Alliance Warfare

[Storebo]

Anyone else thinks it all kinda stagnated? The top alliances all manages to hold their own. Only their galm8s suffering. The new rules of this round makes is nearly impossible to win a decisive victory over another ally. Find it a bit boring. Is like WW2 would have stoped before the normandie invasion, and allies and axis came together and declared a winner based on enemies killed, territory conquered etc. Makes the game a bit pointless. The winning ally can't say they defeated their enemies, they just had more territory and manpower at the end of the war. WW1 ending maybe. No progress on the warfields just take a few hundred meters one day and loose it the other day. Stagnation.

[mikay]

I sort of agree but not entirely. FAnG do seem to be pulling away from Ecl/Ely atm but it's slow. There are a few reasons for this.

Partly is the 30%/6k roid situation. Once you get 6k roids you actually don't want more because it reduces your income. You also get a smaller and smaller pool of people you can even hit and as I write only 3 people in the t50 have capped roids today - seems about usual.

Partly I think you need to look who is winning and their tactics. FAnG/Dragons just haven't been dominating winning alliances before and I think they are less able to deal a killer blow than Eclipse would. Also I think a lot of people got the tactics wrong this round. There seem to be lots launching of weak waves at online targets with the intention of sucking defence. Basically it doesn't achieve shit apart from pissing people off. This is where Elysium seemed to do well when they were at the top by seemingly putting more of a focus on attacking the middling semi-active players.

I think PAX provided a situation where the war can last longer which is good but maybe it should be changed to have some kind of built in victory conditions rather than just slogging on til MrBrick waves the chequered flag - which will hopefully be soon.

[Storebo]

Think the game wrecks the abilities of killing people as they where earlier.. with same eta for all ships.. no cluster -eta. only 1 tick roiding etc. Lots of rules made to ensure people aren't killed.

[G.K Zhukov]

Your WWII analogy is wrong Storebo, the germans had lost after Kursk summer 43.

[Razorback]

for all sides its much the same, the majority of ppl complains about the boring game and who wins or who loses is not anymore on the highest priority of the day.

[mikay]

Originally Posted by Rumad

what were you saying about alliance wars being more interesting?

I also think changing the game mechanics is the wrong way to go - get off yer lazy asses and have some real wars

Nothing wrong with the current war but there is more than 1 kind of stagnation. I just think atm ppl have had enough (as they usually do 2 months into a round) and the game seems more like a siege than a war. Plus I got my 6k roids so no point even attacking - which is kind of depressing cos I want to attack and contribute but it's basically counterproductive.

[Kal]

Well we in NoS are enjoying our little war on Vision. We find sending masses of ships at big planets to be effective at sucking defence, and we also find roiding the mid sized members to be effective. Our war is fairly balenced, and we ar ein no way responsible for Visions score drop (although we did kill 5mil value just before their drop by tricing them into sending the wrong def).

Its probably fairly safe to say NoS/hirr have the upper hand on Vision at the moment, but last week it was a very different story, we ahd so many incs we could hardly attack, Things can change very quickly and imo the game has not stagnated.

The boredom factor that many player shvae encountered is for numerous reasons, firslty some people just don;t like pa anymore, secondly some people get bashed and give up, and finally alliances arn;t doing enough to kepe their members interested.

I'll be the first to admit NoS has some inacitves, although very few complete inactives. However over the last few days we have all had fun through little things like launching and recalling continuously on big planets..... some might think us odd for enjoying this repetitive task, but for some unknown reason we ahve having loads of fun

[mens]

Originally Posted by mikay

I got my 6k roids so no point even attacking - which is kind of depressing cos I want to attack and contribute but it's basically counterproductive.

escort others, and use priorities to kill stuff instead of gaining roids. That way you get higher score, and if you're lucky higher rank.

[mikay]

Originally Posted by Rumad

Well if you have reached 6k roids well done, but now consider this. If allaicnes were working on there own defence would be stretchable. would things be so pleasant if you didnt ally and gal mates had to sit and watch there alliance trash you?

I dunno but I would suggest not.

The key problem is same eta ships and pre-launch fleets appearing on probes plus no launch cost. This is how it happens. I launch on x:y:z. 50 mins later I probe. He has defence prelaunched by his alliance - I pull and my fleet is home. Next tick I launch again hoping those defenders went offline... That means I can launch 12 waves a day on 1 guy with 1 fleet. I don't pay a launch cost so there's no reason not to. The guys defend against me 12 times a day yet potentially never launch a fleet.

Alliances are lapping this up cos they somehow expect to gain advantage by wasting enemy fleets. It's bollocks cos the way it is mostly used they just launch on people who are guaranteed to get defence and end up achieving nothing but frustrating the enemy - which also happens the other way too. Very tedious.

Now see back in the day you would have your fighters that were lower eta. I would launch and there might be no uni defence for 2-3 ticks. The gal could defend up to eta 2-3 so potentially my fleet it out 12 ticks (out & return) so I can do 2-3 waves a day. Also I had to pay a launch cost so launching big fleets multiple times would cost score for lost E at least. News scans only showed fleets AFTER they had been launched too.

Basically it's become an excercise in frustrating the enemy and it's working. If you want a summary of all that read Focht's post.

As far as allainces forcing galaxies apart - that's not always the case. Some people have the balls to put their galaxies on an equal basis to their alliances and in certain cases alliances would be stupid to argue against it.

If alliances were working independently it would actually be worse. If the whole of EET launched on FAnG (or vice versa) it will only have a limited effect because you still have to beat gal defence too. Reducing the incoming by 2/3rds means almost nothing gets through. Almost nothing ever gets through now and as I pointed out above only 3 T50 have got roids so far today.

[Tomkat]

The combat sucks this round.

It's the main reason for stagnation. It isn't hard to cover incomings. So an alliance can be easily covered. Less bashing, as you simply get no roids if ~20% of your ships die.

It was so much more fun when you had to calc and see whether the roids were "worth it".... "ooh, i'm paying 6k per roid here, do i stay or go?" etc. Now it's "oh, i'll get no roids, i better recall".

It's just crap. I hope whoever thought up the disruption idea won't be helping with the combat in round 11.

[mikay]

Originally Posted by mens

escort others, and use priorities to kill stuff instead of gaining roids. That way you get higher score, and if you're lucky higher rank.

Shows how well you know the system then.

Score = Value/4 + pure score from stuff killed etc.

0.6% of my score is actually from killing stuff cos it just doesn't give enough - and that is higher than most ppl. about 3 days ago I killed 83m resources (approx 2000 CR) and 11 buildings and I gained a whopping 240 points score - suffice to say any losses of ships cancel this out (well approx 10 lost frigates would). I can/do escort sometimes but it's a mess. I have to hit huge planets so the guy I'm escorting does. I'm usually too big to retal so they get the retal. All more hassle than it's worth.

[LocknLoad]

hmmm this seems to be more on the Strategic Discussions then AD

[Legator]

Originally Posted by KalVirtus

Well we in NoS are enjoying our little war on Vision. We find sending masses of ships at big planets to be effective at sucking defence, and we also find roiding the mid sized members to be effective. Our war is fairly balenced, and we ar ein no way responsible for Visions score drop (although we did kill 5mil value just before their drop by tricing them into sending the wrong def).

Its probably fairly safe to say NoS/hirr have the upper hand on Vision at the moment, but last week it was a very different story, we ahd so many incs we could hardly attack, Things can change very quickly and imo the game has not stagnated.

The boredom factor that many player shvae encountered is for numerous reasons, firslty some people just don;t like pa anymore, secondly some people get bashed and give up, and finally alliances arn;t doing enough to kepe their members interested.

I'll be the first to admit NoS has some inacitves, although very few complete inactives. However over the last few days we have all had fun through little things like launching and recalling continuously on big planets..... some might think us odd for enjoying this repetitive task, but for some unknown reason we ahve having loads of fun

i must fully agree here, we are having fun and alot.

yea, the trick was great hehe, must say that, also you lost 2,5 mio but still.

and i think, besides the 312398710232103759237432 bugs in the game and the low playerbase AND the combat this round has his good things and sides. (never thought i would say this).

i hope round 11 will fix the bugs and compare r9 with round 10. take the best out of it. it can be fun.

[mikay]

Originally Posted by Rumad

no you missed the point of mangors put down. Even thoguh it was quite nerdy. Mangor that was a very anal cuss btw and i still wub j00 matey

Er wot???? Lost me here mate - and you never came on irc.

I agree with legator there is more in PAX that I like than dislike, just a few things in combination are really bad. And indeed the round isn't stale as such just is does get a bit much being in the thick of it for a long time and I did actually quit serious play due to time about 600 ticks ago.

[Salt]

The removal of any sort of launch cost was probably the single most retarded 'feature' put into PAX.

[Scoot951]

Well, they either would've had to take it out, or make it cost all 3 types, since the extra eon drain could be a huge setback to Ziks.

[AzureWrath]

Originally Posted by Salt

The removal of any sort of launch cost was probably the single most retarded 'feature' put into PAX.

the most retarded feature is definately roid capping

[mikay]

Originally Posted by AzureWrath

the most retarded feature is definately roid capping

I'm strongly with Salt here, I see nothing wrong with the way roids are capped at all - perhaps you'd care to enlighten us.

[Salt]

Originally Posted by Scoot951

Well, they either would've had to take it out, or make it cost all 3 types, since the extra eon drain could be a huge setback to Ziks.

Well yeah I agree with this statement ofc but I don't see anything wrong with having ships only cost metal/crystal again. The lack of a launch cost + the ability to make a fleet analysis totally useless have made defending a ridiculously tedious task.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by mikay

I'm strongly with Salt here, I see nothing wrong with the way roids are capped at all - perhaps you'd care to enlighten us.

If 20% of your ships are killed, you cap no roids. It's too easy to calc, and it's too easy to cover people. It means there are no fun battle reports, and there are no major fights.

THAT'S what is wrong with the way roids are capped.

[Kjeldoran]

Heh, whether the round sucks, capping sucks, roiding sucks, defence is too easy etc ... doesn't really matter. Point is, you all keep playing it, you all keep complaining and in the end not a single bit changes cause you'll keep playing (not meant to anyone in particular).

Also, even if there can't be a dominating winner this round, it's pretty obvious which were the top alliances this round who joined the big war. And in the end, there will be a winner and their victory won't mean any less then any other round.

Ofc some might say I'm only saying this cause things look good for us atm, yet I know that such things can change over 1 night so nothing is safe and nobody won till the last tick has ticked.

So Storebo, imo I think you're wrong. This round had less stagnation then any of the latest round.

rgds Kj

[dabult]

Stagnation? Where?


I'm having a blast, and I know a majority of my members do aswell

[mens]

Originally Posted by mikay

Shows how well you know the system then.

you're right, I had the impression you gained more score from killing =\

[rnd|One]

This round has been disappointing playwise. One on one alliance warfare hasn't been possible due changes into the combat nor due to politics and the result has been quite appalling. The slower growth of planets gave opportunity for the masses to prevail over far more organized and dedicated opposition. End result being massively coordinated attacks against single alliances that are not possible to be stopped (observation on Elysium's loss of roids due to combined efforts of half a dozen alliances). As such Planetarion isn't about the best alliance this round either. It is yet another story about rallying more fleets, pacts and ties on your side than your foes can handle. Single planets, alliances have lost their might for there is little to bask about in these grey times. Very dispiriting news for alliance command staff, as where do you claim your glory from? Would it be from universe rankings due to block-victory or recruiting? From being part of a block that wins (or even being part of a block where a former BG performs better than the once formidable mother alliance that they left in ruins)? From planet rankings achieved solely due to massive rallying? A laughable one-round track record. On this side I am pleased, for Elysium has made waves this round -- if not been the David Beckham of PaX -- for various ploys at their opposing alliances, esp fang.

Now how does one compare the two sides (blocks) -- how characteristic of PA for it always to be like this, how dull -- to get a glimpse on the rounds true nature when averages nor numbers of planets are shown in the rankings. Not to mention closed planets count towards an alliances ranking, profiting from cheating encouraged (?) - couldn't we have a mentioning of this as well next to an alliances name (X planets suspeted of cheating this round, Y numbers closed). Block rankings should be on place as well, since that's PA round in and round out.

What comes to the future I'm sure more players will vote with their wallets and leave this "fresh" Planetarion.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by mens

you're right, I had the impression you gained more score from killing =\

....you do.

The 6k player people should use their position to basically go on kill missions, decimating planets and structures.

It's what the priorities are for. Noone has tried exploiting them fully yet. Imagine sending a huge armada to a planet, with Support/Structures set.
You'd kill their factories, and a fair few constructions along with it. AND get score (even if it isn't enough for you mikay).

[mikay]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

....you do.

The 6k player people should use their position to basically go on kill missions, decimating planets and structures.

It's what the priorities are for. Noone has tried exploiting them fully yet. Imagine sending a huge armada to a planet, with Support/Structures set.
You'd kill their factories, and a fair few constructions along with it. AND get score (even if it isn't enough for you mikay).

OK - not possible and not practical.

Firstly assume these 6k roid ppl are T20. They can't hit anyone below T200 which means they are hitting the T20 people in any given alliance - people who are probed every tick as a matter of course. Sneaking through on one of these people is well nigh impossible.

But just supposing I expect to get past alliance defence on a T200 planet nothing would give me more pleasure than fleetcatching or annihilating enemies. Anyway herein lies my 2nd problem - I have a crap fleet and I have no choice in the matter. Ziko ships are horrendously heavy on E and I actually mine more metal. There is no FR class metal sink so I'm pretty much tied in to building claymores and trading to the universe. Xan and terrans have it easier but I actually have a fleet that really isn't suited to bashing anybody.

Targetting structures is irrelevant as you can only kill 10% per combat tick and targetting them is bugged. At this stage of a game killing someone's fleet is much more beneficial.

* The combat report where I killed a heap and my score component from killing went up by 240 points (note my actual score went down cos of the fleet losses):

http://cabeza.lockhead.net/index.php...anid=793485793

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by mikay

OK - not possible and not practical.

Such a typical top player.

Ever thought that using your fleet to attack a top player will TIE UP the defence fleets of an alliance?

Plus, don't set the priorities to structures. Set it to "Support". Then they attack the factories.

This is why I'd never be a top player (apart from me being n00b \o/ ). I play too much for my alliance, not enough for myself individually.

[mikay]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Such a typical top player.

Ever thought that using your fleet to attack a top player will TIE UP the defence fleets of an alliance?

Plus, don't set the priorities to structures. Set it to "Support". Then they attack the factories.

This is why I'd never be a top player (apart from me being n00b \o/ ). I play too much for my alliance, not enough for myself individually.

I'll disregard all aspects of your post pertaining to flaming, trolling or me personally.

Tying up fleets achieves almost nothing at this stage in the game. Attempting to tie up a fleet is precisely why people don't get roids - you launch on someone who will get defence. I prefer to launch on people at times when they won't get defence.

And you missed the point in a grand way. It's not easy to build any form of kill fleet this round, especially for a ziko. In order to kill someone I have to ride with other people - multiple people to achieve what 1 person could achieve is wasting resources.

[Kal]

remeber its a different game now - maybe having to team up is a good thing

[Parthos]

Originally Posted by rnd|One

Planetarion isn't about the best alliance this round either. It is yet another story about rallying more fleets, pacts and ties on your side than your foes can handle.

Winning Planetarion has always been about rallying more fleets, pacts, and ties on your side than your foes can handle. That Elysium has never understood this has always been their downfall.

On topic but a slightly different subject, PAX would make a great free game. With tens of thousands of players, the game would be played early-round style, where a cadre of dedicated players form alliances, roid the less-dedicated players to hell, and basically ignore one another until perhaps the waning days of the round where they declare war on one another to ease the tedium of roiding newbies.

You all keep complaining because PAX isn't like, and doesn't very well support, the head-on, dog-eat-dog alliance wars we have all become used to since round 4. We're so used to the pattern of early quick decisive war, stagnation while the winners roid the losers to hell, and then mit-to-late-round wheeling and dealing to fabricate discontent and create an end war with reshuffled blocks, that we want to keep recreating that scenario. Which as we all are seeing, won't work with PAX.

And of course, PAX is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Without a large playerbase, it can't be played the way it was designed to be played. As a result, the small playerbase is peeved, not to mention powerless. What the heck are we supposed to do? We have no newbies to roid. We're stuck in an endless loop, trying our darndest to make some fun of a game that in no way, shape, or form, can be fun with 2k players.

[rnd|One]

Originally Posted by Parthos

Winning Planetarion has always been about rallying more fleets, pacts, and ties on your side than your foes can handle. That Elysium has never understood this has always been their downfall.

Your assumption puts a smile to my face, but for all the reasons you might not expect. Hiding behind arbiters has never been our game, as only the fighting spirit has echoed for the will of an Elysian -- what we understand, and what we do not like but acknowledge are two different things. We've plunged into dangerous waters due to this, as that's been our game. Since R9 we have seeked for fair one-on-one scenario's, but there has been no interest much to my dismay. Fighting against grey masses that carve themselves into light-hearted acronyms then again is not inspiring nor fruitful.

Could this universe be enriched, to change for the better, even with a playerbase as small as now? Yes, it could. That game just wouldn't be Planetarion as it is now, and I do doubt that the new creators have the vision to carve Planetarion into a form where idiocies the size of Texas have plagued the game for several rounds.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Heh, whether the round sucks, capping sucks, roiding sucks, defence is too easy etc ... doesn't really matter. Point is, you all keep playing it, you all keep complaining and in the end not a single bit changes cause you'll keep playing (not meant to anyone in particular).

Also, even if there can't be a dominating winner this round, it's pretty obvious which were the top alliances this round who joined the big war. And in the end, there will be a winner and their victory won't mean any less then any other round.

Ofc some might say I'm only saying this cause things look good for us atm, yet I know that such things can change over 1 night so nothing is safe and nobody won till the last tick has ticked.

So Storebo, imo I think you're wrong. This round had less stagnation then any of the latest round.

rgds Kj

Thinking of a different kind of stagnation. Other rounds people got bored cause there was no more enemies to kill. This round u get bored cause enemies can't be killed.

This rounds wars started becoming boring when u saw how little effect it all have. Only way thoose ranks switch are people getting deleted from game or kicked from ally.

I strongly dislike the increase of new rules every round, it was the freedom in round 3-4 that attracted me to this game. With every rule u reduce the game. I know they are made to prevent cheating etc.. but still. How nice it would be to go back to a rulefree round again with honest people, and the good old gameplay ofcourse. =)

[mens]

cheerios must be an english major or something.
blablablablablabalbab

[Pilatus]

Originally Posted by Storebo

Thinking of a different kind of stagnation. Other rounds people got bored cause there was no more enemies to kill. This round u get bored cause enemies can't be killed.

This rounds wars started becoming boring when u saw how little effect it all have. Only way thoose ranks switch are people getting deleted from game or kicked from ally.

I strongly dislike the increase of new rules every round, it was the freedom in round 3-4 that attracted me to this game. With every rule u reduce the game. I know they are made to prevent cheating etc.. but still. How nice it would be to go back to a rulefree round again with honest people, and the good old gameplay ofcourse. =)

Good point. And with no rules, there would be no cheaters. Atleast i miss those gal discussions from round 5, were galm8's were accusing other galm8's for not paying their farm the resources from farming. And if you weren't satisfied with one gals farm you were looking for another

Could be fun to have only one rule, and that should be against multiple accounts

[Treveler]

Originally Posted by Storebo

but still. How nice it would be to go back to a rulefree round again with honest people, and the good old gameplay ofcourse. =)

Hmmm, in what year and universe/reality was that?

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Pilatus

Good point. And with no rules, there would be no cheaters. Atleast i miss those gal discussions from round 5, were galm8's were accusing other galm8's for not paying their farm the resources from farming. And if you weren't satisfied with one gals farm you were looking for another

Could be fun to have only one rule, and that should be against multiple accounts

U earn more on attacking then farming anyway. And if all u do is farm, your alliance wouldn't want u for very long i'd imagine. Main problem for this game have allways been multiple accounts and account sharing. And that is still a problem, even with all theese new rules and pay. All the rules have done is to make the playing experience less. It isn't "Control your own planet" anymore. It's do as the council tell u to do.

[Pilatus]

Originally Posted by Storebo

U earn more on attacking then farming anyway. And if all u do is farm, your alliance wouldn't want u for very long i'd imagine.

Lol, your right about that. Anyway, in round 5 we didn't get to farm to much. It usually ended up in alot of discussions about: who got to farm next, why someone didn't pay our own farm for the roids they grabbed from the other gals farm, why it were mostly the ministers that got to farm and so on. And then there were the constant battle to keep unwanted visitors away from the farm. It's probably good that farming is illegal, but i sure miss the discussions it lead to

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by rnd|One

As such Planetarion isn't about the best alliance this round either. It is yet another story about rallying more fleets, pacts and ties on your side than your foes can handle. Single planets, alliances have lost their might for there is little to bask about in these grey times. Very dispiriting news for alliance command staff, as where do you claim your glory from? Would it be from universe rankings due to block-victory or recruiting? From being part of a block that wins (or even being part of a block where a former BG performs better than the once formidable mother alliance that they left in ruins)? From planet rankings achieved solely due to massive rallying? A laughable one-round track record. On this side I am pleased, for Elysium has made waves this round -- if not been the David Beckham of PaX -- for various ploys at their opposing alliances, esp fang.

Now how does one compare the two sides (blocks) -- how characteristic of PA for it always to be like this, how dull -- to get a glimpse on the rounds true nature when averages nor numbers of planets are shown in the rankings. Not to mention closed planets count towards an alliances ranking, profiting from cheating encouraged (?) - couldn't we have a mentioning of this as well next to an alliances name (X planets suspeted of cheating this round, Y numbers closed). Block rankings should be on place as well, since that's PA round in and round out.

What comes to the future I'm sure more players will vote with their wallets and leave this "fresh" Planetarion.

So according to your thoughts, neither Ecl or Fang (or whomever grabs the top spot in the final minutes) can claim victory or glory this round? Only Ely has found any glory due to that fact that they "made waves this round?"

[Jackal2112]

Totally disagree Storebo

Attacks are done about 95% of the time for roids.

If people organised more kill attacks, and landed with ships/ships, fleets would be killed.

But that takes some intelligence to realise im afraid.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

Totally disagree Storebo

Attacks are done about 95% of the time for roids.

If people organised more kill attacks, and landed with ships/ships, fleets would be killed.

But that takes some intelligence to realise im afraid.

What are u babling about? U got problem understanding something just say so and I'll help your underdeveloped mind to understand.

[Jackal2112]

i was responding to the first post of your thread. sorry you are retarded..

[Guran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

So according to your thoughts, neither Ecl or Fang (or whomever grabs the top spot in the final minutes) can claim victory or glory this round? Only Ely has found any glory due to that fact that they "made waves this round?"

He didn't say that you troll!!

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Guran

He didn't say that you troll!!

First of all, I do know that his post is about Planetarion in general.
Secondly I was asking Him a question, not to troll, but to find out what other players thought in regards to the winning alliance in in perspective to all the surroundings on this new planetarion. Lastly, he kinda did say that:

Originally Posted by rnd|One

As such Planetarion isn't about the best alliance this round either. It is yet another story about rallying more fleets, pacts and ties on your side than your foes can handle. . Very dispiriting news for alliance command staff, as where do you claim your glory from?

Originally Posted by rnd|One

On this side I am pleased, for Elysium has made waves this round -- if not been the David Beckham of PaX -- for various ploys at their opposing alliances, esp fang.

So please Mr. Guran, mind your business.

[Metrofx]

People still play this game? o_O

[Guran]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

First of all, I do know that his post is about Planetarion in general.
Secondly I was asking Him a question, not to troll, but to find out what other players thought in regards to the winning alliance in in perspective to all the surroundings on this new planetarion. Lastly, he kinda did say that:

So please Mr. Guran, mind your business.

He kinda said that? Either he did or did not. Twisting words seems to be so popular nowadays.

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Jackal2112

i was responding to the first post of your thread. sorry you are retarded..

Your responce was retarded no matter which of my posts u replyed to.

[Fyodor]

Twisting words has always been popular, as has propaganda and lying on these forums.

[Anakin]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

Your WWII analogy is wrong Storebo, the germans had lost after Kursk summer 43.

Storebo is GOD, their for he can not be wrong, and their for you are indeed wrong, dont question it, just accept it.

- Ani.
- Stealth & Shadows // Adelante :: " In Storebo We Trust "

[Storebo]

Originally Posted by Anakin

Storebo is GOD, their for he can not be wrong, and their for you are indeed wrong, dont question it, just accept it.

- Ani.
- Stealth & Shadows // Adelante :: " In Storebo We Trust "

Nice to see you are still on of the faithful ones =)

[Lei~]

freaks?