Wayward_Son
Major
Reged: 07/05/02
Posts: 1287
|
Towers, IDF, Terrain
#143808 - 01/23/07 02:02 PM (69.92.11.248)
|
|
|
As I stated in the updates while I was sick this is my main focus other than fixing bugs. I had hoped that there would be more in the way of discussions here when I returned but there isn't much so I'm starting a new one.
What I would like to do is as follows. Please do not discuss implementation at this point. Implementation will be resolved after I decided what will actually be done. If you write something like "will I get my XXX back?" or whatever I'm just going to ignore it. This is about the SUBSTANCE of the changes.
1. Tower ranges will be nerfed to all be normal. Nothing will have a range of more than the normal weapon range. Towers with range multipliers will be decommissioned and research for those tower designs will be refunded in TP.
People have complained that attackers could "pick apart" a city piecemeail with single range towers. They SHOULD be able to do this. Everyone wants their cities to be impenetrable but their opponent's to be conquerable. All cities need to be conquerable by a skilled and properly equipped player unless an active player is able to outskill the attacker and defend it.
2. Non-city maps will likely be changed to be 60 x 60 instead of 100 x 100 assuming I can overcome a couple technical issues.
3. Terrain will be changed to have less features and a lower concentration of rough and woods. This should speed up battles a bit and make assault vehicles/mechs more useful.
Ideas, comments and constructive feedback welcome.
WS
|
mattbuck
Eeyore
Reged: 02/13/04
Posts: 3285
Loc: Nottingham, UK
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#143813 - 01/23/07 02:27 PM (80.1.72.245)
|
|
|
With the tower range thing, IDF worries me. IDF is an annoying way to fight a war. Yes, attackers will be able to pick apart a defence easily. I DO see this as a problem. I'm not saying what we have now is good, but defending towers I feel do need some range advantage because they are stationary and are thus vulnerable. I'd go for level 3 tower increases range by 1/3 or something like that.
Also, towers should cost LESS in maintenance than vehicles since they would be weaker. Making their maint as if they were a tracked vehicle of CF tonnage would be a start.
No objections to 2 or 3, but this should probably go only for uncreated terrain.
--------------------
Haha, you people think admins still look at these forums.
Visit the Platonian! Updated! Stuff! Things! Click!
Edited by mattbuck (01/23/07 02:33 PM)
|
Sente
Private
Reged: 10/13/05
Posts: 32
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: mattbuck]
#143814 - 01/23/07 03:05 PM (213.243.176.4)
|
|
|
i'm mainly on the same lines as mattbuck.
Towers do need some kind of a range advantage but 2x or 3x range is not needed. The loss heavy range modifiers will weaken the use of the towers significantly, which should be enough.
2 and 3, no objections
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#143815 - 01/23/07 03:13 PM (172.142.164.3)
|
|
|
1) Awesome but no skill loss please, and full salvage of parts please.
2) I like it, means staller zones are more easy to clear.
3) Less features are good but maybe retain "big" features such as ridgelines that completely block line of sight, could just clean up their edges a little, same thing with large "valleys".
More Suggestions: Cities, reduce number of buildings shown maybe, or organise them so that urban fighting takes on a different dimension and walkers can move more effectively.
Maybe reduce the numbers people can defend with and attack with to make fights smaller and warfare more fluid? For example if only 72 units can be used, and only 12 can attack then there will be more impetus on a counter attack being mounted.
Also the biggie here IMO, where does IDF factor into this? nerfing to non IDF ranges for use as a tactical weapon? Staying the same? I won't say anything more on IDF until you give us your vision for it.
Edited by Malachi (01/23/07 03:16 PM)
|
Nomaad
Newbie
Reged: 12/14/05
Posts: 11
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143823 - 01/23/07 06:24 PM (68.96.216.40)
|
|
|
Maybe make the IDF be normal range for lvl 3 towers, and make it 2x range for lvl 6 towers. Leave the maintenance costs the same. This could be a gradual decline from the current state of IDF warfare, and then sometime in the future once players arent so focused on IDF power, we could lower the IDF range yet again to normal range all the way up to lvl 6.
|
Toscotto
Lieutenant
Reged: 02/02/06
Posts: 530
Loc: Tacoma WA
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Nomaad]
#143825 - 01/23/07 06:44 PM (199.68.77.235)
|
|
|
wait refunded in tp?
do you mean the same amout of RP value? or the new and improved tpaper tp?
cant wait for this feature. heh
--------------------
The question is not how far, the question is do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as needed?
|
MatthewAce
Captain
Reged: 06/25/04
Posts: 774
Loc: Neveron
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Toscotto]
#143830 - 01/23/07 07:36 PM (202.156.12.11)
|
|
|
It is essential that towers have a slightly longer range as a form of advantage of using them, but 2* or 3* is not needed.
Like WWS suggested before, +1 range per level of tower.
If not, it would be nice to:
1) have the weight of IDF reduced
2) make towers have a reduced chance of critting
3) A reduced maintenance
4) 90% of their original BV
A combination of any of the 4 will work.
Or we can even include extreme range into towers. (medium lasers are 3/6/9/12 instead of 3/6/9 for example)
Terrain I feel that what WWS suggested is good enough.
--------------------
Urbies are good.
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: MatthewAce]
#143831 - 01/23/07 08:51 PM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
I am in total agreement with wws, that IDF should change, combat should be more fluid and far more fast paced (on the tactical level not the strategic level). However what worries me the most is that what new strategy players will come up with to negate this.... What also concerns me is the TP, as he bluntly put it will it be actually worth the TP.... its a minor issue but for some smaller empires, thats worth a fair amount.... however this change to IDF wont elimante fortress zones....
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
KJI_3x6
Lieutenant
Reged: 09/11/06
Posts: 650
Loc: Minnesota, North Korea
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Eddey]
#143837 - 01/23/07 10:57 PM (65.45.140.75)
|
|
|
Quote:
More Suggestions: Cities, reduce number of buildings shown maybe, or organise them so that urban fighting takes on a different dimension and walkers can move more effectively.
definately. actually make citiesl ook like cities. this would make actual "city" fighting WAY better. maybe a way to actually arange buildings like a city in zones, like the tower placement? actually making city zones into city's would make the game vastly more interesting, knowing you could drop into a city and actually have to fight with buildings in the way and whatnot. instead of buildings just randomly spread out all over a huge zone. thiw would make it so even smaller empires could have actual city zones, maybe not as huge as large empires, but they could place buildings in a general area and make a part of their zone into a "city" area.
--------------------
My d*** rumble in the jungle; your d*** got touched by your uncle.
My d*** double feature screen; your d*** went straight to dvd.
ME > you
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: KJI_3x6]
#143842 - 01/24/07 01:33 AM (88.159.70.47)
|
|
|
cities like cities ok, but not by useing manual distribution of buildings: 1, too slow to do, 2, abuseable.
Maybe during terrain creation, similar to buildings in the arena, building lots clustered.. when building, these lots fill up.
removal of 2x3x range is ok; disable lw for a day or 2 after removal tho, as ppl can scramble to retower stuff.
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Toontje]
#143854 - 01/24/07 05:46 AM (172.215.1.40)
|
|
|
Ok, a few replies to what people have said.
Nomad: I don't know about you, but even on a lev 6 tower, i would make sure I had maybe 2 IDF-5s per tower at double range so I just used half the number to kick out the same amount of IDF per turn. Its a nice idea but i feel if we're going to change then we need to just change the whole thing and have a breath of fresh air.
Toscotto: Almost certainly you will have the correct TP issued, just because it isn't of the same value probably means you gain a greater number of TP so that it does fall in line with the RP you spent, anything else would just be silly. An exception may be towers that have been flagged obsolete which would only gain half or maybe nothing.
Matt Ace: Maint for single range towers is not very much for something that you can choose exactly what you put on the tower and pay 0 SP for. That is the strength of towers right there, effective defence at 0SP. If you have a problem with mobility, add vehicles yo your static defences. Reducing the weight of IDF is a bad idea, just means you can stick IDF weapons on smaller towers, which coupled with your idea for reduced maint, extra range and less chance of critting just means a greater number of IDF towers and we are back to where we started. The bv loss is also just not needed and is offset by the 0 SP cost.
KJI: Toontje is right, manual placing is highly abusable, but yeah that is a big point for me too, proper city maps with close in fighting but also streets that would give corridors of fire down them etc.
Toontje: YES! If these changes come into effect LW needs to be brought down for a couple of days, maybe even a week because high level empires simply cannot change defences overnight like this would require.
|
HLC
Sergeant
Reged: 10/10/05
Posts: 177
Loc: UK
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143859 - 01/24/07 06:14 AM (86.149.189.84)
|
|
|
1. Good idea. Obviously all towers that are decommed should get full salvage and no skill-ups to any soldiers and I hope LW will be disabled for at least a week to allow all empires enough time to research, and rebuild new towers.
2. another good idea but again, LW would need to be stopped to allow empires to redesign defences ie tower placement in zones and vehicle selection etc....
3. This is a superb addition, but as Malachi said, keep ridges etc... they are useful
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: HLC]
#143865 - 01/24/07 06:39 AM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
with terrain, city and tower changes there is no need to keep IDF guns at all! just get rid of them alltogether. In order to prevent abusive use of lurkers a very short ranged idf weapon could be introduced mounted on a fast vehicle. or indirect fire capability could be added for mech SRM.
i think an optional range bonus of 1 or 2 for towers would just balance their immobility. without that they are not just easy to kill, but almost completely useless. the range bonus by tower height was imo a very good suggestion by Wayward. Reduce the range bonus a bit, and it is perfect. (a 150 CF would have +2) (a 75 CF +1) with +1 an attacker with same range weapon has to engage 4 towers, if he picks the closest.
--------------------
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: sdog]
#143868 - 01/24/07 08:25 AM (172.215.1.40)
|
|
|
Yeah, if these changes come into effect there should not be a need for IDF anymore except as sdog says, for the removal of annoying lurkers. IDF fire for mech SRM would suffice for this purpose or perhaps a vehicle that could carry a mortar, again as suggested by Sdog. I do not think a range bonus is necessary, ever take on Ontos and Sturmfeuers? Those things even when immobile can hit with one hell of a punch. Heck, the AC-2 will become a valid weapon again! If implemented correctly, this could mean exciting times ahead for us all.
|
Coldheart
Corporal
Reged: 07/30/03
Posts: 55
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Wayward_Son]
#143869 - 01/24/07 09:05 AM (216.221.81.97)
|
|
|
I agree that the 2 and 3 times range on towers was a wee bit excessive.
I think the slight range alteration suggested would be in line with what a staionary/static tower would have.
As far as reducing crits that a tower could do, no, I think they should in fact be more able to crit.
At least that would add some substance to a zone defense.
Maintenance of a tower should be a very low figure. This is justified as the tower having far less moving parts than a vehicle or mech.
The research refund is a good thing. I do however feel that there should also be a cash refund - some of the towers did cost a bundle to have made. A full parts refund should also apply.
Overall, I think there should be more thought given to the tower placement restriction. As long as code is clean, the majority of lag would not be as evident. The zones themselves should not be made to be a walkover. Zone defesnes need to be able to delay/put up a good fight/defeat an aggressor dependant on how well the zone is defended. Towers should not be counted as part of movable vehicle garrison limits.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Coldheart]
#143870 - 01/24/07 09:16 AM (172.212.180.207)
|
|
|
So far everyone who has mentioned a lowering of maintanence cost has completely ignored the importance of them having 0 SP! This is a really big issue and if people want lower maintanence then they should have to pay SP. You can't have your cake and eat it. I think the point made was that towers should not crit so easily as vehicles do when hit by enemy fire, again I think this should remain the same. The range increase should not be needed, the problem of static defences has always been that mobile forces can circumvent them and avoid them, for example, the maginot line.
Cash refund is a significant factor for small empires indeed and should definitely be addressed.
With a mix of static defences (probably ideally suited to the terrain of the city you are in, after all you can design your own towers tailored per city) and vehicles and in the sheer numbers the game currently allows zones will still put up an incredible fight, more so I believe if IDF was removed as then both defender and attacker are able to engage with higher damage weapons, which often leads to the smaller side being overwhelmed.
|
sdog
Lieutenant Colonel
Reged: 09/01/03
Posts: 1791
Loc: europe
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143873 - 01/24/07 10:29 AM (139.174.165.124)
|
|
|
i really don't see any reason for less crits for towers, they already lack all the movement crits of vehs, that's the only thing they are less complex. the weapons systems are the same, and crew is also very easily killed by spalation for example.
the crits become less of an issue without snipers. plinking with AC is still a valid tactic, but it's not as easy as it is with snipers atm.
Since infantry with it's tower killer potential was removed, i think APCs should do 100 damage to towers, if one attack phase on the same hex, let's say they carry troopers equiped for QCB, taking out the tower crew.
another very good thing would be hefty to hit modifiers for towers to hit units in the same hex, to account for dead angles in such a setup. (guns can't be raised or lowered far enough, turret can't turn cause mech blocks it, etc. this makes killing towers with close range fighters an interesting tactic, and can compensate for a slight range increase. it makes fighting towers require different armies and tactics then fighting mobile defenses.
oh, as a nice compensation for removing IDF guns, wayward could give us a nice Mauler assault mech as market mech, downgraded to lvl1 tech of course, and with 1 or 2 extra tons AC2 ammo.
--------------------
I realised soon that the fun part of playing a military game is that we have lots of lifes and in the end knowone dies, ...
- Skaven, ArmA modding community
|
CaBhaal
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/11/04
Posts: 599
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143875 - 01/24/07 10:39 AM (24.32.84.216)
|
|
|
Tower maint/mob costs are already absurdly low. The SP needed is zero, which is also a huge consideration. These two items need not change, since towers are immobile defensive structures.
Towers do not need any special "powers" because of the nerf. The crit rate for towers is exactly as it should be. Extra range for height I can live with, because otherwise everyone will live in mortal terror of the Type IV Energy weapons and Guass Rifles out there. You know, since they are so common and cheap. (/sarcasm)
Again, what I get from reading some of these comments is the exact same thing WWS said: "We want our cities invulnerable, but still go out and kill the enemy's."
I think people missed the fact that removing range multipliers will give you *gasp* more tonnage to put weapons and armor into your towers. If you have not played around with the tower creation console using single range towers, please do so.
CaBhaal
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: CaBhaal]
#143877 - 01/24/07 10:47 AM (88.159.68.246)
|
|
|
GR's are not that expensive.. granted, they have abysmal range advantage and cost a bit to operate, but a hng-732 is what, 30 dp? (not a lot imo)
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
CaBhaal
Lieutenant
Reged: 10/11/04
Posts: 599
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Toontje]
#143880 - 01/24/07 11:18 AM (24.32.84.216)
|
|
|
30 DP is likely out of reach for over 90% of those that play the game. Not sure if you noticed, but DP contributions are way down.
Towers make a great defensive force. But a mobile force is also necessary. Without something mobile, you allow your opponent to make every move and every decision. This leads to defeat and death on the battlefield.
CaBhaal
|
Toontje
Colonel
Reged: 01/18/04
Posts: 2578
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: CaBhaal]
#143882 - 01/24/07 11:38 AM (88.159.68.246)
|
|
|
Aye, great to slow down stuff, but better not rely too much on it.
--------------------
Rather to blow up, then.
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Toontje]
#143883 - 01/24/07 12:05 PM (172.212.180.207)
|
|
|
HGN-732s are now 40DP each. The cheapest Gauss carrier is the Hollander at 14 DP. There should be an advantage to these weapons, i mean heck, 1million nevdollars per shot, thats quite a whack of money for someone to mount an LRM 20 on a large tower and instantly have the advantage firmly back on his side. As Cabhaal says, learn to use combined arms because towers under this proposal CAN be outmanouvered and picked off, just as an all tower defence should be. Also Sdog, we don't need a mauler, a lance of Jagermechs makes for a useful tool again.
|
amerzone
Newbie
Reged: 10/08/06
Posts: 6
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143886 - 01/24/07 03:41 PM (213.22.89.149)
|
|
|
With no 2x range towers, why have towers?
Why have PPC, LL, AC-5, AC-10, ML, SRM, AC-20 towers? They will never fire against a crappy GRD attacking Battalion.
People will build only LRM towers… or AC-2 towers!?! lol
Those lovely towers will be smashed to pieces one by one, by LRM mech battalions, slowly movin in range to strike one tower at time. It will be like taking a walk in the park.
So... how can I defend my cities in the future?
Mechs of course… this is all about mechs, and reducing units in game.
“All cities need to be conquerable by a skilled and properly equipped player unless an active player is able to outskill the attacker and defend it”
Everybody knows the attacker comes with his most powerful units aka mechs. So, how can one “outskill the attacker”? Having 36 assault mechs defending each city… that might be it!
Since no empire can afford 36Assault mechs per city.. tanks will do the job...
The game will be more than ever the “sitting in the corner and wait for the suicidal tanks,” and get a REP snack with crappy towers in the middle (if someone is stupid to build them)
And the old snipers will keep doing the dirty job.
“Who ever controls the Sniper, controls the universe”
Maybe I’ll just turn my 1,000,000 POP into 1,000POP cities around the map… I guess this is the only way to go to bed and sleep, not worrying about loosing my cities in 2 hours.
-amerzone-
Edited by amerzone (01/24/07 03:43 PM)
|
Malachi
Sergeant Major
Reged: 04/19/04
Posts: 369
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: amerzone]
#143889 - 01/24/07 04:06 PM (172.212.180.207)
|
|
|
wow, ever fought in a 1K city? Take a minute and read the suggestions and peoples ideas instead of sounding off like an absolute newb. This is part of the reason we want IDF nerfed or removed entirely. Maybe if you actually think about defence rather than throwing a load of GRDs or hunters in a zone backed by some IDF towers you will see there are ways to defend. I guess this is a bit of a STFU with comments such as the above and keep this constructive.
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Malachi]
#143891 - 01/24/07 04:32 PM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
in 1kers movement is very constricted to a point so idf is still viable and and if the enemy were to put snipers in a corner perhaps an ac-20 or ac-10 would do the trick but i degress i have only piloted in a 1ker assault only once.... its better to stick to smaller cities your own forces movements arnt as constricted but you have to spread your core out more....
towers if properly supported by other units that are actually suited for defending the towers weakneses take a lot of time and effort to take down... but no defence is invincible to time, determination and better resources... unless you have a bper on xD
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
Toscotto
Lieutenant
Reged: 02/02/06
Posts: 530
Loc: Tacoma WA
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: Eddey]
#143892 - 01/24/07 04:43 PM (199.68.77.235)
|
|
|
again,
I cant wait for this feature, or solution.
--------------------
The question is not how far, the question is do you possess the constitution, the depth of faith, to go as far as needed?
|
TRK
Sergeant Major
Reged: 11/05/02
Posts: 254
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: CaBhaal]
#143893 - 01/24/07 05:13 PM (199.126.245.115)
|
|
|
1. Tower ranges to be nerfed.
Every weapon will have the same range, regardless of unit type. A sniper will be able to hit ANY tower without suffering damage from that tower while CLOSING on it (minus defending tanks/mechs of course). Most (smart) people clear moving units first with snipers, then send in fast jumping mechs to kill IDF towers, works well. Having direct fire weapons gaurding these towers is essential. At the same time, snipers would be able to pick these direct fire towers off in order to allow mechs to close on the IDF. As Wayward said, pick apart a city piecemeal with single range towers. Basically, I see the outcome of this as giving the attacker more of an advantage. About time!
2. Non-city maps will likely be changed to be 60 x 60 instead of 100 x 100.
In my opinion this would also require the removal of some buildings from the battle map. A zone with 1000 buildings is very dense already, 60x60 would make it A LOT worse. Without removing some buildings from the map, it would severly limit the mobility of assault mechs and especially vehicles.
3. Terrain will be changed to have less features and a lower concentration of rough and woods. This should speed up battles a bit and make assault vehicles/mechs more useful.
Excellent suggestion, and way over due. However see point 2!
All in all, excellent ideas Wayward! 
|
Majistics
Sergeant
Reged: 06/10/05
Posts: 158
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#143895 - 01/24/07 06:18 PM (24.74.46.123)
|
|
|
Quote:
2. Non-city maps will likely be changed to be 60 x 60 instead of 100 x 100.
In my opinion this would also require the removal of some buildings from the battle map. A zone with 1000 buildings is very dense already, 60x60 would make it A LOT worse...
uhhh howda?
--------------------
Gimmie Back MY Bullets!
-LS
|
wonko
Sergeant Major
Reged: 03/08/06
Posts: 273
Loc: park city UT
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: TRK]
#143896 - 01/24/07 06:25 PM (66.227.136.87)
|
|
|
TRK.... as you pointed out "NON-CITY" maps will likely be changed to 60 x 60......no buildings.....pay attention
Malachi, well said
i love all these ideas.....range multies are the worst thing that ever happened to nev-battle imho.....but i think idf in general is for people who don't like to fight and are afraid to lose real units.....
i am really looking forward to better terain and smaller non city maps.....and i think anyone who has waited 30-45 minutes while assult mechs try to close to firing range in bad terrain will agree...
but ww, please, before going too far with this idea......can you work on ie-7?
--------------------
Democrats are the root of all evil
|
Eddey
Sergeant
Reged: 03/06/06
Posts: 196
|
Re: Towers, IDF, Terrain
[Re: wonko]
#143897 - 01/24/07 07:08 PM (64.59.144.87)
|
|
|
Well for IE7 id prefer not to know how long it would take to make nev compatible with it so for the time being i think we should just settle for better terrain and idf being nerfed. Anything more than that will probabaly overload wws..... but its a good feeling knowing that you actually have to think about your defences now not just massing IDF and very little else..... i must say that this update whenever it is implemented will be quite memorable one way or another.....
--------------------
May the rng smile on you and smite your enemies... -Commander Tal Gladys
Im currently going to try and make an introductory guide for newbies from lvls 1-7 any suggestions
just pm me thx you xD
http://mattbuck.irongalaxy.com/neveron/faq-irc.html
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
