Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
McTan

What ACE might consider about Albion Online

Recommended Posts

Probably a long post, so I'll do a tl;dr up front. Basically, I wanted to discuss my experiences playing Albion Online the past month, and its implications for ACE moving on Crowfall in the current landscapes. Some points to consider are as follows: MOBA/MMO relationship, Fast travel & Safezones, Risks, Grinds and the gathering/crafting/combat triumvirate, Power Curve, RMT. In many ways, my experiences with AO just make it critical to me that ACE resist many of the tempting slides toward casual PvE oriented games, by re-highlighting the importance of some of their design commitments. Many of these ACE already knows, states, and adheres to, but I think reiterating them is important.

(1) The great MOBA debate. Or, can a game hybridize PvP MMOs and MOBAs (read: battlegrounds)? In Albion Online, the most influential PvP events are 5v5 battlegrounds also known as GvGs. Each of two sides get to outfit and organize a five-person team who will compete in a "king of the hill" + "k/d" type fight. For all intents and purposes, these are essentially instanced (although they take place in the "open world," only the ten people signed up for the fight may enter the arena during the designated time). 

Ostensibly the purpose of this set-up is to counteract zerging and relieve pressure from more casual players from needing to show up in critical combat moments. Nevertheless, the zerg exerts influence through how well it can outfit five people through a pyramid scheme of sorts. Ultimately, although these fights seem exciting for the participants, to me they are incredibly annoying and ostracizing. My alliance's home city plot was recently sieged; I watched on twitch.tv; please, ACE, stay away from any and all developer designed arena fights, and do not make any such fights meaningful in any way toward who wins and loses the Campaign World.

Yes, Zergs will win city plots away from small guilds; so be it! Let us find alliances, do espionage and otherwise subvert these fights, and above all participate if we want to.

(2) Living MMO Worlds, we hardly knew ye. A related problem that must be addressed is the relationship between world size, type, travel, and points of interest: what I call how "alive" the world feels. On this AO falls on its face, because it was so close to being good. Set aside for a moment that AO is segmented zones stitched together (with the most insane invuln mechanics you could imagine for a "pvp" game), the amount of weird fast traveling that happens is crazy. Naked suicides all freaking over the place and other fast travel NPC mechanics that cost money depending on how much you are wearing, ugh. Essentially the game is a set of meaningless fast travels to safezones (city plots, pvp-off territories, pvp-lite territories) interspersed with infrequent meaningful one-way trips. Having to organize caravans on mounted oxen and horses == awesome, but being able to port into safezones and back, and get little invuln bubbles, means that with practically any effort you can avoid risks altogether. 

Over the past couple years I have heard a lot of pressure to make EKs a larger part of the ecosystem; hell, I provided a lot of that pressure. But my reasoning was to create a connected universe, wherein EKs would have to have PvP on, so as to not give our risk-averse harvesters a place to live, thrive, and bend the game to their will. Much more of the pressure is to make EKs more like CWs, but without any of the PvP risk. I was incredibly disappointed to hear that all-the-way to T4 mats would be available in EKs. You are essentially making those resources valueless (maybe alleviated with export/import, if done well).

There is going to be so much more pressure as more people come to this game. It will be overwhelming, but ultimately listening to this crowd will break this game. It would not break other games! But it will break this one.

Which brings me to my third point:

(3) Do Not Try to Attract Risk Averse Players. Albion Online developers made a change to their game the first week of release, in response to massive complaints. In essence, people would ride up on horses to those unmounted (or mounted players) and manage to kill them (apparently a surprise for players who bought a game meant to be "PvP" oriented). These harvesters complained, and complained loudly. Already players who dismounted had a cooldown on being able to use abilities (so would have to normal attack/poke for several seconds), but AO decided to make the dismount give a three-second cooldown on being able to attack another player at all. What does this result in? You guessed it, ridiculously easy escapes, next to impossible PKing of mounted players, and hilarious imagery from 30000 feet. For instance, I recently rode up to an unmounted gathered with five people, and the person simply mounted up and ran off. It's so hilariously carebear I cannot stand it.

ACE will face this pressure relentlessly: people will be killed and lose a lot of materials and come onto these forums and scream about it; hundreds to thousands of new players will piggy back onto the threads and complain about the same stuff. PLEASE DO NOT GIVE IN. What results is a harvesting game, not a PvP game. Harvesters rule the day, but guess what? One month in, population of PvPers is taking a massive dip, and the harvesters will soon be supplying nobody and quickly quit the game. This game is not for the entire harvesting-interested community, they have plenty of other games! This game should be for people willing to risk pixels enough to go harvest awesome poorly made socks knowing they may die, fully prepared to be disgruntled off about it, then rally three friends and go strike the ganker's city, or main farming area, or outpost, or friends.

In short, please let us deal with dying through revenge or preparation, not protection mechanics. I understand that some harvesters will quit because they got ganked, but protecting those players will cause everyone to quit the game.

(4) Hi-ho, Hi-ho, it's off to harvest we go. Or, why the power curve cannot be steep. AO is a harvesting simulator with some PvP encounters. It is incredibly important to step up the tiers of gear; the power curve is linear. If you can step up a tier, you will basically guarantee victory over essentially all players of lower tiers 1v1. Losing materials is, therefore, made more devastating. Those mats do not represent marginal improvement, they represent an entire step up. The logarithmic curve is absolutely key to this CF, please stick with it. Combine a linear curve with the ridiculousness of instanced PvP, and you get a game designed around 95% of its players gathering 95% of their time, in order to keep the 5% of players who will PvP geared.

(5) RMT, hackers, and DDoS, aka Let Tyrant be Tyrant. AO has been subjected to a massive retaliatory strike after shutting down the primary RMT issue. They were correct to do so. The DDoS attacks that followed were incredibly frustrating to players, but must have been hell to developers. The sad mistake made by the AO devs was ever having offered this route to begin with. Ultimately ACE needs to be incredibly savvy about how they handle safezone (EK) harvesting, import/export, VIP benefits, and RMT. Ruthlessly toss the banhammer. 

Many people may disagree with this assessment of AO and my implications for CF. So be it. Ultimately, it is for ACE to decide, but I think these points are important to consider and reconsider based on the design principles they highlight. Thoughts? Other comments?

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An accurate analysis of how Albion Online has let down open-world PvPers. It was a gradual change in focus over the last 4 years for AO, an accumulation of small decisions that by the launch date had created a different game than the PvP sandbox originally described. The most common description I hear now for AO is "boring".  There is an audience for boring I guess :lol:, but it won't hold my interest for long term.

This mid-point in the Crowfall development process is the critical time to double-down on the vision of a PvP-focused, open-world Throne War MMO. The market is already full of XP grind/gear progression games, PvE theme parks, and instanced Arena games.

Go big on the CF vision ACE, dedicate to it and make a great game.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CF has already been softened for risk averse players in many ways, and EKs are already heading towards becoming more than they ever should have been.  It feels like certain design principles are just being blurred and smudged. 

CF won't have AO's power curve but even if it did it wouldn't be like AO because ACE has so many more options.


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There arent enough hardcore pvp players in the world to support a hardcore game.

This has been proven time and time again since the age of Muds ended and the current reign of fantasy Mmorpgs has begun. If a game doesnt have safety valves in place the semi-hardcore players wont stay and they are the group that has the numbers to keep a game running financially.

The closest thing you will find to what you want is Eve Online. Eve isn't a fantasy Mmorpg and doesn't attract fantasy Mmorpg players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Signed. Great post @mctan!

Number 5 in your list has been worrying me more lately, after I heard about what happened in Albion. Since CF wants to walk that line with RMT that was so popular in EVE. But AO seemed to have entire systems completely dedicated to RMT in which you could just swipe your credit card and win entire plots of land that produced income passively. Thankfully CF has nothing like that planned, but the whole VIP-EK-Import/export dynamic is still kinda hazy to me. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

CF has already been softened for risk averse players in many ways, and EKs are already heading towards becoming more than they ever should have been.  It feels like certain design principles are just being blurred and smudged. 

CF won't have AO's power curve but even if it did it wouldn't be like AO because ACE has so many more options.

Curious to know what has changed with EKs? From what I have seen they are pretty much what we've known they'd be since we first started hearing about them. Player housing, trophy rooms, limited resources, Private/public setting, PvP enable/disable. So yeah not sure what you see that would make one think they are "already heading towards becoming more than they ever should have been".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, pang said:

Curious to know what has changed with EKs? From what I have seen they are pretty much what we've known they'd be since we first started hearing about them. Player housing, trophy rooms, limited resources, Private/public setting, PvP enable/disable. So yeah not sure what you see that would make one think they are "already heading towards becoming more than they ever should have been".

The resources are becoming less limited.  Maybe you missed that. 

EKs used to be dependent on CWs.  That's not always the case anymore.  And while I doubt CWs will completely die out or anything, they are going to create a situation where their PvP population which is already split up in different types of bands, also gets split into the hardcore arena crowd that sits in EKs and doesn't really care about CWs.  This is going to ultimately delegitimize a lot of the CW because these players will always be the best and they will start to make CW community feel lesser.

Generally, especially as a niche game you want to avoid splitting your population too much anyway, because even if you have 100k players, if they are all spread across 100 different servers the ghost town sensation starts to take over and when people feel a game is dying, whether it's just their server or the entire service, they start to quit as well.

Albion is actually facing this issue right now because while they still have pretty populated pockets within the game, the overall world has parts that are starting to dry out and get neglected, and players experience this and the game becomes less fun to them and they quit too.  The risk you take with expecting emergent behavior from your players to carry a game is that if you fail to predict certain behaviors that will start making players quit, it may snowball before you can fix it.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My hope is they avoid the RMT issue that AO has but depending on how VIP and cash shop item trading works, this might already be a loss.

Another issue is performance and large scale gameplay. I understand that there are limits and all games suffer from lag after a point, but if guild sizes will be large along with alliances, systems should be in place to deter people from forming up in massive groups that make for slideshow game play.

I've been in 100-200+ fights in AO and it's just terrible or at least not anywhere what I want CF to be. If ACE doesn't have some magic optimizer/performance booster planned (that actually works), systems should be in place to keep numbers down to make for a playable experience. Not sure if that looks like AO style "instanced" POI fights or what, but just letting people do whatever and the results depending highly on the lag gods, I won't be having a good time. Regardless if there is FF or anti-zerg mechanics, people will find a way to work with/around the game mechanics. Would rather there be hard restrictions in place that remove the option to do so, even if that means some form of "balance" or whatever. 

Many of the other issues I have with AO likely will be avoided or at least much less in CF simply due to the way things are being created. AO on the basic level is a great concept but overall no system is great. It's overly mediocre and has little risk v reward which is what I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Toadwart said:

There arent enough hardcore pvp players in the world to support a hardcore game.

This has been proven time and time again since the age of Muds ended and the current reign of fantasy Mmorpgs has begun. If a game doesnt have safety valves in place the semi-hardcore players wont stay and they are the group that has the numbers to keep a game running financially.

The closest thing you will find to what you want is Eve Online. Eve isn't a fantasy Mmorpg and doesn't attract fantasy Mmorpg players.

 

You may be right, but I never argued for no safety valves. I am convinced that trying to design a PvP game by trying to attrack risk-averse gatherer-types does the following:

(1) Gatherers complain when they die

(2) Devs make it harder to die (rather than less painful to die by declining the power curve)

(3) PvP becomes harder to accomplish, and players who should not escape do.

(4) PvPers quit

(5) Gatherers have nobody to supply. They quit.

(6) Game folds

 

Finally, I'll say that guilds are the backbone of any game of this genre. My guild will protect our gatherer-types, we do not need mechanics to do so for us.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, APE said:

My hope is they avoid the RMT issue that AO has but depending on how VIP and cash shop item trading works, this might already be a loss.

Another issue is performance and large scale gameplay. I understand that there are limits and all games suffer from lag after a point, but if guild sizes will be large along with alliances, systems should be in place to deter people from forming up in massive groups that make for slideshow game play.

I've been in 100-200+ fights in AO and it's just terrible or at least not anywhere what I want CF to be. If ACE doesn't have some magic optimizer/performance booster planned (that actually works), systems should be in place to keep numbers down to make for a playable experience. Not sure if that looks like AO style "instanced" POI fights or what, but just letting people do whatever and the results depending highly on the lag gods, I won't be having a good time. Regardless if there is FF or anti-zerg mechanics, people will find a way to work with/around the game mechanics. Would rather there be hard restrictions in place that remove the option to do so, even if that means some form of "balance" or whatever. 

Many of the other issues I have with AO likely will be avoided or at least much less in CF simply due to the way things are being created. AO on the basic level is a great concept but overall no system is great. It's overly mediocre and has little risk v reward which is what I want.

There is no reason for shady RMT third party businesses to not sell VIP for real money once they figure out a way to farm whatever is required to trade for it in game. 

The only way ACE can stop this is by putting a limit on VIP tokens about how often they can be traded.  I believe if their true intent is only to allow someone to acquire VIP through in-game activities then the tokens should have a 1 time trade limit.  Directly from the person who paid real money in the cash shop to the person who needs the VIP time for themselves. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mctan said:

You may be right, but I never argued for no safety valves. I am convinced that trying to design a PvP game by trying to attrack risk-averse gatherer-types does the following:

(1) Gatherers complain when they die

(2) Devs make it harder to die (rather than less painful to die by declining the power curve)

(3) PvP becomes harder to accomplish, and players who should not escape do.

(4) PvPers quit

(5) Gatherers have nobody to supply. They quit.

(6) Game folds

Finally, I'll say that guilds are the backbone of any game of this genre. My guild will protect our gatherer-types, we do not need mechanics to do so for us.

Personally, I hate gathering/crafting and have no issue with these folks having some tools to avoid being ganked be it by one or many. It shouldn't be total immunity or a giant uphill challenge for attackers, but with everything, there should be risk vs reward. Gatherers are going out and collecting resources without much fighting chance and at risk of losing all their time/effort. Attackers that aren't able to get the kill only lose some time and have little risk, along with typically running in packs anyway and not having much challenge vs one or a few gatherers.

In AO's case, I've seen many "PVP" videos of soloing gatherers that usually are running away. To me that isn't PVP. 

It is entirely possible to still kill people solo or small group in AO, despite all the systems in place. It isn't as easy, but it shouldn't be. Since the 3 sec update, I've killed people mounted just as before be it I was mounted or not. I've also been killed while mounted. Unfortunately AO is limited in options and only particular builds or group numbers excel at this type of play.

Since CF won't be a zone filled game, much of the issue is removed with safe areas and zoning delay systems (bubbles), but things like Disciplines that give gatherers improved perception when gathering, run speed, armor boosts, stealth etc shouldn't be game breaking for attackers. Requires a bit more thought of "oh there's someone hitting a rock, lets kill them." Might need to think 5 sec ahead before attacking, same as AO. 

If CF was 100% a guild/group based game that would be one thing, but with what I assume will be a decent number playing solo or small groups be it faction CWs or others, relying on having a full gathering guard or even other gatherers at all times seems unrealistic, just like AO. This is ideally how to do it, but for those out adventuring on their own, I have no problem with tools/options that require them to give up one thing for another. Want increased perception, forego increased gather speed or whatever the case might be. Being able to do it all shouldn't be a option for any game style. For attackers, being able to run fast, anti-stealth, lots of CC, burst damage, etc shouldn't be entirely easy to come by.

Killing someone should be a challenge just as getting away should be.

Unlike AO which is limited to 6 spells at a time and a default mechanics (zoning, mounts), CF has a lot more potential to allow players to build characters that allow them to excel at one aspect of gameplay. Assuming we'll see mounts eventually, would see no issue with AO style escape tools (instant mount area while gathering, gallop, spell delay dismounting) being something that could be Discipline, Gear, Mount, Adv/Dis, Passive Training based that require time/effort to build and require giving up something in return.

If I could train for a month and have the option to instant mount, why not? In that time someone might train the option to have no or reduced cooldown while dismounting. CF has so much potential where AO is rather stuck in its limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played Albion Online for maybe 1 month in Alpha Access. I mainly PVP and Albion Online quickly turned me off due to gameplay mechanics at the time (which sound like they got worse).

Albion Online is a PVP game with very few options to create a unique character. The end result is a game where there is a clear "Meta". The Meta tends to be heavy hitting weapons that also provide mobility.

PVP turns into, run and chase as you can quickly look at a character or fight them for 2 seconds and you already know who will win. If you are losing, you quickly pop all mobility skills and run away. This works about 90% of the time if you know what you are doing.

What created this is too much mobility difference in classes and the ability to run to new zone quite easily and be protected by guards. The difference in mobility is a problem that Crowfall could ignore. They normalized dash distance on RMB click which I think helps alleviate this problem. I know many people were upset by this change. I think its one of the best changes they have made. We saw this problem obviously with the confessor when you could jump dash. People complained about confessors, but never about the real issue which is confessor had more mobility than any other class.

I cannot stress this enough - Long distance mobility needs to be equalized among classes in a PVP focused game. I know VN argues with me here saying (slow as poorly made socks Knight) is awesome because all PVP will be objective based and Knight will be great at defending objectives. I completely disagree as most PVP will be casual encounters for fun. Difference in mobility makes these encounters boring as everyone will just run from a Knight they can't beat. Since the Knight has low burst output and high sustainability, a good player should never die to a Knight in casual world PVP.

Zergs are a problem and the only way to help alleviate this problem is true FF and skill based combat mechanics. You want to give a good player the ability to beat an unorganized Zerg through a high skill ceiling and the zergs ability to damage each other with poorly aimed shots (this always does and will happen. It happens because people want to do something and they will often do something (damage teammates) opposed to waiting for a safe shot on the enemy where teammates are not harmed). Currently Crowfall completely fails to address this issue. I don't think they will address this issue correctly before launch.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ClockworkOrange said:

Zergs are a problem and the only way to help alleviate this problem is true FF and skill based combat mechanics. You want to give a good player the ability to beat an unorganized Zerg through a high skill ceiling and the zergs ability to damage each other with poorly aimed shots (this always does and will happen. It happens because people want to do something and they will often do something (damage teammates) opposed to waiting for a safe shot on the enemy where teammates are not harmed). Currently Crowfall completely fails to address this issue. I don't think they will address this issue correctly before launch.

Unfortunately I don't see them improving aim enough to make it a real factor nor do I see FF being a core system beyond a switch flipped on/off. FF would/will keep mindless zerging down, but likely doesn't have enough impact for a well organized larger group. 50 organized folks with poor aim are still likely to overcome 20 precision aimers be it with FF or not.

However, there are gamey mechanics that could be created to deter relying on numbers as a crutch.

If the game can calculate how many one side has be it in a group/guild/alliance vs another, there could be potential for both penalty or bonuses to sides with less/more. Maybe X% drop/boost in damage/hp per player depending on the ratio. Say 2:1, one side gets a slight change in stats, not 50% or equal but just a bit of a push one way or another. Wouldn't mind this for faction based CWs especially.

Numbers should matter but that doesn't mean they should be the only deciding factor. Personally not a fan of making a ton of gamey restrictions, but for certain things, without something in place it is just a mess and results in more headaches for devs and less fun for potentially everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

There is no reason for shady RMT third party businesses to not sell VIP for real money once they figure out a way to farm whatever is required to trade for it in game. 

The only way ACE can stop this is by putting a limit on VIP tokens about how often they can be traded.  I believe if their true intent is only to allow someone to acquire VIP through in-game activities then the tokens should have a 1 time trade limit.  Directly from the person who paid real money in the cash shop to the person who needs the VIP time for themselves. 

I agree. There are many systems that could be in place to deter 3rd parties.

Requiring X amount of play time would be another option so they can't make an army of 1 day old accounts to sell/buy things.

Another is rewarding players for turning in these folks. Get a whisper from someone or see someone doing shady business, play along and inform the devs. Devs catch them, ban the account and potentially others they've dealt with. Once someone is brought out into the open, following there trail shouldn't be that hard. Some "innocents" might get in trouble along the way but being very open and upfront about what is/isn't allowed by ACE should help this.

Much like real life, people tend to look the other way if it isn't directly impacting them positively or negatively. I've ignored so many whispers in game about gold selling over the years, but if I was given the option to turn these people in and be rewarded in-game, I likely would spend a min or two trying to bait them a bit.

My preferred option is simply limit what can be bought with cash and traded. If it's just VIP that at least limits it to one item/currency. Not sure if mounts, relics, strongholds, skins, etc will be available.

Hopefully much of this is worked out prior to full launch and we don't see blatantly obvious issues day 1 that require knee jerk reaction impacting everyone for better or worse.

As is, AO will forever be broke economically in multiple ways due to lack of understanding and systems in place by the devs. Funny thing is they have at least 4 "economists" on their team.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, mctan said:

AO decided to make the dismount give a three-second cooldown on being able to attack another player at all. What does this result in? You guessed it, ridiculously easy escapes, next to impossible PKing of mounted players, and hilarious imagery from 30000 feet. For instance, I recently rode up to an unmounted gathered with five people, and the person simply mounted up and ran off. It's so hilariously carebear I cannot stand it.

 

LTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, APE said:

Unfortunately I don't see them improving aim enough to make it a real factor nor do I see FF being a core system beyond a switch flipped on/off. FF would/will keep mindless zerging down, but likely doesn't have enough impact for a well organized larger group. 50 organized folks with poor aim are still likely to overcome 20 precision aimers be it with FF or not.

However, there are gamey mechanics that could be created to deter relying on numbers as a crutch.

If the game can calculate how many one side has be it in a group/guild/alliance vs another, there could be potential for both penalty or bonuses to sides with less/more. Maybe X% drop/boost in damage/hp per player depending on the ratio. Say 2:1, one side gets a slight change in stats, not 50% or equal but just a bit of a push one way or another. Wouldn't mind this for faction based CWs especially.

Numbers should matter but that doesn't mean they should be the only deciding factor. Personally not a fan of making a ton of gamey restrictions, but for certain things, without something in place it is just a mess and results in more headaches for devs and less fun for potentially everyone.

50 People should beat 20 people and I highly agree there. I just don't like it when the skill ceiling is so low and FF is turned off, this puts TOO MUCH importance on numbers. Sounds like we are in agreement here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, APE said:

It is entirely possible to still kill people solo or small group in AO, despite all the systems in place. It isn't as easy, but it shouldn't be. Since the 3 sec update, I've killed people mounted just as before be it I was mounted or not. I've also been killed while mounted. Unfortunately AO is limited in options and only particular builds or group numbers excel at this type of play.

Killing someone should be a challenge just as getting away should be.

So have I, and I never said it should not be a challenge, but your claim that "both should be challenging" is not true in practice in AO. I do not like how easily I can get away as a solo harvester (I am yet to die, 1 mo into the black zones). This is a combination of terrible uniform resource distribution, too big of maps, and the mount/dismount problem.

In the balancing of how easy to kill and how easy to escape, AO massively missed for me. Hence my example of a 5v1, with little to no attacks getting off, and we are not noobs who need to LTP, we have been in the black zone, played many of the betas, and build to gank. It feels, looks, and plays stupidly.

The rest of your post I am on board with, especially the zoning invuln issues. Part of my point in bringing it up, is that ACE is going to get massive pressure to do invuln bubbles and things in the name of "performance" (such as microzones) that, IMO, crush these games.

I am aware of how CF is different from AO, and this thread is meant to highlight the importance of some of those differences. The better ACE analyzes AO and looks at what to avoid, the better off this game will be, I think.

Edited by mctan

Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...