My case for Sanctuaries. (long read) - Page 3 - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: Your boss is probably browsing the forums too.
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 2012-10-14, 06:47 AM   [Ignore Me] #31
Fanglord
Sergeant
 
Fanglord's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


I think it would be interesting to hear the dev's reasoning on why they are not speaking out on the issue? I mean it would be nice to at least humour the player base.
Fanglord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-14, 02:18 PM   [Ignore Me] #32
IceyCold
Master Sergeant
 
IceyCold's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Originally Posted by Whiteagle View Post
But that's the problem, having one Sanctuary link up to both current Warpgates isn't going to be any different then just having the Warpgates as they are now...

We just don't have the web-way of the old Warpgate network, with it's multiple pathways over many Continents.

Hence my idea for "Orbital Sanctuary Ships" that are constantly moving between Continents and drop podding Troops Planetside, it prevents stagnation and makes it much harder to lock another faction in.
First let me explain my reason for wanting the Sancs now as they are. They serve to fix several issues we are seeing in beta as well as giving the factions identity.

My issue with Orbital Ships as you are proposing is that while they do make things a bit more dynamic they also present issues of continued combat logistics and are also much more difficult to implement in the engine (we are talking writing brand new code to get something like what you are asking in).

Not saying they couldn't be added later when the devs are adding multiple planets. But for now the ground based version is easier to do now and accomplishes exactly the same thing as what you are asking for.

Sure we may not have more than 3 continents, but the difference in having a Sanc ON the continents rather than OFF them is that with a Sanc located on the continent the factions will hoard to a continent and 3 way battles will be less likely as each team huddles to their "home cont". By moving the Sanctuaries OFF the continents you bring in the random factor of attack can come from anywhere.

Not to mention it makes for more dynamic play since any empire can cap any continent.

We may only have 3 conts at launch, but they will be adding more. It is foolish and short sighted to not begin putting in place systems that will work well with the game 4-5 months down the line after launch.

Originally Posted by Whiteagle View Post
...But the Original Planetside had about, what, 11 Continents with three Warpgates connecting each Sanctuary to three different Continents?
Those were then further connected through other Warpgates to the rest of the Continents.
Thus you had multiple routes to take over multiple islands, instead of just going in the cardinal direction of the other guys.
Once again, at launch yes we will have only three; but it is better to plan ahead than to put in patchwork fixes as we go.

Plan for success.

Originally Posted by Captain1nsaneo View Post
This is an example of telling the player about backstory without using text which is normally something that games struggle with. It also adds an area that won't change and will lend itself to adding a tutorial.

The issue is not quickly getting into the fight. The issue is there needs to be a tutorial that effectively introduces players to the game.

Footholds are serving their purpose as staging points for quickly getting into the fight at the moment but that role will breakdown once multiple conts and movement come into the game. If the fight has moved off say Amerish and is happening on Indar and Esamir then people logging into the game who spawn by default at Amerish will have to know to jump to one of the other conts to find a fight which they will not.

I knew some guys back in PS1 who would idle in the sancs just to pass the time as they did other things. I learned this because they complained about how the ads that were added had audio broadcasting and it ruined it for them. You are not building an arena fps, you are building a world.
Thanks for the reply Capt.

To me the biggest boon of such Sancs is to create the feeling of a world. It is incredibly important for PS2 to set itself apart and creating a compelling and interesting story to frame the war is something that no other multiplayer FPS has been able to do.

Originally Posted by Fanglord View Post
I think it would be interesting to hear the dev's reasoning on why they are not speaking out on the issue? I mean it would be nice to at least humour the player base.
I imagine a major reason they do not respond often times is because they have to look at these kinds of suggestions as a "How many people want this" and "How feasible is it for us to accomplish this".

I would like to get the chance to discuss with Matt maybe the merits of both systems and see if the devs and community can come together to create a good solution.
__________________
I reserve all judgment till Beta.
But I'm still going to point and laugh.
IceyCold is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-14, 02:43 PM   [Ignore Me] #33
Fanglord
Sergeant
 
Fanglord's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
I would like to get the chance to discuss with Matt maybe the merits of both systems and see if the devs and community can come together to create a good solution.
Yeah I guess this late into development it gets harder and harder to change core mechanics, but at the same time i'm finding myself logging out just because intense fire fights are few and far between (amazing when it happens). I'm hoping it gets better as I don't wanna see a game flop, but lacking that magic it gets boring very quick.
Fanglord is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-14, 03:02 PM   [Ignore Me] #34
Babyfark McGeez
Captain
 
Babyfark McGeez's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Wow, this is an impressive thread and a lot of thought and love for detail seems to have been put into it by the author. Thumbs up for this.

I also want sanctuaries. But since most points have allready been argued with detail, i would like to sum up my feelings rather than my thoughts here:
Without a sanctuary i'm a homeless soldier, there is no place for which i am fighting, no place to tell the stories of war with a good drink. No place to train the recruits, and no place to hold parades in honor of our efforts.
Without a sanctuary, a permanent single base of operations we are a ghost army, just homeless, roaming mercenaries but no soldiers with a home worth returning to.

/pathos
Babyfark McGeez is offline  
Reply With Quote
This is the last VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-10-15, 12:21 AM   [Ignore Me] #35
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
Before we go any further there is an important fact that SOE needs to understand. Planetside 2 is attempting to fill the “session player” role that current games like BF3 and CoD tend to aim towards. This is a flaw in game design, as the scale and scope of the conflicts are not in favor of session play. Even if I can drop in with Instant Action, what I can really accomplish in 15-30 minutes is minute and not fulfilling to a session player because they do not usually get to see a conclusion to the events they played a part in.
I disagree that this is a flaw in game design. Modern gamers need to be appeased in 20-30 minute segments. You should not have to play PlanetSide 2 for hours on end to enjoy it. Moreover, if it takes you that long to enjoy it then something is terribly wrong with the game. You should be able to get in and have fun within 2-3 minutes of launching the game. That's needed for new player retention also. While seeing the fruits of your labors might take much longer, session play must be a viable way to enjoy PlanetSide 2. Otherwise it will be a lonely game.


Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
Footholds, a fool's errand:

As anyone who currently plays knows the current system uses footholds where each empire has a constant place on each continent. Although this system was intended to make it so players always have a chance on every continent, this system also negates the feeling of progressing battle.

As I have continued to play the game I keep wondering how much more interesting it would be to see a war that is being fought over a PLANET and not a CONTINENT. The current system's biggest flaw is since there is no movement across the continents they themselves feel more like BF3 servers and not interconnected fronts in a large war for a planet.

Footholds pull away from the feeling of a massive planet and instead push towards a session based feeling. There is no fear of losing one's last base, no final stand as the enemy forms around your final bastion on the continent praying that those who have already fallen will come rolling out of the warpgate to relieve you in your darkest hour. These feelings made Planetside feel like a war for a planet, not a skirmish for a chunk of dirt.

Finally, with footholds the devs are being corn-holed into building continents that favor 3 sides equally. This makes for boring world design; and once again takes away from the feeling that this was once a place with people living on it now torn asunder by the ravages of war and makes it feel more like a map made to fight over.
Also disagree on footholds. They serve an important purpose as a "home" on a particular continent. The only real issue I have with them is that they are static. I much prefer a system where footholds can be neutralized and created as part of inter-continental conquest. At that point they become an aid to an invasion, not a static given.

With only 3 continents it's going to be nearly impossible to have meaningful cross-continent gameplay. You only have two options and you need to be able to have room for a lot of players to spread out and enjoy different continents at a given time. That means that these quasi-permanent footholds are something we will have to live with in the short term.

I would encourage you to be patient with the footholds. They have an important role, it's only their permanency that is cause for concern. I feel that is a necessary evil for the time being. As the continents expand they could easily move to a more supportive role in the flow of continental conquest.


Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
Below is a list of reasons to include sanctuaries:

> Sanctuaries give a real place to set up and prepare for a campaign, they give a staging area away from the enemy.

> VR training rooms and even things such as shooting ranges can be put in place. Allowing players to test weapons and vehicles as well as unlocks before buying them.

> Sanctuaries free up continents to take back the role of battlefields and not just glorified servers.

> MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR PLANETSIDE 2: Sanctuaries can be used to give factions identity and a feeling of purpose if done right.
I agree with these reasons to have a sanctuary. To me the critical purpose of the sanctuary is basically a glorified lobby - a place where overflow goes and someplace to call home.

I can also see sanctuaries having certain properties like jacked up resource gain so anyone sitting in the sanctuary a short time can fill up your resource pool quickly. This would have two effects - first, it creates somewhat of a training ground where you can pull vehicles and such (using implants and some certs you could nullify the timers, sanc would nullify the resource cost). That's your basic VR. Second, it also serves the purpose of recharging for an invasion or after getting pushed out of an area. It gives you a place to regroup, fill up your resources, and form up a new invasion force to attack or defend something else, much like PS1 did.


However, its important to also know what was not good about sanctuaries. They are twice removed from the fight. First they aren't on the right continent, and then they aren't at the fight on that continent. Footholds are only once removed, putting places a short flight away or an ATV ride from the battle. I can see new players getting lost in sanctuaries, not knowing where the fight is and quickly giving up on the game. To hook new players we need to get them into the fight as soon as possible so they can experience the massive and experience the huge persistent world. They can't do that in sanctuary.

There are of course solutions to this, like making Instant Action much more intuitive, putting new players on continents and not in sanctuary, and other such mechanisms. I don't believe that footholds and sanctuaries are mutually exclusive. Both serve a purpose.

Being an MMO, having a 'home' to go back to, socialize, and group up seems like something good to have. The identities of those homes make sense to map onto the faction lore, and I think you've done a great job at sketching those out.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post

The NC Sanc: The Hole.

The TR Sanc: Fort Dominus.

The VS Sanc: Brigg's Insight.
These are all perfect for the factions. Some questions/suggestions. In particular I think each sanctuary should have an obvious and lore-based explanation for why it isn't attacked. The NC one has this, the other two don't...at least its not obvious.

NC sanc is perfect becuase it identifies well and describes why it is a sanctuary and TR/VS can't attack it. Might even work in an ancient 'geo warp" that allows NC to deploy into the main warpgate matrix. Throwback to PS1 and explains how that base allows them to be fully functional while buried inside a volcano.

The TR one is close to describing why the VS/NC dont' attack it - if Fort Dominus was actually built within a city then VS and NC would be hesitant to attack it because they would easily be branded terrorists and incur civilian casualties (real or not), so the TR not only use the city as inspiration but also as human shields to protect their fortress. If VS or NC attack it they lose the support of the people and it hurts their cause so they leave it alone. Perhaps the TR first landed, built the fort at the warpgate and then the rest of the city was built around it - as cities often are built around places of security and transportation. Thus it becomes a control point within the city, a deployment point, a recruitment facility, and a giant wall of human shields protecting it from NC and VS attack.

The VS one is also sort of close. The concept art for the sanctuary shows it on the water. What if it was actually under the water? What if it were a mobile base and the reason NC and TR don't attack it is because it's always in motion? An underwater exploration lab that is effectively a super submarine or even a fleet of them, scouring the ocean bed for artifacts while providing safety and the ability to surprise attack anywhere. I shamelessly stole this idea from SeaQuest and Terminator Salvation.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-15, 02:26 AM   [Ignore Me] #36
IceyCold
Master Sergeant
 
IceyCold's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I disagree that this is a flaw in game design. Modern gamers need to be appeased in 20-30 minute segments. You should not have to play PlanetSide 2 for hours on end to enjoy it. Moreover, if it takes you that long to enjoy it then something is terribly wrong with the game. You should be able to get in and have fun within 2-3 minutes of launching the game. That's needed for new player retention also. While seeing the fruits of your labors might take much longer, session play must be a viable way to enjoy PlanetSide 2. Otherwise it will be a lonely game.
The issue here is that when you focus on 20-30 minute segments for goals you cheapen the experience. At least in my view. We have a situation where right now taking an objective does not feel very satisfying, it is a complained about issue very commonly. The fights where a battle does take place for around 3 minutes to an hour it feels much better and gives a sense of accomplishment.

Also, the moment to moment gameplay is supposed to be your "hook" the objective and meta game should be the focus of longer session players. As it stands most people who log into MMO's today do so for an hour to two hours on average, and many people I know who play BF and CoD also play for several hours playing multiple matches.

I am not saying that finding fun should take more than a few minutes; I am simply saying that completing major objectives should take time. And this is what Planetside 2 should focus on is what makes it different not the same as BF and CoD.

Also disagree on footholds. They serve an important purpose as a "home" on a particular continent. The only real issue I have with them is that they are static. I much prefer a system where footholds can be neutralized and created as part of inter-continental conquest. At that point they become an aid to an invasion, not a static given.

With only 3 continents it's going to be nearly impossible to have meaningful cross-continent gameplay. You only have two options and you need to be able to have room for a lot of players to spread out and enjoy different continents at a given time. That means that these quasi-permanent footholds are something we will have to live with in the short term.

I would encourage you to be patient with the footholds. They have an important role, it's only their permanency that is cause for concern. I feel that is a necessary evil for the time being. As the continents expand they could easily move to a more supportive role in the flow of continental conquest.
I actually like your proposed idea of Footholds that can be destroyed. However as it is current they are static and this needs to be removed. My issue with them is they force the Devs to create very boring continents because they must favor each side equally. This design philosophy is making the game feel less like a living breathing world and more like an arena.

Footholds in their current form need to be scrapped and re-evaluated.

I am not against other ideas however, and this is beta so I am more than willing to see how things go down the line. I just think that Sancs as proposed would be not only a great feature for new players to learn the game and get an idea of the factions they join; but also help set up for when the game expands.

Always plan ahead.

I agree with these reasons to have a sanctuary. To me the critical purpose of the sanctuary is basically a glorified lobby - a place where overflow goes and someplace to call home.

I can also see sanctuaries having certain properties like jacked up resource gain so anyone sitting in the sanctuary a short time can fill up your resource pool quickly. This would have two effects - first, it creates somewhat of a training ground where you can pull vehicles and such (using implants and some certs you could nullify the timers, sanc would nullify the resource cost). That's your basic VR. Second, it also serves the purpose of recharging for an invasion or after getting pushed out of an area. It gives you a place to regroup, fill up your resources, and form up a new invasion force to attack or defend something else, much like PS1 did.
Actually I think just bringing back something like the old VR rooms would be better. Being able to go back to Sanc to fill resources seems like a bad idea. Hell you could make vehicles pulled from Sanc free, which helps with a capped out empire situation (where they have no points to gather resources) and it supporst bigger outfit actions who do a massive buildup at Sanc.

However, its important to also know what was not good about sanctuaries. They are twice removed from the fight. First they aren't on the right continent, and then they aren't at the fight on that continent. Footholds are only once removed, putting places a short flight away or an ATV ride from the battle. I can see new players getting lost in sanctuaries, not knowing where the fight is and quickly giving up on the game. To hook new players we need to get them into the fight as soon as possible so they can experience the massive and experience the huge persistent world. They can't do that in sanctuary.
One idea:

Have Huge maps in a logistic room that shows the different continents and the fights on them.

This does two things: One it shows players where to go. And two it shows them "OH MY GOD LOOK AT ALL THIS WAR!" Instant hook.

Even allow Players to interact with the maps and it pops up a deployment screen for the map.

There are of course solutions to this, like making Instant Action much more intuitive, putting new players on continents and not in sanctuary, and other such mechanisms. I don't believe that footholds and sanctuaries are mutually exclusive. Both serve a purpose.

Being an MMO, having a 'home' to go back to, socialize, and group up seems like something good to have. The identities of those homes make sense to map onto the faction lore, and I think you've done a great job at sketching those out.

These are all perfect for the factions. Some questions/suggestions. In particular I think each sanctuary should have an obvious and lore-based explanation for why it isn't attacked. The NC one has this, the other two don't...at least its not obvious.

NC sanc is perfect becuase it identifies well and describes why it is a sanctuary and TR/VS can't attack it. Might even work in an ancient 'geo warp" that allows NC to deploy into the main warpgate matrix. Throwback to PS1 and explains how that base allows them to be fully functional while buried inside a volcano.
Actually I was revising the NC base to actually be IN a volcano. With a shielding over the top that cloaks the entire facility from the air.

Was just a thought.

The TR one is close to describing why the VS/NC dont' attack it - if Fort Dominus was actually built within a city then VS and NC would be hesitant to attack it because they would easily be branded terrorists and incur civilian casualties (real or not), so the TR not only use the city as inspiration but also as human shields to protect their fortress. If VS or NC attack it they lose the support of the people and it hurts their cause so they leave it alone. Perhaps the TR first landed, built the fort at the warpgate and then the rest of the city was built around it - as cities often are built around places of security and transportation. Thus it becomes a control point within the city, a deployment point, a recruitment facility, and a giant wall of human shields protecting it from NC and VS attack.
My idea for why the TR Sanc is safe is because both the NC and VS can not accomplish a strike that close to a city without endangering the population. It would be a massive blow to their support among the people.

The VS one is also sort of close. The concept art for the sanctuary shows it on the water. What if it was actually under the water? What if it were a mobile base and the reason NC and TR don't attack it is because it's always in motion? An underwater exploration lab that is effectively a super submarine or even a fleet of them, scouring the ocean bed for artifacts while providing safety and the ability to surprise attack anywhere. I shamelessly stole this idea from SeaQuest and Terminator Salvation.
The VS Sanc actually was a pretty simple one. The reason that neither opposing faction can attack them is because the VS have an advanced jamming system that prevents non VS vehicles from approaching the area. Orbital bombardments are impossible as well because the VS jammers disrupt any satellite that orbits over the area. basically the TR know where it is but they have no logistics to allow them to attack it.

Just some responses Malorn. Thanks for the feedback and congrats on the job at SOE. Wouldn't mind gettin a job there myself after school, who knows.

Cheers!
__________________
I reserve all judgment till Beta.
But I'm still going to point and laugh.
IceyCold is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-15, 02:51 AM   [Ignore Me] #37
Whiteagle
Major
 
Whiteagle's Avatar
 
Re: My case for Sanctuaries. (long read)


Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
First let me explain my reason for wanting the Sancs now as they are. They serve to fix several issues we are seeing in beta as well as giving the factions identity.
I apologize if I'm being a bit dense here, but what issues would separate Sanctuaries fix as of right now?
With only two Continents, we'd have to link each Faction's Sanctuary to both to be fair, which really would be no different then the current foothold Warpgates.
Instead of camping a dome shield, they'd just camp the Warpgate exit.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
My issue with Orbital Ships as you are proposing is that while they do make things a bit more dynamic they also present issues of continued combat logistics and are also much more difficult to implement in the engine (we are talking writing brand new code to get something like what you are asking in).
Well yes, the dynamic setup of such a system does hamper continued logistics, but that's kind of the point.
It creates a continuous need to capture new territories while simultaneously trying to hold onto old ones for as long as possible, instead of constantly pushing back and forth over the same line.

But I do realise such a system wouldn't be that simple to implement.
The easiest way I can think of would have each "ship" just be a regular Sanctuary that was completely enclosed; a separate small map that's inside a huge building.
Deploying from there would then simply be a matter of going to the correct interface and then picking a drop-zone from ether the current hot-spots or an always available one representing the area directly below the ship.

Of course, such a setup only really works for Infantry...
I'd ether keep it so that Infantry has to fight for Vehicle Spawn Terminals, or have some sort of "HART Drop-ship" as ether a drop-pod for Vehicles or as a temporary structure with terminals to spawn them.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
Not saying they couldn't be added later when the devs are adding multiple planets. But for now the ground based version is easier to do now and accomplishes exactly the same thing as what you are asking for.
Uh... how would they do that exactly?
Remember that my argument for "Orbital" Sanctuaries is that their drop-point markers would move across the maps, constantly chasing each other and forcing conflict.
It prevents the stagnation of static footholds while requiring far fewer Continents.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
Sure we may not have more than 3 continents, but the difference in having a Sanc ON the continents rather than OFF them is that with a Sanc located on the continent the factions will hoard to a continent and 3 way battles will be less likely as each team huddles to their "home cont". By moving the Sanctuaries OFF the continents you bring in the random factor of attack can come from anywhere.

Not to mention it makes for more dynamic play since any empire can cap any continent.
Uh... what?
Here, let me whip up a diagram in Paint how only having three Continents limits things immensely.



Figure one is what I gather the Devs are planning on, each Faction having a "Home Continent" that's linked to the other two...
Of all the three Continent setup this is probably the most flexible attack wise, but only if one Faction is beating another bad enough that they can actually prevent the third from joining...

Figure two is just Figure one with separate Sanctuaries... which doesn't really add anything...

Figure three is extending the current setup to three maps.

Figure four is figure three with Sanctuaries, which would certainly allow a Faction to better prepare its forces but would pretty much play the same way.

It's only in figure five, with the addition of a fourth Continent, that Sanctuaries come into their own.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
We may only have 3 conts at launch, but they will be adding more. It is foolish and short sighted to not begin putting in place systems that will work well with the game 4-5 months down the line after launch.

Once again, at launch yes we will have only three; but it is better to plan ahead than to put in patchwork fixes as we go.

Plan for success.
True, but I worry that three Continents just aren't going to be enough to prevent stagnation with the current setups...
I mean, look at my diagram, you are going to end up fighting the same enemies over the same territory... all the damn time.

It's going to get old really quickly, even with the Sanctuaries of figure two allowing the "Home Continents" to be easily switched.

Hence my Orbital Sanctuary idea; we can stick with two Continents, tie the Warpgates together to have them change "links" randomly, then have Sanctuary maps tied to a drop-point that moves from Hex to Hex in a preset pattern every so often.

Sure we'd need as many Sanctuary Ship "instances" as Continents per Faction (six currently), but it'd be easy to make one "Ship layout" for each side then copy and modify them as needed.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
To me the biggest boon of such Sancs is to create the feeling of a world. It is incredibly important for PS2 to set itself apart and creating a compelling and interesting story to frame the war is something that no other multiplayer FPS has been able to do.
Indeed, right now all we have seperating the sides are colors, voice-overs, a couple of vehicles, and slight differences in how our weapons shoot.
That's only a slim few degrees more then "Red or Blue" or "Terrorist vs SWAT", not the huge ideological clash that has splintered the pioneers of Humanity.

Originally Posted by IceyCold View Post
I imagine a major reason they do not respond often times is because they have to look at these kinds of suggestions as a "How many people want this" and "How feasible is it for us to accomplish this".

I would like to get the chance to discuss with Matt maybe the merits of both systems and see if the devs and community can come together to create a good solution.
I'm hoping they're reading this thread.

We're having quite the brainstorming session here if I do say so myself.

Last edited by Whiteagle; 2012-10-15 at 03:13 AM.
Whiteagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.