Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 16:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
There's been some heavier-than-usual traffic about redesigning supercapitals and I've had this idea floating around for a while. There's no numbers involved yet but I wanted to get this out there sooner rather than later.
The idea is based around putting a little more risk into the sub-capital logistics game of moving people around fast. Right now any established alliance will have Titans scattered around their deployment area to reach almost anywhere in Eve in a few jumps. While deploying Titans around sounds risky, it's actually quite safe because POSs are usually easy to get.
The lack of risk involved in operating this logistical network means that it will always be used when its available. There's little to no risk involved in using it, and it provides a significant advantage to any side with it in place. On top of that it means that any opposition cannot target your logistical network easily, as Titans can jump bridge from within a POS shield.
The idea I've had, Jump Tethering, means to replace the jump bridge ability with something that puts the logistical network at some more risk when its used. A (non-dreadnaught) capital ship will able to be tethered to by sub capitals up to a certain mass-limit, and, once tethered, any jumps that capital ship makes will pull all tethered ships through with it.
Essentially this will make moving blobs around more methodical and careful, and it means that ambushes can be set up to trap other alliances logistical tools. |
Gawain Edmond
Angry Mustellid
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 16:25:00 -
[2] - Quote
well i'm neither for or against the idea but make it so the bridging ship can jump after the other ships so late comers can still get through, the area can be secured and such. So for example cyno lights bridge goes up fleet jumps through does stuff a few mins later titan comes through. If the cyno gets blown up then it sucks the titan through and deposits him anywhere on the grid that the cyno was in. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 16:28:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gawain Edmond wrote:well i'm neither for or against the idea but make it so the bridging ship can jump after the other ships so late comers can still get through, the area can be secured and such. So for example cyno lights bridge goes up fleet jumps through does stuff a few mins later titan comes through. If the cyno gets blown up then it sucks the titan through and deposits him anywhere on the grid that the cyno was in.
That would probably need to be considered, but I think the current metagame allows for these late comers due to the Titan not jumping through. The metagame would change to make latecomers not be able to join easily, but I don't see that as a particular problem to be honest.
In addition, Titans would not be the only ship to offer this. Carriers could be used to jump back and forth to tetherjump late comers if absolutely necessary, though I'd still prefer people got their act together and all left at the proper time.
|
Bum Shadow
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
45
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:19:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jumps would also be perfectly synchronised and look absolutely epic on the incoming! And if you dont look good while doing what you do. you're doing it wrong :P |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
1915
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
I just think the titan should be forced to jump through too when the bridge expires. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Sub-Director of Public Relations |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.26 17:45:00 -
[6] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:I just think the titan should be forced to jump through too when the bridge expires.
This idea would have the same end effect, the Titan would be on the other end of the jump with his fleet. This would finally make Titan's actual flagships.
Don't forget that the idea is to spread out this ability, meaning that carriers (and maybe supercarriers) could do it too, but be able to carry much less mass. So instead of carrying around a whole fleet through to the cyno, a carrier would be able to carry a low amount of battleships worth (maybe a squad?), and a supercarrier could do more (a wing?).
This idea would remove the jump bridge ability (Black Ops would do the tethering too). |
Jason Itiner
Sectatores Pax
20
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 21:07:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bum Shadow wrote:Jumps would also be perfectly synchronised and look absolutely epic on the incoming! And if you dont look good while doing what you do. you're doing it wrong :P
And then the Asakai Scenario repeats, and you get this. First thirty to firty-five seconds, but maybe the whole clip. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 21:16:00 -
[8] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:I just think the titan should be forced to jump through too when the bridge expires. I'm really interested to see this tested! I wonder if it would work without breaking the game. Would of course need to find a new way of doing things, but I wonder if the new way of doing things would bring more interesting gameplay. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2159
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 22:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
An interesting idea, I put out a version of this specific to carriers last month.
In another thread since that one, they also suggested that a carrier jumping with moored ships should have less range. Reduced to titan equivalent with that pilot's JDC perhaps?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3223206#post3223206
Copied and pasted from the original thread:
EDIT: Add in specified 2,000 meter range for this mooring line, I was thinking it in my head but saw I did not spell it out.
By docking to the carrier, the game will just depict a mooring line running between the ship and the carrier. (It doesn't need to be displayed as a space object, just listed like an effect above the capacitor the same way being webbed is, etc.)
If you move or direct your ship to leave or log out, the mooring line is released.
If the carrier jumps, your ship and you go with it.
Why does this work, when the previous problems existed in the past? Because the mooring line actually represents a standing command to jump-bridge, just like pilots using a titan or blops bridge need to click on the graphic. The mass of the ship is added to the carrier's, for fuel use calculation.
The mooring lines can be left in place after the jump, in the event it is a multiple jump event, or released so the individual pilots can go on their merry way.
Does this make carriers OP? No, in fact it places them at risk. The carrier lands in the target system with the other ships, unlike the Titan or BLOPs which stay safely at the starting point / staging area. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
747
|
Posted - 2013.07.27 23:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wouldn't it be easier, simpler and still meet your stated goal if you kept the bridge as is but changed from push to pull?
That is, Titan jumps to target and pulls ships from a 10km sphere at origin point up until he runs out out of juice?
Hell, you could probably get away with requiring something for the bridge endpoint (ie. the pull point) to latch onto without breaking much of anything .. wouldn't it be sweet if (by offering the vinegar in a honeypot it will go down easier) : 1. Titan jumps to target location with fleet on stand-by. 2a. Bridge is opened by co-opting/hijacking a local gate somewhere within range. 2b. Anything up to some max limit passing through that gate for the next Xs, as determined by fuel spent upon initial activation (largest stack?), arrives at Titan location rather than at normal destination. 3. Titan can enter a jammed system but cannot establish connection to gates. 4. Warning will of course go out to ships computers activating a hijacked gate unless turned off (off by default when in Titan fleet). 5. Connection remains if Titan dies and the hijack time is not up. Wormhole endpoint will just be flailing about so people using it can end up anywhere between the two points.
Surprise butt-sex of inattentive enemy fleet on an industrial scale (not necessarily Titan's enemies either )., and finely tuned logistics options.
PS: Not from within POS bubbles, not from high-sec side of gate etc.
Enough out-of-box for today, time for sleep. |
|
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.28 23:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Wouldn't it be easier, simpler and still meet your stated goal if you kept the bridge as is but changed from push to pull?
My idea is to give the tethering ability, albeit a substantially reduced effectiveness one, to the other capitals (not the dreadnaught though) also.
Carriers and Supercarriers could do the same thing but with a lower upper bound of mass. The portal doesn't feel like something a carrier would employ.
On top of that, how do you manage the problem of the Titan calling in reinforcements to it from anywhere within its portal range? That seems like a very dangerous ability to provide a Supercapital. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:01:00 -
[12] - Quote
I also realized recently that having this ability will help with relocation for lowsec/nullsec entities quite a bit. Reduction in the carrier ship maintanence bay might be required to balance the ability to tether-jump a bunch of mass in space. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2313
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:I also realized recently that having this ability will help with relocation for lowsec/nullsec entities quite a bit. Reduction in the carrier ship maintanence bay might be required to balance the ability to tether-jump a bunch of mass in space. Not necessarily.
Consider this: The SMB on the carrier is set up to hold an average of 1 million m3 of ships. What if the tethered ships, in order to be transported, had to draw off of that total?
For example, a carrier with 800,000 m3 of storage used in it's SMB, could only tether / moor 200,000 m3 of vessels maximum.
The carrier only ever carries up to 1 million m3 either way. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:I also realized recently that having this ability will help with relocation for lowsec/nullsec entities quite a bit. Reduction in the carrier ship maintanence bay might be required to balance the ability to tether-jump a bunch of mass in space. Not necessarily. Consider this: The SMB on the carrier is set up to hold an average of 1 million m3 of ships. What if the tethered ships, in order to be transported, had to draw off of that total?
That might work, however it seems like that kind of dynamic calc might be hard to implement. I'll leave implementation ideas up to the devs and designers though. I think we both agree that the amount a carrier can tether-jump and the amount of space in its SMB should be split up somehow. Allowing it to take twice as many ships (provided half of them are piloted) in its travel does seem like it's overdoing it a bit.
|
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2313
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:24:00 -
[15] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:I also realized recently that having this ability will help with relocation for lowsec/nullsec entities quite a bit. Reduction in the carrier ship maintanence bay might be required to balance the ability to tether-jump a bunch of mass in space. Not necessarily. Consider this: The SMB on the carrier is set up to hold an average of 1 million m3 of ships. What if the tethered ships, in order to be transported, had to draw off of that total? That might work, however it seems like that kind of dynamic calc might be hard to implement. I'll leave implementation ideas up to the devs and designers though. I think we both agree that the amount a carrier can tether-jump and the amount of space in its SMB should be split up somehow. Allowing it to take twice as many ships (provided half of them are piloted) in its travel does seem like it's overdoing it a bit. That is a huge balance issue, I do agree.
I would think a 1:1 ratio based off the carrier's SMB capacity seems fair.
The advantage would be one that favored group play, or at the very least multiple accounts. Pilot plus any cargo in the ship beyond ammunition would be an advantage limited to tethering. Cloaking being on a ten minute manual cycle timer? (Author: Bree Okanata) Fine. As long as there is a ten minute timer for being docked in a station. Also, you can't stop moving in the game. Just add in a way so every ten minutes you are randomly warped to the nearest other player. Keeps people from going AFK. |
Gareth Burns
Reclamator's KRYSIS.
24
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 17:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
+1 I personally really like the idea.
"Jump Tethered" Noblesse Oblige Gû¦ Gareth Burns |
Phaade
Debitum Naturae WHY so Seri0Us
30
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 18:07:00 -
[17] - Quote
Gareth Burns wrote:+1 I personally really like the idea.
"Jump Tethered"
+in the +1.
Titan bridges, as is, involve almost no risk. I love the idea that a capital has to jump through with the fleet; makes so much more sense and forces the assault to commit. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
8
|
Posted - 2013.08.07 19:29:00 -
[18] - Quote
Phaade wrote:Gareth Burns wrote:+1 I personally really like the idea.
"Jump Tethered" +in the +1. Titan bridges, as is, involve almost no risk. I love the idea that a capital has to jump through with the fleet; makes so much more sense and forces the assault to commit.
It would also look awesome as a fleet deploys onto the field. |
Sigras
Conglomo
495
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:45:00 -
[19] - Quote
Why not just reverse the direction of titan bridges?
Instead of clicking on the titan and ending up by the cyno, why not make them click on the cyno and end up near the titan.
This would cause a fleet to commit a titan every time they wanted to hotdrop, but would provide a significant advantage to a group using a titan for defense as it would be able to pull in fleets from all around to assist it. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 02:56:00 -
[20] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Why not just reverse the direction of titan bridges?
Because now carriers will be able to do it to a lesser degree. In addition, "pulling" reinforcements to you from anywhere in range will be very, very convenient.
Also it means that the Titan spot could be bubbled and you could prevent the incoming force. While that alone doesn't seem too bad, the defenders will still have a lot of time before the titan actually gets there and starts any kind of jump. |
|
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
69
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 04:12:00 -
[21] - Quote
I like it. And I don't think it would have too much effect on those who do hot drops a lot. It would in fact make it easier for those without titans to get into the fun. If you seriously wanted a lot of numbers on grid it would almost force you to invest capitals to a certain degree. Maybe changing tactics to dropping fleet next door instead of right in the action. It adds a degree of difficulty and asset dedication that bridging seems to lack.
My only concern is the range that carriers have. Would that be too much to move, say, a squad of battleships? Thoughts on that? |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
86
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 10:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:I also realized recently that having this ability will help with relocation for lowsec/nullsec entities quite a bit. Reduction in the carrier ship maintanence bay might be required to balance the ability to tether-jump a bunch of mass in space. Not really. Carriers are far from hard to get, and most people that need to move a lot have one if not several. The most pilot-efficient method to do what you suggest would be to bring 2 BS tethered, since that is the largest ship that can be bridged/moved in SMA, resulting in twice as much carrier - but with 3 times as many pilots needed. If those 2 pilots instead grabbed an another carrier each, they could carry a total of 6 BS instead of just 4, so it's less effective unless carrier count is a limitation for you. With stuff like cruisers etc, it'd be way more extreme than that, taking about 8-12 extra pilots to be able to carry as much as a single extra carrier load would. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.08 19:15:00 -
[23] - Quote
Rowells wrote:
My only concern is the range that carriers have. Would that be too much to move, say, a squad of battleships? Thoughts on that?
It would need to be balanced for sure, there would be a number of concerns with the whole system, this being one of them. Carriers have pretty long jump range (and therefore tether range), but wouldn't be able to tether-jump as many things as a titan would.
Effectively a full sub-capital fleet could still be tethered by a single Titan, and doing that twice to get the same range as a carrier might be worth the tradeoff compared to the numerous carriers it would take to transport a whole sub-capital fleet its maximum range.
Steave435 wrote: The most pilot-efficient method to do what you suggest would be to bring 2 BS tethered, since that is the largest ship that can be bridged/moved in SMA, resulting in twice as much carrier - but with 3 times as many pilots needed.
This is also a fair point that I hadn't really considered. I think we can both agree the capabilities of carriers to carry and tether ships at the same time should be considered when balancing the mechanic. I don't want to presume to know whether changing it is required or not, and that's primarily up to the lead designers.
|
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 18:24:00 -
[24] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:Sigras wrote:Why not just reverse the direction of titan bridges? Because now carriers will be able to do it to a lesser degree. In addition, "pulling" reinforcements to you from anywhere in range will be very, very convenient. Carriers do NOT need to be able to bridge or tether or whatever . . . NO
Hot drops are already too prevalent and need to be nerfed not buffed. And yes pulling reinforcements to you would be really convenient but more for defense than force projection as it is used now. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2352
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 18:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:Sigras wrote:Why not just reverse the direction of titan bridges? Because now carriers will be able to do it to a lesser degree. In addition, "pulling" reinforcements to you from anywhere in range will be very, very convenient. Carriers do NOT need to be able to bridge or tether or whatever . . . NO Hot drops are already too prevalent and need to be nerfed not buffed. And yes pulling reinforcements to you would be really convenient but more for defense than force projection as it is used now. I would not call the required exposure of billion ISK ships necessarily a buff.
If anything, hot drops are more successful than they might be otherwise, simply because there is too little to gain by baiting them.
Now, if you change that into: Kill the drop, and win a capital kill mail.... I see hot drops becoming the meal of the day.... How to Fix Local Chat, then hunting cloaked ships: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453 |
Tiberu Stundrif
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 18:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
If you are going to do this, the Titan needs to cost 1/10th as much as it currently does.
Why? Because I am not going to wtf-tether-jump my 100+ billion ship to move a couple of ships worth less than a billion.
You are bringing this up because (1) you don't own a titan or have to put one at risk and (2) you've been hotdropped by someone who does and it made you very butt-hurt.
I'm a fan of removing Titans from the game completely instead of this abomination mechanic you're suggesting. There are literally 2 roles a titan has left in this game, DD and Portal. Any titan pilot will tell you that the DD is RARELY used, which makes the portal it's only useful remaining role.
If you want to prevent 50-man hot-drops on the lone-solo-l33t-pvp'r, require a 10-sec spin-up time on Cynos or something. |
Acidictadpole
Reikoku The Retirement Club
13
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:If you are going to do this, the Titan needs to cost 1/10th as much as it currently does.
Why? Because I am not going to wtf-tether-jump my 100+ billion ship to move a couple of ships worth less than a billion.
Sure, this is up to the game designers, not us. They've already made it pretty clear they aren't really happy with the supercapital meta.
Tiberu Stundrif wrote: You are bringing this up because (1) you don't own a titan or have to put one at risk and (2) you've been hotdropped by someone who does and it made you very butt-hurt.
I don't own a titan, no. And I'm usually on the side doing the hotdropping, and I've been playing eve long enough to not be butthurt by losing internet spaceships.
Tiberu Stundrif wrote:
I'm a fan of removing Titans from the game completely instead of this abomination mechanic you're suggesting. There are literally 2 roles a titan has left in this game, DD and Portal. Any titan pilot will tell you that the DD is RARELY used, which makes the portal it's only useful remaining role.
Instead? This works with other capitals too. If you're only moving less than a billion in ships, use tethering with a carrier or two instead. As for the portal remaining its only useful role, that sounds terrible. Such that I think we should split up the portalling role and give Titan's something else they can do well. Let's split up the portalling role and give it to the other capitals in the form of jump tethering!
Tiberu Stundrif wrote: If you want to prevent 50-man hot-drops on the lone-solo-l33t-pvp'r, require a 10-sec spin-up time on Cynos or something.
I'm not trying to prevent hotdrops. I'm trying to make the game more engaging. Hotdrops will still be possible, but it's a little more risky depending on how many forces you're committing to it. I don't think more risk involved in shuttling billions of isk around the galaxy really quick is too much of a problem.
I'm not expecting this single mechanic idea to solve all of eve's capital problems. But I agree Titans have some serious problems. Right now 99% of owning a Titan is sitting in a POS or Safe waiting for it to be called on for bridging. I want this to change. By removing its unique ability to shuttle other ships around quickly, it'll force the Titan to get something else that might actually be fun. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2354
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 19:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
Acidictadpole wrote:I'm not expecting this single mechanic idea to solve all of eve's capital problems. But I agree Titans have some serious problems. Right now 99% of owning a Titan is sitting in a POS or Safe waiting for it to be called on for bridging. I want this to change. By removing its unique ability to shuttle other ships around quickly, it'll force the Titan to get something else that might actually be fun. The moment I knew the devs found titans to be an unexpected presence in game, I realized it had changes coming eventually.
They expected a few, and balanced them so they were special. Then a lot more were built, and special stopped being a good description. The DD nerf happened, and a bunch of other items, trying to reduce the unexpected impact so many of these were having.
I am just curious how the whole thing ends up, really. How to Fix Local Chat, then hunting cloaked ships: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453 |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 19:37:00 -
[29] - Quote
Nikk Narrel wrote:Sigras wrote:Acidictadpole wrote:Sigras wrote:Why not just reverse the direction of titan bridges? Because now carriers will be able to do it to a lesser degree. In addition, "pulling" reinforcements to you from anywhere in range will be very, very convenient. Carriers do NOT need to be able to bridge or tether or whatever . . . NO Hot drops are already too prevalent and need to be nerfed not buffed. And yes pulling reinforcements to you would be really convenient but more for defense than force projection as it is used now. I would not call the required exposure of billion ISK ships necessarily a buff. If anything, hot drops are more successful than they might be otherwise, simply because there is too little to gain by baiting them. Now, if you change that into: Kill the drop, and win a capital kill mail.... I see hot drops becoming the meal of the day.... oh, come on, carriers are a dime a dozen; theyre everywhere!
Sure, ill grant you that theres more risk involved in hot dropping because now your risking about 10 battleships worth of isk in one ship, but youre also increasing the number of people who can perform hot drops by an order of magnitude!
Also, think of what this would do to large alliance scale combat. Instead of needing to correctly position their limited titan fleet to get ships into battle quickly, all they have to do is sacrifice a carrier. No more spies or recon finding where their titans are deployed and extrapolating where they'll strike next; unlimited force projection everywhere. |
Nikk Narrel
Infinite Improbability Inc Ex Cinere Scriptor
2357
|
Posted - 2013.08.11 02:39:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sigras wrote:Nikk Narrel wrote:I would not call the required exposure of billion ISK ships necessarily a buff.
If anything, hot drops are more successful than they might be otherwise, simply because there is too little to gain by baiting them.
Now, if you change that into: Kill the drop, and win a capital kill mail.... I see hot drops becoming the meal of the day.... oh, come on, carriers are a dime a dozen; theyre everywhere! Sure, ill grant you that theres more risk involved in hot dropping because now your risking about 10 battleships worth of isk in one ship, but youre also increasing the number of people who can perform hot drops by an order of magnitude! Also, think of what this would do to large alliance scale combat. Instead of needing to correctly position their limited titan fleet to get ships into battle quickly, all they have to do is sacrifice a carrier. No more spies or recon finding where their titans are deployed and extrapolating where they'll strike next; unlimited force projection everywhere. That is supposed to be bad, judging by the way you refer to it.
If the choices are chaos versus ISK dependent strategy, I kinda gotta lean towards chaos. ISK dependent strategy limits things to more capable alliances. Chaos is more fun in a game, in my opinion. How to Fix Local Chat, then hunting cloaked ships: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2369739#post2369739 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2668453#post2668453 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |