Page 58 of 209 FirstFirst ... 84854555657585960616268108158 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,160 of 4162
  1. #1141
    Scholar Of Adventure & Hero Missing_Minds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    work....
    Posts
    30,172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    This only applies if all guildies are considered equal. Some take the game seriously enough to see keeping up with the Jones's as important. They tend to play a lot and thus make for a good core for guilds. Others don't take it so seriously and thus lack a lot of reason to play a lot, at least after the new wears off, and thus really don't bring a lot to a guild, though are likely to get the most benefit from it as a ready source of people to play with.
    And as yet, you only continued to prove my point. Player choices.

  2. #1142
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by THAC0 View Post
    Scenario 3:
    If 'Bob' has not logged in (the character, not the account for 'Bob') for over 180 days (as that is a number already being used)... no affect on Guild Renown to boot 'Bob'.
    .
    Ugh, this is just too long. Large guilds that are up against the membership cap can't wait 6 months to make room for people who want to join right now. I could live with 3 months but even that is pushing it. If a guild removes characters that have not logged in at all for a couple of months, there is no way you can say that they are doing anything even remotely abusive.

    Highly recommend either remove the penalty sooner or make inactive characters not count against the max guild size limit.
    Last edited by Tshober; 11-09-2012 at 10:43 PM.

  3. #1143
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Really? no comment regarding the guild ship size determining decay idea?

    Smallest ship = 0 decay. So feasibly... a guild of 1 (given enough time) could eventually reach lvl 100.

    It will also be the choice of the guild to reduce their ship size until they reach the desired guild level and then start upgrading to a larger ship based on what they feel the activeness of the guild can handle.
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

  4. #1144
    Community Member Phaeton_Seraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Canada / G-Land
    Posts
    1,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eris2323 View Post
    I find it insulting that small guilds get a bonus; in other words, a player in a small guild is worth MORE than a player in a large guild? Why? Because they exclude people? Because they choose to make a guild with 2 people in it? What makes a small guild so special that it deserves special rules to help them compensate, simply because they choose to have a small guild?

    I solo many quests, does this therefore mean I should get extra treasure, to compensate for a group that gets treasure 6 times as fast? No. Should I get 6 times as much experience? Probably not, no. So why should small guilds get a bonus simply because a group can do it faster?

    This whole idea goes against everything *I* would look for in a perfect guild system.
    I think the intent of the small guild bonus was not to encourage exclusion, but to aid in initial growth. Until you get to lvl 20 and have a ship, the only people you can seriously hope to recruit (without resorting to random invites), are going to be a core of friends or like-minded-gamers. So the small guild bonus helps accelerate a guild's growth.

    Probably, the best method to encourage expansion of a member base would have been to incrementally decrease the small guild bonus after landmark levels e.g. 20, 30, 40, 60...


    The current testing parameters encourage small guilds to expand or decay. I don't think that decay is necessary, but if we have to have it, make more gradual.
    Earnable chest renown is curtailed. Rapid levelling is curtailed... I'm not sure why, but decay should be way slower than it is possible to earn renown.

    A guild should not be able to lose more than one level a month. As long as they are active, they should not decay at all. The current decay system's definition of "active" seems crummy, IMO.



    eris2323, I also don't like the way you seem to define exclusive. I recently quit a Lvl 65 guild, mostly because they, or the leadership, were focusing too much on renown rather than community (and they weren't terribly good at either goal, frankly).
    Inactive toons were being booted after 3 months of absence without updates or communication.
    I was told we had about 300 accts in our guild. And we were excluding people, we had a hold on invitations. The leader wanted to interview prospective members.

    Yet, of those 300 members I had never run with more than 20 of them. And perhaps 5 out of those 20 I had only run into in PUG raids.
    A good number of members, who'd been with the guild over a year or more, only ran with an exclusive group of friends. Some never spoke in guild chat, and others just to display Impressive Trophies and Legendary Victories.
    - Incidentally, they dropped in levels and haven't quite made it back to 65 yet.

    I left my guild after I witnessed a little drama one night and entered my toons a placeholder guild I'd made. When I get a ship, I might start inviting people. Unless, before that, I meet a group I want to play with enough to join their guild.

    But exclusive? I've had more invitations from smaller guilds (i.e. <10 members) of levels >60 than from large guilds. Actually, no large guild has even suggested the idea. So who really does the excluding?

    Try to find and join a guild over lvl 70 with 100+ players, where it's likely many don't even know each other; it won't be nearly as easy as finding a small "exclusive" guild to take you in.

    Large high level guilds exclude because they want to protect their renown, and because guild levels can fuel elitism.
    Small guilds exclude to insulate themselves from people with contrary playing styles and from the random ******tery of pugs. And, some exclude to protect their small guild bonus.

    Either way, using the phrase "they exclude people" in this context isn't quite the denunciation you may think.

  5. #1145
    Founder THAC0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    1,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tshober View Post
    Ugh, this is just too long. Large guilds that are up against the membership cap can't wait 6 months to make room for people who want to join right now. I could live with 3 months but even that is pushing it. If a guild removes characters that have not logged in at all for a couple of months, there is no way you can say that they are doing anything even remotely abusive.

    Highly recommend either remove the penalty sooner or make inactive characters not count against the max guild size limit.
    The DDO Devs use 180 now as the no penalty (as part of the formula) for booting a inactive character.

    I can live with 180... rather it be 90. But 180 is reasonable given a Guild Leader could be gone (eek!) for 6 months too and would leave a Guild in limbo until the Successor could take over...etc etc...

    And for those who are concerned about players having to go away from game or back into service... all a Guild Leader needs is communication from the player. A simple: "Hey, I got some RL stuff to deal with... I want to stay in the guild, but will be away for a couple months. I'll be back." That goes a long way in my book than to just go AWOL and no communication from the player. Then again, our Guild has an active community website... we use that for just about everything we do in and out of the game to plan and keep people in the loop.

    /shrug

  6. #1146
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    104

    Default

    I posted the basic of a system with no secret formulas, no level multipliers, no ransack, no hidden bonus, no tiers, no decay, no forced kicks..here:
    http://forums.ddo.com/showthread.php?t=397729

    Please give feedback or find any obvious holes in it.

  7. #1147
    Hero Vyder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    173

    Default

    I logged on tonight, ran a quest and got 53 renown. Looked at what we lost in decay (10300) and logged off thinking I can find some other way to have fun tonight.
    Eternal Champions of Argo

  8. #1148

    Default

    An ideal guild renown system will encourage and reward teamwork. You can measure the success of any social system by how much it encourages teamwork. And when people go out of their way to recruit friends and encourage them to play together more because of the guild renown system you know you've achieved success.

    Honestly, the most fun I had in guild was at the launch of Renown. Everyone was racing as fast as possible to be the first. And we were all encouraging each other in game and in real life "stop what you're doing, play more DDO now!" I'm happy for the memories, but I'd love to have another try at something like that. For example:
    + Turbine declared server-wide renown race
    + Grudge matches between rival guilds
    + Rewards for bursts of rapid renown gain

    Anything that would let us work together towards a common goal

  9. #1149
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missing_Minds View Post
    And as yet, you only continued to prove my point. Player choices.
    What is your point, that humans are generally selfless enough to turn down even a small and very much imaginary perk for the sake of fellowship with others? If so, 1967 want's their fantasy back.

  10. #1150
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BossOfEarth View Post
    An ideal guild renown system will encourage and reward teamwork. You can measure the success of any social system by how much it encourages teamwork. And when people go out of their way to recruit friends and encourage them to play together more because of the guild renown system you know you've achieved success.

    Honestly, the most fun I had in guild was at the launch of Renown. Everyone was racing as fast as possible to be the first. And we were all encouraging each other in game and in real life "stop what you're doing, play more DDO now!" I'm happy for the memories, but I'd love to have another try at something like that. For example:
    + Turbine declared server-wide renown race
    + Grudge matches between rival guilds
    + Rewards for bursts of rapid renown gain

    Anything that would let us work together towards a common goal
    You're joking right? I actually tell people if they can't meet the game mandated hours/day quota not to bother even downloading. I'm really surprised to find anyone who enjoys playing a game that dictates how often and for how long one should play. Personally, I like to reserve those decisions for myself.

  11. #1151
    The Hatchery
    2014 DDO Players Council
    Dandonk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,275

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    You're joking right? I actually tell people if they can't meet the game mandated hours/day quota not to bother even downloading. I'm really surprised to find anyone who enjoys playing a game that dictates how often and for how long one should play. Personally, I like to reserve those decisions for myself.
    Not only that, it now dictates how you should be organized (large guilds), as well as what it used to do, dictate how oten, how long, and what kind of content you should play (not PvP [OK, I don't care about this], and not challenges, and not some kinds of epic quests that do not seem to give out much renown).

    I think it amounts to a really bad system, all in all.

    While the test does help one specific subset of guilds (namely that large guilds with a sizeable amount of casual players), it does nothing at all to address issues for any of the other problems.
    And as a cost, it opens up for another kind of exploiting new players.

    I sincerely hope (against hope) that this "test" change will end soon, and a REAL and comprehensive overhaul of the renown system will be implemented instead. I want ALL guilds and ALL players to have a system that does not penalize specific organizations and acitivities for no good reason. The guild system should be inclusive, not exclusive. The guild system should be there to help all players. It's a game, its supposed to be fun. Getting smacked on the head by a system trying to bully you into playing into a very few specific ways out of all the great stuff that DDO has to offer, that's just silly. And annoying.
    It's definitely an N-word.

  12. #1152
    Community Member Hendrik's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bell's Brewery, MI.
    Posts
    10,991

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikarddo View Post
    So the tested system means that
    a) Larger guilds level up far easier because they have more people to earn the renown
    b) Larger guilds suffer far less from decay as they are more people to share it
    c) Larger guilds buy ships and what to put there much easier because they have more people to share the cost.
    Whoever figured that was fair clearly needs to rethink the whole system.
    Forgot the important info;

    ONLY Guilds with member counts from 1-9 see slightly more decay, EVERYONE else see's less and they see as little as TWO EXTRA POINTS of decay. Yes. two whole points in best cases. How can those poor guild survive with those two extra points? Clearly those two extra points favor large guilds...



    Very Small, Small Guild Bonuses, and Medium guild bonus are still in effect.

    You might want to do math before you jump on any bandwagon. Math is not hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by hsinclair
    I heard the devs hate all wizards, bards, clerics, fighters, and fuzzy bunnies and only want us to play halfling barbarian/paladin shuriken specialists!

    It's totally true, I have a reliable source. You better reroll now.
    Adventurer, Bug Reporter, Mournlander.

  13. #1153
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dandonk View Post
    Not only that, it now dictates how you should be organized (large guilds), as well as what it used to do, dictate how oten, how long, and what kind of content you should play (not PvP [OK, I don't care about this], and not challenges, and not some kinds of epic quests that do not seem to give out much renown).

    I think it amounts to a really bad system, all in all.

    While the test does help one specific subset of guilds (namely that large guilds with a sizeable amount of casual players), it does nothing at all to address issues for any of the other problems.
    And as a cost, it opens up for another kind of exploiting new players.

    I sincerely hope (against hope) that this "test" change will end soon, and a REAL and comprehensive overhaul of the renown system will be implemented instead. I want ALL guilds and ALL players to have a system that does not penalize specific organizations and acitivities for no good reason. The guild system should be inclusive, not exclusive. The guild system should be there to help all players. It's a game, its supposed to be fun. Getting smacked on the head by a system trying to bully you into playing into a very few specific ways out of all the great stuff that DDO has to offer, that's just silly. And annoying.
    Not to cast any sort of judgment. But it seems to me that the test, while it does help large guilds the most, isn't being made to help any guilds so much as it's to help those who can't get into any guild. Frankly, short of getting rid of decay completely, which I wouldn't mind seeing, I can't think of anything else that would do this and personally think these "unguildable" players were the system's greatest failure.

  14. #1154
    Community Member ristretto93's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivan_Milic View Post
    Good to see you finally made this decision,but its a bit late,many guilds have kicked players.
    This exactly.

    I had to be away from the game for what turned out to be several months and got booted from my guild - they are good people and I know they didnt want to, but were pretty much forced to because of decay.

    Too late.

    Lame.
    Originally from Thelanis, now on...
    Sarlona
    * Minions of the Coffee Gopher *

  15. #1155
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Forgot the important info;

    ONLY Guilds with member counts from 1-9 see slightly more decay, EVERYONE else see's less and they see as little as TWO EXTRA POINTS of decay. Yes. two whole points in best cases. How can those poor guild survive with those two extra points? Clearly those two extra points favor large guilds...



    Very Small, Small Guild Bonuses, and Medium guild bonus are still in effect.

    You might want to do math before you jump on any bandwagon. Math is not hard.
    Where does the more decay come from? Before the test guilds from 1-9 counted as 10 as they currently do.

  16. #1156
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    Forgot the important info;

    ONLY Guilds with member counts from 1-9 see slightly more decay, EVERYONE else see's less and they see as little as TWO EXTRA POINTS of decay. Yes. two whole points in best cases. How can those poor guild survive with those two extra points? Clearly those two extra points favor large guilds...



    Very Small, Small Guild Bonuses, and Medium guild bonus are still in effect.

    You might want to do math before you jump on any bandwagon. Math is not hard.
    There was no increase in decay for any guilds, but guilds of all sizes were struggling with decay before the change. When people in one gulid get a 90% reduction in decay while people are in other guilds are still struggling with the same decay, it does raiise alot of questions. Why should each member of a small gulid get stuck with this decay penalty when members of other guilds are not? The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't really hold water because you could also argue that if we go back to the old system "nothing changed" and so nobody should complain because they were no worse off than they were previously.

    The decay problem does need fixing, but for guilds of all sizes.

    As shown many times, the small guild bonus was already factored into decay under the old system so it wasn't really making it easier.There was a slight benefit for a guild of exactly 6 but I think they should flatten that curve rather than give a max small guild bonus to a guild of exactly 6.

    If you want math, there are many examples of it on previous pages and I can show you more. The math will always prove that small guilds had the most difficult time under the old system and even worse under the new system. The only way you can argue against that point is to make assumptions that all small guilds are 100% active which is not reality.
    CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
    Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
    U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
    Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build

    Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  17. #1157
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gremmlynn View Post
    Not to cast any sort of judgment. But it seems to me that the test, while it does help large guilds the most, isn't being made to help any guilds so much as it's to help those who can't get into any guild. Frankly, short of getting rid of decay completely, which I wouldn't mind seeing, I can't think of anything else that would do this and personally think these "unguildable" players were the system's greatest failure.
    I don't believe that there is any such thing as a "unguildable" player. When I made characters on other servers to use the stone of xp and get a level 16 on each server, I received so many random invites I couldn't keep track fo them all. I don't think people can track 1000 members and have any real idea what they are doing. All they can do is see that it's been a long time since person x logged in and boot them for inactivity. This had as much to do with the 1000 character limit as anything.

    There are no tools for a guild leader to measure renown earned by guildies or whether a person is "casual". There is no way anyone can convince me that every (or even most) gulid leader actually tracked 1000 members and booted people because they weren't generating enough renown. It was "last login" that was used most of the time. I am sure there were exception, but it would baffle me if a guild leader would actually spend time tracking what 1000 people were doing in the game. First of all they would need to be up 24x7 to do so.

    The new system doesn't change this. It will still be necessary to boot inactives to make room for new members because the 1000 character limit remains. The irony is that the new system doesn't even begin to address the issue of booting people for inactivity.
    CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
    Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
    U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
    Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build

    Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

  18. #1158
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    I don't believe that there is any such thing as a "unguildable" player. When I made characters on other servers to use the stone of xp and get a level 16 on each server, I received so many random invites I couldn't keep track fo them all. I don't think people can track 1000 members and have any real idea what they are doing. All they can do is see that it's been a long time since person x logged in and boot them for inactivity. This had as much to do with the 1000 character limit as anything.

    There are no tools for a guild leader to measure renown earned by guildies or whether a person is "casual". There is no way anyone can convince me that every (or even most) gulid leader actually tracked 1000 members and booted people because they weren't generating enough renown. It was "last login" that was used most of the time. I am sure there were exception, but it would baffle me if a guild leader would actually spend time tracking what 1000 people were doing in the game. First of all they would need to be up 24x7 to do so.

    The new system doesn't change this. It will still be necessary to boot inactives to make room for new members because the 1000 character limit remains. The irony is that the new system doesn't even begin to address the issue of booting people for inactivity.
    It's not hard to tell who is casual. It's everyone you don't see on a regular basis. I'm in a guild of 110 "active" accounts and I can tell you which 8 are every day players and which one plays enough when she's home to more than make up for the time she's on the road. The rest are casual, most likely not to stick with the game for long. For me the hope is by recruiting enough a few more will stay because of the ties they make.

    Yes guilds would have a hard time sorting through 1000 players if the minority that were really active weren't the same people you play with the most.

  19. #1159
    Founder Chaos000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Plano Texas
    Posts
    1,244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slarden View Post
    There was no increase in decay for any guilds, but guilds of all sizes were struggling with decay before the change. When people in one guild get a 90% reduction in decay while people are in other guilds are still struggling with the same decay, it does raise alot of questions. Why should each member of a small guild get stuck with this decay penalty when members of other guilds are not? The argument that "nothing changed" doesn't really hold water because you could also argue that if we go back to the old system "nothing changed" and so nobody should complain because they were no worse off than they were previously.
    90% really? Is it "up to 90%" or "90% and up"? How many members does an average sized large guild have to add before their decay is reduced to that degree?

    The decay per player was changed to decay per guild level. Guilds of all sizes still struggle with decay based on the level of activity of the guild as a whole.

    Theoretically guilds should struggle less by increasing their roster. What's throwing a wrench in the system is that guild renown bonus based on size are account for the per-player size to provide a cost benefit to adding more members for guilds that rely on it. Guilds that do not receive a guild renown bonus based on size is unaffected by this opportunity cost.

    Maybe guild renown bonuses should adjust not per-player but by size tiers?
    Daishado

    "drink triple ... see double ... act single! uh oh wife aggro" *hides*

  20. #1160
    Community Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chaos000 View Post
    90% really? Is it "up to 90%" or "90% and up"? How many members does an average sized large guild have to add before their decay is reduced to that degree?

    The decay per player was changed to decay per guild level. Guilds of all sizes still struggle with decay based on the level of activity of the guild as a whole.

    Theoretically guilds should struggle less by increasing their roster. What's throwing a wrench in the system is that guild renown bonus based on size are account for the per-player size to provide a cost benefit to adding more members for guilds that rely on it. Guilds that do not receive a guild renown bonus based on size is unaffected by this opportunity cost.

    Maybe guild renown bonuses should adjust not per-player but by size tiers?
    I've already given the examples but I will give them again. A member of a 200 person large guild that was struggling with decay received a 90% reduction in the amount of decay they must cover each day. A member of a 6 person small guild that was strugging with decay received no reduction in the amount of decay they must cover each day. Ultimately the members of the guild are responsible for covering decay - not the guild itself. The guild is nothing but a chat room, ship and amenities. All renown is earned by the members of the guild.

    It doesn't make sense to require small guilds to grow to combat their member's daily decay penalty. This is ultimately a losing strategy for Turbine as many people prefer smaller communities.

    As stated many times the small guild bonus doesn't do much to cover decay. Without the small guild bonus each member of my guild would need to earn 33x more renown to cover our daily decay tax vs the large 200 person guild. With the small guild bonus we still need to earn over 8x more renown per day to cover our daily decay tax vs. a large guild. I see no reason why members of my guild must earn 8x renown to cover a daily penalty than members of a large guild when both guilds were struggling with decay to begin with.

    Leveling up is a different story because it may take longer but we can still do it. We are talking about a penalty applied to each member of our guild every day. If we can't cover the excessive penalty our guild level goes down and that negatively effects how the people in the small guild perceive the game.l

    All I am asking is that Turbine implement a decay system that is fair to small guilds as well. I am not quite sure why large guilds would argue against making the system fair to all guilds. Small guilds jumped on the band wagon and supported large guilds when they asked for a change.

    I like small guilds. Once we hit the wall where decay>= renown earned, the only way a small guild can grow is to jettison casual players and replace those players with more active players. That is the same exact issue large guilds have.
    Last edited by slarden; 11-10-2012 at 11:08 AM.
    CC Casting Druid: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...C-Summer-Build
    Shiradi Wiz Plan for 1st Lifers: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...r-First-Lifers
    U25 Patch 1 Dex Halfling Assassin Build: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...x-Assassin-1-0
    Warlock DC Caster: https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthrea...ld-Blast-Build

    Several characters on Sarlona all starting with "Rand" in the Guild "Guardians of House Cannith". My main four characters are Randowl (18 rogue 2 artificer mechanic - hope to go back to DC casting some day), Randslar (Bard 14 / Fighter 4 / Rogue 2 Swashbuckler), Randek (Druid CC Caster 17/Fvs 3) and Randomall (Rogue 20 assassin).

Page 58 of 209 FirstFirst ... 84854555657585960616268108158 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload