Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 07:27:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Rid**** Ulust appartently if enough people whine about something to get nerfed, it will be. its rid****ulust that i would need two target painters on a battleship(!) for my torps to do ~100% of the damage. I was hoping that the next update was going to help caldari missile ships with 1v1pvping not nerf it the hell. i guess ill either have to get a ship from a different race or wait til ccp either boosts the missiles or nerfs everyone else's precious guns
Actually there wasn't even much complaining about the old missiles under the old damage formula. Except the torp raven maybe, turret ships out-performed their missile counterparts for each class, you saw people use turrets for pvp and missiles for pve, there was no over-use of missiles for pvp.
With the new missile formula under the new speed formula it just got worse for no real reason. The only explanation i have for this is that the change was made by an incompetent person with no sense of balance but an aversion against missiles (probably a former gallente player who became dev).
|
Mickey Simon
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 08:36:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Mickey Simon on 19/12/2008 08:42:46 I'm fine with most of the changes, however I think Javelin's need to be balanced a bit. They can't hit ****, and for a "precision" missile that's pretty lame. I get better DPS with standard factions than Jav's against same-size and smaller targets. Rage's are much better post patch imo though. edit: that was in reference to HAM's. Heavies, I'm not so sure about, but they too seem to have trouble hitting targets of the same sig radius (e.g. heavy missiles on a cruiser) and speed isn't making much of a difference at all to missile dps that I've seen. Meanwhile, on the other side of town . . . |
Harcole
Amarr Sanguine Unity
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 10:55:00 -
[63]
Caldari pilots are funny, can we get them on a stand up commedy show?
Im not going to quote all the sensible people in here (read: Welcome to EvE/Adapt or Die) but really, being able to sit at maximum flight time range to point blank let me hand deliver you a nasty exploding item and not have to worry about tracking or the fact that no gun will hit as you hump your target. THEN DARE TO WHINE!
Apart from the fact that for the last near on 7 years I've been using those stupid lasers on my Amarr ships instead of blasters . Missiles are still a good choice for PvE (which baring the year of the Ravens) they have always been. They are a lazy mans way of grinding isk.
If you want to talk nerf Im still waiting for them to fix the lasers so they can do more than Em and/or thermal... something any missile user can do. As for the poor Gaylantee and there Blasters I feel really sorry for them MWD nerf and a range of 3.5-10kms on tech 2 battleship guns... jesus I mean come on. I hope that if you really are going to send 1 mail a day to CCP they block it.
BTW I forgot to add the whine that projectiles are over powered alpha damage WTFBBQSAUCEPWNER's...
/rant
/vote Caldari Commedy Show |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 11:57:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba Actually there wasn't even much complaining about the old missiles under the old damage formula. Except the torp raven maybe, turret ships out-performed their missile counterparts for each class, you saw people use turrets for pvp and missiles for pve, there was no over-use of missiles for pvp.
With the new missile formula under the new speed formula it just got worse for no real reason.
Complete drivel. There was plenty of complaining about the old missiles under the old formula - primarily that all missiles (except Precision Lights) were useless against anything travelling >4 km/s. Given the prevalence of nano before QR, this was a crippling problem.
Now the situation is far better - in general missiles are far more useful in PVP than they were, with LMs and HMs having been boosted, and HAMs and torps unchanged in practice. Cruise's problem has always been one of role, and rockets suffer from a lack of midslots on frigates.
|
Elena Morin'staal
Minmatar Tau Online Explorator Corp
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 12:43:00 -
[65]
Its funny, cos ever since the missile "nerf" mine have done more damage than they used to against Cruiser/Battlecruiser.
All I did was swap a Invul 2 for a PWNAGE and it made a huge difference.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 14:34:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Gypsio III
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba Actually there wasn't even much complaining about the old missiles under the old damage formula. Except the torp raven maybe, turret ships out-performed their missile counterparts for each class, you saw people use turrets for pvp and missiles for pve, there was no over-use of missiles for pvp.
With the new missile formula under the new speed formula it just got worse for no real reason.
Complete drivel. There was plenty of complaining about the old missiles under the old formula - primarily that all missiles (except Precision Lights) were useless against anything travelling >4 km/s. Given the prevalence of nano before QR, this was a crippling problem.
Now the situation is far better - in general missiles are far more useful in PVP than they were, with LMs and HMs having been boosted, and HAMs and torps unchanged in practice. Cruise's problem has always been one of role, and rockets suffer from a lack of midslots on frigates.
No stupid, you got the context wrong. I was quoting someone who said there was lots of whining about the missiles and they got nerfed because of that. There was no complaints that they were overpowered, so the nerf does not come from that corner. The complaints that you mentioned were aimed to improve missiles, not nerf them.
If you say the situation now is better, you have no practical expirience with missiles. Only in a few extreme situations they are now better, since they will do a little damage on very fast targets where they'd not do any damage at all before. But in most situations they are worse than before. They deal less damage with maxed skills and targetpainters than with medium skills and without targetpainters before on anything but ludacris speed targets. If you missed that i'd suggest go and play some eve with missiles, Gypsio III.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 15:35:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba No stupid, you got the context wrong. I was quoting someone who said there was lots of whining about the missiles and they got nerfed because of that. There was no complaints that they were overpowered, so the nerf does not come from that corner. The complaints that you mentioned were aimed to improve missiles, not nerf them.
This doesn't make any sense.
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba If you say the situation now is better, you have no practical expirience with missiles. Only in a few extreme situations they are now better, since they will do a little damage on very fast targets where they'd not do any damage at all before. But in most situations they are worse than before. They deal less damage with maxed skills and targetpainters than with medium skills and without targetpainters before on anything but ludacris speed targets. If you missed that i'd suggest go and play some eve with missiles, Gypsio III.
I don't think that many people in Eve can teach me much more about missile mechanics and their application in PVP. Least of all another generic clueless Caldari noob who probably thinks that PVP is when someone starts salvaging their L4 mission.
Of course, if you wish to try to prove me wrong, feel free to describe how "in most situations they are worse than before". I could do with a laugh.
|
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.19 19:00:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Gypsio III Of course, if you wish to try to prove me wrong, feel free to describe how "in most situations they are worse than before". I could do with a laugh.
You must be blind if you ask for proof. Since you failed to see any negative impact in game, go and have a look at the new formula, the new explosion velocity and the new explosion radius of missiles. Maybe this way you'll understand why so many missile users complain ... but no, ofc they are all wrong and Gypsio III is right when he says missiles were improved
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.22 12:32:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Yakia TovilToba
Originally by: Gypsio III Of course, if you wish to try to prove me wrong, feel free to describe how "in most situations they are worse than before". I could do with a laugh.
You must be blind if you ask for proof. Since you failed to see any negative impact in game, go and have a look at the new formula, the new explosion velocity and the new explosion radius of missiles. Maybe this way you'll understand why so many missile users complain ... but no, ofc they are all wrong and Gypsio III is right when he says missiles were improved
Given the time I've spent building a spreadsheet that enables me to see the effectiveness of missiles in plausible game environments, backed up by actual experience, then, yes, I'm saying exactly that.
I called it as a missile boost straight from the start and my in-game experience supports this call perfectly - my missiles are more effective and more useful since QR. Here's a hint - it's not worth looking at the missile stats or the formula until you understand how to interpret those numbers in terms of plausible game environments.
The missiles with problems are rockets, whose frigate targets are more likely to have ABs and whose frigate hosts find it harder to fit webs, and Cruise, which has never been useful in its intended role of long-range anti-BS fire anyway, instead being used as a fleet antisupport weapon. But both these weapons are rather niche in PVP. The others - LMs, HMs, HAMs and torps are either broadly unchanged or more effective. HMs in particular have been significantly boosted.
If you disagree with my assertion that LMs, HMs, HAMs and torps are either broadly unchanged or more effective, then, please, explain further.
|
Mickey Simon
Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 06:14:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Gypsio III HMs, HAMs are either broadly unchanged or more effective, then, please, explain further.
I'm interested in what your forumula's say about DPS versus same sized targets (e.g. cruiser size) and smaller targets. I'm noticing significatly less DPS with all missile types, and T2 precisions aren't working (to the point where T1 factions do more damage against smaller faster targets). Meanwhile, on the other side of town . . . |
|
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 06:55:00 -
[71]
Quote: Given the time I've spent building a spreadsheet that enables me to see the effectiveness of missiles in plausible game environments, backed up by actual experience, then, yes, I'm saying exactly that.
Well, then maybe you should post your data here so the rest of us ignoramuses can see it.
The reality is all missiles now do less dps to the same size targe than they used to. Another reality is: you HAVE to have targets painted minimum now (you didnt used to) and preferably webbed in order to do full damage to the same class target. I don't do spreadsheets, but I DO do in-game tests.
Frig test: (All missile support Skills at 4)
Standard launcher on a Kessie with T1 Sabretooth vs Veangeance with no EM resists, Sabretooth default damage of 124 with my skills.
Target stationary no resists: 115 damage Target MWD'ing no resists(1750ms): 105 damage Target unmodded speed no resists(317ms): 100 damage Target Afterburning no resists(707ms): 61 damage
Standard launcher on a Kessie with Cald Navy Sabretooth vs Veangeance with no EM resists, Sabretooth default damage of 142 with my skills.
Target stationary no resists: 132 damage Target MWD'ingno resists (1750ms): 120 damage Target unmodded speed no resists (317ms): 113 damage Target Afterburning no resists (707ms): 70 damage
In other words you cannot possibly achieve full damage on the proper sized target even if it's sitting perfectly still and has ZERO resists (like that ever happens).
Click an afterburner and BAM -50% damage reduction. Click MWD and massively bloom your sig and oh, look, you still get a noticeable damage reduction.
A missile "buff", you're mental.
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 09:36:00 -
[72]
maybe its time to learn to play and adapt for some people.
I use missiles for quite a long time (HAMs now mostly cause I fly cruiser sized stuff most of the time, what also means web range very often) and my missiles work fine. In fact my missile dmg even increased significantly on shield extended cruiser sized ships, bc and bs cause of the new rage HAMs.
the only missiles that have problems are cruise missiles cause the sucked even before and rockets if you try to kill small drones with it cause small drones have low enough sig and are fast.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 10:55:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Soporo
Quote: Given the time I've spent building a spreadsheet that enables me to see the effectiveness of missiles in plausible game environments, backed up by actual experience, then, yes, I'm saying exactly that.
Well, then maybe you should post your data here so the rest of us ignoramuses can see it.
The reality is all missiles now do less dps to the same size targe than they used to. Another reality is: you HAVE to have targets painted minimum now (you didnt used to) and preferably webbed in order to do full damage to the same class target. I don't do spreadsheets, but I DO do in-game tests.
You're an idiot, Soporo. Your in-game tests are completely stupid. They are not representative of realistic combat and the results you have drawn from them are worthless. Not only that, you have failed to compare the current situation with the situation before QR. You have done almost nothing right - this is critical analysis of the least competent kind.
Vengeance. Travelling at base speed? ABing while unwebbed? What is this nonsense? This is not representative of combat. You have then extrapolated this nonsense Vengeance scenario to all missiles, in some laughable belief that an AB is not a comedy option on anything other than an AF. You have also implicity assumed that people flew Vengeances before QR. All of this is drivel. "EFT" numbers are worthless unless you know how to interpret them. You do not.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 11:12:00 -
[74]
I can't be bothered to explain properly how to judge missile balance now, since it would properly be completely futile. But here's some pointers.
Identify combat situations that occur pre- and post-QR, then look at missile performance in them. EG, a 4.5 km/s MWDing HAC/Recon pre-QR was immune to HMs, now it is not.
Assume that all close-range missiles hit a webbed target, and that ABs are only used on frigates.
Do not get overly concerned by the loss of a few % of damage against a ship that has minimal EHP, or significant resist holes (i.e., frigates) - this will translate into only a few more seconds of survival and is not particularly meaningful.
Compare performance in situations, and the likelihood of those situations occurring, pre- and post-QR. One without the other is worthless.
Compare the ease of getting to optimal of AC- and blasterboats, and their tracking once they get there. Consider changes to tanks with greater abundance of EM/thermal damage from lasers (favours EANMs, not trihardeners, so hello T1 explosive hole).
|
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 17:36:00 -
[75]
Quote: They are not representative of realistic combat and the results you have drawn from them are worthless.
Oh rly? So a light missile hitting a resist hole on an unwebbed frigate moving at various speeds never actually happens does it, and usefull data can't be extracted from such tests?
Do tell, do explain your methodology in closer detail please. Oh and where's your spreadsheet, eh? At least I provided some numbers (easily verfifiable) from actual testing, unlike you.
At the bare bones minimum it can be truthfully said that Precisions (all kinds) are generally worthless now due to the pervasive precision overnerf, particularly coupled with their anemic range, not even to mention the other penalties.
Also that shield tanking has taken a hit due to Painter mandatory use (outside of web range) and web mandatory use inside of it. We didnt have to fit one, now we do.
Not to mention that the common shield buffer tank that is most efficient contributes a bigger penatly to us than before as sig radius is now far more important. It didnt used to hurt us, now it does.
All obvious and self evident at a glance. Except to you.
|
Harcole
Amarr Sanguine Unity
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 20:39:00 -
[76]
Side stepping Sporro's data, but now take that into account Vs. guns, any type. Missiles Vs. Missiles (ie Pre-QR and now) are obviously going to through up different results, the reason? They got changed.
Now take the same missile tests and run them 10-20 times and take the same resist hole and do the same with small guns. What we want to see is some balance in that the avarage damage for missiles and guns over the same number of shots (not time) do a similar amount of damage.
Now against a stationary target you'd expect to see more damage from guns due to no tracking, but then as soon as the target gets moving, I imagine that you'd fine missiles quickly catch up due to no tracking issues. If anyone is going to test this I'd recommend doing it based on a ship orbitng at 5km's with the shooting ship sitting still. Use the same target ship (ie Vengeance.) and use lasers (supposed to be the best guns now). To better simulate this fire X amount EM and X amount thermal based on crystals being used so that its still a relatively fair test.
|
BruisedMoon
Amarr Power Seed Enterprises A.X.I.S
|
Posted - 2008.12.23 20:42:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Kate Roger I wish they would stop nerfing stuff, Oh i hear you say "it makes the game more rounded and even" sorry i have to reply what a lot of crap that is. EVERYONE can fly ANY ship and use ANY weapon so what exactly is the problem, but my biggest gripe is i just spent the last 6 months training most if not all my missle skills to lvl 5 thats my time and my money that I spent on game time. if they want the game fair and rounded remove all the slots, fit all the ships the same, and remove the other 3 races. problem solved.
/rant
Or instead everyone could have trained for nano vagas and your lvl 5 missiles would have been completely useless anyway.
What most missile pilots dont relise is that every single missle you launch if its in range hits.. the large teh missile the less damage it does to smaller targets... even less if they are moving.
See with turrets its diffrent, we either hit or miss, and often agsent smaller targets we miss.
The OP first off you shouldnt have engaded a moa, any smart missile pilot would have known that would have taken all day!
L2P stop complaining about stuff you dont know!
Come sit back in a turret seat, managing cap, ammo, and range.. and see if you dont run back to your missiles.
You do less damage because your stuff is easy to use!
|
Commander Yassir
The Seven Sins
|
Posted - 2008.12.24 00:05:00 -
[78]
*whine whine whine*
Really all that needs be said is adapt or die. Now this doesn't mean you have to train for a new weapons system or come whine on the forums about perhaps you could fit a webber, webber drones, a target painter, painter drones. ~ The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on. |
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.12.24 11:57:00 -
[79]
i know a solution
raven add TP-900 drones and go for torpedoes, tech 2 torpedoes if you like
full passive buffer setup, 3 LSE II, 3 invulnerabilities, 3 BCS II, 2 PDS II, 3 core defence field extender rigs.
or active setup with torpedoes
XL shield booster, 3 invulnerabilities II, CAP booster II, Target Painter II, 2 BCS II, 3 PDS III, core capacitor safeguard rigs.
5 EC-600
whatever you do torpedoes are good and so are TP-900
if you want extra power use double target painters and two invulnerabilities.
|
The Smeegle
|
Posted - 2008.12.24 15:41:00 -
[80]
Since no one has asked yet, can I have your stuff?
|
|
iudex
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 11:49:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Gypsio III I called it as a missile boost straight from the start and my in-game experience supports this call perfectly - my missiles are more effective and more useful since QR.
If you are using your missiles only in pvp and mostly against speedtanked ships, you might be right. But missiles are most often used in pve, for missions. At any give time there are several hundreds (if not thousands) of people doing missions with missiles, in my old mission hub, Irjunen, there are usually 80-150 people doing level 4 missions and maybe another hundred in the neighbour system, and that's only 1 hub of many.
For missionrunners the situation got worse. They now have to use extra medslot modules (and therefore sacrifice their tank) and rigs to get the same results which they had before. How can you call this a boost ? It's not the skills. I have all missile skills at 5, on my 0.0 clone 2 x 3% precision implants. When i did the mission "Police Invasion" before the missile "boost", my FoF firing CNR got around 60-70 km from the warpin-can when the mission was done. Now it's 90-110km, same rats, same missiles, same skills and implants - it takes clearly more time. Cruisers are harder to kill, but things got really worse against smaller ships, like those elite frigate tacklers. Where they died with few volleys at maximum before, it now takes over 10 volleys. As 0.0 missionrunner in hostile space i can't use drones, and targetpainters didn't improve that to a level where it's worth to sacrifice a medslot. If you paint a rat with a sig of 30m, and it then has 40m, this won't make you kill it as fast as before the the missile "boost".
So as someone who uses missiles for pve, i really wonder what are you talking about. _________________________________________ Faction Standings: Serpentis +7.81 // Angel Cartel +7.60 // Minmatar Republic -8.68 // Gallente Federation -9.88
|
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 18:20:00 -
[82]
Quote: I called it as a missile boost straight from the start and my in-game experience supports this call perfectly - my missiles are more effective and more useful since QR.
Only you could call the current Cruise missile incarnation something other than massive fail, for instance. Calling them "more effective" is a flat out lie.
They now have similar expl veloc/radius to a pre-qr torp and REQUIRE a painter and web to achieve somehting close to max potential damage, yet their potential range far outstrips any painter or certainly web. So, a useless weapon in pvp for many reasons. Which is why you don't see any in pvp.
If missiles were so good now then everyone would be using them in PvP over turrets and they'd be far more common in 0.0. It's not the case. It hasnt beeen for years. Any pvp'er will tell you that turrets are superior in almost all respects. Any glance at an overview in an Op will show that. Any examination of KB's will show the massive preference for turrets over guns. But wait, 50,000 pvp'ers must be wrong because Gypsio says so.
|
Harrent
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 18:44:00 -
[83]
This thread is STILL ALIVE?
We are already past the fact that, it happened, regardless of what you think / desire / want.
Missiles actually take strategy to use now and i can no longer OMGWTFPWN any frigate in my T-CNR.
The nerf was a balance. Get over it. =----------=
Semper Fi |
Soporo
Caldari The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 20:21:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Harrent This thread is STILL ALIVE?
We are already past the fact that, it happened, regardless of what you think / desire / want.
Missiles actually take strategy to use now and i can no longer OMGWTFPWN any frigate in my T-CNR.
The nerf was a balance. Get over it.
Who cares about hitting frigs or even cruisers with Cruise missiles? I don't. It's about a marginal pvp weapon (missiles) becoming even more marginalized due to the changes. Plus the necessity of losing more tank to fit painters at which point you still won't do the maximum missile potential versus the proper sized target.
Quote: Missiles actually take strategy to use
Lol, strategy = fit a painter and a web + mwd and an anemic tank. Or don't go anywhere or shoot anything that isnt already tackled, even the same size proper target, even if your missiles have vastly more range than a web or even painter.
|
Crackpipe2000
|
Posted - 2008.12.26 00:53:00 -
[85]
so you got used to solo without supportive modules, like webs and paints. that only shows that this balancing was necessary. get used to it, though it must be so, so unfair. |
Lea Re
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.12.26 03:30:00 -
[86]
caldari specced here drakes are ghey but they're cheap, easy to replace and are absolutely brilliant... if it takes you almost 250 missiles to kill a moa, he's either had insane fit, your skills are crap or your fitting is crap
as someone mentioned, being caldari you can rely on your target to underestimate you thanks to such posts and lots of really bad fitted missile boats out there.
|
Kalrasha Cryton
Caldari Demon Theory UNLeashed Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.26 06:17:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Lauri Andromedae
Originally by: Just fearless so there i was sitting there going man this is takeing a while. i was shooting a moa in my drake and it took 37 X 7 missiles to sink it i was hitting for under 50s in hual! back a few weeks ago i would be hiting 150s+ but now they just kinda ruind the game for ALL caldari cuz thats what 90% of our ships are based around.
so im going to send ccp 1 message aday till they fix it. I mean i love the game but if ur going to ruin the game for alota people just so some people wont complain. if you agree send them 1 message a day till they fix the heavys and lights. cruzes that was needed haveing that kinda range made them such a big thing on the battle feald now there down to size. thank you for reading
fear
It's funny to watch missile pilots whine about missiles. They are after all much more relaxed way of pvp'n than turrets. I suggest OP to try turrets. After hours of trying to get optimal he might have another opinnion.
lol I wanna see turrent pilots whine when they get nerfed The freedom to do what you want, how you want, and when you want is not given to you, it is earned through tears, blood, sweat, and freindship. Keep your friends close, and your enemy's that much cl |
Sagacious Z
|
Posted - 2008.12.27 23:36:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Just fearless
so im going to send ccp 1 message aday till they fix it.
You want to spam CCP? You want others to spam CCP? Have you lost your mind?
No business on planet earth implements tweaks to their product in order to chase away customers. Contrary to your emotional outburst, I can assure you CCP adusts the game with what they believe will better the product. If not, they will fix it again.
The players who really enjoy the game are figuring out ways to adapt to the changing environment. There are mods and tactics at your disposal. Just like in real life among the air forces of the world, enemy weapons and tactics do change.
In real life, the United Sates does not spam Russia with a message a day, and does not encourage their allies to do the same, because their Topol-M thwarts the USA's missile defense. The USA will figure out a diplomatic or military solution.
Try approaching this game with a little less emotion and a little more greymatter in how you approach your tactics.
|
sabo tage
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.28 02:58:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Kalrasha Cryton lol I wanna see turrent pilots whine when they get nerfed
turrents are overpowered |
Mr QUE
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.28 06:15:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Zeon Mackie You could always develop your skills and train another weapon system...
Drones/Blasters/ACs/Arty/Lazorz/etc
I see that as part of eve. Adapt or die.
but it also tells how unbalanced the game is
this adapt or die is a joke that won't last long
Woot |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |