Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sowelu

Balancing sides

Recommended Posts

The sides are unbalanced (as they will be when the game launches).  I hope to see something like damage multiplier based on point difference after 30% or 50% difference in score. So if your side half the points than the enemy, you would do 2x damage. With 3x the difference you would do 3x damage. That would balance things out and make it more interesting. Please don't do the usual bonuses that can't really help you change anything - such as getting +20% points for capturing a keep (which you can't do because you are outnumbered in the first place). Nobody wants to go get slaughtered against stronger side. Best they can hope for is guerilla and ninja capping. However if you were dealing 2-3 times the enemy does, well... ...I am pretty sure people would be inclined to go out even when losing. Yes, it would mean one shots at some point. But it would be FUN and it would be MEANINGFUL and it would have actual IMPACT. And so what? The winning side would have to huddle in forts at worst until the losing side hits some threshold when the damage multiplier is more manageable. Maybe leave the bonus even some time after the threshold is reached (An hour? A day?) so that the losing side actually has means to change the situation and hope for win. And I wouldn't worry about the oneshots so much anyway, the winning side will be able to muster bigger blobs so they'll be still able to defeat the smaller side. Plus the winning side would still have to work for the victory even when leading, so it would be more interesting for them as well.

I am pretty sure if you don't do something DRASTIC the interest will drop quite fast if the game becomes lopsided.

You can exclude some zones from the damage bonus buff so that people can play GvG when they want to. Let's say you put the bonus on one map only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sowelu said:

The sides are unbalanced (as they will be when the game launches).  I hope to see something like damage multiplier based on point difference after 30% or 50% difference in score. So if your side half the points than the enemy, you would do 2x damage. With 3x the difference you would do 3x damage. That would balance things out and make it more interesting. Please don't do the usual bonuses that can't really help you change anything - such as getting +20% points for capturing a keep (which you can't do because you are outnumbered in the first place). Nobody wants to go get slaughtered against stronger side. Best they can hope for is guerilla and ninja capping. However if you were dealing 2-3 times the enemy does, well... ...I am pretty sure people would be inclined to go out even when losing. Yes, it would mean one shots at some point. But it would be FUN and it would be MEANINGFUL and it would have actual IMPACT. And so what? The winning side would have to huddle in forts at worst until the losing side hits some threshold when the damage multiplier is more manageable. Maybe leave the bonus even some time after the threshold is reached (An hour? A day?) so that the losing side actually has means to change the situation and hope for win. And I wouldn't worry about the oneshots so much anyway, the winning side will be able to muster bigger blobs so they'll be still able to defeat the smaller side. Plus the winning side would still have to work for the victory even when leading, so it would be more interesting for them as well.

I am pretty sure if you don't do something DRASTIC the interest will drop quite fast if the game becomes lopsided.

You can exclude some zones from the damage bonus buff so that people can play GvG when they want to. Let's say you put the bonus on one map only.

completely disagree, if you are losing in this political throne war simulator just make more friends and be nicer to powerful guilds, a bonus like that is broken, an alpha warrior with a 3x bonus would potentially one shot an entire group of enemies, god forbid that bonus apply to ballistas too


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Staff said:

completely disagree, if you are losing in this political throne war simulator just make more friends and be nicer to powerful guilds, a bonus like that is broken, an alpha warrior with a 3x bonus would potentially one shot an entire group of enemies, god forbid that bonus apply to ballistas too

This is exactly the point. To disrupt the game. If you have a winning side, there needs to be something that changes things dramatically. Having an Alpha warrior single shot enemy stacks would be an incentive to go play when your side is losing 100k point to 300k points. While if the bonuses will be insiginificant, the change won't come. Your Alpha Warrior would just die against the vastly more powerful enemy. I could argue that the winning side has more manpower and thus can still kill the oneshotting Alpha Warrior quite easily since it had only damage bonus and not HP.

Yes, some people would organize GvG and some like guerilla and fighting against the odds. But there is one thing that people find to be the essence of the fun: Winning. Whether in combat or by other means that give you that feeling. If you have a stalemate you can't really meaningfully influence, the fun quickly fades away. There is a reason why people generally find games with risk factor more fun than statistics. They can win.

I have seen in all MMOs I played, how one side eventually dominates. The longer this lasts the less populated the other one becomes.

If you put the bonuses on one map only, people can consciously choose whether they want to enter a map, where they can get more damage.

Share this post


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

This is exactly the point. To disrupt the game. If you have a winning side, there needs to be something that changes things dramatically. Having an Alpha warrior single shot enemy stacks would be an incentive to go play when your side is losing 100k point to 300k points. While if the bonuses will be insiginificant, the change won't come. Your Alpha Warrior would just die against the vastly more powerful enemy. I could argue that the winning side has more manpower and thus can still kill the oneshotting Alpha Warrior quite easily since it had only damage bonus and not HP.

Yes, some people would organize GvG and some like guerilla and fighting against the odds. But there is one thing that people find to be the essence of the fun: Winning. Whether in combat or by other means that give you that feeling. If you have a stalemate you can't really meaningfully influence, the fun quickly fades away. There is a reason why people generally find games with risk factor more fun than statistics. They can win.

I have seen in all MMOs I played, how one side eventually dominates. The longer this lasts the less populated the other one becomes.

If you put the bonuses on one map only, people can consciously choose whether they want to enter a map, where they can get more damage.

campaigns arent forever and if you dont want to be destroyed in another campaign just go to a different one, losers are losers they deserve no benefits for their own failures, if youre fighting outnumbered thats your own choice, if your comp got destroyed by someone elses thats your own choice, if your city got razed you should have defended better. Loser mechanics are not what this game is or should be about. 

 

TLDR: L2P


hoayaga2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sowelu said:

I have seen in all MMOs I played, how one side eventually dominates. The longer this lasts the less populated the other one becomes.

You are correct. Luckily the devs also acknowledged this eventuality, this is why campaign worlds end and there will be multiples that overlap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if you know how seasons and points distribution works at this point.... This mechanic would completly destroy the current system by doing as bad as possible in archiving points in the beginning to have a super easy time in the end of the campaign. Imagine a campaign would last several weeks. If one faction would have 100k points and the other faction would have like 500k in the beginning of winter, the leading faction would get stomped for several days without any chance and could also just log off until its somehow even again.

Harversters would be screwed even more by getting oneshotted before they see what even hit them.

I guess you should put some time into the game first and figure out how it works and is supposed to work in the future, so you are able to imagine how bad this idea actually is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is interesting because it's different. I think unless they also keep doing things differently in this area the game will end up dead with occasional blobs of hardcore players roaming it. More and more will drop it since it will be impossible for casuals to join and even elitists will eventually abandon it because they'll be stuck on a losing side with no hope of getting a victory. People are smart. They'll soon figure out what the few alpha guilds that make the campaign win are, and then they'll flock to them for an easy campaign win, thus snowballing it further. They'll wait until they see where the strongest guild went and then join that side.

"Each campaign world exists for a set duration – typically 1 to 3 months"
Source: https://crowfall.fandom.com/wiki/Campaign

The campaign will be decided in about two weeks. What will you do then when you are on a weaker side? Go out to be steamrolled by the enemy that has more manpower and is hungrily waiting for someone to show up to tear them apart? Where will you get buddies? Most people won't be interested in getting slaughtered for the entertainment of the winning side and thus guilds will be deserted places with most people offline. Vast majority of players will log out and wait for the next campaign / game. If at all. Not many will tell you: "Hey, I don't want to play this game because it sucks to be losing all the time with no hope of ever getting some kills or a meaningful victory." But they won't log. You'll end up pugging at the temple. Against fully geared, TS organized enemy who is a coherent unit that has been fighting together for a long time.

The game needs to be fun in the core in order to last. Balancing classes by 5% won't make it, adjusting victory points for getting a keep won't make it, new skins won't make it. What you need is the ability to log in and get a shot and have fun. It's the challenge that can be overcome that makes you engaged. If the challenge is too high or low, you won't be interested.

The problem in modern MMO PvP is where the established elite few meet with the new guys. Most of the guys here, especially those who test the game now are going to belong to an elite group and are willing to go in a tight knit guild group against certain doom and at best get a shot at sniping an abandoned fort or a weaker group they catch unaware while roaming. Most of the players won't be like this. Elite ones will die out because of RL issues / other interests and new players will find the game a wall they can't get through. Gear gap + number (and probably organization) dominance.

I think what you derogatively label as loser mechanics is actually a very important aspect of the game. It's what keeps guys on the weaker side playing. (And thus the population up.) The winners will be rather quickly bored as well because they will have nobody to kill. Then they will complain about population being too low. And everybody will be totally baffled as to how it's possible nobody wants to play this game.

The selling point of this (or any other) game is: I am different. Crowfall acknowledged the stalemate problem on macro level and is addressing it by campaigns. That's really good. But you also need to address it at lower level. Unless you do, you'll fail.

I just saw a recent stream about small meaningful rewards such as sacrificing items for gods. Why do you think they introduce them? Because they realize the problem of the stalemate. And that's again really good. I just don't think it will be enough. They were already ducking out when they were introducing it. I doubt they'll allow it to exceed some marginal 10% of point income.

Have you guys ever played games with MMR? Ever noticed how it's the best fun to play against (actual) MMR close to your own? You have to work for the victory, but it's attainable.

Another thing to consider is: Few elitists dominate the game -> People leave -> Population dwindles -> Game revenue plummets -> Less money for developers -> Less content -> More people leave -> ...

 

8 hours ago, Makuzas said:

Imagine a campaign would last several weeks. If one faction would have 100k points and the other faction would have like 500k in the beginning of winter, the leading faction would get stomped for several days without any chance and could also just log off until its somehow even again.

I proposed a gradual system. The situation you describe is very artificial as the bonus would (as per my orginal proposal) kick in at let's say 20k to 30k so the hits wouldn't be so hard at first. Hmm thinking about it, why put a threshold there? Let's just do it a constant percentage depending on the score difference. That way the damage bonus would ramp up gradually instead of being a sudden leap. If you would ever get to a situation with 100k against 500k with these bonuses in, well, something would be quite bad... That kind of system would lead to closer matches and more interesting game. I don't dwell on specific numbers or thresholds. What I propose is a substantial bonus.

7 hours ago, Makuzas said:

Harversters would be screwed even more by getting oneshotted before they see what even hit them.

The point about crafters is good, but this could easily be solved by giving them a buff that grants immunity from the damage effect for some time unless they attack themselves.

8 hours ago, Staff said:

campaigns arent forever and if you dont want to be destroyed in another campaign just go to a different one, losers are losers they deserve no benefits for their own failures, if youre fighting outnumbered thats your own choice, if your comp got destroyed by someone elses thats your own choice, if your city got razed you should have defended better. Loser mechanics are not what this game is or should be about. 

 

TLDR: L2P

Losers will be have worse participation loot. It's a game and it's supposed to be fun for everybody involved. It's not your choice to fight outnumbered if your side simply lacks the numbers. The same kind of response goes to the rest of your points. If you want to play the game and are stuck in underdog faction you don't have a meaningful choice. After some amount of trying (mileage will vary) you'll just log off until this campaign ends and you'll get a shot at something more interesting to play. I am quite sure that being logged off until the next campaign is not what this game is meant to be about.

 

7 hours ago, Staff said:

TLDR: L2P

Lol, I see you got your snarky comments ready and are eager to use them. :D You are welcome not to reply to this thread. L2P argument already? rofl

Now, seriously, if you can't reply in a respectful and constructive way, please refrain in posting in this thread. There are plenty others you can harass. I am interested in a civil discussion. Thank you.

 

8 hours ago, mystafyi said:

You are correct. Luckily the devs also acknowledged this eventuality, this is why campaign worlds end and there will be multiples that overlap.

Yes, that's great. But I think this needs also addressing on lower level to compliment this.

 

9 hours ago, Zatch said:

They should also get rid of city destruction. Or, if you want to destroy someones city you gotta destroy your own at the same time; only fair.

Yes. Also they shall die when I look at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Sowelu said:

The sides are unbalanced (as they will be when the game launches).  I hope to see something like damage multiplier based on point difference after 30% or 50% difference in score. So if your side half the points than the enemy, you would do 2x damage. With 3x the difference you would do 3x damage. That would balance things out and make it more interesting. Please don't do the usual bonuses that can't really help you change anything - such as getting +20% points for capturing a keep (which you can't do because you are outnumbered in the first place). Nobody wants to go get slaughtered against stronger side. Best they can hope for is guerilla and ninja capping. However if you were dealing 2-3 times the enemy does, well... ...I am pretty sure people would be inclined to go out even when losing. Yes, it would mean one shots at some point. But it would be FUN and it would be MEANINGFUL and it would have actual IMPACT. And so what? The winning side would have to huddle in forts at worst until the losing side hits some threshold when the damage multiplier is more manageable. Maybe leave the bonus even some time after the threshold is reached (An hour? A day?) so that the losing side actually has means to change the situation and hope for win. And I wouldn't worry about the oneshots so much anyway, the winning side will be able to muster bigger blobs so they'll be still able to defeat the smaller side. Plus the winning side would still have to work for the victory even when leading, so it would be more interesting for them as well.

I am pretty sure if you don't do something DRASTIC the interest will drop quite fast if the game becomes lopsided.

You can exclude some zones from the damage bonus buff so that people can play GvG when they want to. Let's say you put the bonus on one map only.

Completely agree with you. 

There should be someway to even out the odds of zergs in campaigns. 

Either the scaling should be done via points like you suggested or by player numbers in the map/zone or something like that. 

I don't have the perfect answer to this but definitely there should be a scaling mechanic to even out the numbers, so smaller guilds/faction stand a chance against the bigger faction. 

Or they could do something so the 3 strongest/biggest guilds on each server cannot be on the same faction or something which ensures that one side can't just dominate by sheer numbers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or they could give a buff to the loosing factions in the next campaign, debuff to the winners or something else...just something to even out the battlefield if the game gets too one sided. 

Otherwise people will quit eventually 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding some sort of damage multiplier to punish big zergs clumping up could be an interesting option.

But adjusting the overall PVP-mechanic with multipliers according to the current point-status of the campaign or the number of people participating in a specific fight would be just veeeeeeery poor game design for any PVP-Game imo.
I mean it's meant to be a Throne-War-Simulator, right? Sometimes you just get outnumbered and steamrolled. It should be exactly like that in such games.
 

If people really loose interest because of loosing the game they could just join other campaigns with other rulesets, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference to other games is, that this will not end up in one big Campaign. There will be several running at the same time depending on the population of the game. So these "hardcore's" cant win everything everywhere. 

You also should think about other gamemods beside from the currently exisiting 3-factionwar. Most ppl are looking forward to the GvGvGvG with actuall "throne-war"-mechanics and they cant stick all together, since there can only be one winner in the end.

Its not a singleplayergame after all and smallman "group of 3-4 rl friends"-guild will not be able to participate successfully in this for the most part. But why should a small party even be able to claim the throne against overwhelming odds? 

I saw your posthistory and I get your point, since you clearly stated a few months ago that you are not the person who wants the dependence of joining a guild to play a game. Maybe this is the wrong game for you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Makuzas said:

There will be several running at the same time depending on the population of the game. So these "hardcore's" cant win everything everywhere. 

We seen this happen almost every single time during the past year. Having concern that this pattern will hold going forward is very valid. There could be more campaigns in the future with more playerbase, but that might not have much effect. One would have more 'hardcore' players as you added to the total population. Staggered starts to campaigns might not help much either since those players dominating a campaign by fall, could in fact move to a new campaign just starting and leave that world in semi-afk mode till the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why shouldnt ppl which put more effort, time and skill into the game get punished?

Hopping inbetween campaigns to win "all of them" cuz of a pointsadvantage is limited by imports and exports and especially on the rules if it comes to this.

If a group of ppl is really pushing hard enough to play multiple campaigns at the same time, farm and craft stuff to be competitive against ppl who play only one layer at a time, and still are able to win fights, they deserve to win...imo

Edited by Makuzas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2019 at 8:01 PM, Staff said:

campaigns arent forever and if you dont want to be destroyed in another campaign just go to a different one, losers are losers they deserve no benefits for their own failures, if youre fighting outnumbered thats your own choice, if your comp got destroyed by someone elses thats your own choice, if your city got razed you should have defended better. Loser mechanics are not what this game is or should be about. 

 

TLDR: L2P

Honestly, that's how you make sure a game dies and becomes a lopsided snoozefest. From what I understand that was Shadowbane's fate. If there are no loser/underdog mechanics, ppl will either: a) join the winning side for that super fun unclebob fiesta, and/or b) quit cause what's the point in trying to fight the unclebob. 

Not saying the answer has to be exactly what OP proposed, but if there are no incentives and mechanics to favor the losing side; ways for the losing side to thrive and gear up; as well as some rewards to be gained by playing the losing side, there's no hope for any sort of server health at all. 

Jumping ship to different CWs might alleviate this somewhat, but that's assuming the game will have a super active population to fill a bunch of different CWs and rulesets. 

This is a game, it's not RL. It should be balanced. If you lost cause you fought outnumbered, the enemy had an unbeatable meta comp, or your city got zerged down and you cannot win without a city, that's not your fault for being a loser. That's the game's fault for having trash design and allowing a meta comp or numbers to steamroll any opposition, or not allowing an alliance to survive without a city, etc (just examples, not directly taken from current state of the pre-alpha ofc). 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any sense of punishing zergs should be done on the backend, when campaigns end. Not during.

Crowfall, as an MMO trying to do a true victory mechanic has a wonderfully unique opportunity to punish mindless zerging, if they can brainstorm a solution wherein having massive numbers dilutes the reward.

So, you can guarantee winning with a massive zerg, but there is incentive for people to leave the zerg and win smaller, or for zergs themselves to cull their numbers and create and inspire more enemies, in order to maximize their reward. These decisions are political, and therefore, worthy of the game. They can be driven by interesting counterbalancing mechanics based on numbers.

A simple idea might be something like:

Every unique player that contributes to your side's victory during a campaign dilutes the reward slightly. So, it might wind up that if you can finish third in points, but do so with half the numbers of first and second, you are actually winning numerically, when all is said and done.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 9:10 PM, McTan said:

Any sense of punishing zergs should be done on the backend, when campaigns end. Not during.

Crowfall, as an MMO trying to do a true victory mechanic has a wonderfully unique opportunity to punish mindless zerging, if they can brainstorm a solution wherein having massive numbers dilutes the reward.

So, you can guarantee winning with a massive zerg, but there is incentive for people to leave the zerg and win smaller, or for zergs themselves to cull their numbers and create and inspire more enemies, in order to maximize their reward. These decisions are political, and therefore, worthy of the game. They can be driven by interesting counterbalancing mechanics based on numbers.

A simple idea might be something like:

Every unique player that contributes to your side's victory during a campaign dilutes the reward slightly. So, it might wind up that if you can finish third in points, but do so with half the numbers of first and second, you are actually winning numerically, when all is said and done.

Pretty much this.

Should be more about risk vs reward instead of gamey mechanics trying to balance things. If people want to swarm a campaign with 500 players, so be it but the rewards should reflect the lack of effort by the individual and team.

As is, there is pretty much nothing that thwarts or stops "uncle bob" from happening one way or another which seemed to be a pillar goal of this game originally.

Simply having campaigns end is nothing without some sort of ranking system like every other game that has time limited matches (MMO arenas, FPS, MOBA, CCG, RTS, etc).

Rewarding actual individual/team effort is hard though so not sure if ACE has any idea how to do it or if it would ever work on a larger scale.

They were going for a more "survival" element with limited resources, hunger increasing the danger/risk of the world itself, and other things but that seems to have been trashed or pushed out.

I've played games with the +10% bonus to the losers or whatever and it can work, but it isn't the only way to go about it.

For those looking for RvR/faction play, this probably won't be the ideal game setup. GvG will likely be the better option. Even then, I'm curious how they will reward guilds/players across different campaign types that reflect risk/reward and effort. Maybe it will just be pretty trinkets forever? Bragging rights are all that matter right....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 8:35 AM, Makuzas said:

But why shouldnt ppl which put more effort, time and skill into the game get punished?

Hopping inbetween campaigns to win "all of them" cuz of a pointsadvantage is limited by imports and exports and especially on the rules if it comes to this.

If a group of ppl is really pushing hard enough to play multiple campaigns at the same time, farm and craft stuff to be competitive against ppl who play only one layer at a time, and still are able to win fights, they deserve to win...imo

I agree, but how to you separate those actually putting in the time/effort/skill and those just overloading a campaign with bodies if that is what it takes to win? There is a difference between organized large scale tactics and mindless zerging. Both can result in a victory, but I don't believe they deserve the same reward. If that is how it works, why will anyone attempt to do anything else long term? Will have to see what the next milestone brings for rewarding different styles of play, but haven't seen anything from ACE yet that gets my hopes up. Same issues, some worse, then previous games that haven't done so hot and why some of us are willing to hand over cash prior to a game being made in hopes it will end up different.

Share this post


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

I agree, but how to you separate those actually putting in the time/effort/skill and those just overloading a campaign with bodies if that is what it takes to win? There is a difference between organized large scale tactics and mindless zerging. Both can result in a victory, but I don't believe they deserve the same reward. If that is how it works, why will anyone attempt to do anything else long term? Will have to see what the next milestone brings for rewarding different styles of play, but haven't seen anything from ACE yet that gets my hopes up. Same issues, some worse, then previous games that haven't done so hot and why some of us are willing to hand over cash prior to a game being made in hopes it will end up different.

It comes down to the design of dregs, since this will be the place to be for organized groups. 

They could either limit the bodycount of the different guilds (which prolly doesnt work that well) or bring other systems in place. I would like to see something similiar to the Antizergmechanic of Albion Online, even if CF is less AoE heavy, it would work out.

They have/had a system in place in which AoE dmg gets boosted depending on players hit and it the same time, you were received stacks of "less dmg received" depending on how many different enemies did hit you. This is kinda simple but effective and screws mindless zergs. If zergs are clever enough to play arround it, you got another issue, but in that case they show that its not only their bodycount.

Ofcourse its not all about the fights, since "zergs" will also have way more ressources...OR NOT, if there is only so much ressources to barely feed those masses. Atm the game is a pure farmville with high tier ressources all over the place and teritory-controll doesnt matter with the instant on-demand banking, but with a few simple changes, the would starve for ressources to gear up their ppl. Another point is the limitation of exports. Imagine they would introduce a cap on exports to guilds (not to accounts like atm). The guildleader gets 100-300 or whatever exports depending on the performance of the guild during the campaign and he has the ability to distribute these to his members. Would be an easy fix in export campaigns to limit effectivness of zergs. Also rewards need to be shared...more ppl means less reward per person and ppl care about that. An easy example comes to my mind with WoW classic. Ppl have a reason to run Onyxia with 20 or less ppl, even if they could bring 40 and make it easier. Less participants means more chance on loot for a single person.

Iam not a payed gamedesigner, but thats why we trust in ACE to find suiting solutions with a dip of brain or getting ideas from elsewhere....this is not the first game ever created which has to handle it and it actually got an advantage because of the "rust-like serverwipehopping" of survivalgames over most "itemprogress etc. is consistent forever"-titles.

 

Looking forward to see 5.110 :)

Edited by Makuza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Makuza said:

Another point is the limitation of exports. Imagine they would introduce a cap on exports to guilds (not to accounts like atm). The guildleader gets 100-300 or whatever exports depending on the performance of the guild during the campaign and he has the ability to distribute these to his members. Would be an easy fix in export campaigns to limit effectivness of zergs. Also rewards need to be shared...more ppl means less reward per person and ppl care about that.

I like this idea.


-Draconic Warlords, Usual Suspects, Freaks of Nature, Disturbed Forces, The Hate Crew, TSCCC-

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...