Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:54:00 -
[61]
I sense a great disturbance in the force. A million miners crying out in pain and then, silence.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Benri Konpaku
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:55:00 -
[62]
Up in arms? Fuel to the fire or whatever?
Maybe I'm missing some sort of intended reverse psychology here. |
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:25:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Akita T Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
Yes please, I've already set up my buyorders around the universe
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:49:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Akita T Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
Yes please, I've already set up my buyorders around the universe
... So that you can buy minerals BEFORE they drop in value?
|
Kolatha
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.
So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:18:00 -
[66]
Linkage Seems like they simply set the new baseprice of minerals (for insurance purposes only) to the average market price. If it's dynamic or static, we'll have to wait and see.
So far, yet another (almost completely predictable) CCP economic failure. YAY !
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:23:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Akita T Seems like they simply set the new baseprice of minerals (for insurance purposes only) to the average market price. If it's dynamic or static, we'll have to wait and see.
At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:26:00 -
[68]
Not that I really care about insurance. But, it would be nice if they buffed t1 a bit so it's take 2 shots to kill a t1 frigate instead of 1 (example only, not to scale) to offset the lower insurance payments.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:28:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 03:29:28
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him. As he had to at least stumble upon how we were grilling him about not understanding how "insurance fraud" works (be it he actually *gasp* read the forum himself or somebody from CCP told him to read about it), he got the gist of how it works (fixed item payout, variable build cost), but not WHY it works the way it works (as a "demand valve" in case of oversupply), so he was probably the one coming up with the half-assed solution of adjusting insurance payouts based on the "current mineral average prices" instead of some old set baseprices... attacking the symptom instead of the underlying problem, completely ignoring why "insurance fraud" actually works at all in the first place. So, yeah, I can totally end up blaming him... again... for this too. That's what happens when somebody who doesn't understand why stuff works the way it works gets any say-so at all.
P.S. Let's not call it "insurance fraud" anymore, let's call it "insurance exchange rate" instead
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:42:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 13/03/2010 03:46:50
Originally by: Akita T No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him.
I was actually mocking you for your rant about the doctor not mentioning insurance fraud in QEN, when it was clear to some of us that if it wasn't mentioned there must have been a reason for it since that mechanism is so obvious.
Like an impending change to the insurance mechanism.
Originally by: Armchair Economist THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
Making insurance dynamic based on e.g. empire average prices would be a first step in fixing things. So what if the mineral prices collapse and the new floor is hit (until insurance prices again update)?
Well... The problem here is partially the lack of mineral sinks. Hey, did you know we're getting Planetary Interaction in May?
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:49:00 -
[71]
Originally by: DJWiggles
Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand. All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
You really think so?
Tbh, I think there will be a huge load of carebear tears and not much more, those are the ones that run into a gatecamp unscouted after all...
Ganking a Hulk will still be cheap as hell, heck I dont even insure my destroyers for that anyway, I wouldnt care if there was no insurance at all for that as the kill usually pays for the whole gank squad.
Anyway, I dont think it'll happen, all the major 0.0 alliances will be up in arms about it bigtime.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:58:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/03/2010 04:00:54
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him. As he had to at least stumble upon how we were grilling him about not understanding how "insurance fraud" works (be it he actually *gasp* read the forum himself or somebody from CCP told him to read about it), he got the gist of how it works (fixed item payout, variable build cost), but not WHY it works the way it works (as a "demand valve" in case of oversupply), so he was probably the one coming up with the half-assed solution of adjusting insurance payouts based on the "current mineral average prices" instead of some old set baseprices... attacking the symptom instead of the underlying problem, completely ignoring why "insurance fraud" actually works at all in the first place. So, yeah, I can totally end up blaming him... again... for this too. That's what happens when somebody who doesn't understand why stuff works the way it works gets any say-so at all.
P.S. Let's not call it "insurance fraud" anymore, let's call it "insurance exchange rate" instead ___
P.P.S. Seriously, what the bloodly hell is THIS supposed to solve anyway ?
Do you think it will solve suicide-ganking ? IT WON'T ! Do you think it will solve the highsec/lowsec/0.0 mining income issue ? IT WON'T ! In fact, it will make it even worse, MUCH worse. Do you think it will reduce the ISK inflow from the insurance faucet ? Ok, that it would do, to some degree.
If it's a flat adjustment, all you solved is getting the price of ships even lower than before, until the previous situation gets repeated, just with lower prices. Miners end up screwed, since ALL mining income will get reduced, but the worst effects will be felt by 0.0 miners, since the highends will be the first to drop heavily, while lowends should remain about the same, and they might actually start to go UP in price ! If it's a dynamic adjustment, you're delaying the return of the suicide-gank cost issues, but you're making the mining imbalances and mining revenue drops even more pronounced earlier on, and going to a lower overall level.
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. Whoever had the idea to do this, and only this (if it's accompanied by a lot of other changes it might actually work, but I see none others) should be handled the same way the "boot.ini" guy was handled in your "funny vid".
This change will have significant effect on the ISK faucet issue in current insurance values, but it's not going to fix the loot distribution/mineral value problem, and I can't even say if that's even vaguely what they're addressing with this change.
I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
Now the last question is, are suicide ganking and loot value problem the ones CCP is looking to fix by nerfing T1 insurance payouts? By my account it seems rather unlikely.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:38:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:40:48
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Making insurance dynamic based on e.g. empire average prices would be a first step in fixing things.
And considering CCP's track record, the ONLY thing they'll "fix" in a long time, hence ending up worse off than when they started, until it becomes unbearable again. If they don't put ALL necessary things in place, they should keep their hands off completely. One of several partial solutions that only work properly together is worse than no partial solution at all.
Originally by: Evelgrivion This change will have significant effect on the ISK faucet issue in current insurance values
It's not a big problem at the time being. It's actually not much of a problem at all. You don't see faction item prices or other "rare" item prices skyrocketing, now do you ? We do not have an "inflation" problem.
Quote: but it's not going to fix the loot distribution/mineral value problem
Which IS a big problem, because it's a gameplay balance issue.
Quote: I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
There is no good overall solution to that except a heavy REDUCTION in ore respawn rates. Which would be bad because of other reasons. Meanwhile, what we had now was a decent stopgap measure. The proper way to do it would have been to change ore mineral distributions instead, and leave insurance alone.
Quote: Now the last question is, are suicide ganking and loot value problem the ones CCP is looking to fix by nerfing T1 insurance payouts? By my account it seems rather unlikely.
Hence, my question of "what the bloodly hell is THIS supposed to solve anyway ?"
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:45:00 -
[74]
Originally by: chatgris ... So that you can buy minerals BEFORE they drop in value?
Great, now you've ruined it.
|
CoCobus
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:45:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Kolatha
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.
So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
Finally someone who does not take the word of somebody making grand claims, to simply make grand claims.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:52:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:55:19
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:03:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:57:03
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go - if you are to believe what they posted. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon ...plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
Where'd that 13600 number come from? The OP says he destroyed a total of 365 Rokhs + Abaddons + another 200 built Rokhs, unless I missed something completely?
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:35:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 05:46:21
He also said "2140 freighterloads of minerals" or "200 bil units", and last time I checked, a tier 3 battleship only needs around 1/6 of a freighterload's worth of minerals (~150k m^3 / 15 mil units of minerals). So I'm guessing the 1360 is a typo and the 13600 number is the correct one. Or it could be the other way around, who knows. That's why I said "if you are to believe what they posted".
P.S. And the absolute maximum number of tier 3 BSs you can manufacture per character per month is around 2.5k, not the 10k one of them mentions. That's over 4 characters working non-stop with pretty much maxed everything, monopolizing nearly one entire station's worth of manufacture lines. More like, 5 nearly maxed chars and one entire station's manufacture lines taken over nearly non-stop.
P.P.S. Still, 30k BSs in a single month, that's doable with just ~14 manufacturing chars working with ~140 BPOs. There have been many more tier 3 BS blueprints sold of each tier 3 BS type than that since they were introduced. It's not too much to consider not just possible, but actually likely if you think EVE-wide across all four tier 3 BSs.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Drachiel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:07:00 -
[79]
Frankly, I think its crap. Not the idea, but its prospects as an actual change. Remember, everyone, that assault frigates were ungodly overpowered on Sisi before Dominion launched. I will have your stuff. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:40:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Drachiel Frankly, I think its crap. Not the idea, but its prospects as an actual change. Remember, everyone, that assault frigates were ungodly overpowered on Sisi before Dominion launched.
Yeah, and then we got the dramiel instead.
|
|
Kolatha
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 07:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:57:03
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go - if you are to believe what they posted. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon ...plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
Interesting, but there are a number of anomalies that were pointed out in that thread. Namely how many of each unit a maxed out industrialist can actually create in a month.
Then there is the lack of response in the market. Even if the trit market could absorb those numbers one would think there would be a noticeable impact on the availability of other ships due to roughly a quarter of the whole trit market for that month going into just those 2 people.
The numbers just sound fishy when you examine the overall market trends for that period. My guess is these people are just exaggerating their efforts either through lack of book keeping (admitted in that thread) or just to make themselves look like big men on the campus.
I am disappointed with the lack of any mention in the Q4 report, but then again the issue may have been left out purely because it really is a non-issue that has simply been overinflated by a few fragile egos.
I'll wait and see what official reports from CCP have to say.
|
Qel Hoth
Visionary Explorers
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:02:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Qel Hoth on 13/03/2010 08:04:59 Edited by: Qel Hoth on 13/03/2010 08:04:35
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:40:48
Quote: I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
There is no good overall solution to that except a heavy REDUCTION in ore respawn rates. Which would be bad because of other reasons. Meanwhile, what we had now was a decent stopgap measure. The proper way to do it would have been to change ore mineral distributions instead, and leave insurance alone.
A dramatic increase in the amount of minerals required for all forms of manufacturing could have the same effects as well. Also, it would prevent even more systems from being stripped clean...
Also, to bring high-ends back in line, increase their amounts disproportionately high compared to the low-ends.
IMO this would have the least unintended side effects, and would increase low/null mining value considerably, as well as (temporarily, since it would only work until more people started mining again...) slow or reverse the mineral trends. ----- The above does not represent the opinions of my corp or alliance. |
Ran Khanon
Amarr Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:22:00 -
[83]
Good thing. Having a huge isk faucet from insurance and being able to break even on self destruction and suiciding your ship to concord is hugely unrealistic and not worthy of any game that takes game mechanics, economy and immersion seriously. Insurance fraud was never designed to be such a huge isk faucet. Now let the players adapt with a little help from CCP I say.
Little help as in:
- Vastly nerf the minerals gained from reprocessing mission loot - Increase the amount of minerals needed for certain trade goods - Another round of banning macro miners; there's still plenty out there - Future mineral sinks, perhaps related to planetary exploitation - INCREASE insurance payouts for T2 and T3 ships to tempt the vast "I only pvp in T1" crowd to risk more expensive ships (but of course still not to the point where suiciding becomes profitable) - *stuff I didn't think of yet*
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:33:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Akita T All hands, brace for major laughter. Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
this ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:53:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Turiel Demon What I want to know is: is this just a reset of the mineral base prices, or have they been made dynamic?
If it's a reset and they're now fixed at the new prices (pretty much current prices it seems) then really this doesn't matter. All that will happen is T1 ships and minerals become worth a bit less... well, about a third less actually.
If they've changed the mineral base price to a dynamic value dependent on a daily/monthly/yearly whatever index, then they just wrecked the basic eve economy. Minerals will trend towards 0 value and ships - even capital ships - will follow.
No, if they've made mineral prices dynamic, then they've mining in to a competitive profession, as opposed to a subsidised one. In short, miners will have to really care about other people mining.
Next up: war dec reform!
|
Dirk Mortice
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:01:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Kolatha
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
Uh, you do realise that it it is insurance and insurance alone which is holding up mineral prices across the board. I think that counts as a significant blip in the market.
Personally, I think they should do it, if it causes widespread chaos across the boards with minerals then we sit down and figure out why they're crashing and fix that as the next problem. Artificially pegging the value of ships with an isk faucet is no good imo
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:03:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Akita T
Linkage Seems like they simply set the new baseprice of minerals (for insurance purposes only) to the average market price. If it's dynamic or static, we'll have to wait and see.
So far, yet another (almost completely predictable) CCP economic failure. YAY !
It is a failure if their intent is to maintain the economic status quo. Do you think that their intent in making a change is to maintain the status quo?
It is not necessarily a failure if you dont believe that mineral producers have an intrinsic right to a noncompetitive (ie: unlimited) NPC subsidy. (Especially in light of the recent increase in ore supply - to the extent that the resources themselves are hardly competitive either) Do you think miners have that intrinsic right?
At the moment, as is well documented, EVE has much much higher mineral supply than the real demand can sustain. Either CCP continue to run what is effectively a command economy, or they make good on their stated goal of phasing towards a player economy. Non-dynamic insurance values have been the elephant in the room here for a long long time. So please do explain why a switch to dynamic insurance would be a "failure"?
PS Of course, the other really interesting thing about this is that it leaves hi-sec mission running as an even more glaring economic anomaly
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:04:00 -
[88]
What I'd like to see is all module drops removed from all rats and replaced with meta components that act as BPCs that can build a meta module with a T1 module as material. This would increase demand for T1 modules and remove all mineral input from ratting and missions.
Then drone goo needs to be adjusted, especially in the Nocxium department which needs at least a 50% drop but also a reduction in the Isogen and Zydrine area. This will reduce the mining unrelated input of those minerals, increase their prices and might maybe even make lowsec ores worthwhile. --------
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:06:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Ran Khanon Edited by: Ran Khanon on 13/03/2010 08:36:25 Good thing. Having a huge isk faucet from insurance and being able to break even on self destruction and suiciding your ship to concord is hugely unrealistic and not worthy of any game that takes game mechanics, economy and immersion seriously. Insurance fraud was never designed to be such a huge isk faucet. Now let the players adapt with a little help from CCP I say.
Little help as in:
- Vastly nerf the minerals gained from reprocessing mission loot - Increase the amount of minerals needed for certain trade goods - Another round of banning macro miners; there's still plenty out there - Future mineral sinks, perhaps related to planetary exploitation - INCREASE insurance payouts for T2 and T3 ships to tempt the vast "I only pvp in T1" crowd to risk more expensive ships (but of course still not to the point where suiciding becomes profitable) edit: Apparently T2 payouts get buffed now on Sisi. (Needs confirmation). - *stuff I didn't think of yet*
humm sry... but increased insurance on T2 is not a good idea and will only favor indu-poses and, eventually, the good ole' "large alliance grab all the good ones!!!" discussion. and that's exactly what this is about: - we are willing to blow ~0 isk on T1 ships. (well... we're willing to spend ~100mil on rigs&modules - BS, that is) - we are willing to blow ~175mil on a rigged&fitted vaga - etc
so if a platinum-insured vaga were to return 50mil, then the price of those would more or less slowly climb by 50mil until all those that find the loss of 175mil too expensive have jumped off the T2-wagon again. ... and this profit won't stay with the producers; during the climb, we'll have increased moon goo consumption, driving those prices up.
the same thing applies to this T1 insurance change, just the other way 'round, obviously - with the miners being the ones at the end of the line.
all this happens because we're willing to pay that little/much. also the reason for the skewed logistics prices compared to HACs or CSs, btw 8[ - putting the gist back into logistics |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:08:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy There is much greater supply than demand as it is right now.
…and the player driven market has already acted to get that back into balance. Now this comes along and completely fails to solve the problem – in fact, it makes the problem even worse by weakening one of the safeguards that lets the market determine its value.
Quote: Those most impacted by the removal of insurance are new players. A safety net for anyone under three months old could be created - Noob insurance.
No, those most impacted by the removal of insurance are miners, since their work is now inherently worthless, unlike before. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |