Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:08:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Hawkings SJ
And since I can't remember the last time all of the big alliances agreed on anything more then "We don't like lag", getting this to work is actually harder then going to Iceland and holding CCP hostage at gunpoint until all the fixes you want are made.
hehe.. yeah admittedly there is more chance of what you suggest than this idea ever happening.
But that doesnt leave the big alliances with a lot of options then... I mean think about it, when is the next time you guys are gonna have a decent fleet fight without unbearable lag?
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:22:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Amerame
Originally by: Nez Perces
Originally by: Heldane
It appears the only real solution is to hold of large scale invasions until CCP gets a handle on this problem. Defenders simply are not going to risk losing valuable assetts over player made rules created to fix a server side issue.
I wouldn't.
You are probably right... Im just wondering when that is gonna be.... and furthermore, even if the situation improves for large fleet engagements, it seems that fleets are only getting bigger and bigger.
Even if CCP do get better servers will they really be able to handle 300 vs 300 or numbers like that.. I really doubt it...
The real problem is that I fear that as long as the complexity of the fight is in nŠ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless, i'm pretty sure that if the server could handle 300 vs 300, you have alliance bringing 600 people in fight the next day, considering the number of people in the big 4 alliances, they should easily be able to get 1000 or 1500 men fleets, TCF has 800 player in alliance, regularly 100 players in fleets, sometimes 150-200, so the amount of ship ASCN or LV & co could get... I'd rather not even think about it.
If CCP aim to get 300 vs 300 lagless battle it's not going to be enough, they should aim at 2000 people in the same system, unfortunately.
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:39:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 16:39:52 I don't believe that it works. Many fights are not just to have a fight, but to win something by it or to protect something. Noone likes losing, especially not in alliance warfare, so we'd start to argue, what 'fair' means.
E.g. if we said to Goonswarm: 'Lets not come with larger fleets than 50 people.', then they'd problably answer that that wouldn't be their way to play EVE and it wouldn't be fair, because we have the skillpoint advantage (tech-2 fitted battleships etc.), but their advantage are their numbers that they also want to use in a war for sure.
Fairness is really relative and since both sides want to win, they also try to achieve better odds than 50/50 by using what they have. Another argument is that wars include sometimes some frustration and breaking the morale of the enemy helps to win, so such agreements are doomed to fail, I think.
And then, like others pointed out, you always have the problem that people want to take part. You can't tell them to stay away.
|
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 16:57:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy.
Other MMOs have implemented queues and it works fine. Basically having multiple playable fights is better then one or two unplayable fights. Lockout is easy to solve as the cap\queue applies to two or more different sides, i.e. one side can only get 50% of the system's population. Only really challenge I see for CCP is determining sides. Obviously in a system with sov they would know one of the sides. War Dec could also be used to determine sides and I am sure a reasonable system can come up with a way determine sides.
|
Daxes
Cataclysm Enterprises Dusk and Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:01:00 -
[35]
such a rule would only hurt the smaller/weaker alliances. The current big alliances would be the big winners of such a rule because they would be the alliance who could easily field 100 top quality pilots. Just look at the Goonies, the only thing that made it possible for them to compete with the big boys was the fact that they could bring huge numbers. Its simply a difference if there are 100 BoB pilots or 100 Goon pilots in a fleet, not to mention the kind of ships and the quality of their equipment. Numbers are not everything.
We shouldnt start to blame ourselfs for things which are CCP's responsibility. They promised everyone that huge fleet battles are possible. Noone expects a totaly smooth game without lag when 2 big fleets meet. But there is a huge difference between a few seconds lag and ur screen being freezed for half a hour. Since i play this game fleet battles are becoming worse (lag wise) and i see no improvments to lets say 1 year ago while CCP promised HUGE improvements, i have yet to seem them.
Only CCP can change it and if they think its simply not possible then its their responsibility to change the game mechanics in a way that discourages huge fleets (which i would really dislike because this is one of my favourite aspects of eve).
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari AUS Corporation CORE.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:07:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Unss
Originally by: Verite Rendition
And let's be perfectly honest, that's never going to happen, the hardware/software setup CCP uses can't do it. What's going to happen is that they're going to implement the god-damned queue permanently, and the winning side is going to be whoever can fill a node first in order to lock out the enemy.
Other MMOs have implemented queues and it works fine. Basically having multiple playable fights is better then one or two unplayable fights. Lockout is easy to solve as the cap\queue applies to two or more different sides, i.e. one side can only get 50% of the system's population. Only really challenge I see for CCP is determining sides. Obviously in a system with sov they would know one of the sides. War Dec could also be used to determine sides and I am sure a reasonable system can come up with a way determine sides.
Then what you describe is CCP forcing us to adhear to the plan presented by the thread's parent, including the pitfalls of that plan. ---- AUS Corp Lead Megalomanic |
Murukan
Minmatar The Priory
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 17:18:00 -
[37]
The whole "Big 4" scare tactic is stupid tbh. I really doubt some people fighting in Geminate or some other region fighting tooth and nail for territory could really give a flying **** what some alliance has to say simply on the grounds that they have "blob numbers".
The fact that you are trying to suggest that alliances threaten others for lag tactics is stupid and elitist. If you want to take their territory then by all means, but trying to regulate the way they fight will never work and is a rather lame suggestion too.
In rust we trust!!! |
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:00:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 18:04:29
Originally by: Amerame complexity of the fight is in nŠ there is no possibility of eve to be ever lagless
Yes, I agree, but the question is, if EVE is already on a technical limit. I mean we have only 70 blade servers or so currently that host these thousands of systems. If they are already working at 80% on average, there is no wonder that a fleet battle can kill a node. Then we might need a change in the software that moves the grid, where the fight happens, to an extra high-performance server that can handle it. And then there might maybe room for more optimizations, if they haven't been done already. E.g. in a 200 vs. 200 fleetbattle, I would be happy to see something of the fight at all, I don't have to be updated with every single torp etc. of someone else that doesn't effect me or been informed of every single drone movement every few seconds. Maybe there is still a lot room to get larger battles work. At the cost of some realism but doesn't matter. Still better than all people lagging out or dying due to lag.
I know, they can't totally change the software within like 3 months, but if CCP encourages us to build empires and field capital fleets, then it has to be improved. I mean a titan in a 50 vs. 50 fight would seem a bit strange to me. If two empires fight eachother, I think a titan should fly together with a few motherships, like 20 or more other capitals and even more bs, cruisers and frigs. Then the system needs to support at least the fighters of these motherships and carriers, keeping the fighters in because of lag would be a bit rediculous like telling a Dominix or Ishtar pilot not to use his drones.
If they want empires fighting eachother with these ships, they need to solve it somehow and make us able to fight at least 200 vs. 200 imho.
|
Serend
Gallente GALAXIAN Rule of Three
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:06:00 -
[39]
I agree that fleet battles are virtually unplayable at present; it's the elephant in the room that degrades everyone's enjoyment of Eve. I don't think the proposal will work, for many of the reasons cited by others. Queue caps based on sovereignty might be a way around it, but such approaches might result in only the most highly skilled pilots getting to play, and that would be a shame. I applaud the discussion of this problem, and would love to see CCP's current thinking.
The considerable effort and resources required to control space in 0.0 means that holdings will always be heavily defended, and I think it unfair to limit an alliance's ability to defend its territory. Aggressors already have plenty of advantages, imho, and a cap on defenders would further be a further bias.
If CCP did away with bookmarks and instituted a "warp to zero kilometers" (perhaps with random error reduced on a skill basis)would that have any impact on lag? Bookmarks have always struck me as a waste of time, cpu, and bandwidth. Maybe Eve's engine revolves around them, but there's gotta be a better way.
Good discussion.
Serend Galaxian Rule of 3
|
Coran Ordus
Ominous Corp Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:21:00 -
[40]
As others have pointed out, doing this voluntarily just won't work.
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
What could be done is some sort of in-game ship performance penalty tied to number of gang/corp/alliance members in the gang/system. Call it electronic interference, fog of war, whatever. There might need to be incentives to being in a small same-corp/alliance gang, to block meta-gaming by everyone having their own 10-person corps to dodge the penalties. |
|
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 18:49:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Coran Ordus
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
Queues does not have to be on player count. It could be on ship type, skill points, etc. Balancing PvP in Eve is nearing impossible even if one could control the numbers of player issue since equipment\skills are not balanced capped like most PvP games. Most PvP games cap at the top and with everything even the differences come down to player skill. Still even within Eve there is a margin for player skill to show itself.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:03:00 -
[42]
Not unexpectedly... the response to this 'idea' if you can call it that.. .. is on the whole not very positve.
.. and I can see why, its really asking far too much from the playerbase, although it is telling that in fleet combat drone deployment is frowned upon, at least we can manage that
The problem as I see it though is that either the playerbase voluntarily caps the size of fleets or CCP is gonna cap them for us. Through including penalties for large groupings of pilots or queue systems or some other method.
I dont think we are ever going to get server hardware to support mega-battles. Its the year 2006, there are more users on broadband than ever before, the average computer logging onto EVE is more powerful than ever before. And yet the ability of the sever to handle large fleet battles has remained the same.
As the player base increases matters are only going to get worse. CCP recently had new hardware installed and a new dragon code to no visible avail.
I also think that the inevitable conclusion of all of this is that the mentality of ramping up fleet numbers has hit a glass ceiling too, even though alliance blocks are getting bigger and bigger.
Lag will not allow a fleet battle over a certain size to take place.....and it is my opinion that CCP will eventually force this realisation upon us through in-game mechanics.... that or lag is always going to be an integral part of the equation when it comes to fleet warfare, particularly as a defense mechanism. I.e blob up to the point where fighting becomes pointless..
|
Unss
Gas Giant Industries
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Coran Ordus
Queues also are not the answer. They almost guarantee mismatched-sized fleets.
Queues does not have to be based on player count. It could be on ship type, skill points, etc. Penalty and incentives based on some type of numbering system is needed as there are queues and caps in Eve already. Unfortunately they are defined by hardware limit rather then optimized for gameplay.
Balancing PvP in Eve is nearing impossible even if one could control the numbers of players issue since equipment\skills are not balanced capped like most PvP games. Most PvP games cap at the top and with everything even the differences come down to player skill. Still even within Eve there is a margin for player skill to show itself.
|
DigitalCommunist
Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:14:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Nez Perces Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 15:11:37
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Even if I assumed the lag is the number one problem, which I don't, you're saying player created "rules" are the answer.
Well I would very glad to hear what you think the number one problem is.. I mean every time there is a big fleet engagement the first thing we hear about on the forums.. is
"OMGlag was unbearable couldnt activate modules"
Maybe I'm missing something and I would be happy to be corrected..
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
Purchasing Complex Fullerene Shards, contact me ingame. |
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:20:00 -
[45]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
I'm not sure if I understand what you are saying...
Are you saying that EVE fleet battles are skill-less anyhow and lag or no lag it doesn't make any difference?
I would like to hold on responding to your post ... as I don't want to respond to something I don't quite follow.
|
Kurieg
Universal Manufacturing Corporation Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:24:00 -
[46]
Then there's BMs (and ya I use em, too), which allow large fleets to gather much easier and faster (which is usually advantage defender because initiative is usually advantage attacker). They make it harder to interdict movements, so battles become more centralized and single large entities are more wieldy for holding large areas of space. Etc. Of course, who wants to travel without them, right?
|
Dumus
Amarr Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 19:37:00 -
[47]
I hate to be a naysayer but here goes
Your numbers are wrong. 100v100 its terrible. I have been fighting in 9UY and this last few days has frankly been appalling. I lost an armageddon last night in a battle of roughly 30 v 15. we warped in (15) and my screen froze before I even saw a ship on my overview when it unfroze I was in half armour. I immiedietly obeyed orders to get out and tried to align but of course when you have 9 Battleships and 1 carriers fighters firing on you, you don't last terribly long. As a side note I was amused after I got away in my pod and I open the mail to see my own deathmail and a killmail. I somehow managed to blow up a flycatcher with one volley from my trusty tachyon's. All I remember was clicking once in my overview whilst my ship tried to align. As can be seen from the above example fleet battles of more than 10v10 are IMHO unplayable, if what you want from the experience is fun, like a "computer game" should be. I am not moaning about it, as we all had a laugh about it after (both sides) but the game as it is designed to be played, fleet battles being a large part of it, is failing on many levels. That said, I love it and will not stop playing till they pull the plug out of the servers! ---------------------------
|
Kcel Chim
Caldari Arcane Technologies The Five
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:04:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Kcel Chim on 11/09/2006 20:04:21 imo a "treaty" wont work because simply said there are more alliances then just 4 and we already see that ppl play every possible card within the game rules to get an advantage. Bookmark copying - logon traps - Shuttlespam etc etc. Would a "limit to 100 guys" treaty make a difference ? Doubt it.
Also lets not forget that over time the pilotnumber which eve is able to handle dropped significantly and has nothing to do with how laggy a battle is or not. More then once a battle between 30 vs 30 turned into a total slideshow because the NODE was lagging due to other systems on it. Something the players cant influence and no treaty will change.
Additionally lets consider the "why". Why would someone sign such a treaty. If the defender is actually weaker (in skill) but has the numbers he currently can take a "free" card out of most pvp situations. Why would someone give this advantage away if billions are on the plate ? How would the pilots react if they constantly get told to bugger off because fleets are full, especially if the battle might turn out to be a loss.
Last but not least the game content is based around "huge" fleets, because pos, outposts, "capital"systems arent takeable without a huge amount of logistics, capitalships and enough support to protect these vulnerable buggers. Noone will risk 30 dreads on a treaty the opponent might break because lets be honest even if the big 4 sign it what will happen ? "buhu d2/ascn/jesus broke the treaty and killed 50 bob dreads. They will end up hostile to each other, wait they already are. Ok they might have lost their virtual honor. Wait thats usually (atleast in 90% of eve combat) already the case...
A player created solution will never work and is simply an attempt to give a false sense of security to ccp. Atm they have to fix the lag problem sooner or later because ppl will quit/whine/generate negative PR over it. If a player solution is found nothing will change and ccp will focus on other (then) more pressing matters. However if the game constantly raises in users (like it currently does) we will soon see the treaty numbers drop to 10 vs 10 and after that alliancewarfare is a thing of the past.
maybe abit pessimistic but my view....
|
Sebo Darrens
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:23:00 -
[49]
"lag" is a very general and non-technical term to describe the problems associated with large engagements.. There are things like loading other players' ship models and getting relevant information which are quite distinct from problems like module activation and 'ship out of control' etc types of things where there is a breakdown in communication.
As for a player agreements to restrict the game, those will never work as its a game - people already strain to break the rules and restrictions present in the very nature of the game, few would agree to further self-inflicted restrictions.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 20:26:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dumus
Your numbers are wrong. 100v100 its terrible. I have been fighting in 9UY and this last few days has frankly been appalling. I lost an armageddon last night in a battle of roughly 30 v 15. we warped in (15) and my screen froze before I even saw a ship on my overview when it unfroze I was in half armour.
Whilst there may be instances of even small fleet battles being struck by silly amounts of lag.. there are occasions when 50 vs 50's are doable... point in case is the battle between Rise and Outbreak/Youwhat last night..
Originally by: Leilani Solaris Lag was... ok after it cleared initially, warping in had me at 0 fps for 20 secs or so but after that cleared i was ok. Numbers were roughly 60 Rise, 25 Toxin, and roughly 15-20 -Y- IIRC.
.. and this was on a sunday evening, the busiest night of the week.
50 vs 50's are possible still..
I say that 100 vs 100's will also still be possible but this is the absolute limit of what can be called playable.
I don't think anybody can argue this unescapable truth.
|
|
AKULA UrQuan
Caldari STK Scientific Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:03:00 -
[51]
....
These kinda of treaties never work. Not everyone is going to sign on and bring everything they have to a fight. How is it going to be enforced? Shame them to death? There are some groups out there that really could care less what the rest of eve thinks about their actions. They play to "WIN" at all costs and are already not shy on useing shady tatics to get that win.
I do respect your bravery on makeing this thread but this kind of thing just flies in the face of what eve is, A massively multiplayer online game.
Originally by: Wrangler Win ME is more a some sort of virus than a OS..
|
Taurequis
Waylander 01
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:18:00 -
[52]
Hi,
Tbh as the total subs and players playing keep growing this problem is never going away.
The online numbers are raising as fast as the tech developments and code changes can keep up.
The only way to make it better TELL NO ONE NEW ABOUT EVE!
No more noobs = Time for the Dev's to up the hardware and software = less lag
Best Regards,
Taur
|
Grimpak
Gallente Celestial Horizon Corp. Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:36:00 -
[53]
sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance." -------
Originally by: Abdalion
Originally by: Jebidus Skari What, in EVE, is a Tyrant?
Me. Especially when it comes to troll threads.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:44:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Nez Perces on 11/09/2006 21:44:53
Originally by: Grimpak sorry nez, but omeega is right. you can't make anyone not to come into a battle.
can you imagine the outcome?
"hay, I and another 500 people are itching for a piece of action."
"sorry guys, but you can't"
"bull****! i'm leaving this alliance."
I can understand that this concept is something that a lot of players will see as unworkable...
however, I don't accept that this is a valid reason.
If your enemy was attacking you with 100 pilots, in accordance to the treaty then you could field a maximum of 100 pilots to meet him.
If you have 500 willing pilots then leadership is under the obligation under such a treaty to find them 5 valid targets, not to send those 500 pilots into a lagfest from hell, where they will crash the node and spend several hours trying to log into the game.
If somebody gives me the option of sitting out a battle or spending several hours lagged to death, I know which one I would prefer.
|
Heldane
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard Vigilia Valeria
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:50:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Heldane on 11/09/2006 21:52:35 I wonder if it is any coincidence that most of these lag troubles occur when bubbles are present. Just warping into an area with a bubble lags me a bit and I have a fairly superior machine with a top notch graphics card and 2 gigs of RAM. Might there be any link between the bubbles and this problem?
|
Delani Altyr
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:50:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Delani Altyr on 11/09/2006 21:51:57 EDIT: Wrong Character
|
Rahn Altyr
Minmatar Dark-Rising Xelas Alliance
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 21:53:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Taurequis
The only way to make it better TELL NO ONE NEW ABOUT EVE!
No more noobs = Time for the Dev's to up the hardware and software = less lag
Never gonna happen. CCP is after all, a business. Why would they cut themselves out of gaining extra revenue?
Maybe CCP just needs to defrag their servers, or somehow coax the hamsters that power the processors to run faster. But seriously, instead of scaling up the technological specs of the servers, maybe a solution lies in scaling back the required processes/bandwidth/et al. per user. (running eve in a "wireframe mode" would be kind of cool, imo.) I dont have any suggestions on how that could be done, just that it might be a good tactic to use. If everyone is eating less pie, more people can have pie.
also... Stupid female alt getting in my way when I'm doing my "manly business" on the forum. Get back in your hoarder and do as your told!!
Originally by: Nials Corva This isn't a class based game. You aren't a level 10 million Missile Paladin that has to cross-class to Gunnery Wizard and start training from scratch.
|
Plutoinum
German Cyberdome Corp Veritas Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:24:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Plutoinum on 11/09/2006 22:24:58
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Balance is the number one problem. People just like to complain about lag because it takes away their ability to control the situation. Assuming you found a perfectly lagless fleet battle, you'd see there was no control and no player skill to begin with. 90% of tactics & setups get thrown out the window and the whole fight would be over in 5 minutes or less.
Fleetbattle balance is what Tuxford is working on. I expect from his blog that fleetbattles get better under lag-free conditions. But I don't think that this reduces the fleet size, if pos and capital ships are involved and so it won't solve the lag problem.
If you want to take down a dozen of poses and the enemy is going to defend thrm, then an attacking fleet size above 100 seems normal to me (dreads+support). Don't think that it's gonna change, so either the server needs to be able to handle that or they have to change poses and/or sovereignty.
|
Nez Perces
Amarr Black Spot.
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:41:00 -
[59]
I was going to say something similar in response to Digi...
.. there isn't a whole lot of point in having more balanced fleet engagements if the pilots cant activate their modules anyhow, which is what happens once you go over a certain fleet size...
...unless I am again missing something.
|
Heliodor Mordureau
Caldari Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2006.09.11 22:47:00 -
[60]
Good idea Nez, but too many would follow the rules only when it suited them.
Realistically, there are a number of options and not really many that are easily workable.
1. When two fleets of over X number of ships are in the same constellation (or within X number of systems as each other); game time slows for everyone in the constellation. (Idea being less transactions with the database, per second, more performance for overall transactions?) If someone were to enter a constellation with the above, they would be queued so they could adjust to the slower speed.
2. CCP develops some miracle coding that makes the game lagless and carefree. Soon(tm).
3. For Large Scale Fights (as above) Assaulting a POS, etc. etc. the work is offloaded to a instance server to increase speed and reaction time and therefore hopefully a lag free experience.
Both options are a stretch, 1. being maybe out of reach with current environment/hardware and 3. would be a breach of the whole goal of EVE being a single environment server.
Personally, I could care less about 3, give me a lagfree fleet battle and I'll love you forever. ________________________________________________
Look mate, if it's smack you want then I'll start sending Rohann into your Alliance chat everyday for a week.
-DB Preacher
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |