Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Richecko
University of Caille Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:39:39 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Another element i want to throw in here is the idea of soft mooring which works a bit like the current POS shield so you can still move around and use dscan etc within range of the structure but you cannot target anything and you are invulnerable.
It is basically an area invulnerability effect around the station like a remote rep or similar. It allows you to warp to 0 or undock into relative safety.
You can of course be bumped unless you do a hard mooring or dock up.
Thoughts?
Is this the proposed solution for Rorqual and Orca running mining fleet boosts?
Now the POS shield limits who can bump you (depending on config) unless someone guesses your shield password. |
theelusiveyoda
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
45
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:48:52 -
[122] - Quote
Ok so as im huge fan of killing and hunting anything with a jump drive, i thought that i might weigh in with my ideas.
In regards to the fanfest discussions .CCP Ytterbium wrote:
- Having (super)capitals visible from space, even if invulnerable to direct assault, is going a huge intelligence boost to opposing forces.
- Having (super)capitals traceable in such a manner could allow third parties to ambush (super)capital pilots as soon as they remove moorings to destroy the ships before they can escape.
- Having a fixed mooring capability on those structures will create problems if the structure mooring capability is full when another (super)capital pilot tries to use it under pressure.
We are considering various ways of solving the points listed above, like giving some "buffer time" when pilots moor and remove moorings to give them time to react by either jumping / warping away or aligning to another structure with available mooring capability.
This is no differient as it is now with supers logged into a pos, anyone with a dscan tool can find them, and you can trace superpilots already through locators, watchlist and killboard history and therefor is a mute point.
Also there should be a risk for not preparing, most of the supercapitals i've killed have been because the person couldnt be bothered to anchor a pos in system and though a safe spot would be fine.
Also what wasnt discussed which i hope would have been is the discussion of placement of cynos next to/nearby the mooring structure.
Whats to stop a group of supercapitals just jumping to a cyno and mooring straight away with no threat to themselves? Will there be a mooring timer or will it be instant? We can already see a similar issue as it is with people "garage dooring" next to online poses then raising the forcefield, which in ccp's own words has been classed as a exploit.
Surely ccp wouldnt just allow you to just jump to a cyno and moor your super/titan without any chance of being killed.
From what i've heard so faar it seems like ccp is trying to make it alot easier for the casual super pilot who doesnt understand or even attempt to understand some of the mechanics behind the way supercapitals and hunting them works.
Moving a supercapital by yourself shouldnt be a easy or risk adverse task, they should have consequences for flying them and not doing your homework.
Also what sort of placement restrictions will be enpossed upon these structures? Aslong as it isnt on a gate or station then whats to stop me deploying one in a deep safe far away from any celestial object? |
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:50:22 -
[123] - Quote
Just allow all capitals to dock in XL structures.
Otherwise you have to replicate the functionality of pos shields. Mooring does not do that.
For example I can sit in a pos shield, log out safely, then go do real life for 2 weeks without worrying about losing my stuff. Maybe a relative died. Maybe work got hot. Maybe I'm getting married. Most of us are theoretically adults who pay to play this game. EVE does not get to be a second job and continue to be successful. The worst that could happen is that the pos would be lost but I could find out about that before logging back in. With mooring I could theoretically lose my super a week in, and come back after the 2 week break to find out about it.
With the current proposal it is strictly superior to log off in a safespot with your holder character than it is to moor the ship. It probably makes more sense to sit within mooring range and then safe log than it does to moor the ship and log off.
If mooring is only allowed for a number of ships, there is nothing stopping idiots or spies from cluttering the mooring spaces with stuff to be obnoxious. How will that be handled?
Bridging from a titan will become seriously more risky than it was before. This denies little group the use of bridge titans.
Getting a capital fleet 'safe' after an op could become a nightmare. Imagine a scenario where a capital fleet has been out fighting and has made their way back to their staging system. A large capital fleet might not all be able to moor in the same place and the logistics become terrifying. Right now even extremely large capital fleets can be crammed into a pos forcefield.
I like mooring as an added thing on top of the functionality of pos shields. I hate mooring as a replacement of pos shields. We absolutely need a better set of mechanics if we are going to throw poses entirely out. |
Literally Space Moses
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
158
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:52:04 -
[124] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:RainReaper wrote:...why should it even be a risk to lose a titan or a super simply cause you left it in an array? it should be possible to leave a ship without risking it geting stolen simply cause you wanted to leave it for a little bit. Do you park your car on the street with no risk of it ever being stolen? No. Do you go on vacation with zero risk of someone breaking into your home and stealing all your things? No. Do you use your credit card online with no risk of your financial information being stolen? No. The same things are true of Eve Online. The difference is that in Eve, there are no repercussions for theft if it is done within the game universe. There is no place in Eve Online for a zero-risk situation. If you think it should be so, Diablo 3 is over at the Blizzard servers.
I have insurance for all those situations though. If my car gets stolen, insurance pays out enough to buy a new one. If my house gets broken into or burned down, i get paid enough to get a new one. If my credit card gets stolen, I tell them it is stolen and I get a new one. At worst, it's inconvenient and my premiums go up a bit. In eve, if my supercap gets stolen, well too bad.
It's ok to have risk as long as there is some way to manage it. There shouldn't be 0 risk, but there shouldn't be insane risk too just for normal activities.
#T2013
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
287
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 19:58:48 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:
This is effectively just docking supers, protection with no intel is the same as docking, but maybe it's time to allow that?
There are already ways to remove ships on d-scan, they are called scan inhibitor mobile structures. There is also talk of the observation array being allowed to remove d-scan to a degree. You should make use of the tools you already have or maybe will have, instead of putting artificial systems in place. |
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1181
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:01:04 -
[126] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Querns wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Titan bridging without pos shields? You are vulnerable when the bridge is up and unable to move. So you are in a situation where you cannot move and have no protection and since you just sent all your friends through a bridge no immediate backup. This issue needs resolving. I don't necessarily agree, though I'm sure my alliance would disagree strenuously. :) I feel like a basic requirement to guard your titan while it's vulnerable is not a bad thing. Except that you just bridged your guards away.
It seems to me that you are of the opinion that you should be able to operate the most expensive ships in the game with complete impunity and disregard to any and all risk. No POS shield means that if you are foolish enough to send every ship at your disposal through the jump portal, then you deserve whatever misfortune befalls you once they are gone. Risk versus reward.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:04:54 -
[127] - Quote
How about just not removing poses from the game. Take away their mining, production, refining, everything, but leave them as staging points. |
RainReaper
RRN Assembly INC Straw Hat Legion
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:07:37 -
[128] - Quote
Antonia Iskarius wrote:EvilweaselFinance wrote:RainReaper wrote:[yeah. but why should it even be a risk to lose a titan or a super simply cause you left it in an array? it should be possible to leave a ship without risking it geting stolen simply cause you wanted to leave it for a little bit. i PERSONALY dont want 10 chars for everything in the game. but again its up to you guys. im just saying it should be possible to temporary leave any ship without risking it geting stolen simply cause of bad code. i just think it should be possible. building a titan is already expensive like fliping hell you know. if I need to leave MY TITAN for 10m it's no problem, I just put up an xlsma in my altcorp or just eject after scrambling the pass and disallowing alliance entry. it's just dumb as hell to do either for more than 10m. I left two supers docked in my CSMA for literally 6 months straight. Sure, I had to set up a personal alt corp for it and I had to log in every 3 1/'2 days to make sure it wasn't reffed, but it worked, noone every came around and ****** with it and if I needed to unsub or go on vacation I could just sit my pilots in them, safe log, and pull the CSMA down. If POS could be made personal without needing an alt corp it would solve a lot of problems. I don't like this mooring concept at all from what I've heard so far, the current system works just fine with a few tweaks.
due to the fact you can place these structures *hopefully* anywhere. warp around, create a safe. and maybe you can find a area in a system where you can be almost invisible. and a safe storage for the thing. and like i said. wont question anyone who does things a certain way. but personaly. if i EVER got a super or so i would accualy like the ability to... leave the damn thing and not be stuck in it till the end of time. |
MukkBarovian
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
36
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:17:07 -
[129] - Quote
How about a new structure that generates a pos force field and does nothing else? |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
731
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:25:53 -
[130] - Quote
MukkBarovian wrote:How about a new structure that generates a pos force field and does nothing else? Too exploitable unless it can't enclose anything besides ships. Probably still too exploitable anyway. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1515
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:31:58 -
[131] - Quote
CCP seems pretty adamant about removing force fields. I would begin to shape your understanding around this critical fact.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
133
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:37:36 -
[132] - Quote
Would this be the right thread for an idea on what happens to capital ships after they have been destroyed while moored/docked and even when not moored/docked?
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 20:49:13 -
[133] - Quote
Elenahina wrote: Honestly, I don't see these as issues.
Supercapitals in particular are supposed to be strategic assets, not personal playthings (the last few years of Eve not withstanding), and as such, some thought should be put into their basing, advance, and withdrawl from the field.
If that was true than it should take an alliance to fly it and train up to do so. Not an individual toon. |
EvilweaselFinance
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
731
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:16:53 -
[134] - Quote
Styphon the Black wrote:Elenahina wrote: Honestly, I don't see these as issues.
Supercapitals in particular are supposed to be strategic assets, not personal playthings (the last few years of Eve not withstanding), and as such, some thought should be put into their basing, advance, and withdrawl from the field.
If that was true than it should take an alliance to fly it and train up to do so. Not an individual toon. that's a nice thought, perhaps when someone codes eve so its design is not reliant on on one ship = one human pilot it will be relevant
it is absolutely true that supercapitals are strategic assets no matter how hard you try to logic it away |
Anonymous Forumposter
State War Academy Caldari State
202
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:25:16 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Nullarbor wrote:Another element i want to throw in here is the idea of soft mooring which works a bit like the current POS shield so you can still move around and use dscan etc within range of the structure but you cannot target anything and you are invulnerable.
It is basically an area invulnerability effect around the station like a remote rep or similar. It allows you to warp to 0 or undock into relative safety.
You can of course be bumped unless you do a hard mooring or dock up.
Thoughts?
Perhaps a structure has a limited number of remote reps fitted to it? High tier remote reps can affect multiple ships at once maybe? This would provide a lot of choice and a lot of opportunity for interdiction :)
Swarms of spy's clogging up the reps maybe? :D |
Brain Gehirn
Reikoku Pandemic Legion
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:40:45 -
[136] - Quote
Ok. From what I understood here CCP is trying to remove pos shields but is still trying to figure a way to make these new structures work as a shield even if you don't see one - which is quite strange.
Let's point out a few issues and comment on those:
- A supercap heavy alliance will need a shitload of structures when they are deploying (its a pain but.. ok). How are we going to work out the fact that these structures will just make players spend like 30 minutes of their lifes with their mwd's online to be able to warp somewhere due :structures:?
- In the other side, what would prevent a small alliance of being bubbled to **** and ganked? Or at least unable to use anything if there is a neutral alt in system? Today you can login inside your POS, do your thing/jumpout/whatever and you need to be smart enough when you are going back home. Sounds awesome for me and looks balanced.
- Depending on your final proposal, fishing supercaps is going to be really easy. This just invalidate the "dream" of enabling smaller entities to compete in some ways with the bigger ones (or at least have some fun with their toys).
- Assume that some player super is moored and assume that this player is deployed in a war somewhere with his fellow alliance friends. Now assume that he has a RL issue and need to travel or is suddenly in the hospital or whatever.... GREAT. He lost his ship (as from what I understood the moored ship will be 'up for grabs' if the structure is destroyed). This doesnt sound really great for me.
- A small alliance is trying to create some content for his players. The titan login, people get in fleet and they are ready to hotdrop someone. The titan bridge is now up, the titan is ****** for 1 minute, everyone jumps to kill a few targets and.... cyno is up, titan is dead. GF's in local as the small alliance just lost his only titan. Everyone is mad coz "grrr [random big alliance]"
- With the new proposed system CCP wants: the ship nearby the mooring structure to be both invulnerable and not susceptible to huge bumps. Its fine. But its .... sorry CCP... at least strange.
Proposal:
Why don't you create a structure that generate a random shield bubble/ triangle/whatever X kilometers away and just avoid us of being trapped inside structures, prevent hostile bumps due the shield, prevent bumping inside this shield like you have made in pos'es (or not, whatever), prevent attacking (from attackers/defenders) as they are inside the shields, have a visual representation of the actual space that is protecting you or preventing you from attack someone... and just solves a bunch of other general issues?
You can even make this shield only usable by supers if you want to (which ends up being interesting in some ways). You can even came up with a mechanic that could disrupt the shields for X seconds so we could try to bump or do whatever with the people that are ONLINE and inside it (if they arent paying enough attention AAANNND have had time to gtfo).
tl;dr: There are a lot of good things that could be done. Removing shield, at least with the ideas that are up now, isnt a good one.
What is a signature?
|
Galphii
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:48:20 -
[137] - Quote
Mooring sounds like a nice compromise for docking supercaps. I'd like to see a moored ship show up in a player's hanger at that station as if it were docked, and yes the prospect of being able to park one of these things and get into a smaller ship to join in on roams is very appealing.
I hope to see the ship model actually pull alongside the station at a designated mooring spot instead of just floating around within the range of the tower/station.
"Wow, that internet argument completely changed my fundamental belief system," said no one, ever.
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 21:50:40 -
[138] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:Styphon the Black wrote:Elenahina wrote: Honestly, I don't see these as issues.
Supercapitals in particular are supposed to be strategic assets, not personal playthings (the last few years of Eve not withstanding), and as such, some thought should be put into their basing, advance, and withdrawl from the field.
If that was true than it should take an alliance to fly it and train up to do so. Not an individual toon. that's a nice thought, perhaps when someone codes eve so its design is not reliant on on one ship = one human pilot it will be relevant it is absolutely true that supercapitals are strategic assets no matter how hard you try to logic it away
The problem is that the game is designed in a way (regardless of what people believe or think) that 1 person and only 1 person has ownership of a supercaptial. Even if the ship is abandoned in space, as soon as the new pilot enters the ship he is now the owner. Corporations nor alliances do not own that ship. It is only a lose agreement between players. Nothing game wise enforces supercaptials being alliance assets.
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:10:14 -
[139] - Quote
maybe mooring uses Strontium Clathrates to stay moored, giving an no linear time to be docked, where ether the station sell it to you as you use it or bring your own.
this give the station owner an income and give an minor supply chain that can be disrupted. |
Kenneth Skybound
Skyefleet
118
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:22:58 -
[140] - Quote
Mooring could be used as a soft-dock mechanic, and scale upwards accordingly!
Certain small structures could provide mooring for smaller ships (perhaps below battlecruiser or any subcap) and no docking.
This would provide a means of placing oneself in relative safety, but also in a conspicuous position and one that can be attacked (ie the structure) or camped. The use here could be in daytrip platforms for mooring a scattering of smaller ships.
Larger structures could provide mooring for larger and more numerous ships, as well as the largest structures providing docking for subcaps, caps and supercaps eventually. Supercap docking could be an expensive upgrade (perhaps to the detriment of something else, such as asset protection).
Mooring has various options for balancing. Mass based (both max per ship and max total), number of berths and undocking means.
Exiting a mooring berth could be done in various ways:
1 - Local invulnerability. Kinda like how you can exist in a starbase forcefield and move around then leave by warping/jumping out no hassle. Within mooring range, undocked ships would be untouchable due to some sensor resonance field I guess.
2 - Temporary invuln timer. This kinda seems obvious as a session change matter.
3 - *special upgrade* Eject berths. Able to catapult ships out at high speeds/into a special warp. Similar to instant undocks. Such catapults may have mass limits, fuel costs or other limitations to make them not the best option.
Limited mooring bays I think is a MAJOR point worth keeping around! It gives room for adaptation such as building additional berths or removing other infrastructure for berths, offering incentive to change up the structure somehow.
Intel is a funny one. I can see how it can be VERY significant, but then I can also see how not showing the ships is basically docking. In this manner, I'd suggest moored ships cease existing in space if the owner logs off (like how ships in a forcefield work). With regards to limited mooring space, the berth can close up to demonstrate it is in use (imagine the ship is taken inside... yes I know that's docking, this is different somehow) and to explain why one might not be able to moor up.
I look forward to how you intend to proceed here, CCP. |
|
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS Shadow Cartel
669
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:23:34 -
[141] - Quote
- Mooring only for supers - Supers while moored don't appear on dscan - There should be a period of invul while unmooring. Or we should be catapulted away from the grid. - We should be able to put a personal password to the dock part where we moor our super - When leaving our Super we should be able to dock with our capsule directly in the station, same goes with the boarding of our super. - We should be able to refit our capitals when moored
BALEX, bringing piracy on a whole new level.
|
oohthey ioh
Republic University Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:28:55 -
[142] - Quote
also as your adding mooring make it so super remain in game even if the owner logs out, making it an big investment to own like it was originally intended.
and going in line with my last post it will make it costly to own and keep, unless you intend on using it it's not worth having it. |
handige harrie
Hedion University Amarr Empire
299
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 22:47:00 -
[143] - Quote
Mooring should be possible for Supers and Capitals depending on the size of the structure.
- They should disappear from space when the owner logs off. (like they do now) - This way, you can have a limited amount of people interacting with the structure at once, freeing up space for a new ship so you don't have 10 inactive accounts hogging up all mooring slots. - Logging back in should activate an emergency warp to the spot you logged out of, next to the structure if your mooring berth is already taken (like what happens now logging into a pos). - Logging back in should just return you in the game Moored in your Berth, save and well. If your Berth is still empty. So it pays to plan, but you won't be affected by players who never log in and logged out while moored. - They should have the same invulnerability as when undocking - Remooring when you just unmoored should be possible - Mooring should mark the structure as active and in use, so on some structures it should cost fuel just to moor a ship and not use anything else. - You can not moor with a weapons timer and / or criminal flag - Moored ships should show up on Dscan as they are logged into the game, with OAs affecting Dscan results, that is the structure to modify if you don't want to show up on Dscan.
On structures meant for personal use or small Corp use, Mooring subcaps should be possible on a case by case basis. (it has to make sense, mooring on a MTU is bad, Mooring on a POCO is good)
Baddest poster ever
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:08:36 -
[144] - Quote
If super capitals did not disappear while moored; what other mechanics would need to be there to make it worth the risk? Furthermore what would need to happen for a pilot to want to log off with their capital moored for the night or even a couple days? Instead of just logging off at a safe spot.
Perhaps some of the abilities of the super capital could be accessed by corp/alliance members to use against hostile a outside the station while it is moored that is available even though the owner is not logged in? That might make it worth mooring and even built for the purpose of an alliance asset instead of a single players shiny.
Just tossing out ideas.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4207
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:23:56 -
[145] - Quote
handige harrie wrote:They should disappear from space when the owner logs off. (like they do now) I think any ship moored (which I assume will be a capital at a bare minimum) should remain viewable when the player logs off. The tradeoff is potentially giving up intelligence gathering while gaining a degree of invulnerability. This could potentially allow strikes on shipyards where moored ships could be damaged or otherwise incapacitated (but not destroyed).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Midori Tsu
Evolution Northern Coalition.
135
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 23:57:33 -
[146] - Quote
"This is meant as a replacement for Starbase forcefield which currently has a certain number of issues."
Would it be possible to get a list of these issues?
As i see it, mooring is a really bad replacement for the removal of POS shields, increased risk for almost no bonus. |
Soleil Fournier
Ultimatum. The Bastion
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:11:18 -
[147] - Quote
Mooring is very much needed so I don't have to dedicate a toon to sitting in my ship logged off 99.99% of the time.
Should it be limited to supers and titans only? Yes and no. Establishing a "beach head" in hostile space and having a safe area for fleets to stage from I think is a very important part of gameplay that I'd hate to see go. But as those ships can dock, and given the new freeport mechanic, maybe it should be limited to ships that can't dock.
Perhaps the answer to that question is making Mooring specific to supers/titans where they are permanently secure. But then having a separate and temporary "shielding" mechanic where subcaps or normal caps are provided safe haven for short periods of time as long as they are within range and interacting with the POS.
Another option to consider, is that supers and titans can dock, but only in the new 'XL' sized structures as described in the fan-fest talk. This would setup a scenerio where Mooring at pos is an option for supers/titans that leave them vulnerable to the things described in the OP, but they'd be given more security in the new gigantor stations. |
Captain Davison
Malachi Keep Detachments
20
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 00:53:20 -
[148] - Quote
You know, I kind of like mooring. I'd actually like it even more if you could set up a small personal station in hi-sec that can be one to ten pilot run and due to its small size moor your ships instead of docking them. Why? Well, mostly because I'd like a little station to call home all alone in the night. A starbase of my own, if you will. Say, something a little bigger than a battleship that has to unfold and self-unpack to set up before I can moor at it, with the ability to moor cruisers and battleships, and limited docking berths for smaller craft.
Then, of course, anything at the 'corp starbase'/medium to large level just goes to full docking and supercap mooring, but...
I just really want an ACTUALLY personal starbase to call home. Is that too much to ask? |
grumpychops
Non Nobis
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:04:54 -
[149] - Quote
I like how the issue of mooring is being discussed without the players OR CCP having any clue what role Supers will have in the future.
Given that these changes will take away the last real role for them (don't say for escalating fights, it doesn't happen that often), how are we supposed to speculate what mechanics we want for mooring? What if Fozzie takes away the mothership's ability to project any DPS, like he suggested? Wouldn't that tidbit drastically affect what capabilities the mooring structure and mechanic would need to make it feasible and preferable to safe logging?
Since you (CCP) want us to speculate on the usage of this idea that is still in the concept phase, how about telling Fozzie to hop in and give us his concept for how supers will be used this summer? |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
261
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 01:11:52 -
[150] - Quote
When a station is destroyed, These are one of the few items that should be transported to another station or a planet.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |