Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#31
Just_Ice_au wrote:From your perspective, when you buy the ship, THEY WILL ALL BE EMPTY.
I think you have misunderstood me. I want the player to be free to remove all equipment from their ship if they wanted and i listed examples where that could be beneficial.

How could this be beneficial?
  • 1. The player could have extra hardpoints to use for other ship equipment.
    2. The player can cut the cost of owning a lot of ships by selling the scrapped systems.
    3. The player can experiment with crazy ideas with their ships.
Just_Ice_au wrote:The only difference here will be the fact that your ship, when you strip out all your fancy upgrades, and leave all the hard points empty, will Still Fly Around. It will Still Not Leak Air.
When a player strips down a ship to the point of nothing but a hull as to still be airtight the ship can not fly around but drift and would need to be captured by a carrier or other ship to be moved.
Just_Ice_au wrote:Way to miss the whole point.

Okay, every ship has a set of basic sensors, engine, etc.

Accept this fact, THEN IGNORE IT. Your ship will fly around. Your ship will not leak air. Worry less about the details.
I have no problem with having a basic set of factory installed equipment in ships that have been bought by a player.
From what Josh has said we can still replace those pieces of basic equipment with new parts.

Do you think part of the point is to prevent the standardization of factory installed equipment for ships that have been bought which makes buying existing ships a more pleasant experience? Please tell me your version of the point.
As for exceptions to this point above i'm sure it would be nice to get the occasional fixer-upper junker ship with only its hull intact.

For me this is the point:
  • Limitations on the minimum amount of equipment is unnecessary as this blocks the players freedom to explore. These limitations should only be a guideline not a rule. As for the conditional issue in my previous post if i have misunderstood Josh i want the ability to replace the basic equipment within ships that have been bought.
Just_Ice_au wrote:If you want more hardpoints to play around with, just straight up ask for more hardpoints, don't wuss out.
Yes i want more hardpoints always will. There is another post which talks about more hardpoints and alternatives.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=720


PS: Thanks for telling me i wasn't being completely clear.
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#32
Actzoltan wrote:
Just_Ice_au wrote:From your perspective, when you buy the ship, THEY WILL ALL BE EMPTY.
I think you have misunderstood me. I want the player to be free to remove all equipment from their ship if they wanted and i listed examples where that could be beneficial.
Okay, I just want to state that you've been very thorough in your explanation of what you want, and I appreciate that, but Josh appears to think he has something even better cooked up.

I don't think I've misunderstood you at all. If anything, I'm not sure that you've entirely grasped the details of Josh's design as he has expressed it in this topic. I'll endeavour to quote from him directly when I'm rebutting your statements.

I myself favour Josh's solution. Unfortunately, he does do away with being able to completely remove systems from stock ships, but I'll cover below why this is actually a good thing. :) ;)
Actzoltan wrote:How could this be beneficial?
  • 1. The player could have extra hardpoints to use for other ship equipment.
    2. The player can cut the cost of owning a lot of ships by selling the scrapped systems.
    3. The player can experiment with crazy ideas with their ships.
Response:

1. Any "extra hardpoints" would be taken up by basic systems. You might have more on paper, but a minimum number will have to be used up just to get basic functionality. In Josh's second scenario, you reserve the hard points for things you want to specifically upgrade, and you get everything else virtually for free.
JoshParnell wrote:Consider the two scenarios:

1. You buy a fighter, it has 6 generator hardpoints (among other things), but comes with no equipment. You spend time searching for the correct level of sensor, power grid, and thrusters to fit to the ship. These take up 4 out of the 6 hardpoints (assuming you get 2 thrusters). Later, when you want to upgrade, you swap out the basic parts for more advanced ones.

2. You buy a fighter, it has 4 generator hardpoints, but comes with factory-installed sensor, power grid, and thrusters. It works out-of-the-box. Later, when you want to upgrade, you simply purchase an auxiliary power generator, propulsion boosters, sensor enhancers, etc, and use the hardpoints for those.

My question is, is there really any difference in freedom afforded by the schemes? I claim that the first is only more tedious, not more flexible. What's the difference between allowing you to swap out base equipment, and providing extra hardpoints so you can enhance the base equipment? IMO, the second option is easier to think about, less tedious, but equally customizable.
2. You're supposing that basic systems will cost an appreciable amount of a ship. However, traditionally in games, starting equipment is worth almost nothing. There is also the fact, that if you owned a lot of ships, under this model, you'd virtually have to personally oversee the equipping of each. Also, you'd have to purchase equipment to replace the basic stuff you scrapped - which will always be more expensive that leaving them with the base gear in.

Using Josh's scenario, you could assume that each ship is basically functional, and upgrade where you deem it appropriate. You wouldn't have to personally inspect each ship if you didn't want to. This system would seem to provide tangible benefits in time management by reducing the basic complexity required, while still supporting the rich customisability you seem to want at anything over a basic level of functionality.

3. Re: Player experimentation. I can't see anything that would seriously inhibit player experimentation in the proposed system. You seem to think that you'll be "Stuck" with the default layout, with no "entire system" upgrades possible under Josh's system, when from what I can tell, you're basically free to run whatever propulsion/weapon/sensor mix you want (provided you have enough hard points - a capacity that will probably be limited more by the size of the vessel than anything else). I can't see any barrier to trying any outre combination you want, you'll just have to call it an "upgrade" rather than a "complete system replacement". Semantics.

Actzoltan wrote:
Just_Ice_au wrote:The only difference here will be the fact that your ship, when you strip out all your fancy upgrades, and leave all the hard points empty, will Still Fly Around. It will Still Not Leak Air.
When a player strips down a ship to the point of nothing but a hull as to still be airtight the ship can not fly around but drift and would need to be captured by a carrier or other ship to be moved.
Why? Floating around in interstellar space waiting for a rescue sounds Super boring. Why would you ever implement a system that's just going to bore and/or annoy your players?
Actzoltan wrote:
Just_Ice_au wrote:Way to miss the whole point.

Okay, every ship has a set of basic sensors, engine, etc.

Accept this fact, THEN IGNORE IT. Your ship will fly around. Your ship will not leak air. Worry less about the details.
I have no problem with having a basic set of factory installed equipment in ships that have been bought by a player.
From what Josh has said we can still replace those pieces of basic equipment with new parts.

Do you think part of the point is to prevent the standardization of factory installed equipment for ships that have been bought which makes buying existing ships a more pleasant experience? Please tell me your version of the point.
As for exceptions to this point above i'm sure it would be nice to get the occasional fixer-upper junker ship with only its hull intact.

For me this is the point:
  • Limitations on the minimum amount of equipment is unnecessary as this blocks the players freedom to explore. These limitations should only be a guideline not a rule. As for the conditional issue in my previous post if i have misunderstood Josh i want the ability to replace the basic equipment within ships that have been bought.
I think this is pretty much the crux of our contention, and I'm going to quote Josh here for backup.
JoshParnell wrote:All ships will come with basic factory-installed equipment that will make sure your ship is functional as soon as you buy it. As far as you are concerned, these do not take up hardpoints or affect you in any way, except for the fact that you don't have the "freedom" to build a non-functional ship. The only change is that now, you are thinking of equipment upgrades as being upgrades, not replacements. In terms of gameplay, it makes no difference whatsoever.
See, the point (as I see it) is, functional ships are useful (and using them should be fun), whereas non-functional ships are not useful (and therefore using them is frustrating).

Whenever a game developer has the choice to implement a fun feature, or a frustrating one, generally it's a good rule of thumb to implement the fun feature.

In the proposed system, you will never be able to buy a non-functional ship, but that's okay, because this fact really won't impact on your ability to customise any ship how you want, it just won't force you to customise if you don't want to. If anything, it removes some basic limitations you might expect a starting ship to have - which is great, because removing limits is kinda what this game is all about.
Actzoltan wrote:
Just_Ice_au wrote:If you want more hardpoints to play around with, just straight up ask for more hardpoints, don't wuss out.
Yes i want more hardpoints always will. There is another post which talks about more hardpoints and alternatives.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=720
No problem :D I'm actually in favour of as many hardpoints as possible myself (how else am I going to cram every advanced system I can find into as little space as possible).
Actzoltan wrote:PS: Thanks for telling me i wasn't being completely clear.
No worries, I'm happy to be having the discussion. If there's anything you're still not clear on, let us know and we'll keep the ball rolling.

...

And now by popular request (or if you thought all that was TL:DR), Diagrams!


Fig1: Limit Theory with basic gear thrown in: Image Fig2: Limit Theory with a more complexicated system: Image
- The Snark Knight

"Look upward, and share the wonders I've seen."
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#33
So, after everything I've read that Josh has said, I feel I completely understand his standpoint on this.

I'll use his first 2 examples, but simplify them
1. You buy a fighter, it has 6 generator hardpoints (among other things), but comes with no equipment. You spend time searching for the correct level of sensor, power grid, and thrusters to fit to the ship. These take up 4 out of the 6 hardpoints (assuming you get 2 thrusters). Later, when you want to upgrade, you swap out the basic parts for more advanced ones.

2. You buy a fighter, it has 4 generator hardpoints, but comes with factory-installed sensor, power grid, and thrusters. It works out-of-the-box. Later, when you want to upgrade, you simply purchase an auxiliary power generator, propulsion boosters, sensor enhancers, etc, and use the hardpoints for those.
Without basic factory equipment

Ship has 6 generator hardpoints
[Empty] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty]

You need to add basic functions (Taking Josh's assumption of 2 Thrusters, 1 Power Grid, 1 Sensor)
[Thruster] [Thruster] [Power Grid] [Sensor] [Empty] [Empty]

With basic factory equipment

Ship has 4 generator hardpoints
[Empty] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty]

But also comes with basic factory equipment
[Basic Thruster] [Basic Thruster] [Basic Power Grid] [Basic Sensor]

So your total comes to this
[Basic Thruster] [Basic Thruster] [Basic Power Grid] [Basic Sensor] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty] [Empty]

So the first example here gives you all basic functions, with 2 additional generator hardpoints, where as the second example gives you all basic functions, but with a total of 4 additional generator hardpoints.

Now let's see, I want to upgrade my Thrusters and Power Grid...

Without basic factory equipment

Replace Thrusters and Power Grid with better quality ones
[Upgraded Thruster] [Upgraded Thruster] [Upgraded Power Grid] [Basic Sensor] [Empty] [Empty]

With basic factory equipment

Add Thruster and Power Grid upgrades
[Basic Thruster] [Basic Thruster] [Basic Power Grid] [Basic Sensor] [Thrusters Upgrade] [Power Grid Upgrade] [Empty] [Empty]

So now in both examples, we have upgraded Thrusters and Power Grid, with a basic Sensor, and also in both examples, we have 2 remaining generator hardpoints.

However if we wanted to upgrade our Sensor as well, "with basic factory equipment" it would take one of those 2 remaining generator hardpoints, meaning we would only have 1 remaining generator hardpoint. This means that for this example to be balanced the "with basic factory equipment" example should actually begin with 5 generator hardpoints instead of the 4 in Josh's original example, and in that case, whether we have basic factory equipment or not, we actually get the exact same amount of customizability in both scenario's.
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#35
Just_Ice_au wrote:1. Any "extra hardpoints" would be taken up by basic systems. You might have more on paper, but a minimum number will have to be used up just to get basic functionality. In Josh's second scenario, you reserve the hard points for things you want to specifically upgrade, and you get everything else virtually for free.
I have already agreed that yes getting a set of factory installed equipment in the bought ship as to be functional out of the box is important for fun gameplay.
  • Extra hardpoints would be basic systems the player has scrapped to deemed necessary only the parts which specialize the ship further than by the restrictions of the required minimum parts list.
Just_Ice_au wrote:2. You're supposing that basic systems will cost an appreciable amount of a ship. However, traditionally in games, starting equipment is worth almost nothing. There is also the fact, that if you owned a lot of ships, under this model, you'd virtually have to personally oversee the equipping of each. Also, you'd have to purchase equipment to replace the basic stuff you scrapped - which will always be more expensive that leaving them with the base gear in.

Using Josh's scenario, you could assume that each ship is basically functional, and upgrade where you deem it appropriate. You wouldn't have to personally inspect each ship if you didn't want to. This system would seem to provide tangible benefits in time management by reducing the basic complexity required, while still supporting the rich customisability you seem to want at anything over a basic level of functionality.

The starting parts within the ships wont be worth much this is fine. When a player makes this optional choice this is the part of the game they want to play by changing the basic functional ships gear to a partially functional ship which will only be good for a few things .
  • This player may even regret this choice for the lost time or loss of money spent.
    This player may have only removed the starting gear within the ships placing the parts into storage as to easily regain basic level of functionally which makes a well rounded ship possible.
    This player made a optional choice and may have enjoyed it or learned valuable lessons for next time.
Just_Ice_au wrote:3. Re: Player experimentation. I can't see anything that would seriously inhibit player experimentation in the proposed system. You seem to think that you'll be "Stuck" with the default layout, with no "entire system" upgrades possible under Josh's system, when from what I can tell, you're basically free to run whatever propulsion/weapon/sensor mix you want (provided you have enough hard points - a capacity that will probably be limited more by the size of the vessel than anything else). I can't see any barrier to trying any outre combination you want, you'll just have to call it an "upgrade" rather than a "complete system replacement". Semantics.
I have already agreed with that replacing the starting engine, sensor, power grid is possible within Josh's system.
  • The player just cant go below the starting gear level of functionality to create a unusual combination which defines this players basic level of functionality. The problem with this safety net to prevent failure is the player can not specialize into a role so well as to be ineffective in everything else which limits player freedom.
Just_Ice_au wrote:Why? Floating around in interstellar space waiting for a rescue sounds Super boring. Why would you ever implement a system that's just going to bore and/or annoy your players?
In my quoted example below:
  • The player doesn't plan to ever pilot those 80 small fighters which have no engines only to use those ships as weaponized beacons to mark, protect, alert the player of any territorial boarder crossing. This player has accepted the risk of losing those ships but the player didn't want the ships moving from their designated locations anyway.

    In my example i make the assumption sensor data from ships within the players fleet are shared with the player.

    Now lets assume engines can be destroyed and a player who is unwilling to be stranded in space is stranded adrift in space. As LT will be full of missions this is the players turn to call for help with a reward for a rescue. Now lets assume the player wont get any help from the npc for any reason the player does have a capable crew aboard who could repair the engines after a short time. Now lets assume this mode of being adrift could be a toggle in a check-box within the options.
Actzoltan wrote:3. A player has bought a large carrier and 80 small fighters with the intention of stripping down the fighters using them as weaponized beacons to notify the carrier if anyone has breached the players territory. The small fighters only need 1, hull, 1 sensor, 1 power grid along with shields, weapons. The carrier would simply detach the fighters from the hanger and they would drift out of the carrier as the carrier moves away. The carrier would do this until the border of the player territory has been established.
Just_Ice_au wrote:See, the point (as I see it) is, functional ships are useful (and using them should be fun), whereas non-functional ships are not useful (and therefore using them is frustrating).


I agree with you that functional ships are useful. I have to disagree about non-functional ships.

A non-functional ship which was designed for a purpose for the player who designed it this ship is partially-functional and useful to outsiders the ship would be non-functional and not useful. Even non-functional ship can be useful as a base, hiding from attackers fire, ambush spots for eager salvage ships you just have to see the junk as treasure.
Just_Ice_au wrote:Whenever a game developer has the choice to implement a fun feature, or a frustrating one, generally it's a good rule of thumb to implement the fun feature.
I agree having a fun feature is what games are all about. Frustrating features are problematic what you have to do is separate whether a feature is challenging or frustrating.
  • From my point of view keeping Josh's starting parts which every ship which is bought will have is fun allowing functional ships out of the box.

    From my point of view keeping Josh's starting parts baseline restriction which prevents any player from the option of equipping a bought ship below that standard is frustrating.

    From my point of view allowing bought ships to go below Josh's starting parts baseline restriction to allow more depth for players as a new established starting part configuration could be created to make unique ships which are specialized so well as to be only useful in their role this is challenging and can be fun for some players.
Just_Ice_au wrote:In the proposed system, you will never be able to buy a non-functional ship, but that's okay, because this fact really won't impact on your ability to customise any ship how you want, it just won't force you to customise if you don't want to. If anything, it removes some basic limitations you might expect a starting ship to have - which is great, because removing limits is kinda what this game is all about.
In my proposed change to Josh's system you will never be able to buy a non-functional ship, but will be allowed a optional choice to completely remove Josh's parts at the cost of added difficulty and time invested. To me removing the option to invest time into a ships systems by allowing new configurations after the player has a working ship out of the box is unnecessary.
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#36
(Yes, reread and necro time :mrgreen: )

Maybe as a middle ground solution:

There is factory mounted "backup" equipment in ships which ensures basic functionality.
it cannot be removed from a ship.

But:
One can replace it, in a sense.
The hardpoints where the default stuff is in are for equipping of other equipment functionally empty.
the player can mount other "full" equipment "on top" of the basic stuff.
Once "real" equipment is mounted in the hardpoint all effects from the fixed equipment are removed and only the manually mounted stuff "counts".

Although, if one removes the manually mounted equipment the factory mounted equipment comes back into effect.

So one can replace factory mounted equipment with the expected effects without removing the "it has to be functional" requirement.

In effect its like in many role play games.
If a char doesnt have equipped a weapon, he always can fall back to using his fists.
similar for equipment, if one doesnt explicitly equip a thruster, theres still the fallback engine.


Same functionality could then be used for damaged/destroyed equipment.

If your thrusters get shot down, you can fall back on the emergency ones.
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#37
Spoiler:      SHOW
Image
Oh boy, I can see that this topic is going to be a fun one.

Why not start people out with default equipment that can be sold or swapped out? The player doesn't have to sell the stock items, but can if they want the extra credits. This allows hard-point slots to be empty which could result in faster ships if unnecessary systems were removed. For instance, I may want to be able to remove a shield or weapon system that is taking up energy from my power core. Instead of having to manually change my power settings I should be able to simply remove the particular system(s) to increase my ships speed.

I also agree with Josh, a ship that is sold must not be able to be sold without a engine or power source. However, I believe that these systems should be able to be removed by the owner of the craft while it is in their possession. The ship would not be able to leave the station (or carrier) while it is missing these critical pieces.
Image
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#38
BFett wrote: I also agree with Josh, a ship that is sold must not be able to be sold without a engine or power source. However, I believe that these systems should be able to be removed by the owner of the craft while it is in their possession. The ship would not be able to leave the station (or carrier) while it is missing these critical pieces.
Congratulations! You just created deadlocked situations!

"You just sold your scanner and have not enough cash to buy another one? Too bad, you cant undock now"
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#39
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote: I also agree with Josh, a ship that is sold must not be able to be sold without a engine or power source. However, I believe that these systems should be able to be removed by the owner of the craft while it is in their possession. The ship would not be able to leave the station (or carrier) while it is missing these critical pieces.
Congratulations! You just created deadlocked situations!

"You just sold your scanner and have not enough cash to buy another one? Too bad, you cant undock now"
Take a loan? :ghost: :think:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#40
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote: I also agree with Josh, a ship that is sold must not be able to be sold without a engine or power source. However, I believe that these systems should be able to be removed by the owner of the craft while it is in their possession. The ship would not be able to leave the station (or carrier) while it is missing these critical pieces.
Congratulations! You just created deadlocked situations!

"You just sold your scanner and have not enough cash to buy another one? Too bad, you cant undock now"

You sold the scanner for 0 credits? No that's not possible. Treat it like the prototype. The player starts out with a ship and 1000 credits. The player can buy what they want and sell the equipment that they want to. I assume the player is smart enough to buy and sell things without getting stuck in a deadlock situation. If they do manage to skillfully do that they can play the commodity market with what they can afford and make money that way.

If someone isn't smart enough to make changes to their ship, why are they making changes in the first place? Also, what's wrong with restarting the game if you make a mistake 1 minute in?
Image
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#41
In most games, BFett, you sell for less than you buy. Works that way IRL too. For instance, let's say you can buy a scanner that costs $500 to build for $600, so the seller makes a profit. Now, if you want to sell it again, the guy will only buy it back for less than that - say, $400, so again, he makes a profit. If you start with $600, buy a scanner and have $0, and then sell a scanner to get money back, that's $200 less than you started with, and not enough to buy another scanner.

I think that if you won't have enough to make your ship flyable, then the game should forbid you to sell the item. Otherwise, fair game.
Have a question? Send me a PM! || I have a Patreon page up for REKT now! || People talking in IRC over the past two hours: Image
Image
Image
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#42
Talvieno wrote:In most games, BFett, you sell for less than you buy. Works that way IRL too. For instance, let's say you can buy a scanner that costs $500 to build for $600, so the seller makes a profit. Now, if you want to sell it again, the guy will only buy it back for less than that - say, $400, so again, he makes a profit. If you start with $600, buy a scanner and have $0, and then sell a scanner to get money back, that's $200 less than you started with, and not enough to buy another scanner.

I think that if you won't have enough to make your ship flyable, then the game should forbid you to sell the item. Otherwise, fair game.
Then sell it to a different buyer. :ghost:
Image The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#43
Talvieno wrote:In most games, BFett, you sell for less than you buy. Works that way IRL too. For instance, let's say you can buy a scanner that costs $500 to build for $600, so the seller makes a profit. Now, if you want to sell it again, the guy will only buy it back for less than that - say, $400, so again, he makes a profit. If you start with $600, buy a scanner and have $0, and then sell a scanner to get money back, that's $200 less than you started with, and not enough to buy another scanner.

I think that if you won't have enough to make your ship flyable, then the game should forbid you to sell the item. Otherwise, fair game.
this.


if at all, the game should warn you
"this is your last scanner, you sure you want to sell it?"



BFett, if you allow the player to do stupid things, then let him go all the way and undock regardless of his ships state.

or we could say that an empty engine hardpoint just "activates" the backwards facing RCS thrusters as main thrusters and remove possible deadlocking completely :V
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#44
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote: I also agree with Josh, a ship that is sold must not be able to be sold without a engine or power source. However, I believe that these systems should be able to be removed by the owner of the craft while it is in their possession. The ship would not be able to leave the station (or carrier) while it is missing these critical pieces.
Congratulations! You just created deadlocked situations!

"You just sold your scanner and have not enough cash to buy another one? Too bad, you cant undock now"
If only this were a PC game, and I had some way to restore from disk a copy of the world that I prudently saved before beginning my trading session....

...HEY!

:)
Post

Re: Unfixed hardpoints

#45
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
Talvieno wrote:In most games, BFett, you sell for less than you buy. Works that way IRL too. For instance, let's say you can buy a scanner that costs $500 to build for $600, so the seller makes a profit. Now, if you want to sell it again, the guy will only buy it back for less than that - say, $400, so again, he makes a profit. If you start with $600, buy a scanner and have $0, and then sell a scanner to get money back, that's $200 less than you started with, and not enough to buy another scanner.

I think that if you won't have enough to make your ship flyable, then the game should forbid you to sell the item. Otherwise, fair game.
this.


if at all, the game should warn you
"this is your last scanner, you sure you want to sell it?"



BFett, if you allow the player to do stupid things, then let him go all the way and undock regardless of his ships state.

or we could say that an empty engine hardpoint just "activates" the backwards facing RCS thrusters as main thrusters and remove possible deadlocking completely :V
How do you undock from a station when you are missing an engine or power supply? If he has both of those, then sure, let the player fly around with nothing more than a engine and power supply. If I want to fly around without shields, armor or weapons I should be able to.

Here is what I think should be replace only:
Sensors
Thrusts/Engines
Power-plant/Energy source

Everything else should be able to be removed and sold if the player wants to do so. Make the game hard, teach the player that being stupid is stupid and if deadlock is the only way to go about doing that early game then I'm all for it. I don't care!
Image

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron