Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I was discussing this with Appocomaster earlier, and I'm afraid I don't see any good reasons not to make a planet's alliance tags public to paid planets in galaxy. I'd argue that it should go even further and make them entirely public, despite the increased risk of incoming this poses to un-allied planets.
On a related issue, I don't see any good reasons to not make alliance value public. In my opinion there's too much for command members to do already, and forcing them to spend heavy amounts of time keeping intel up-to-date is pointless and favors activity over skill (after all, there is pitiful little skill involved in intel these days*). If you can see any good reasons against either one, the other or both, please help educate me :) *Most intel nowadays is planet based, and garnered by sifting through JGPs, asking members to squeel on their galmates etc. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I agree with you, but I know wakey things it will lead to the smaller alliances being bashed.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Yes to alliance value being public - any alliance with a useful arbiter can see what values an alliance has in about 2 to 3 weeks, so it does help the smaller ones without tools.
WRT your first suggestion, there is an ongoing debate about it in another thread. I don't think I had any useful arguments except for 'no'. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
There is othe rintel to gather beyond each planets alliance though
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I dont think that alliance tags should be made public. I think this will lead to people picking on smaller or unattached planets. And seriously come on. You all know that would happen.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Public alliance tags may also lead to less incoming on planets that are in a top ranking alliance. After all if your alliance organises an attack on some random galaxy you won't want to pick the planet that is in the no. 1 alliance since he is more likely to get defence.
I think alliance value should be made public. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
I am adamently against any proposal that highlight's an individual's alliance, or lack thereof, for a whole host of reasons which are outlined in that thread, namely the over targeting of allianceless players, the increase in targeting of members of lesser alliances, the undertargeting of top alliance planets, the lack of fun and interest in gaining information (intel as we know it would become virtually useless, making the start of the round somewhat boring as players try and feel out the alliances of the galaxymates), and a few other reasons that i have forgotten. Its bad. Stop. Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
And I don't think this will stop small alliances from hitting top galaxies, it's already pretty clear that a galaxy with a high score and roid count has a pretty good mix of alliances in it. Pointing out exactly what alliances are in that galaxy will only make the people in lower ranking alliances more vulnerable as they will have more waves sent on them than the people in high ranking alliances. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
There would also be little to no reason for fake nicking anymore. In all wars, you can identify the enemy by their vehicles, uniforms, planes, weapons ... I don't see how it'd be any different in PA. rgds Kj |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Back in R2 (I think) we had tags, I personally thought they were great. Yes there was some abuse, but with a bit of intelligence you could work that out. It also gave you a lot more of an idea who was attacking you. I've never been in a intel heavy alliance, so I was able to pick fights with certain alliances nad staying away from anyone likely to cause me a lot of trouble.
Also it allowed LOST, at the time, to start a war without having to worry too much about other planets in a galaxy and whether they were NAP'd or allied etc. At the moment alliances target a whole galaxy in one raid, this would allow for more selective targetting. I think for smaller alliances, who like having fights with alliances their own size, this would be a good move. You can target a particular alliance and hopefully your efforts will move you up the alliance ranking and them down. Ok we're not talking about 1up vs ND type level, but the alliances lower down like having fun too and giving them a legit target (without having to worry they are hitting someone likely to send massive overkill and 3 waves) is a good thing for them. It will also alert the smaller players and unallied players to stay away from someone likely to cause a lot of trouble if they attack them. Unallied players? Yes they may get hit, but it may also push them towards getting an alliance and getting into the game more. Loyal PAers say that the community side is a very important side of the game, so pushing a unallied planet towards an alliance, so they can tag up, would increase alliances at all levels and increase game enjoyment. I'm always for allowing different people to play at different levels in the same game - its a virtual food chain you need each level to interact with each other. Improvements shouldn't just be aimed at the elite few or the unallied/free masses. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I'm against making tags public.
If a smaller alliance player is picking a target, seeing 1up or eXilition next to the planet's name will scare them off. Seeing something like Orbit (no offence to Orbit) is less likely to scare them off. This only benefits the bigger alliances, and makes things worse for the smaller alliances. Even if the bigger alliance is more liekly to cover the attack, people refusing to attack their planets would make them almost invulnerable as each attack will require at least one fleet slot to cover. If there are less attacks, then the big alliance is less likely to run out of fleetslots and they will become even more difficult to roid. I say no. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I agree with Gate, tags will only intimidate the smaller alliances from attacking galaxies, and will also result into more bashing of unallied planets and smaller alliances.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
Making it only public for the galaxies would probably end in heavy blocked or single alliance buddypacks to keep galaxies clear of a lot of different alliances. i want to comment on the full public part in my post : as everything even this has always 2 sides :) your scenario could happen obviously but let me put in a way where it puts pressure on the big alliances instead of smaller ones : All alliances should be able to gather information with about the same speed and feed it into their databases - yes maybe bigger alliances might have better tech but if it is public info anyway it could be sorted somehow with the PA dumps i am sure. so now we are at pt-72 just coming out of protection and see score/value/roids of every alliance that has tagged up already ( everyone would certainly try to tag up as late as possible to hide info). Imo it really depends on the small alliances to take the chance and initiative of having all info in their hands and grab for the roids of the possibly better alliances such as to prevent them to outgrow the smaller. We would come a lot earlier to alliance based attacks instead of galaxy attack based raids. Now if the smaller alliances dont take the chace of early pressure on bigger alliances (when the difference between values is not that high) your scenario could happen again - but would an alliance like eX want to miss out the chance to kill off 1up right in the first few days and instead go for *easier* roids from F-Crew for example ? and can 1up ignore the incomings from eX and just attack Orbit to regain easier roids ? looking at the small alliances is good andd should always be done but it is not the whole picture :) It's very hard to tell how things go and i believe we would go with a lot more naps into the round than now and a lot more pre made politics to secure a better start ... i havent made my mind up if i am for or against it. It would most likely stop fake nicking for most players which would be great for the community and for new players too. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
Being allianceless or in a smaller alliance doesn't always mean'll be less covered. Also, most top alliances have planned attacks and expect their members to attack from the options they give their members. The enemy is more likely to be bashed then some smaller alliance. If Orbit attacks a gal with 4 1up'ers in, 1up might not be arsed to do a full hit on Orbit to teach them a lesson. If it was LCH or Newdawn hitting that same galaxy, 1up might think again and decide it is worth the effort. In this example, planet tags would work in the advantage of smaller alliances. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Well, would you take that chance? I recon most of the smaller players wouldnt take the chance.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
And there's further political implications as well. If you don't bring down all the better alliances, then one of them will tear off with the round and you're left with a less-good alliance (having somehow beaten down the better alliances) facing off against them and getting ripped apart as they're not prepared for it. I still think it would only benefit the bigger players in general... Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Let them fear my planet in public.. Rawrrrrr
I would skip the small allies for my nxt pack then tho, and just add some scary 1upper / Exi They would proberbly work better then distorters :up: |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
i would like to see alliance tags displayed for the following reasons:
1) As things stand, large alliances already have the benefit of the proposed feature while small alliances don't. I'd put arbiter tools in the same vein as bcalcs and sandmans, as they're all external and give you a considerable advantage (in this case organization). It would be shit if only some people had access to those things, and it's shit that only some people have access to this. 2) I think big alliances will continue to chose the same targets they do now, particularly if a war is involved because this game encourages that type of game play. For an alliance to do well and rise in ranks, they need to hit allies bigger or near them. If a big alliance wanted to seek out and destroy the larger players of small allies (without attacking their real competition) they can do so already; afaik they rarely do because it's a retarded, not to mention a mean and cowardly strategy. 3) Solo bashing will happen regardless, and people who are in a position to do so know how to find a suitable victim and can find out what allaince it belongs to. People who are being bashed will now know exactly who's doing it. Bashers will be alot easier to spot and you'll know what ally they're in, and can be called out in public. 4) Galaxies would be tighter as a result. More trust, less secret gal chans, less fake nicking and more attention put on helping newbs and getting them into to friendly allies,, rather then being scared about your coords being leaked. 5) It adds a fun factor to smaller guys (like me ) who have no idea what the **** is going on politically. We could follow along in wars and get a better idea of the battles going on if we wanted to. Quite simply, knowing who you're attacking and being attacked by is alot more enjoyable as it gives an actual purpose for playing. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
I don't think major alliances will have spare resources to constantly roid down most of the small alliance's planets as it a) does not pay off longterm for anyone to hit 150 roid planets and b) there are wars between major alliances which require a lot of fleets from those major alliances (unless we face the mega-block-rounds again)." |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
tbh a bit of intel gathering might be fun and all for hc. as tbh compared to old rounds what really is there to do for them? imo hc do less mo work these days then old days... even when you compare it to r11/12. to have an EXACT overview of value about any certain alliance requires some time ( you don't know who left an alliance and who joined exactly all round long etc)
which is why i think i think both should be kept secret by pa team. Also when making tags public it'll either mean people avoid top or smaller alliances (as tbh smart top alliances won't have a need to hit small ones imo and aint always allowed) or it means they get constantly bashed.. the number 1 alliance gets bashed by everyone all the time. Now ofcourse in the early rounds this was all public information, but the alliance situation back then was TOTALLY different. plus there were LOADS more players, people should quit comparing this with then, it's not the same, nor will it ever be the same anymore. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I think Kjeldoran put it quite well -> http://pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=187304
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
So, here are my thoughts:
(1) Paid Planets In-Galaxy See Alliance Tags I rather like the idea of allowing paid planets to see alliance tags in-galaxy. It would be a rahter nice counter-balance to galaxies being able to scan you. If an 'enemy' alliance member is in your galaxy, it would be ovbious. (2) Alliance Value I, though, do see a lot of arguement being spawned from the issue with alliance value. With alliance-value, I could see a lot of arguing occuring on AD about how one alliance is an XP-whore, and how--at the end of a round, one alliance was 'weaker' than the other due to a lower value. Score is the final measure of judgement in Planetarion, and it should remain that way, of course. Don't get me wrong--I do think that the actualization of public alliance value would be good to know--though I wouldn't consider it overly benificial. But on the other hand, I could see a lot of bickering on AD with these 'statistics' about one alliance versus another. But, on the other hand, I could make an arguement that alliances should have the right to maintain their anonimity. For example, I beleive a 50 million score alliance with 45 million in value should have the right to be right up there on the standings as a 50 million score alliance with 40 million value. Smaller allainces wouldn't be *as afraid* of attacking the alliance with smaller value than the larger one. The smaller value alliance attacks larger targets, on average, and therefore is still equally deserves the place. By keeping the values anonymous, I think there is a better chance for an equal war--since both alliances are working on what appears to be an even playing feild, and being perceived as doing so by the rest of PA. By having these values be public may be demoralizing to one side, or a morale booster to the other--which have a very large impact on the game via the meta-game. -NitinA P.S./edit: You people need to *READ* before replying... Notice how he said paid planets in-galaxy would get to see alliance tags. It's not an all-or-nothing thing. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
Quote:
Though making alliance visible to paid planets in-galaxy isn't really that bad IMO... better alliances will get better intel, but it should lessen the gap a bit as less organised allies won'#t have to deal with fake chans etc. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I think it could be worth a try. It's not a bad idea at all, but like Kal said, it could maybe be a problem for smaller alliances being bashed?
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
I appreciate it that PA does alot of efforts for new players, for new alliances, for smaller alliances. I really do, I even think they could do more. But let's not forget the other part in PA, the experienced players and alliances, the veterans that stuck with PA for over 5-10-15 rounds ... Saying "showing alliancetags will be bad for the smaller/new alliances/players" is maybe a fair point, when you look at it from the point of view of those smaller/new alliances/players. But they are just a fraction of PA, a group which is equal (not more important) to other groups in PA. For bigger alliances, those with the ambition to end top10, the alliance tag might be a good and refreshing change. No longer do they need to play these hide/seek/deny/lie games because everyone sees the tags nway ... I mean, who knows politics can become more fair? Atm most players need to get a fake nick, a bouncer, whatever tech required to be 100% sure they cannot link your fake nick with your true nick. Alliances make defence channels and bots. Alliances make more then one or it'd be too obvious. Alliances change channels each round or it'd also be too obvious. Those channels cannot be regged by their real nick otherwise they can again figure out what alliance it belongs to ... These are just some examples of actions that alliances/players take JUST to hide their identity and that of their alliances .. for what ??? 2-3 days max (in most cases)? With alliance tags, there's no point in hiding, there's no point in denying, there's even no point in outragously lying ... |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Actually, I agree with Kjeldoran on everything he said.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Kj, I think most of the issues you're mentioning can be solved simply by making alliance tags visible to paid galmates, rather than making them complete public domain.
It would remove the need for fake defchans, fake nicks etc, without giving the bigger alliances such an unfair advantage. It would even further restrict the intel side of things (and I know some people enjoy working out which chans belong to which alliance :p ), but if people want tags open, then I think this way would work. :) |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
People would still fakenick. For example Sid wouldn't go into the galchan and introduce himself would he? And if I was in his position I'd still have my alliance fakenick so that my opponents won't think "I guess Sid is the only 1upper using a fakenick"... right? I doubt that this would prevent fakenicking altogether, at least amongst the top guys.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
1: Sid is uncertain that his alliance is good enough to cover his ass 2: Sid thinks he's more important then another player 3: Sid believes alliances are so stupid they'd rather focus on him then on another 1up which would/could be far more harmful if he's killed. Personally I find pple hitting Sid because he's 1up HC rather short minded, because I'd hit a top planet which represents more score and would harm 1up far more then killing one of their HC's (if killing their HC has an effect on the alliance, then there's something wrong with the moral of an alliance in general). I mean, I could fake nick aswell because alot of pple out there would love to twat my planet. Luckily, most of them are realistic enough to realize that killing me would have 0 effect on the moral of Angels. btw, what reason would you give for sid not making himself known in his galchannel, if alliancetags are shown? * I used the name Sid because Arfy used it in his example. I'm not insinuating or assuming anything by using his nick nor the alliance 1up (before some go all crazy on me). |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Firstly, your approach looks to me to be "I can't see any reasons not to do it, so let's do it". Personally I prefer the "There are these reasons to do it", why fix something that's not broke? A suggestion should start by saying why it's broke. Secondly, if (as Kal has said) Wakey reckons that it will mean more incomming for smaller planets, then I agree completely with Wakey. It quite simply WILL mean more incomming for smaller planets, it'd certainly affect my targetting when I wanted a few easy roids. Thirdly, why? What does it achieve putting this in? Are there benefits to it or is it just for the sake of changing something? Fourth, It takes something away from the game. Intel is a whole dimension to the game, taking it out is like going from 3D graphics to 2D graphics, it would make it bland, it takes away a lot of the intrigue and makes everything far more predictable. I prefer the game to be unpredictable and full of complex intricacies, I don't want a bland shell. People often compare the game to looking at numbers in a database, in my view, this makes the game more like that than a game. Essentially, this idea would be attempting to force people into a certain style of play, many people choose this style of play (I did last round - I told my galaxy who I was), but I do not want to be forced to do that, I want to have the choice, I want everyone to have the choice, that way the game is far more dynamic and there can be lots of sub plots. I think the idea would kill off a certain aspect of the game that in my view does it no harm. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
I can't speak on behalf of your alliance ofcourse, but I think a member would gladly hit a big planet if he can cap roids because big targets are far more rewarding roidwise and xp-wise. None of this is related to putting an alliancetag next to his name or not, I don't see how this would influence this in any way possible. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Kjeldoran - you are either being stupid or Angels members are weird. Seeing the alliance of a planet is the best way to judge the defence it will get, and therefore your chance of success. Do you really think that there is a half-decent player in the game who would not factor this into their target picking if they had the chance?
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
If a planet is big, then it means it will most likely get decent defence, regardless of the alliance. A planet with 4000 roids receives good defence. Why? because if he didn't he wouldn't have had 4000 roids. Whether he's 1up, Angels or F-Crew or even allianceless doesn't matter. How he gets defence is unimportant. Whether it's the galaxy, the cluster or his "smaller" alliance doesn't matter, fact is he's able to maintain his roids and score. A 1up member with 200 roids is a member of which 1up was unable to provide help. Whether that's due to over waving or not reported again doesn't matter. So just because he's 1up (and has no roids) you'd think he'd get more defence then an allianceless player with 10 times more roids? Also, galaxies/targets are assigned by the MO/BC. If the member wants to join the raid, he'll have to chose from the targets at hand. He doesn't care if a 4k roids planet is 1up or not, he cares that the planet WILL get defence because he's roidfat hence probably got enough sources to cover him. Ofcourse I'm aware that exceptions are possible, like a very succesfull attack the night before ... Hope this explains my point. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
That's a very small picture viewpoint on attacking though. If members know a certain alliance is being focused on, or that a certain alliance is low on defence, they will likely choose planets from that alliance. Also, the intimidation factor does exist, especially among smaller people. I never said it was the only factor, but it IS a factor that influences peoples choice, and your example of a 4000 roid planet is a silly one to use as it is an extreme. Your average planet that your average person would attack is the one to use, extremities are obviously a special case, but the example of a 4000 roid planet applies to very few people as you would get very few people attacking that.
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
tbh no offence kjel, but you're hardly a top player (as you stated often enough yourself). top players pick their targets with alot of things in mind.
personally if i see 2 targets 1 being f-crew and 1 being exi with the same fleet and same roids i would pick the f-crew planet which is the whole problem. and everyone would do that. now if my alliance goes to war with exi i would hit the other one, but let's be realistic not alot of alliances will say from the start we are at war with a top rated alliance. besides that keeping up with allianceswitchers and stuff can be quite a hard task as it should be. what's the point in it to make that public at once? If people feel this strongly maybe add a feature where HC can decide if they want their info to be public or not but not make it so they won't have a choice. As i've said before pa is a game with alot of aspects what's the point in constantly trying to remove then and constantly making it easier for people to spend less and less time in it? As far as i can understand jolt wants people to be more active as they get more money from it. Which is all that matters lately or so it seems. as i think arfy said if you want to get rid of all the top players who spend time in this game and make it so easy for new players why not just tell them all to quit? Planetarion is about activity. Activity gets rewarded. it can be by having good intel, nice friends, nice planet, whatever but without activity and effort you won't have anything and you shouldn't have anything and that's the way it's always been. negrep away |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Reading cyphers post, there is something I want to say which I think is what he is getting at.
The point of the game is you play it. PA team seems to keep trying to remove aspects of the game, make it so that people don't play it, they just have a planet that simply exists. It often feels like some of the ideas are going in the direction of people paying for a planet in a simulation that they have no control over. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
I dislike this idea very much. And I really really dont see any big advantage to it, just disadvatages.
- Allianceless ppl get killed - fake nicking is fun and trying to keep your alliance a secret is part of the fun start of round - alliances that did well last round will get smashed massively the advantages are wack also, the alliances unable to get the proper intell arent gonna do well anyway, no matter if you give them free intell they will still suck. Also it will make the game easier for fence huggers and we all hate those :( MiX |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
|
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Am all for tagging up! I never understood why it was "banned" in the first place. I will just as easily attack the target I have been given, prolly get a scan to decide if I have to relaunch or a jgp in the mirning to see if I can land.
And would it really change that much, I often heard the next day, dude you landed on a 1up (sorry Noah02 ;-) ). Also people do have acces to the alliance arbiter so they know on who they are landing (I'm just to lazy to find out). In my opinion the tag only maaters when you have an personal NAP with the alliance in question, otherwise what would change? Alliance raids would only make sure they don't raid their members and attack everyone else. For alliance wars it is usefull, but these only start higher up on the scorelist when the coords are already known. To conclude this, if you are not landing on a good target because of his tag, then YOU'RE SPINELESS! |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
maybe they could be revealed after a few days like and extended protection for the tags to avoid killing off alliances right after protection.
i am only up for the galaxy wide publishment of tags not universal. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
Ok then, all the effects and impacts on the game of publishing co-ords to alliances is a constant in both models (displaying tags/keeping them secret), and thus can be ignored as irrelevent information. That means, the decision on making tags public depends on the; advantages of displaying tags (umm, what where they again? :rolleyes:) and the considerable disadvantages which i and many others have already outlined. So; there is no point in making tags public, the only effect will be negative to the huge majority of players and their alliances, many of whom do not frequent these forums to make their opinion, but still pay for their planet just like you. I still dont think its a very good idea, and nothing that has been said so far has really changed my mind or at least made the decision marginal. Think of the kittens. :) |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
do individual mo's consistently choose weak alliance targets for themselves in gal raids? ( this would be rather informative) also, i think it's reasonable to predict there would be an increase in actual wars if tags were public. alliances would target other alliances more. one final point, some of us would actually prefer to hit people from larger alliances during a gal raid, because not everyone is a pussy |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
Quote:
intel gathering at the moment is like a well oiled machine for big alliances. getting some tips, then continually jgping known targets to collect cords isn't a complex puzzle. avoiding friendly contact with your random gal members for as long as possible makes perfect sense if you want to keep your cords a secret. pretty much everything which effects the outcome of this game comes from ship-stats and what happens on the battlefield. intel has little bearing on who will win the round (i.e. without it the round will be just as unpredictable) i believe the mixing of groups and the forming of new friendships or mutually benificial agreements is what keeps the community going, something which has steadily dwindled . encouraging gals to co-operate seems like a step in the right direction. i would say making new friends to work out gal strategies and meet goals is a better gaming experience overall -- this is what hooks people into PA. |
Re: Any good reasons not to make alliance tags and/or value public?
OK Duncan, I'll bow to your superior knowledge and experience of how big alliances work. You clearly know all about how they work and what's needed to take an alliance to victory in a round, and I am clearly an uninformed pleb.
Would still be nice to see your justification for dismissing intel as irrelevant though. You must know something I don't. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:48. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018