Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Constructive Discussion

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 *Longo* said: Was the auto lose with 4 to 1 odds already Implemented? I think we already lost due to this? I am pretty involved in the camp combats and I don’t know this myself. No, I wouldn't add something like that without agreement. Joel forgot to add his character to his car, in that instance (from what I can make out in the server log). i didnt see it so i dont really know, but if a player for another players camp can forget to add gangers or worse do it on purpose (and im not saying thats the case here at all) but in the future it could pop up again, why was the fight cancelled or was it a auto loss or whatever happened, this just makes me wonder about anyone i dont know well ever putting cars in my camp war squad if it means they make a mistake and my camp suffers for it, very very unfair imo if tile was won because of this. perhaps warning popups should be given so this doesnt ever happen again. ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 5:16 am Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 5:31 am by darthspanky

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 FireFly said: Finally for the love of tank guns goat, stop telling people who sam is/isn't going to punish.. If you think me reminding Joel about the things He discussed, in person, as possible consequences for things he was doing is me telling him what Sam ‘will’ do you really are not following this at all. If you are referring to me gently reminding you about the baseball bat mutant when you have just posted a long veiled ad hominem attack, riddled with inaccuracies, masquerading as comment in a thread that is supposed to be about constructive comment then I just despair. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 7:01 am

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 eagarly starts eating popcorn while watching the baseball bat mutie boy ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 7:52 am

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 Thanks for the post, Firefly.  It's always good to get opinion from extra people, especially those not directly involved (yet). FireFly said: Let me preface this by saying I'm not trying to put anyone or their efforts down, I am in fact very appreciative to see development on this front and the game in general... The man with the bat shifts his feet almost imperceptibly and looks content. He grunts gently and softly smacks his bat against his open hand, however. We're not sure why. FireFly said: It's what brought me back after all. However, I feel like there should have been more of a test run before putting this system on the live server, it is one thing to call it a work in progress, but doing a test run with peoples active gangers and camps is going to create hard feelings. Especially when rules are changed on the fly. This is a fair point. We never would have got a proper test without having it running properly, though. Our numbers are low. Also, note that very little has been lost so far other than hexes. The amount of hardware and characters lost is minimal. FireFly said: 1. Was it intended for the PvP system to be mostly a map painting game rather than something built to encourage fights in the game? From my point of view as a rather experienced wargamer* the system actively encourages avoiding client battles and taking as much territory with as little fighting as possible. No, this isn't the intention. However it's early days and there is still plenty of free space to grab, so it's not exactly unexpected. Around SS, where space has run out quick, however, it does look like everyone has made non aggression pacts. Not the intention, but ok IMO.  More resources have still to be placed, which will increase the attractiveness of war. Also, a bunch of well armed neighbours with tenuous truces is fine with me. Hopefully a spark will land in that powder keg at some stage... And in the meantime, I think it may be a good thing if there isn't all-out war raging all across the map. That wouldn't be sustainable. I'd much rather it became a political game with occasional wars breaking out. FireFly said: This is compounded by the lack of any real defenders advantage and how much better attacking is**, as pointed out before. This might be a smart way to play a wargame, but if the stated goal was to get people engaged in PvP fighting, this ain't it chief. **. The sheer amount of CR required to defend when players have no advance warning about where the enemy will attack makes it a pure guessing game, a fools guessing game with terrible odds. Trying to out-trade tiles with the enemy is almost always a better option than holding, barring a few chokepoint situations. This also further encourages attacking as many tiles as possible in a given round. 4 fights in a week is nothing compared to what the alley/spanky/bill situation will generate.[/size] Fair points - these are things that need to be discussed. Quote: 2A. Even if above is the case or not, was it intended for camp wars to basically be won or lost based on who can buy sponsorships? To put it another way, to have the entire camp map metagame mostly decided by who has the fatter wallet and ability to game the economy? I was hoping to raise it at the next meeting, but here we are at the new year and it is now blindingly obvious. I'm not sure it's as clear cut as you say. In any case, (a) yes, wars are won on wallets, and (b) the resources on the tiles can and will be tweaked.  It could actually be argued the reverse way -- isn't it good that something not directly coming from the hexes can be a big influence? - this is a factor which mitigates against big camps from dominating in an untouchable way - which is very much part of what we're trying to achieve. Quote: Was it meant for the same group of people to several different active war camps in close proximity to effectively double team single camps? This point is entirely dependent on what you envisioned camp PvP to be, but if it was to encourage people to fight tactical battles then this is a cancer that will destroy it. No, I'm not going to call anyone an exploiter or a cheater unlike some on several sides here. But these are the basic facts. Yes, this was intentional. We want to create a political meta-game which is even more meta than the hex tactics. That's war. However, yes - your points are good about weaker camps (or groups of camps) being in impossible to win situations. Foregone conclusions aren't good in games. Quote: The Vault and Bill's camp share the vast majority a significant portion of PvP active players and they are long time friends. These two camps combined give the same players two sources of CR to deploy on surrounding opponents. The idea that these camps would actually fight is pretty laughable, as they share the players. As above, that's just fine. Camps with very strong alliances seems entirely reasonable to me. In addition, there's literally no way to design a game to be different to that. You can't force friends to fight or force them not to play a politically clever game. At least, not without my mutie friend relieving them of a vast amount of brain cells with his bat. But I'd need to get legal advice before trying that. Quote: But it gets better, Bill could have had a fairly even fight with the vault alley (CR wise). Instead the active pvp members of the vault/bill camps joined spanky and vice versa. This is presumably to make sure they beat The Alley by default, as mentioned above.* Nah, this is neither exploit nor cheating. But encouraging people actually fight battles this is not. Fair point (well, it's the same point you made above, but it's still a fair one). Quote: *I am perfectly aware my new southern camp and the alley could have done the same to bill, hence why I made efforts to not get into that sort of situation, as evidently I think it's both unbalanced as all getout and bad design. Multiple people can attest to me stating things like that unless they thought I was flat out lying. Your points on balance do make sense (a lot more sense than using miniscule font sizes). Giving extra tactical control to the defender may be a help.  Tweaking the CR attenuation (so it drops off faster over distance) will also help a retreating camp from being squashed so easily. The numbers have always been there to tweak -- the decision at the last meetings though was that we needed to wait and see how things are playing out before doing that. Quote: In conclusion So, we already have a situation where one camp is about to get attacked by the same group of players operating from two different camps. This would already have put it at at a near insurmountable 2-1 CR disadvantage. Is is then further combined with the ability to buy CR with darkwind bucks and has turned it into more like a 4-1CR ratio. Oh, I'm also very grateful to spanky bragging about the plan in the last public thread to help make my points blindingly obvious. Not that I can really blame spanky for caving in to whatever demand/suggestion the vault/bill made, since he doesn't have enough players in his camp to actually take a fight. As it stands he need their manpower to field cars and as soon as they leave, he either has to make other friends or be screwed since camps with low player counts are not allowed to effectively participate under current rules*. *Something that would be fine if there were more than 10-15 people in the whole game that wants to pvp. I appreciate it was planned in the hope of bringing in more players, but it also has to function with the playerbase the game already has. Fair point (I refer to you final, invisibly small text, which is the most important bit.. please come and take a look at this page when you're in your 40s and see what you think of tiny text). Again my answer is that it doesn't mean the underlying system is unworkable -- numbers are tweakable -- CR allowable per player in a battle versus overall CR size of battle is critical here, and very easy for me to change. Quote: No really, the attacker can at least plan and roughly guess how many battles on an uncomfortable time he might have to take due to being the initiator. The attacker can also decline to attack if they think they won't have time to fight on uncomfortable hours for a certain week. The defender has no luxury and must take fights or lose by default. Expecting a camp to be able to take multiple fights over an 8 hour range in a single week is very, very close to unworkable for people with jobs... increasing it to a maximum possibility of 16 is asking a lot. I could do that, but I don't have much work right now. I doubt most people have that much free time.] This is mostly why I think it's reasonable to automatically give the win to a side with a large CR advantage. In conclusion.. we're basically 3 turns or so into a brand-new boardgame, so it's entirely to be expected that it's not perfectly balanced. The underlying systems are hopefully solid enough that number tweaking will sort things out. I believe this to be the case, since there are a lot of numbers in the camp wars and interlocking game systems.  Getting agreement on those changes though... might need assistance of my mutant buddy here (j/k) ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 9:06 am Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 10:07 am by *sam*

ShotGun Jolly Brotherhood of the Wheel Sunday Driver Merchants Faction Group: Members Posts: 43 Joined: Sep 2, 2007 Sam, I say this from the outside looking in. And please take this with a grain of salt. But this camp wars is so far out of wack, that I have ZERO interest in playing in it (in its current state). I have spoke to several camp owners, and they have all agreed not to fight each other and just take resources from the hexs around them to allow their camps to grow. That wont change anytime soon either. So, you can forget that. And with the amount of arguing and toxicity which I have read here, and what I see in the client. I have even LESS desire to engage in out of game dealings and olitical: back room conversations with making pacts or agreements with other players. In fact it makes me want me to play solo even MORE. Another point is real estate. I have read, and its been told to me several times that there are maybe a few spots left to really build a camp.. No other spots are really left. So, what happens if this really takes off and more people want to get involved? As a developer, how do you envision new players actually getting involved in Camp Wars? I have read many of the peoples points, I have read many of the peoples responses. And I think that Firefire's observations are very valid.    So far, these wars, the main people who are active, are the same people who have been around for years, and got the resources ready  to use. Or people who have been gifted camps from others, to allow them to get involved. So we all know, that the gifted camps are going to be allied to the actual owner. Which leads to the hoarding of resources and the lack of PvP. My opinion, I think that if you want to be in a camp war, you should have to build you war camp from scratch, which is separate from leagues, sponsorship's, etc.(After all this is a WAR CAMP bent on destruction, not take the towns people out of picnics and walks in the parks) I think a war camp could maybe be run something like a Scav gang (separate gang log in). Where its kinda separate from everyone else, and you can only interact with other war camp players. So, maybe warcamp players can have discounted prices on war camps construction costs? Or a camp war player gets a very basic, small tiny camp randomly placed to start which they can grow. And if its like a scav gang, well then they can THEN try to get sponsorship's that way.. bidding wars at the very beginning will be much lower in costs, as camp war players do not have the millions on millions of dollars sitting idle in their accounts. Maybe If you build a war camp near in a region with a city, you need to be on somewhat good terms with that city or be under a consistent attack from their forces. Anyhow, I have said my two cents worth to day. I will sit back and wait for the flamethrowers to burn me. ......................... vet wv deathrce1 combatL1 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 12:39 pm

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 As has been mentioned, this is an idea in early stages. As everything that has ever happened in this game it is only properly tested once it is in the community, as only then can you really get the full grasp of what might play out. At present there is no need to take part in any of this, and normal game play can continue as before (from what I understand reading all the forums here anyway, Im not in communication with sam myself). As I understand it there are still plenty of places to still build a camp, plots for camps are still being sold. I wouldn't pay too much attention to any bickering or arguing. Its the same people that always do. And they are the same people that test the waters and end up nutting a lot of this stuff out. There has always been an element of politics involved with the game and from my pov, you can always take and leave any part of it as you please. Organising a race league win can be one of the most politicised events here. As sam states above, there is no way of preventing these things from happening. Players will make their choices. PvP should not be something to be afraid of. Theres danger for your characters and gear in any aspect of this game, including racing stock cars around the most simple of tracks, death can come in an instant. The reason we have Darkwind is because the developer stuck to his guns and designed the game he wanted to make, the way he wanted to make it. This is a just another new idea to add to this great game, that we all love to play. Its because its such a small and involved community where we all feel that we have such connection to the developer in some way that the bickering occurs. We all want our attentions met. We all want our ideas focused on before others because we feel we might be listened to and can inact change. "Didn't want this POS crap! I wanted this. TOLD you it wouldn't WORK! YOU wasted your time and shoulda done the thing I said! IVE spent the last 1000 hours of MY game time making sure I proved that to you" Says the 3 guys with more time playing this game than anyone else, who have dominated it for years through their politics. Meanwhile I ignore them and just have my own fun. ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:29 pm

ShawnFireDragon ScavGhost Autodueller Deathrace Mafia Faction Group: Members Posts: 309 Joined: Aug 29, 2017 Hands Bastille his boot flask as he steps down from his soapbox. "Well spoken brother" grinning "DarkWind is a great game and we roll with the punches as it develops." ......................... vet wv race1 semiprocombat e2g gwextrav gateautumn sssc raceL1 deathrceL1 combatL1 pvp4 pvp3 paintladder pvp10,1,0 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:37 pm

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 ShotGun Jolly said: Sam, I say this from the outside looking in. And please take this with a grain of salt. Of course, no worries.. (nearly) all opinions are valid. Quote: But this camp wars is so far out of wack, that I have ZERO interest in playing in it (in its current state). I have spoke to several camp owners, and they have all agreed not to fight each other and just take resources from the hexs around them to allow their camps to grow. That wont change anytime soon either. So, you can forget that. That's ok, I think. Like I said above, all-out carnage isn't sustainable anyway. Sooner or later one of them will decide to go on a crusade against another. Quote: And with the amount of arguing and toxicity which I have read here, and what I see in the client. I have even LESS desire to engage in out of game dealings and olitical: back room conversations with making pacts or agreements with other players. In fact it makes me want me to play solo even MORE. I get that. Toxicity isn't pleasant to get involved in. I've met most of the 'main' players IRL or in video chat, and they're all good guys. A big-stakes meta-game is bound to cause trouble, and would do even if it were perfectly designed and balanced. Quote: Another point is real estate. I have read, and its been told to me several times that there are maybe a few spots left to really build a camp.. No other spots are really left. So, what happens if this really takes off and more people want to get involved? As a developer, how do you envision new players actually getting involved in Camp Wars? There are lots of good spots left. I envision them getting involved initially as hired guns.. helping out camp(s) and receiving juicy benefits. I envision them getting involved in logistics and supply, if that is what floats their boat. Join a camp as a contributor. Then finally, perhaps buy their own camp and get involved, around the edges at first. What I *don't* envision is them realistically expecting to wade straight in as a big player in Evan.. I think this is the point that some people are missing.  We're trying to create not just a late-game meta for the most powerful, but a whole set of related activities and indeed a career path for newer players in the system; giving them something of the meta to work towards and get gradually more involved in. Something more meaningful than just beating up pirates. If some newish player really wanted a pvp camp, I'd recommend they find a bigger camp to ally with, and locate fairly close to it. It isn't rocket science. They just shouldn't expect to be able to compete immediately with the big players. Not possible and not even what we want.  Harry explained this point well a couple of times:  no, the camp wars meta-game isn't balanced, and we don't want it to be. This isn't a boardgame, it's an MMO. People need to realise that being the top dog isn't the only victory condition.  Being a small player who, against the odds, affects Evan-wide events, is a victory condition too.  You set your own victory conditions - it's what makes long-running online games fun. A totally balanced playing field would be (a) boring and homegenous, (b) unrealistic, and (c) totally unworkable since we can't throw away the rights of the big players - which they have earned - the rights to be the strongest.  Want to be a strong player too? Fine, go and earn it. Quote: I have read many of the peoples points, I have read many of the peoples responses. And I think that Firefire's observations are very valid.    Yes, many of them are. Like I told him, I think pretty much all of them are fixable with number tweaking. Quote: So far, these wars, the main people who are active, are the same people who have been around for years, and got the resources ready  to use. Or people who have been gifted camps from others, to allow them to get involved. So we all know, that the gifted camps are going to be allied to the actual owner. Which leads to the hoarding of resources and the lack of PvP. Maybe so; we'll see. Certainly the camp wars haven't *reduced* Pvp.  ;-) Quote: My opinion, I think that if you want to be in a camp war, you should have to build you war camp from scratch, which is separate from leagues, sponsorship's, etc.(After all this is a WAR CAMP bent on destruction, not take the towns people out of picnics and walks in the parks) I don't agree with that. Everything is interlinked, and should be. What's important is to have a nuanced game where players can play in different styles and do the things they find fun within a bigger world context. Quote: I think a war camp could maybe be run something like a Scav gang (separate gang log in). Where its kinda separate from everyone else, and you can only interact with other war camp players. So, maybe warcamp players can have discounted prices on war camps construction costs? Or a camp war player gets a very basic, small tiny camp randomly placed to start which they can grow. And if its like a scav gang, well then they can THEN try to get sponsorship's that way.. bidding wars at the very beginning will be much lower in costs, as camp war players do not have the millions on millions of dollars sitting idle in their accounts. Again, I don't agree with that. The camp wars adds meaning to other things.. it makes all those $ which players have gathered useful, it gives them a reason to want more Firetrucks.  Separating it out into a different, unconnected game isn't the right thing to do IMO. Quote: Anyhow, I have said my two cents worth to day. I will sit back and wait for the flamethrowers to burn me. Thanks.  No flamethrowers from me.  I cannot speak for this enigmatic chap with the baseball bat though.  I didn't invite him in here BTW, he followed me in. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 1:58 pm Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 2:16 pm by *sam*

*Ninesticks* The Wombles Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Marshals + Rule Council Posts: 3,371 Joined: Apr 11, 2008 +1 Bastille and Sam. ......................... vet wv marshal pvp4 community pvp20,1,0 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 6:11 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 I have just had a nice chat with Firefly (who is nothing like Jordan Petersen and is really quite a decent chap). We agreed that keeping this discussion constructive means: 1) generalising where possible rather than using he did / she did type arguments 2) where you need to illustrate with a specific example stick to mechanics - if you attribute motive or speculate on things you could not possibly know then that is likely to devolve into mud slinging. I am as guilty of not doing the above as other people.. and for that i apologise. now stand down the mutant and lets talk about mechanics. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 10:26 pm

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 So.... I think we need to agree principles that make it possible to say whether the game mechanic is working properly. I'm not sure we all have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve. I'm going to suggest some - without saying whether i think they happen now or suggesting what i think would work - and people can agree or dispute them. 1 and 2 are about the the game mechanics, the rest are about playability. 1. it should get harder to control territory the further from your own camp you are. 2. the closer to your camp you get the easier defending a tile should be. 3. Cooperative play should be encouraged by the game mechanic 4. camp wars events should not make the game overly time consuming. 5. Scheduling should be done in a way that finds the best compromise for both parties - favouring the defender where there is no clear match. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 10:37 pm

Valiance The Vanguards Darkwind Guru Civs Faction Group: Storytellers Posts: 1,176 Joined: Jan 15, 2008 Who are you and what have you done with goat? :-) But yes, discussing mechanics is way better :-) And weirdly, I found myself doing my first courier delivery for a player this week. Maybe Sam is onto something after all. ......................... vet combat1 wv ped1 northernsummer Posted Jun 9, 2020, 10:41 pm

FireFly Anarcho-Pumpkin Privateers Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Members Posts: 5,468 Joined: Mar 3, 2008 The sweet sweet taste of... reconciliation?! I can agree with the goat on most of these points. I'm sure the bickering about details will come, so lets keep it chilli. ......................... vet wv zom gateautumn deathrceL1 elmsautumn pvp1 pvp2 sssc raceL1 e2g combatL1 santa1 pvp3 gwextrav ww circuit32,18,0 Posted Jun 9, 2020, 11:24 pm Last edited Jun 9, 2020, 11:25 pm by FireFly

*sam* The Salthill Sluggerz Darkwind Guru Renegade Group: Lead Developer Posts: 16,782 Joined: Jan 19, 2006 *goat starer* said: So.... I think we need to agree principles that make it possible to say whether the game mechanic is working properly. I'm not sure we all have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve. I'm going to suggest some - without saying whether i think they happen now or suggesting what i think would work - and people can agree or dispute them. 1 and 2 are about the the game mechanics, the rest are about playability. 1. it should get harder to control territory the further from your own camp you are. 2. the closer to your camp you get the easier defending a tile should be. 3. Cooperative play should be encouraged by the game mechanic 4. camp wars events should not make the game overly time consuming. 5. Scheduling should be done in a way that finds the best compromise for both parties - favouring the defender where there is no clear match. That's a fine post, thanks for that! I think you've captured a lot of the high level points well. Of particular importance IMO is rewarding long term play and established power bases while avoiding utterly unassailable positions.. a determined newer player should be able to (slowly) rise to prominence. I guess it's neither game mechanic nor playability but rather a broad philosophy, and perhaps not even within the remit you were capturing here. Very important to keep in mind, though. ......................... marshal vet deathrce1 paintladder combat1 wv ped1 cont slay2013 Posted Jun 10, 2020, 6:10 am

*goat starer* Special Circumstances Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Contributors Posts: 10,908 Joined: Oct 29, 2007 *sam* said: *goat starer* said: So.... I think we need to agree principles that make it possible to say whether the game mechanic is working properly. I'm not sure we all have a shared understanding of what we are trying to achieve. I'm going to suggest some - without saying whether i think they happen now or suggesting what i think would work - and people can agree or dispute them. 1 and 2 are about the the game mechanics, the rest are about playability. 1. it should get harder to control territory the further from your own camp you are. 2. the closer to your camp you get the easier defending a tile should be. 3. Cooperative play should be encouraged by the game mechanic 4. camp wars events should not make the game overly time consuming. 5. Scheduling should be done in a way that finds the best compromise for both parties - favouring the defender where there is no clear match. That's a fine post, thanks for that! I think you've captured a lot of the high level points well. Of particular importance IMO is rewarding long term play and established power bases while avoiding utterly unassailable positions.. a determined newer player should be able to (slowly) rise to prominence. I guess it's neither game mechanic nor playability but rather a broad philosophy, and perhaps not even within the remit you were capturing here. Very important to keep in mind, though. Yep... I think the points about it being much easier to defend close to.camp.than far away need to make that happen. There is a tricky balance between making it reasonably easy to nibble the edges of an empire and hard to strike its heart. ......................... vet wv zom pvp4 cont community deathrceL1 marshal pvp3 pvp2 Posted Jun 10, 2020, 7:52 am

darthspanky McSPANKYS LOLLIPOP GANSTAS Darkwind Guru Anarchists Faction Group: Subscribers Posts: 4,027 Joined: Jul 29, 2007 McSpankys Bank Director pipes in "hes off to a good start on making it hard to get tho spent 23 mil to get 3 sponsorships, that wasnt easy to get. and still didnt get a cut of raising the other bids from ss bank, cheap bastages". behind the director, 2 burly long toothed klingon looking mutants trying to hold back a double chained rabid mutant midget that give a dirty look to bat boy. ......................... vet paintball wv1,0,2 Posted Jun 10, 2020, 10:46 am Last edited Jun 10, 2020, 11:09 am by darthspanky

*Bastille* Raging Scavengers Darkwind Guru Evan Reds Faction Group: Marshals + Contributors Posts: 7,513 Joined: Mar 31, 2009 Lots of mutants in here, my kinda place... *goat starer* said: I have just had a nice chat with Firefly (who is nothing like Jordan Petersen and is really quite a decent chap). I have to apologies to Firefly here to be fair. This was not meant to be a personal insult. I like chilli ......................... marshal vet wv pvp4 zom cont pvp32,12,1 Posted Jun 10, 2020, 1:44 pm Last edited Jun 10, 2020, 1:45 pm by *Bastille*

Pages: << prev 1, 2 next >>

Powered by MercuryBoard [v1.1.4]
© 2001-2005 The Mercury Development Team

0.1179 seconds - 27 queries - 0.31 load