Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 2017-06-21 in all areas

  1. @Sundiata - definitely dig the idea. I have also this thought of combining RTS and city-building, so that single player would really be realistic, while multiplayer would have the trimmed down, simple and quick version of the game.
    3 points
  2. Our J sound like H Jor g with i and e sounds similar to our G -ge Jorge Gijón
    3 points
  3. Some useful hotkeys: By editing your local.cfg, change your idle worker key to something that can be reached with your left hand while your right is on the mouse. I have idleworker = "G" Change your idle-only key to something that can be reached with the left hand. If you drag-select while holding down this key, it will select only idle units. I have idleonly = "V". If you use V, you should also put under [hotkey.session.queueunit] the setting 4="0" to disable the V hotkey for unit production. Know that alt+g (if you have my settings) selects all idle units instead of just 1. "How do I make a worker build a house and make him build another house when he's done with the first one automatically?" - To build two houses, tell the guy to build the first house. Then hold down shift as you place the foundation for the second house. The second house will be queued, and he will start constructing it when he's done with the first. Another common case is to tell the guy to build a house, and then hold shift as you click on a tree. That will make him chop the tree after finishing the house. "When I train batches of new units, do I need to left-click on the civic centre and then right-click to the resources/building/rally point to make them go/work automatically?" - yes. Although, you can select the CC and press ctrl-1 so now you can just type 1 instead of clicking on the CC thereafter. "How to train multiple batches and make a batch go work on different tasks automatically?" - Don't queue up more than one batch at a time in your CC. Hold shift and click on the unit to make a batch, and only when the batch finishes should you make the next batch. That enables you to make the next batch as large as possible (which is faster). To split a single batch to go to two different tasks, you would set the CC waypoint for the first task, and immediately when the batch finishes you would select some of the units and tell them to do the second task instead. "How do I know when there are no more berries or no more meat from hunted animals?" - just keep an eye on the workers. You can also press alt+G periodically (with my keybinding) to see if any units are idle. See also the strategy guide in my signature. (attached my local.cfg) local.cfg
    2 points
  4. Terra Magna have some similar fish battle from Zapotecs" canoa"
    2 points
  5. For a long time, I've also been thinking that 0AD needs to be split in to two versions: - A classic and streamlined arcade-version, perfect for online multiplayer and people who like a simple, fast-paced game. - A much more expansive, time-consuming simulator, with endless options and a strong focus on realism, actual economy management and city building. (similar to the direction DE is taking, but even further) I believe this is the only way to satisfy most people, as they represent two very popular, but irreconcilable visions for 0AD. Trying to achieve both visions in the same game leads to mediocrity. But splitting them in two versions creates options for the optimization of both playing styles, and could make 0AD the best RTS ever made
    2 points
  6. I agree with him about the structree, specifically about the names that are shown. I think the specific names and generic names should be reversed. About the "layout" of structree, ehhh.... it doesn't look like the AoE tech tree because in 0 A.D. buildings don't unlock other buildings, like AOE does. In 0 a.d., building are unlocked by phases, so are grouped by phase. Also, too, the 'History' section and layout is dire. Should be wholly replaced. I remember seeing its layout way back in very old alpha videos. Time for an update. I did laugh out loud about how fast the game loaded and he couldn't read the tips. lmao. I think in single player there should be a 'Proceed' button show up once the map loads to 100%, so that the player can complete reading the tip if they wish. Also: TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? TSD? Had me rolling.
    2 points
  7. Is possible create a game mode will be classical. many people argue the weakes pints in 0AD. no free building citizen soldiers capturing is overpower or just isn't desirable feature. so this concepts made by classic series it's called Arcade mode.
    1 point
  8. That would be too much for the size of the model really (in reality the drekkars were extremely long, see shieldwolf's research documents, but that would give troubles with the pathfinder and such)
    1 point
  9. You should use "unused" instead of "0"
    1 point
  10. I thought I'd suggest these changes to make fishing more attractive. Currently it's hard to fish efficiently. The gathering rate is equal or faster than berries (it depends on how far away the fish are from the dock), but only three or four fishing boats can gather at a time (plus a few more travelling to/from the dock), so it's hard to rely on them to support your whole economy. Fishing boats take time to build and after fish are exhausted, they're useless. The fishing boat's tooltip says "Fish the waters for Food. Garrison a support or infantry unit inside to boost fishing rate." I thought that was a nice idea. Military units add arrows to ships, so why can't workers add poles and nets to fishing boats? My tentative proposal is to increase the garrison limit to five units, and have each unit add +80% to the fishing boat's effective gather rate. See D657 for details. There is micro involved in garrisoning units, but since they gather twice as fast as farmers and you can have up to 15 or 20 gathering at a time, I think this should make fishing an attractive alternative to fields (until the fish run out). That in turn should make water control more important, which should lead to more interesting games. People won't have to make as many fishing ships which means they'll have fewer to delete later on. Fishing boats could also be used to transport small groups of units (no cavalry or champions), although that's dangerous since they're slow, have little health and vision, and can't fight back. Let me know what you think.
    1 point
  11. The farther the fish is from the land, the better the catch (more fish). Fighting sharks? (This is a microing headache, so I'll just put it here) Since Naval Battle is unattended at best and broken at worst, it's difficult to judge how interesting it would be to make fishing boats engaging. My only real suggestion is that the fish should be placed on strategic points instead of seemingly randomly spread out. I'm referring to Skirmish Maps of course. But I think Random Maps should have a similar algorithm.
    1 point
  12. To find idle workers just hit the "." key which will select all the idle workers have a look at https://trac.wildfiregames.com/wiki/Manual_Settings for a all the various settings and how to find all the keyboard shortcuts in the default.cfg file. Enjoy the Choice
    1 point
  13. Here are a couple of simple fixes that could make it a lot easier to garrison units in ships. Ships should not move when you click to garrison a unit into them. This is a cause of many headaches, where the ship was already landed on the shore and you click for another unit to go into the ship, and the ship decides to move from away from the shore where you put it. Let units garrison into the ship from a short distance away from it such as 15m. They already ungarrison like that - let them garrison the same way. edit: I have submitted a patch for this. https://code.wildfiregames.com/D665
    1 point
  14. There is a old wip patch somewhere to show only the generic name as an option.
    1 point
  15. If you're one of those who disliked his videos, I know his criticisms are somewhat arbitrary (and are already being addressed in the forums). But since he likes the game and is just going for it one by one, just give him a chance and see if he can get into the meat of the problems.
    1 point
  16. The pathfinder is the biggest problem but the renderer performance is certainly not negligible. In fact, a new render engine is being written (though the development seems a bit stalled ATM) because the current one isn't too fast. Note that the new unit meshes barely have more polys than the old ones, they're used being used more cleverly. How much polys does the new one have (and how much the old)?
    1 point
  17. After reading this discussion I feel compelled to give my honest opinion on this topic, too. I can at least partly understand @DarcReaver and others getting in rage mode after trying to provide valuable input for the dev team regarding gameplay enhancements, only to get no to insignificant feedback and/or to observe the game heading towards a foreseeable future that is so wayyyyy below the true potential of the game. The usual answer - "we are all volunteers and if you want to change something then work on it" - does not address the problem properly since (at least from my experience and my observations) you will only waste lots of time trying to implement bigger changes, e.g. by means of a mod. AFAIK @wowgetoffyourcellphone has spent countless hours for the DE mod with tons of new features, techs, ... - and got some icons committed so far (correct me if I'm wrong). @wraitii has proposed a new market mechanism long time ago, received predominantly good feedback, provided a patch, ... And 15 months later no one remembers about it. I have the impression no one tries or dares to really touch/experiment with gameplay because "it would make XYZ complicated" and "AFAIK this already has been discussed 7 years ago ..." etc. (exaggerating a bit). Actually as soon as a ticket receives the "design" (= gameplay) keyword it's doomed into oblivion. It seems to me that the dev team is not well-rounded enough and especially is not covering certain tasks/roles/characters. We first of all lack a leader with the big picture in mind, a vision, a plan to follow, and who can take quick decisions or at least quickly comes to an agreement with some core devs. This is just my observation and no personal critique - @Itms is certainly a valuable dev, but I only associate programming issues with his name. As @DarcReaver said, we need a clear, recognizable gameplay concept that allows and forces a player to choose between a large variety of different strategies. Factions need to have stronger gameplay characteristics. A basic ruleset for military strengths, weaknesses and counters. A basic ruleset is such a necessary thing. It's defining the game like a constitution is defining a state. If we don't address these things the game will remain more a historic accurate simulation but will not be playable for long, at least not for a great majority of players. And a big number of players will help us all, since it will attract more devs/contributors addressing our lack of manpower. Similar to @DarcReaver suggestions, here are some sample rules that could be combined to a ruleset: RULE: The higher the value of a unit/building/tech, the higher its cost. (currently this is not true for population) example: Civilians require 1 pop, infantry units require 2 pop, cavalry units require 3 pop, elephants require 4 pop, heros require 5 pop, ... RULE: The higher the value/complexity of a unit/building/tech, the more diverse its cost. example 1: basic units cost 1 resource (food), citizen soldiers 2 resources (food and wood/metal), champions 3 resources (food, wood and metal), ... example 2: village phase techs usually 1 resource, town phase techs usually 2 resources, city phase techs usually 3 resources, ... RULE: The higher the value of a unit/building/tech, the more rare the needed resources are ... RULE: There are three classes of buildings/units/strategies/factions. Each class is strong against another class and weak against yet another class. Alternatively: There are five classes of buildings/units. Each class is strong against two other classes and weak against two further classes. Or each class is strong against another class, weak against yet another class and about as strong as two further classes. example 1: (melee) cavalry beats ranged (cavalry/infantry), ranged (cavalry/infantry) beats (melee) infantry, (melee) infantry beats (melee) cavalry example 2: buildings beat soldiers, soldiers beat siege, siege beats buildings example 3: booming beats turtling, turtling beats rushing, rushing beats booming example 4: swordman beats pikeman (1v1), pikeman beats spearman (formation), spearman beats swordman (formation). pikeman beats swordman (formation), swordman beats spearman (1v1), spearman beats pikeman (1v1). RULE: The stronger a faction can potentially be (in terms of tech upgrades, units, bonuses, ...), the slower its development example: early game faction, mid game faction, late game faction These are illustrative examples that could help to achieve a red line in gameplay. But it is important to formulate such rules, make tickets for their implementation, etc.
    1 point
  18. The article you posted is called "design process". Exactly what I wrote in my last paragraph here: The article collects references for usable units, buildings, art style, technologies etc. to find a way to implemetn this civilization into the gam, so it would be part 3. Regarding the red marked area: Dude, I did this, numerous times on various occasions. The only stuff that came back was ignorant babbling. Even when I created something more substantial in EVEN THIS THREAD there was no positive reaction apart from "you're wrong and I am right. You just don't know how to play". So tell me, what should I do? Especially from Lion.Kanzen. There's a history of borderline retarded posts regarding the development process and can be read througout the whole forum. If I was in charge I would've kicked him out of the team years ago because of his attitude and way of thinking towards certain topics asswell as the incompetence of comprehensive reading and developing solutions to problems. People like him are toxic for a creative process. Also, being nice only gets you so far. There are situations in which being nice doesn't help at all. Maybe you'll learn it someday aswell. So I'm not the only one, great to hear that there are also other opinions within the dev team. I'd strongly encourage you to experiment. There are numerous options to make the game stand out, just pick one and stick to it. the game has incredible potential that shouldn't go to waste. Edit: oh and don't be too much concerned about balance. Some of the most played games in this world are imbalanced by design. That's not a major problem as long as each player has a fair option of winning. If you create a certain civ outline that all civs follow you can't really mess up the overall game balance much. I speak from experience. On Eastern Front we had lots of discussions about the faction balance and spent many days of changing weapon stats and units. But then we noticed that our approach to the faction design was bad. We changed it and suddenly lots of balance problems were gone without any further work required. Design > balance. Because Design creates balance and not the other way around. Having a @#$% design with good balance is worse than having a good design with worse balance. Because a good design can be improved and balance can be achieved.
    1 point
  19. I'm 28 and I'm doing this in my free time aswell. I'm employed as leading technical Estate Construction Engineer for a large community. Also you're right heading towards the route of "never launch a game". BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE A GAME. YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PIXELS THAT CAN FOLLOW ORDERS. THATS ALL! I could just go ahead, take some of our Eastern Front Model assets, put them randomly together and say "LOOK THIS MY GAME ISNT IT BEAUTIFUL!?" Because that's what you're doing. And it's the wrong way. But deep inside you know it already. As I can't properly quote the first post I'll post directly in the quote in red (edit since you aswell took red colour I switch to purple): The last two paragraphs are pretty unclear to me because the english is too weird for me to understand. English isnt my main language so idk. What do you actually mean? In case you still don't understand the reasoning behind the criticism: The point is that 0ad is an uncreative, soulless clone of Age of Empires 2 without a working economy concept, military concept, no unique traits that make the game standing out from it (except for the capturing system which has some potential to be fair) and the horrible citizen soldier system that creates more problems than it fixes. If I'd make a list with pro's and contra's for 0ad compared to AoE 2 it would look like this: 0 ad Pros: - nice 3d graphics - other civs than AoE II, and "historical accurate" with no fantasy involved - interesting map layouts 0 ad Contra: - as stated in the name "0" gameplay - no original ideas to make civs differ from each other - no military counter system - no teching progression - no cohesive teching options for military and economy - no strategical depth - no longtime motivation to actually get into the "game" - chaotic feeling throughout every match, no red line in the game to get a progression effect for players playing it Other negative points like missing game features, animation bugs and so on would be unfair since the game isnt finished at this point. If I'd split up certain points (like strategical depth or teching progression) this list would become quite a bit longer. Since you yourself say it's an alpha I won't go into the details as much aswell, because the game can evolve, right? Sure, you have historical weapons, names, building architectures for your civilizations. But that doesn't make it a game. It makes it an interactive museum. No Rise of Nations clone, no nothing. Just a museum that moves. State me otherwise? I'll just post a dozen AoE II HD stream recordings from youtube between some players and put your (admittedly nicely recorded) youtube channel content against it. After minute 10 there should be a significant difference to see where 0ad is lacking.
    1 point
  20. Stuff like this needs to be the core of the actual game first. The developers have to have a vision of the game, how it should be played and build it accordingly. Leaving everything to modders or total conversions does not help. Of course opinions differ, but if someone of the dev team would set up a line for the gameplay there would be no reason to create mods to fix the game for them. I don't even care if its a system similar to mine, but it should _WORK_. And in the current alpha it's more than obvious that the dev game version does NOT work. And the worst thing: I came here over a year ago (!) and there has been ZERO, ZERO !!! progress in the game design department. It's almost the same when I left at alpha 18 or 19. that's the real problem. They don't care. They even created a "balancing" sub forum that states "Hey look our game is awesome that we don't need to improve the game design. Just help us fix the stats and it's awesome!" which is utterly bulls***. There is so much great art and potential in this game and they're not even remotely using it to make something great out of it. Of course it's a difference if you're an Indie developer compared to the great lords of games like microsoft or Blizzard. But that's no excuse to get your own stuff to work properly. Hence my rambling.
    1 point
  21. Oka, I'll just give you a starter, this is Something I wrote together in ~2 hours. It's nowhere near finished, but since you want specific infos that you can then ignore I'll just post it here: Improvement Concept: - scrap the Citizen Soldier system - units are trained in batches. that means: you click on the "train button" and once finished a certain amount of units is spawned instead of single units (I'd still suggest to have battalions because with the tiny units on the map it would simply make everything way more easy to overview, but anyways. I'll go with this for now as an improvement) - unit cost is increased accordingly, building times aswell Resources: - food (herdables, huntables, fish, replenishing food for later stages of the game) - wood (forests, bushes etc.) - metal (from mines on the map) - stone (from mines on the map) Usage: - food is key element to economy teching, training economic units and ofc. training military units - lumber mostly used for creating buildings and training units that shoot missiles (or have spears for that matter) - metal used for any military unit and to tech up certain military and economic upgrades - stone used for creating buildings aswell as walls towers etc. This system is consistent for all civilizations. The more specialized a unit is the higher is its respective cost. New gather system System 1 civilized/hellenic tribes/romans/Karthago * 2 trainable types of Gatherers : Women and Citizens - proposal: women cost 150 food, number of women per training: 5 - gather food (only) Citizens cost 200 food, number of Citizens per training: 2 - harvest metal, food, wood, stone Citizen can be "called to arms", transforming them in a garrison/defense type unit (like a Hoplite for example) for a set amount of time (like 30 seconds - 1 minute). After that they automatically become Citizens again -> defensive type civilizations that rely on using their citizens to defend their cities -> can create Outpost buildings that allow to increase the build radius. Without outposts they can't build in neutral territory -> outposts can be garrisoned with infantry to defend themselves, citizens can be called to arms on those buildings aswell -> utilizing the "combating Citizen" gameplay concept without all the unnecessary micro involved Buildings constructed in t1 phase: (only citizens can build them) -> quarry (store stones) -> mines (store metal) -> some sort of Agora building that stores food -> outpost -> towers -> wooden walls -> lumbermills (store lumber) -> farms -> houses System 2 "barbaric tribes/nomad" tribes * 1 trainable unit type : Villagers - Villager cost 200f, number of units per training: 5 - can gather everything, but slower compared to Women/Citizens - have no defense mechanics by default but can be equipped with armour techs like military units (cloth, better weapons/axes and so on), - can be turned into warriors for a resource cost permanently, but they are weaker than citizen militia Barbarians have weaker buildings compared to hellenic tribes, but they are cheaper. -> resources can be collected with Ox carts or cheap stash buildings that only require a couple of resources to be built. Can be built anywhere on the map no matter if friendly or neutral territory. -> allows early expansion and swarming the map with units, setting up camps for ambushes and harassment Buildings constructed in t1 phase:-> storehouse/mobile ox carts (stores every resource) -> barracks type building (like tribal house or whatever) -> palisades/wooden walls -> hunting lodges (increase pop cap) -> building that creates herdables as a food source for later stages of the game, similar to farms, but fit a nomadic style of a civilization combat unit system: - units take up different amounts of population, the better/larger the unit is the more pop cap it uses - mace/sword units 1-2 pop - spearmen 1 pop - hoplites 3 pop - siege weapons 4 pop - melee cavalry 2-4 pop (from light -> heavy) - archers take 2 pop - skirmishers take 1 pop - mounted skirms take 2 pop - ships take 5-10 pop, but are much more powerful and expensive compared to now Just like Citizens/Women/Villager military units are trained in batches. Depending on the type of unit (spam/low tech unit/high tech unit/cavalry/siege equipment) the number of units spawned varies. example Sparta: - hoplites spawn 10 men each - elite spartans are only 5 germanic tribe Axemen/Swordmen spawn with 15 soldiers each and so on. The costs are applied based on their hitpoint/damage ratio. there is a difference between a trained army and tribal warfare. Experienced, well equipped soldiers are better at fighting and are more powerful in direct combat. They have to be weakened by nomads with hit and run tactics, ambushes and other stuff. Each unit gets a hard counter that is significantly cheaper in one area. Yes, it's easier to order people to do something if you pay them. However, if you have no aim to work with it's even harder. We on eastern front did the following: "dude cool Panzer Model. However, would you like a finished, working, fun game and see your Panzer from hundreds of players? or would you like to keep posting screenshots and videos of it because the game around the tank doesn't work or is played at all?" The result was most of the time that people did what had to be done. Yes, and 0 ad has potential to become a @#$%ing Blockbuster. There are no great ancient times RTS games on the market. I also dislike Starcraft II but at least it makes sense when you actually play it. I don't like SciFi scenarios so I don't like the races in there. But even then it was logical and fun to play because it's a working game. Astonishing ignorance. Wow.
    1 point
  22. Dude. citizen soldiers are the most broken concept ever made. It may be unique, but it's not good. edit: actually, when I first noticed this game I also thought "woah cool, soldiers can gather resources. That's something refreshing". But after 3 games I already noticed that the system is flawed in its very essence. There is a reason why in 95% of all strategy games there is a difference between combat units and non combat units (aka resource gatherers). It doesn't make any sense to have main combat units gathering resources, because this always creates a disadvantage for attacking players. During the time my own army marches to the enemy, taking that both sides have equal resources (Which should be the case in this kind of mirroring civ games) the player attacking will loose, depending on the game time and population up to thousands of resources. And those resources are not only less for the attacking player but also more for the defending player and he can use this to defend his city + the attacking player's ecomonmy is weaker because his units are not in the base gathering resources. It's a slippery slope. Furthermore there are techs and design features that favor booming even more. Why should I try to rush an enemy if I can build a dozen women at once for gathering resources when I teched the "train women in houses tech" and replace my losses within seconds? There are much better ways to actually accomplish a working offense-defense balance. On top of that it doesn't even make sense the way it is implemented at all. Why should soldiers go to forests and fields and gather resources with their pikes/swords/axes and instantly be able to repel attacks as if they'd beam their weapons into their hand? Guess what: a much better system would be simply to keep the diverted women <-> citizen system and instead give certain buildings, like Town hall or barracks the option to "call to arms" which then arms citizens with characteristic weapons that were used by said civ for a period of time. During that time they can fight but no longer gather resources. And the best thing is that it actually resembles how Citizen Soldiers worked in that time (At least almost, because for certain civs the weapons were bought by the soldiers, like most greeks or romans). This is just an example of how flawed the whole "game" is at the moment (I'd rather call this "playable graphic model showcase" for that matter instead).
    1 point
  23. Specific constructive suggestions? Well how about this: edit: step 0: get rid of that citizen soldier concept, then start from scratch and use the art assets you already have available Step 1: create a resource concept Step 2: create faction concept(s) - create original factions that actually represent the characteristics of the civilizations ingame Step 3: create a teching concept - where and how many buildings should be available at which state of the game step 3a: economic systems step 3b: military systems step 3c: defensive tech systems Step 4: create a counter system - units that are trainable at which state of the game, how many units, unit characteristics etc. Step 5: create a gameplay pattern that the game follows to actually have some sort of game progress Step 5a: gameplay patterns of economy Step 5b: gameplay patterns of structures Step 5c: gameplay patterns of military . . . Step 10.000: balance playtesting of the final game (for which this forum is for) Those 5 things would at least create a state in which you can go more into detail. At this point I'd have to create a design guide for the game, consisting of everything, and would be probably a couple dozen pages long. This should have been done by the team years ago already and programming should have followed it (and by "design guide" I mean a detailed document that is actually worth a darn and not made by a bunch of noobs who don't know anything about actual gameplay), and I can't be bothered to write a design guide for you because you won't listen anyways. I know that there already is some of that present in the game, it's just that the implementation is nowhere near in a state that allows to actually create a gameplay. Also, follow Niektb's suggestion and as a first step read through my posts.
    1 point
  24. The most common roots of Frankish names are these (i had some problems with formatting ) A few examples : Bern (Bear) + Hard (Strong) = Bernhard (Strong Bear) which evolved in Bernard Adal (Noble) + Bert (Axe) = Adalbert (Noble Axe) which was a current name in the (mostly early) Middle Ages and evolved to Albert Ger (Spear) + Hard (Strong) = Gerhard (Strong Spear) which evolved in Gerard or Gerrard (like the football player ) Will (Will) + Bert (Axe) = Willibert (Voluntary Axe) which was popular too Sigis (Variant of Sig only used in some names) + Mund (Guardian) = Sigismund (Victorious Guardian)which is still common mostly written in other ways Hilde (Battle) + Gard (Protection) = Hildegard(e) which was a popular female name The name were given like this : The parents first used to give their first root of their name before giving the names for their meanings : So if your father was called Willibert and your mother Berthilde, you would have been called Willibert. If you want a list of Frank names go here, it's in French but you can still read the names : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_prénoms_d'origine_germanique And if you want historical great people's name go check the family trees of the Merovingians and the Karlings Your humble servant, Tiber7
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...