Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer play

General discussion about the game.
thelovebat
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:40 am

Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer play

Postby thelovebat » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:17 am

By incorporate, I mean the devs creating and releasing an expansion of sorts with new goodies. One of them could be multiplayer support, the others could be things like even more bug and gameplay fixes, adding in even more possible random events or ways to solve encounters, introduce new equipment & upgrades, a new ship type or two, and maybe even an option for a free roam play mode.

As for the multiplayer, the way it could work is making it where you create your ship and crew entirely from scratch with a set number of points (or scrap or whatever you want to call it), you can spend it on anything you could buy from a shop (including crew members) as well as getting your choice of whichever ship type you want to play as since you're building it from the ground up the ship would be a matter of preference. Points would be spent for upgrading your ship systems at this point as well as upgrading your available power supply bars. Points could also be spent on leveling up your crew members' skills if you want to invest in that, so you could have engi crew members with leveled up repair and mantis with leveled up combat skills. Finally you can also determine how many missles and drone parts you start with at the beginning of every battle, so there wouldn't be unlimited ammo for missles or drones. This could be balanced by increasing the cost to outfit your ship with beam and laser weapons in multiplayer games, since ammo is unlimited for those.

Total health bars for the ships would be the only preset thing I can think of at this point, it would be the same as the default healthbar playing singleplayer for every fight. This would make certain ship augments like the repair arm useless, but in multiplayer if there were only combat and no exploration many augments like long range scanners or scrap collection arms would also be useless (unless the devs found a way for augments like those to be implemented, such as the scrap collection arm costing money which could be spent for the combat functions of your ship at ship creation, but granting you extra points for every victory you pile up to move up the leaderboards).

Multiplayer would likely have to be set up without exploring around systems and just matching players up directly to fight each other with their ships. As for things like potential harmful environments like asteroid fields, nebulas, suns, etc. that could be the one thing randomnly generated for each battle matchup.

Ship creation would also mean taking risks in whatever particular build you go with, and realizing it'd be impossible to win every fight in the sense that a ship without shielding or defense drones would likely lose a battle in an asteroid field. Or at the very least you'd be at an extreme disadvantage.

With the set amount of points any one ship or build wouldn't be invincible or make it impossible for those just starting multiplayer to be able to win if they get matched up with a player who's played more. Once you create a ship however you wouldn't be able to edit it or change it in any way, including the crew members and the name of the ship. You could always create new ships but you couldn't edit the old ones.

For example while a stealth type ship without shields but with highly upgraded stealth, crew teleporter, and pilot systems for autopilot, with some rockman and/or mantis crew members would be immensly powerful against many ships and cause massive headaches for their opponents, this kind of ship would still be highly susceptible to fighting against ships such as ones that have at least one beam weapon (or beam drone), ships with pre-infernal ignitor, ships that have both a medbay and door control installed, and against ships that have super zoltan shielding holding off teleporters at the start.

Losing a battle would not be permadeath (though I suppose if the devs had the resources they could have two seperate high score leagues, one for those playing with permadeath mechanic in which you'd have to start back with a 0 score again, and one without it where you constantly gain points for winning battles and you lose points for losing battles). Essentially one league (permadeath league) the person with the highest score on the leaderboard would likely have to have the longest battle winning streak to have the top score. In the other league where your score doesn't reset back to 0 after losing a battle, it would be between who likely has the better win/loss ratio.

As for how the combat would actually work, at the very beginning of the battle the game would be paused with each players' crew members (depending on how many they have, the maximum being 8) all starting in the pilot room or closest to it. Each battle would start with each ship at full health, health wouldn't ever carry over from previous battles. During the pause time you'd have a set amount of time, say 1 or 2 minutes, to decide what you want to do and how power would be distributed. Potential issues could easily be ironed out, such as systems like pre-infernal igniter since your weapons started unpowered but you powered them up for the battle, then after the battle is unpaused the igniter would be coded to kick in so your weapons would be online lettting you fire right away.

If there was a standoff, such as two players not having enough firepower to penetrate each other's shields and destroy one another, or one or both not having enough missles/drones to destroy each other, there could be an option where if both agree to it the match can be declared a draw, none of them gain or lose any points in non-permadeath matches, and neither of their scores are reset in the permadeath matches. Also even further than that there could be a surrender option or button if you want to concede the match at any point and save each other time instead of waiting for the inevitable.

The one thing that I think should happen with being able to pause or unpause is at the beginning of the match you have that 1-2 minute time to plan out your moves, but once the battle starts you wouldn't be able to pause the game again so things would get pretty hectic. This would force players to learn and use the hotkeys for their weapons and custom hotkeys could be done for crew members, so players that get their hotkeys down can keep up with the speed of the game unpaused.

Also they could have a ship option of having autofire turned on or off by default at the start so they wouldn't have to remember to turn it on at the beginning of every battle. Currently in single player if you save & exit, then enter the game and load your save you have to turn on autofire again manually even if it was turned on when you saved and exited the game, which I know I've forgotten to do a few times after loading up my game into my first battle.

Also if multiplayer was implemented there could be multiplayer achievements as well.

The one potential issue I can see with multiplayer games (with everything I've mentioned) is that players using missles and drones could be underpowered or at a disadvantage because of the ammunition problem and possibly running out of ammo while the other player continues to hammer them with beam weapons or lasers that never run out. Though in a way I guess it could be a riskier build but with the perfect components and playstyle you could beat people if you know how to win the battle before running out of ammo and planning your build carefully.

So what do you guys think about this? I know that the game was designed for single player and the devs never anticipated their game becoming such a big hit or getting so much funding on Kickstarter, but I think if they could balance things properly and account for any possible issues multiplayer would be an excellent component, adding even more customization and unpredictability to the game. I can say that personally multiplayer for a game like Starcraft II is 10x more fun and challenging playing against human opponents than playing muliplayer against the AI where its easier to predict their coded tendencies (such as mantis ships always going in head first with their crew teleporter, which isn't really bad for you because you can just air out your ship and hole up in the medbay in single player).

Feel free to discuss and offer your ideas on what you think or if you don't like the idea give your constructive criticism. Chances are I probably overlooked or missed some things others could mention and bring up. But multiplayer would be so great for the game and get even more people to want to play it after doing almost all there is to do in single player, while also giving people an opportunity to play as any ship type they want if they're unable to unlock ones they want in single player. I would personally pay $10-$20 for multiplayer to be implemented in some way, possibly even more than that depending on the cost of implementing it and keeping the multiplayer servers up.
undergroundmonorail
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:00 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby undergroundmonorail » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:30 am

No. No no no. Everyone on this forum has a hard on for multiplayer for some reason, and not a single person has come up with a way to make it fun.

thelovebat wrote:The one thing that I think should happen with being able to pause or unpause is at the beginning of the match you have that 1-2 minute time to plan out your moves, but once the battle starts you wouldn't be able to pause the game again so things would get pretty hectic. This would force players to learn and use the hotkeys for their weapons and custom hotkeys could be done for crew members, so players that get their hotkeys down can keep up with the speed of the game unpaused.


"I know", said thelovebat, "I'll take away all the strategy and let the winner be whoever can keep up!"

The whole thing with making a ship from scratch has been shot down by the developers because it's not fun. There will always be a "best ship", and there's no reason to not always use it. FTL is fun because you have to deal with what it throws at you.

FTL is a single player game. It was designed for single player. You even acknowledged that in your post:

thelovebat wrote:I know that the game was designed for single player


But you still tried to make it work.

FTL can't work in multiplayer. Please, for the love of god, stop trying.
thelovebat
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby thelovebat » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:35 am

undergroundmonorail wrote:No. No no no. Everyone on this forum has a hard on for multiplayer for some reason, and not a single person has come up with a way to make it fun.

thelovebat wrote:The one thing that I think should happen with being able to pause or unpause is at the beginning of the match you have that 1-2 minute time to plan out your moves, but once the battle starts you wouldn't be able to pause the game again so things would get pretty hectic. This would force players to learn and use the hotkeys for their weapons and custom hotkeys could be done for crew members, so players that get their hotkeys down can keep up with the speed of the game unpaused.


"I know", said thelovebat, "I'll take away all the strategy and let the winner be whoever can keep up!"

The whole thing with making a ship from scratch has been shot down by the developers because it's not fun. There will always be a "best ship", and there's no reason to not always use it. FTL is fun because you have to deal with what it throws at you.

FTL is a single player game. It was designed for single player. You even acknowledged that in your post:

thelovebat wrote:I know that the game was designed for single player


But you still tried to make it work.

FTL can't work in multiplayer. Please, for the love of god, stop trying.


This isn't exactly constructive. Because it can be done IMO, and I already mentioned I'd be willing to pay $ for it to happen. Its another way for me to support the devs and get more fun and challenge out of the game. Human players will always be more unpredictable, challenging, and fun to play against than the AI. This cannot be disputed, it is fact. I have played multiplayer games for years and years and I can tell you now playing against human opponents trumps playing against a computer opponent every time.
undergroundmonorail
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 6:00 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby undergroundmonorail » Thu Nov 08, 2012 3:30 pm

thelovebat wrote:This isn't exactly constructive.


In what way is "here's why that won't work" not constructive?

thelovebat wrote:Because it can be done IMO,


Oh, okay, I guess I can concede that-- Oh wait, you didn't make any points, you just said "YES IT CAN".

thelovebat wrote:and I already mentioned I'd be willing to pay $ for it to happen.


Wow, how relevant of you.

thelovebat wrote:Its another way for me to support the devs and get more fun and challenge out of the game.


But it wouldn't be fun. We went over this.

thelovebat wrote:Human players will always be more unpredictable, challenging, and fun to play against than the AI. This cannot be disputed, it is fact. I have played multiplayer games for years and years and I can tell you now playing against human opponents trumps playing against a computer opponent every time.


Human players are way more fun to play against in games designed for it. You can't throw multiplayer at any game and hope it sticks. If you have to fundamentally modify the way the game is played just to make multiplayer feasible, that should be your first hint that maybe the game's not cut out for it.
thelovebat
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby thelovebat » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:40 pm

undergroundmonorail wrote:
thelovebat wrote:This isn't exactly constructive.


In what way is "here's why that won't work" not constructive?

thelovebat wrote:Because it can be done IMO,


Oh, okay, I guess I can concede that-- Oh wait, you didn't make any points, you just said "YES IT CAN".

thelovebat wrote:and I already mentioned I'd be willing to pay $ for it to happen.


Wow, how relevant of you.

thelovebat wrote:Its another way for me to support the devs and get more fun and challenge out of the game.


But it wouldn't be fun. We went over this.

thelovebat wrote:Human players will always be more unpredictable, challenging, and fun to play against than the AI. This cannot be disputed, it is fact. I have played multiplayer games for years and years and I can tell you now playing against human opponents trumps playing against a computer opponent every time.


Human players are way more fun to play against in games designed for it. You can't throw multiplayer at any game and hope it sticks. If you have to fundamentally modify the way the game is played just to make multiplayer feasible, that should be your first hint that maybe the game's not cut out for it.


Describe to me in detail how FTL wouldn't be cut out for multiplayer. Give me specifics please, such as it would be OP and frustrating to deal with human opponents that actually wait for all of their weapons to charge first, then sending in a volley to take out your important systems, whereas the AI in single player just automatically fires the weapons once they're charged up making them easier to defend against. Or mantis ships in single player that use crew teleporter right away not considering that the other ship may have blast doors to deal with, whereas a human opponent might try taking out the other ship's door control first then boarding the enemy ship so the crew members sent over wouldn't get suffocated to death.

You can't just say it won't work then claim you said why it won't work when all you did was say it wasn't intended for multiplayer by the devs, or that customization wouldn't be fun because "the devs said so" and never stating why other than its your opinion so obviously it trumps my opinion. You need to back it up with evidence how it wouldn't work. Because obviously Bioware had a grand idea for artistic integrity when they made Mass Effect 3's ending, devs aren't perfect. If the devs themselves want to come into this topic and state why it can't be done or how it would be impossible to implement then that's fine, but at least go into gameplay specifics or cite some examples of how it wouldn't work. Also stating "there will always be a 'best ship" is only your opinion and the same "best ship" in single player wouldn't be the same "best ship" in multiplayer playing against human opponents. You also didn't state what might be considered the "best ship" for singleplayer so I don't know which one you're refering to. There will always be a counter to any ship type, no one kind of ship is perfect.

You guys know the Diablo games? Well, anyone who's played the first one (me for example, as I've beaten that game at least 5 times) knows it wasn't designed for online multiplayer, even though eventually it had multiplayer supported on Battlenet anyone who played it would know from the way its designed that it wasn't made to be a multiplayer game (such as the fact you can't run in the game, only walk so movement speed is slow and consistent and not fast paced). It was designed with the single player experience in mind. Still, enough people must've enjoyed the multiplayer component it had enough to want even more of it really bad in Diablo II, and low and behold, Blizzard listened and delivered as Diablo II became one of the biggest longest running multiplayer games ever.

Please tell me in detail how it wouldn't be fun to try even more new strategies, learning how to deal with new strategies, and dealing with even more unpredictability and players the game will throw at you than in single player where about 50% of the game is based on luck and good drops/spawns. Angry Joe in his review said one of the things that could've made the game better was multiplayer and he gave it an 8/10 score. No one is saying the core mechanics of single player should be changed at all, I never said that. People would still be able to play single player all they want with it unchanged unless they wanted to use some mods with it. The core gameplay of single player and multiplayer could be seperate, and multiplayer is something the players want, as do I.
FDru
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2012 12:08 pm

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby FDru » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:01 am

There are some people who think every game in the universe would be better with mutiplayer. That really doesn't apply to roguelikes. They're made to be player vs RNG and giving the player too much choice essentially just breaks the game.
splette
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:37 am
Location: Berlin, Germany
Contact:

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby splette » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:09 am

Couldn't agree more.
I just don't get the obsession about multiplayer.
thelovebat
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:40 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby thelovebat » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:10 am

FDru wrote:There are some people who think every game in the universe would be better with mutiplayer. That really doesn't apply to roguelikes. They're made to be player vs RNG and giving the player too much choice essentially just breaks the game.


Against the AI you would be right. It would break the game.

Against human players however this isn't so.
furyfire
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:52 am

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby furyfire » Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:02 pm

Hmmm incorporating the ability to make your own ship from scratch can lead to creating streamlined designs.

How about instead of that, the feel of a roguelike should be maintained by having preset ships. And by giving the player a chance to build up his ship before entering battle? Multiplayer can only be done by matches, but should not be limited to combat. It should be a multiplayer match involving one huge sector with a lot of beacons. And that players will be split in two teams each with specific objectives. Let me outline it:

MULTIPLAYER MINI CAMPAIGN
>Each Match/Round/Game would compromise a sector roughly 1.5 times or twice the size of normal campaign sectors.
>the time limit shall be 30 mins to 1 hour.
>Players will be divided into teams of 4-6 (so that's 12 players per room)
>One player will control one selected ship from a fleet roster depending on the faction
>Players play at the sector both moving/being in combat/or interacting with events IN REAL TIME.
>The premise here is to give players some freedom to explore and gain rewards or punishments. You might meet an enemy player with one side having the upper hand be it luck or so. This will maintain the roguelike feel. Fightback, surrender and offer tribute, or attempt to jump away (isn't it exciting? :twisted: )
>when entering combat, there is a 15 second pause before the battle begins. After that, no more pauses.
>players would either enter a beacon and interact with an event, or AI ship or against another player.
>In all game modes, each team will have a base at which they can retreat to and resupply fuel, drones, missiles and repair the hull all at discounted prices (but this is offset by travelling all the way back to the base and wasting game time to explore and improve yourself further)
>The location of the base would be unknown to the enemy team. And if an enemy stumbles at it, it would have the choice of retreating or attempting to blockade or attack it (provided that there is no player of the opposing team, guarding the base)
>Present status of every beacon will be unknown to other players. Thus information sharing is incouraged.
>Information can be shared via sending FTL signals (which can be as fast as 30 seconds to as long as 7 minutes depending on how far you are to the receiver). Or by leaving distress beacons or message beacons at the last system you were in. Which could only be read by ANY player (be it enemy or allied) once they get there. Although data incryption can be implemented.
>To complement this, each player will have a map of the sector (similar to but separate from the map you'd see when you jump) to which the player could add marks or notes MANUALLY. whenever he feels like it. He can change it anytime he wants depending on if he receives data from allies or wants to remember something or would just like to see plenty of "!" signs on the map so that when an enemy ship boards you and beats you and decides to download your data... well.....
>Allies can hail each other when at the same system and can share fuel, missiles, drones, scrap or data and can chat freely without delay. Trading of weapon systems can only be done ONCE. Trading of special systems cannot be done. Trading of cargo marked as "cargo" can be done without limit (these are special in game unique items)
>There would be various selectable factions that would oppose each other. Each with their premade ships
--examples would be: Federation Fleet, Rebellion Fleet, Zoltan -Engi Combine, Mantis Warband, Rock War Fleet, Slug Raiding Fleet, Pirate Combine.
--each fleet with varying selectable ships that the player can choose from.
--each fleet will have varying interactions among different system events. Adding flavor to each game. i.e. One fleet could be mighty, but most systems will be usually uncooperative with it.
>Every game will either be set up or with a scenario. With varying objectives
--examples of which:
--Sector Skirmish: The war of two opposing factions have finally reached another sector of the galaxy, peace will slowly turn into war, as things escalate. Standard gamemode wherein the the primary objective will be to destroy all enemy player-controlled ships. No ship respawning.
--Sector Conquest: after an initial skirmish, neutral space can only stay neutral for far so long... Soon warring factions would vie for control over it and fleets would arrive to secure and race for the systems. Gamemode with advancing line of fleets. Kinda similar to the last stand in campaign wherein one system is lost to the enemy per turn. But this time there will be two factions advancing. The way a system is taken is influenced by the actions of the players in the team. The events will be tiered (usually 3) from discovery > blockade/negotiation > security mission/or invasion (this will all depend on what factions the player is). Victory goes to the team with most sectors held after the time limit or when one side gains all the sectors except for enemy base. Ship respawning possible, but all upgrades are lost but you could choose a new ship.
--Grand Escort: be it a racial exodus, a merchant convoy or delivery of military materiel. Every ship travel requires escort, and there are instances that requires it to be protected. One team must escort 3-6 defenseless ships across the map while another must ensure it does not. At least half of the ships must make it. The ships can be attached to a player or passed to one another. But they cannot move on their own volition. When an enemy successfully defeats a defending ship be it via destruction or by routing it, the escorted ship will scatter to a nearby system. The ships to be escorted will arrive piece meal, and not all at once. The escorter's base will be at the end of the map where the escortees are to be led to; it will be heavily defended alongside its nearest systems to discourage the raiders from just waiting there. The raider's base will be hidden somewhere in the map.

>Every sector will have its trader shops or temporary trade ships. Each side will either have an unspoken pact of leaving them alone or destroying them to deny one of the other. The ships will disappear after its goods are gone (or after some time) and the shops will resupply every set amount of time.
>Most systems will not be permanently affected by one status. It could change depending on events or via the course of time: example: a station is burning - if the player does not choose to help them - the next time another player comes by that system they'd discover the burnt remains of a station. After a long time that a system has nothing (probably 20-30 mins) a new status will be randomly placed there. (though this "event respawn" can be disabled)

Now here's for the difficult part
>How to handle multi-ship interactions
-its always the nagging thing at our minds when we imagine FTL's combat system being incorporated in a multiplayer game. But I think it can be done by still sticking with the current combat mechanics but allowing simultaneous combat, and the ability to select which ship to fire at. BUT!!! this will only be possible on a 2:1 ratio. If there are 3 vs 2 affairs, it will be divided into 1vs1 and 2vs1.
>To mediate the chaos of late arrivals and such, events can be placed first when a new player enters a system.
---example: You see two enemy ships, but they have not noticed you yet : engage?/ or lie low until FTL is recharge?
---you see your ally facing off two enemies ships, a scout class and a rigger class: help him, and attach which?/ lie low and wait for FTL recharge or until new developments arise
---You come across a raging battle of 3 of your allies vs 4 enemies: face the 4th enemy/ there's no hope - charge the engines.
---Just when you thought you have the upper hand over your opponent, another enemy ship suddenly arrives: retreat!/ No, we can take them!
---You arrive in the system, you see two of your allies engaging one enemy ship. Crossfire would be too dangerous if you join in now: Wait for developments in the battle?/ Carry on and jump to another sector?

>there will be no pause time for late arrivals, deal it with :evil:
>surrender can only be done when hull life is below 10% (or 1-3 life). He can only do surrender once. And if during a multiship battle, surrendering will make all the ships neutral to the surrendering ship. During a surrender, the game will pause for 10 seconds, wherein the surrendering player must input in his offer, and within this 10 seconds the aggressor must accept or decline, no answer means a decline answer. The surrendering player could either tribute:
a.) all of its missiles and drones, and all fuel minus 5 fuel. And 75% of the player's scrap
b.) 75% of missiles, drones and fuel, and 50% of the player's scrap
c.) all missiles and drones, and 50% of player's scrap
d.) plead for mercy and honor and a unique sentence depending on the faction.
>if there are 2 aggressors, 1 acceptance of surrender is enough for a surrender, even if the other declines. Goods will be distributed to the 2.
>note that this mini pause will only affect the direct combatants and the game time will still be on-going alongside the battle of the other combatants

>Although teams could join together and form one marauding band to steam roll the enemy, they will be at a disadvantage against a team that splits up and explores more thus gaining more scrap, crew experience and weapons and other useful things.
>Even if a game mode allows respawning, since the time limits lasts for usually 1 hour, players would still be self motivated for survival instead of spamming new weak ships.
>Use team work, or uncoordinated successes... whatever it be
>Now, the player could still enjoy the roguelike feel, but this time he'll experience player controlled opponents, a dynamic sector affected by the actions of all players, the tension of communicating information, surrendering and running away. And since the entire playfield consists of only the size of 1.5-2 sectors, considering running back and forth, the game can last between 45 mins to 1.5 hours.


Yes, they say some things are hardcoded in the game, but our dear developers did get a lot of support, so who says they can't venture into something like this?.

I'd would be nice if you could comment on this and how it sounds as oppose to other multiplayer suggestions. Remember, the objective is to retain the unfair randomness of roguelikes but introduce the suffering with colleagues ;)
VanguardOfValor
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:24 am
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: Potential ways to be able to incorporate multiplayer pla

Postby VanguardOfValor » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:30 am

While I can see the appeal of playing FTL with or against your friends, there are a few problems I can see with this kind of concept.

Unless the sector maps for these game types were absolutely massive, everything would be incredibly cluttered and clustered together. Available nodes would very quickly become tapped out and players who didn't rush to explore would soon find themselves unable to acquire the scrap to improve their ships. If nodes didn't become empty once a player had used them, it would be far too easy to farm valuable nodes and become massively overpowered very quickly.

On the other hand, if the maps WERE massive, it would be fairly uncommon to actually encounter anyone (with a 12 player max), and you would basically be playing a gimped single player with the occaisional human fight.

If you allow players to gang up on others, the group of players will always obliterate the single player. Shields would be effectively useless against that kind of firepower, and you would have no chance of killing either of the two aggressors before they could casually obliterate your weapons.

As much fun as it is in singleplayer, FTL just isn't ideal for this kind of competitive multiplayer. It might eventually be possible, but would require some serious overhauling of many of the mechanics and it just isn't really a reasonable expectation.
Various Valorous Videos, should you be interested...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests