUST DO IT CCP FOR THE LOVE OF THE BLOB!
|
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 13:43:00 -
[4]
I'd have thought that easier to kill POS would just shorten the time a siege takes (which isn't that long per tower with a lot of dreads). That doesn't (to me) deal with the issue that large towers are not a small gang target, which means you still have to blob up and deploy caps.
If most towers were small and lightly armed a large number of ships would be more sensibly broken into squads to smack 20+ towers, rather than put 200 at a single tower. This would make the defenders defend 20 towers, and so break up their defence.
Meh, I hate pos.
|
ToxicFire
Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 13:52:00 -
[5]
CCP is less likely to do anything that would make it harder for people to get out to and survive in 0.0
basicly this is a whine post where you can't be bothered to put in the effort to take a system from someone who's defending it adequately, Im quite sure roles reversed you'd be wanting pos costs reduced and better abilities to defend them. ------------------------------------------ Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
|
gfldex
Kabelkopp
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 15:01:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Algey
Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
Bad Idea as it would effect quite a lot ppl that never want to claim sovereignty. It would be a lot easier transition to move the claim from towers to a special module. Make it expensive (Billions) and limit it to 3 per system (for anybody). All currently claiming parties would get them for free anchored by dev magic (3 per alliance and system max). The module is unanchorable as soon as the POS got less then 100% shield.
POS spamming would still be an option but with less effect. One would have to remove the claiming modules of the current system holder. If a POS dies you still got the option to setup a new module at another POS (that got spammed) but as the attacker may have his 3 claim modules up already you would have to remove those first to get sov back.
I would even go so far to say that you need a special tower for that module. But that would be a tricky transition and I have no idea how to solve that problem.
--
There are countless games in the world. There are at least as many ppl that dont like one or more rules of said games. That never stopped smart game designers from creating good games.
|
Korizan
Oort Cloud Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 15:48:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Korizan on 13/02/2008 15:50:15
I believe you should be able to control a system long enough so that the owners can't fuel their POS's
Then
I believe you should be able to Hack into a offline POS and take control of it for your corp / alliance.
THis allows an alliance to effectively neutralize POS's without having to destroy them.
I also have a problem that a offline POS has shields, it shouldn't.
I believe reducing the armor / shields to make POS's easier to take out should not happen as Alliances spend huge amounts of time and ISK to maintain them and we shouldn't trivialize that.
|
Princess Jodi
Vendetta Underground Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 16:32:00 -
[8]
Everyone replying is looking at it from the POV of the Attacker. How would you like to see your entire Alliance space wiped out in a weekend? Cuz that's what will happen when you make it easier to kill POS's.
Recent fights in the South have shown that a group of 40ish Dreads can reinforce a Deathstar in a single Siege cycle with no losses. 40 is hardly a Blob. At 10 minutes per POS, even well defended systems can be decimated in a day.
The problem people in this thread are reacting to is the time and ships needed to kill a POS, WHEN NOT USING DREADS. I submit that the POS is not the problem - using non-dreads is the problem.
This is the exact same argument as the whole Carrier-on-grid debate. Many people feel that Carriers should NEVER be on grid, only sitting at a POS and dishing out fighters. When Carrier pilots complain about how easily they can be scrambled/jammed, they are told 'You're Not Using It As Intended.'
I submit that POS attacks by non-Dreads is 'Not Using It As Intended.'
So don't try to Nerf POS's simply because it takes hours and hours to kill them in your Ibis of Doom. Get a Dread.
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 16:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Originally by: Algey Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
all the dev's gotta do is reduce HP for all anchorables, tower, station services... enough said, JUST DO IT CCP FOR THE LOVE OF THE BLOB!
Unfortunately, this won't do anything to stop blob. X ships do it in Y amount of time, 2X ships will still do it in 0.5Y amount of time. ---------------- Tarminic - 32 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.78.3 (NEW VERSION!) |
Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 16:49:00 -
[10]
Great idea, lets make it easier to destroy and harder to build. Guess the "Build your own empire" part of the game description is less important that pew pew....
Doing this would wipe out T2 manufacturing and research in High Sec. It is already easy to take down HighSec POSs with a small BS fleet; way too easy considering the amount of work it takes to grind the faction to be able to anchor it to begin with. If anything it should be harder to kill a POS.
Originally by: Audri Fisher On the other, the emo tears being cryed in this thread tell me that just because you shoot somebody for a living, does not mean you aren't a carebear
|
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 17:39:00 -
[11]
The flaw with Control Towers is that you don't need to defend them as they're going up.
This fact makes tower spamming a first and last resort tactic.
When invading, you don't need to bring in a fleet to secure the systems first provided you deploy in secrecy. You force the defenders to go on the offensive in their home territory just to remove the threat. When you finally do deploy a fleet, you've got a massive advantage because the enemy is not only stuck with capitals out in the open, but the battle is on your terms (timezone) and at a heavily armed tower. Even if you fail to defend it or don't show up, you're trading the ISK cost of one tower to put the enemy into a siege mentality - not to mention whittle down their energy. You can do the same with a fleet of good players, but for many alliances decisive and shattering fleet victories are not a common thing.
If you're defending, you can always resort to spamming long after you've lost control of space and the collective willpower to fight for it. This lets people with hoards of cash to trump teamwork on a massive scale. The same argument was used to nerf supercapitals, and is now being used to increase POS cost + ease of destructibility.
CCP did some good things, though. Towers now start with 50% shields and if it gets shot before it finishes going up you will not be able to sneak in strontium. In the past, anchoring hostile towers that got reinforced by defenders right away, would enter reinforced for almost a week - giving attackers time to organize a defense.
I have always thought the following should happen:
- towers should start with no shields, giving the defending alliance more time to attack the tower without it entering reinforced right after. This also creates a perfect role for carriers in triage as part of first strike forces.
- towers reduced to 10% of their total structure/armor hitpoints as they are anchoring/onlining, allowing even a medium sized fleet to remove it in short order if it is not defended. A larger fleet would be able to destroy it even in a fleet battle at the tower, forcing the deploying alliance to remote repair it and so on (escalation)
- towers being deployed in hostile territory/sovereignty, should take longer to anchor and online (depending on what sovereignty level) than towers being deployed in home or neutral space.
- reduce all tower HP by 25%, and introduce a special POS array for sovereignty that also increases POS hp by 25% but makes industry impossible - making industry POS a weak link and unable to contribute to territorial control. This forces alliances to balance their security with their money-making power for times of peace and times of war
- introduce different siege modules that double the current damage of a dreadnaught, but put the dread in a 20min cycle instead of 10min and consumes twice as much fuel. This allows an aggressor alliance to clear away the remnants of a broken or incapable alliance, by having two or three dread groups working simultaneously - at the expense of security. This also creates better tactical opportunities for the defending alliance to strike back and inflict massive damage, if the aggressors are no longer clustered together.
- increase the requirements for different stages of sovereignty (lvl 2, 3, 4 etc..) to a percent coverage of all moons in that system. Constellation sovereignty should represent a reward for alliances focusing on one specific area and turning it into a fortification, not some reward for alliances who held onto said system for X weeks with a single tower.
- introduce expensive shield extending modules that make it harder to destroy a single tower, at the expense of that tower being vastly more costly to lose. This allows people to fight back with money and gives them an opportunity to reduce the risks of settling in a low moon count system/constellation - without invoking one pointless siege after another.
_______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 17:43:00 -
[12]
Oh, and one more..
- remove the Anchoring 5 pre-requisite to Starbase Defense skill, and introduce a second one called Advanced Starbase Defense with Anchoring 5 and Corp Management 5 as pre-requisites. A manned defense of any decent size should not have trouble finding someone to control the POS guns. For highly armed towers, you can have one or two highly skilled people controlling 10 structures each, or five players with the basic skill doing the same. _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
FuQue
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 17:47:00 -
[13]
POS warfare is BORING. Glad I don't have anything to do with it anymore.
'nuff said.
|
DigitalCommunist
Obsidian Core
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 17:56:00 -
[14]
Originally by: FuQue POS warfare is BORING. Glad I don't have anything to do with it anymore.
'nuff said.
Ahem?.. Don't bring that crap in here.
Running around ganking random and faceless enemies day after day to no effect isn't any less boring. I can also argue that orchestrating a tower siege takes just as much coordination and teamwork as small scale gang warfare.
Its interesting that shooting a structure in space makes it more personal, threatening and damaging than shooting the person directly ever will. Watching your Dread bash the hapless tower is no different than watching your gang tear into a straggler, if you know that reinforcements and death could follow any moment.
If POS warfare is not your cup of tea, fine, but have some tact. _______________________________ http://epicwords.net/ |
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 18:38:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Matrixcvd
Originally by: Algey Anyway what do people think? Is this a workable way of reducing the tedium of POS warfare, or is there something better?
all the dev's gotta do is reduce HP for all anchorables, tower, station services... enough said, JUST DO IT CCP FOR THE LOVE OF THE BLOB!
Unfortunately, this won't do anything to stop blob. X ships do it in Y amount of time, 2X ships will still do it in 0.5Y amount of time.
Flat out wrong. This game is a 23/7 game, with TZ's all over the world. Your simple analysis fails your forum sp. So I don't know if you have experience running siege campaigns, but lets just put it this way. You have a euro TZ build up which spans about 6 hours and a US TZ build up which overlaps with EU (weekend dependant) for about 2 hours and then stretchs for 6 hours itself basically spanning from 18:00-0700 the next day. BUild up, go to destination, everyone locks up de synch lag death, few fights everyone ****ed etc etc etc.
Now looking objectively at what i have been proposing, waiting for 2x ships to show up takes 2x time to accomplish, and then the enemy can mass that force. This is a game but unfortunately, as most leaders know, its an incredible time sink, and the fact that amazing amounts of coordination are necessary, i have total respect for alliances leaders trying to get stuff accomplished.
If a POS/Anchorables/Station services could be incapacitated (notice how i didnt say destroyed) by smaller gangs, people would forgo the build up to get 2x ships and look at the time frames because they are shooting stuff and not waiting endlessly in POS's. Quick strikes would be commonplace. Now the destruction of a recently reinforced tower can be set up for a slightly bigger force, by altering HP to armor and struct, instead of shields.
Nobody likes to sit around waiting for people to log in. If they had the opertunity to go out and do something they would. You clearly have not factored in the desire to FLY internet spaceships, as opposed to sitting in a POS.
Problems with the current game mechanic are a consequence of too high HP to allow smaller sized gangs go in and incapacitate/reinforce POS/Anchorables/Station Services
1. When the necessary pilots are amassed to do this, generally it takes an incredible amount of time to organize and get people where they need to go (wasting time waiting for alliances m8s suck) to take out a POS in a timely manner
2. The game does not hold up at all to the amount of people necessary to take out towers in a timely manner. All of this gives an advantage to the defenders as they can deploy carriers, deploy fighters completely lag the grid up even more, and as we all know the Tower has no lag. If there was not the attrocious lag, and fleet fights were fought where people didn't have to deal with the garbage gameplay, people wouldnt care about sitting in a POS for 4 hours waiting for the build up. But when you sit around and waste your night away, get ready for a fight, and then lock up, get killed by rats, can't log back in whats your m8s die. Lag wouldn't add defenders as they can already hide in the shields. Something has got to change.
As for the person with 40 dreads, without support? Unless you have completely blobbed the enemy's support routes, or are fighting out of timezone, 40 dreads without support equals 40 wrecks.
Don't enter this conversation saying, "YOU DONT HAVE TO DO THIS SO STOP WHINING" this is what has been promoted by CCP. The station service POS changes concept were suppose to be for small gang/fleet warfare, someone in the dev department got scared and upped the HP and turned the whole thing into a bloody nightmare. Its time the players tell the dev's that this is a game and shouldnt be made to require hours upon hours of time a night. If the POS/anchorables/Station services can be brought down in less time they can be REPPED IN LESS TIME!!!
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 18:42:00 -
[16]
As someone above here said.
You should be able to anchor a tower and tick a box 'Hostile Intentions', only available if you have NO sov in the system. For the duration that this tower was online with the box ticked, no other alliances' towers in the system can be fueled.
|
Auron Shadowbane
Pelennor Swarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 20:01:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Sokratesz As someone above here said.
You should be able to anchor a tower and tick a box 'Hostile Intentions', only available if you have NO sov in the system. For the duration that this tower was online with the box ticked, no other alliances' towers in the system can be fueled.
that **** would even be a good idea if that ticker would increase stront usage so that max-reinforced-time is around 4-6 hours...
|
slothe
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 20:03:00 -
[18]
erm...dare i say welcome to 2 years ago?
|
Lowanaera
Amarr Celestial Janissaries Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 20:18:00 -
[19]
As long as production is so intimately tied with POSs, screwing with them is a Bad Idea. Unless you really enjoy the idea of paying 2-3x as much for your T2 ships/modules as you do now.
|
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar Fnck the blob.
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 20:53:00 -
[20]
Originally by: ToxicFire CCP is less likely to do anything that would make it harder for people to get out to and survive in 0.0
basicly this is a whine post where you can't be bothered to put in the effort to take a system from someone who's defending it adequately, Im quite sure roles reversed you'd be wanting pos costs reduced and better abilities to defend them.
Yes. Pos's are simply a deterent to taking someones space. Have you ever tried to take a system with 40+ moons? Or a system with under 20 that are all covered?
Have you ever faced a faction cyno jammer tower in a ****ty battleship? Do you realise how long it will take to knock it out if there is even 1 pos gunner? Do you realise how many people it will take and how many "man hours" it takes (CCP loves to count their hard work in total years, how many years does it take to take a system ffs)
POS's in their current state are what keeps ****ty alliances in their space.
POS's cause blobs. POS's dont even need to be manned to keep a 20 man fleet at bay.
Remember guys, cyno jammers and station services are objectives so that small gangs can achieve something, you dont need a huge blob to take them out.
CCP care only for empire as that is where the majority lives.
|
|
umop 3pisdn
Minmatar Fnck the blob.
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 20:58:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lowanaera As long as production is so intimately tied with POSs, screwing with them is a Bad Idea. Unless you really enjoy the idea of paying 2-3x as much for your T2 ships/modules as you do now.
I get my t2 stuff from a friend, i'm not sure if the general public realise (i didnt) but items like damage control IIs can be invented/manufactured for 250k a unit currently...
I'm not too worried.
|
ToxicFire
Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 21:18:00 -
[22]
Originally by: umop 3pisdn
Originally by: Lowanaera As long as production is so intimately tied with POSs, screwing with them is a Bad Idea. Unless you really enjoy the idea of paying 2-3x as much for your T2 ships/modules as you do now.
I get my t2 stuff from a friend, i'm not sure if the general public realise (i didnt) but items like damage control IIs can be invented/manufactured for 250k a unit currently...
I'm not too worried.
He was pointing out if supplies aren't secure people won't bother with them, plus alot of invention processing takes place at poses simply because the facilities aren't available anymore at stations due to demand. ------------------------------------------ Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
|
ToxicFire
Phoenix Knights Dark Nebula Galactic Empire
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 21:21:00 -
[23]
Edited by: ToxicFire on 13/02/2008 21:25:22
Originally by: umop 3pisdn
Originally by: ToxicFire CCP is less likely to do anything that would make it harder for people to get out to and survive in 0.0
basicly this is a whine post where you can't be bothered to put in the effort to take a system from someone who's defending it adequately, Im quite sure roles reversed you'd be wanting pos costs reduced and better abilities to defend them.
Yes. Pos's are simply a deterent to taking someones space. Have you ever tried to take a system with 40+ moons? Or a system with under 20 that are all covered?
Have you ever faced a faction cyno jammer tower in a ****ty battleship? Do you realise how long it will take to knock it out if there is even 1 pos gunner? Do you realise how many people it will take and how many "man hours" it takes (CCP loves to count their hard work in total years, how many years does it take to take a system ffs)
POS's in their current state are what keeps ****ty alliances in their space.
POS's cause blobs. POS's dont even need to be manned to keep a 20 man fleet at bay.
Remember guys, cyno jammers and station services are objectives so that small gangs can achieve something, you dont need a huge blob to take them out.
CCP care only for empire as that is where the majority lives.
Why should it require a small fleet to knock out, if your having trouble taking something out with a small group take a larger group, make allies find an alternate route. Its like the allies at the height of world war two saying to germany would you mind reducing your border strength in a few places to make it easier to attack.
And yes I do realise how hard it is to take a large system thats heavily defended, if you were smart you'd cut the supply lines make it hard for them to maintain the poses before directly assaulting them, any blunt brute force attack is always going to be the hardest, eve rewards those that think laterally. ------------------------------------------ Sig removed as it lacks EVE-related content. Mail [email protected] if you have questions. -Hango
|
Hohne
Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 21:46:00 -
[24]
It's not supposed to be easy ?
If you want easy stay in empire.
If you upped the price, you'd probably end up with ships that cost many billions more, because most of the POS in this game aren't used to hold sov, they're used for research and moon mining.
The sov system is borked, but it's not supposed to be easy. You can't just roll over someone's space because they step out for a weekend once. You have to work for it and keep the pressure up. I've yet to fight a battle where POS's actually decided the outcome, but I've been in plenty where people's inability to defend them or attack them has. The number hasn't made a difference. You deliver the crushing blow they will let them run out of fuel or take them down themselves.
|
Merdaneth
Amarr PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 21:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Hohne It's not supposed to be easy ?
If you want easy stay in empire.
This is not about easy. This is about boring. Amassing large fleets takes a lot of 'boring' time. Shooting at non-defended POSses takes up another lot of 'boring' time.
The fact that POS determine sovereignity is just about the only reason why people do it, while on the other hand, people are perfectly willing to engage in fleet fights just for the fun factor.
Largest problem with POS warfare is the fact that its a huge timesink and that it promotes blobbing (and its nasty little brother called lag). POS Warfare is currently simply a means to an end, but not an end in itself, like fleet warfare is. It's simply badly designed game element, and we are trying to find acceptable compromises for it. There are plenty of options that do not involve shooting for a hours at a computer controlled object, or waiting for hours until your fleet of 40 Dreads has gathered. ____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Algey
The Littlest Hobos Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:22:00 -
[26]
Originally by: ToxicFire CCP is less likely to do anything that would make it harder for people to get out to and survive in 0.0
basicly this is a whine post where you can't be bothered to put in the effort to take a system from someone who's defending it adequately, Im quite sure roles reversed you'd be wanting pos costs reduced and better abilities to defend them.
No, I've been doing pos warfare for a long time, I just don't happen to find it enjoyable. It causes blobbage, and blobbage == lag and not a lot of fun. I don't enjoy blob warfare, nor mindless trolls with nothing useful to add to a discussion.
Surviving in 0.0 should be acheived another way than node killing blobs.
|
FuQue
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:27:00 -
[27]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: FuQue POS warfare is BORING. Glad I don't have anything to do with it anymore.
'nuff said.
Ahem?.. Don't bring that crap in here.
Running around ganking random and faceless enemies day after day to no effect isn't any less boring. I can also argue that orchestrating a tower siege takes just as much coordination and teamwork as small scale gang warfare.
Its interesting that shooting a structure in space makes it more personal, threatening and damaging than shooting the person directly ever will. Watching your Dread bash the hapless tower is no different than watching your gang tear into a straggler, if you know that reinforcements and death could follow any moment.
If POS warfare is not your cup of tea, fine, but have some tact.
Wtf dude? I just said I didn't like POS warfare, and you sh!t on me? How is that crap? Are you high? And comparing small gang warfware with POS bashing saying that both are enjoyable is absolutely rediculous. It's popular opinion that POS warfare is boring, and that small gang warfare is exciting. Actually, take the inverse of what you just said, and read it back to me, and I will agree with you.
|
Queen Killerz
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:29:00 -
[28]
Maybe after you get done crying about how unfair things really are. CCP can remove the NYX or take the nerfbat too them.
Think about the person who spent millions of isk to make about 25 million a week from these over price towers. Then again explaining the real need for POS might be over your head!
|
Roxs Desire
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:30:00 -
[29]
Since eve tends to reflect a lot of Rl aspects how about they dumps posses altogether, they suck, lagg warfare sucks, imagine a WW2 battle senario, no big indestractable giant force feilds, just blood and guts holding the place, POS's suck, imo, find a better way
|
Queen Killerz
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:32:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Roxs Desire Since eve tends to reflect a lot of Rl aspects how about they dumps posses altogether, they suck, lagg warfare sucks, imagine a WW2 battle senario, no big indestractable giant force feilds, just blood and guts holding the place, POS's suck, imo, find a better way
Can I have your stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |