User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1168
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

16 Oct 2017, 19:53

Goodspeed wrote:The impact would be, compared to China's current 200f 300w start:
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f (other civs: 100w)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f (other civs: 100w + 100f)
In 1/3 of spawns they get +200f -100w (other civs: 100f)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c + 100f)


Do you mean that China will have to chop 200 wood to get a 2nd building up?
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9010
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 20:01

When they get -100w, surely, yes.
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8356

16 Oct 2017, 20:07

yurashic wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The impact would be, compared to China's current 200f 300w start:
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f (other civs: 100w)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f (other civs: 100w + 100f)
In 1/3 of spawns they get +200f -100w (other civs: 100f)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c + 100f)


Do you mean that China will have to chop 200 wood to get a 2nd building up?
Yes. At that point China players would need to ask themselves whether that is worth it. Note that other civs currently also deal with this issue; without a wood start, they don't have the option for a TP. With a wood start, they do.

With China missing the wood crate, they get +200f in 66% of cases and +100f in 33%. In the latter case, the opponent also got the worst possible spawn. Either way they would likely choose to build 1 village and have a (much) quicker age up.
User avatar
Russia yurashic
Howdah
Posts: 1168
ESO: Yurashic
Location: Russia

16 Oct 2017, 20:19

Goodspeed wrote:
yurashic wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:The impact would be, compared to China's current 200f 300w start:
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f (other civs: 100w)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f (other civs: 100w + 100f)
In 1/3 of spawns they get +200f -100w (other civs: 100f)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c + 100f)


Do you mean that China will have to chop 200 wood to get a 2nd building up?
Yes. At that point China players would need to ask themselves whether that is worth it. Note that other civs currently also deal with this issue; without a wood start, they don't have the option for a TP. With a wood start, they do.

With China missing the wood crate, they get +200f in 66% of cases and +100f in 33%. In the latter case, the opponent also got the worst possible spawn. Either way they would likely choose to build 1 village and have a (much) quicker age up.


Is it even worth it to send 2 vills in this case? :)

Interesting change, but needs testing. It is basically like the EP Iro change, Iro depends on TPs more though and can always send 3 vills.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9010
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

16 Oct 2017, 20:37

That's for you to find out, you Deku-scrub!
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

16 Oct 2017, 21:34

Goodspeed wrote:Ok @Garja I guess I will try to explain the reasoning one more time even though the food crate change is not going to be in the patch. We may change crates in another way though so it's important for you and everyone else to understand why China's current crate situation is a big problem, and while there is no ideal fix we should look for the lesser evil. I hope I manage to convey my thoughts, because I find this is not at all easy to put into words.

Where we are ultimately in disagreement is that you, for some reason, consider China's crate history relevant to whether it deserves the additional food crate. I'm getting deja vu here so I think I probably argued this already somewhere else, but anyway, what I see is very simply a civ which gets no random crate. Looking at purely the current state of affairs, that's what anyone would see. What you see is a civ which was balanced before but had issues with consistency, so they fixed the random crate to wood to make it more consistent. You then argue that since they got this free wood crate where other civs only get this in 1/3 of spawns, they don't deserve the additional random food crate that other civs get.

A civ "deserves" whatever crates make them balanced. There is no magic truth when it comes to which crates a civ should or shouldn't get, and the history of its crate start is not relevant to its current situation. Which crates a civ "deserves" depends entirely on their position on the balance scale, which is decided by a lot more than just crate starts and it changes with time.

The meta changed and we changed things in the patch which means balance is completely different from where it was back when they made that decision. Their reasoning, and the fact that China's crate was effectively fixed to wood, is no longer relevant. The current situation is that China lacks a random crate, which is neither good for them nor bad for them. Understand this if nothing else. It's not good for them or bad for them, it's just not balanced, because China's strength is based on the crate start of the opposing civ (therefore based on pure chance). It is that opposing crate start we should be comparing to.

So what is currently the situation?
China's crates are fixed. What are they fixed to? Doesn't matter. What matters is the difference between the opposing civ's possible starts.
Other civs get the following random crates:
100w in 1/6 of spawns
100w + 100f in 1/6 of spawns
100f in 1/3 of spawns
100c in 1/6 of spawns
100c + 100f in 1/6 of spawns

So you can have 2 spawns where in one of them, China's opponent has 100w and 100f in random crates. In the other, they get only 100c.
In which of these spawns would you rather be the China player?

Please note how huge of a difference 100w+100f vs 100c is. Take a second here to imagine the impact if we took away 100f+100w from any civ's crate start and replaced it with 100c. They would instantly become unplayable. They would lose every match up. This is a much bigger balance issue than I think anyone currently realises. This makes sense, because over many games the issue is not prevalent. I doubt anyone ever played China and after losing thought "damn, I lost this game due to the other player getting a wood start (therefore an early TP) and ageing up 10 seconds before they normally would because they also got an additional 100f". No, they think they lost because of this and that mistake, or their opponent outplaying them or China being a shitty civ. Same thing but the other way around when they win because the opponent started with just the 100c.
The problem is that in any given map spawn, China can start with a big advantage or a big disadvantage (or neither, in about half of the spawns).

Do you understand that China's own crates are not relevant to this point? All that matters is that they are fixed and therefore cause the above imbalance.

The proposed change would mean that China would get the additional food crate in the 2/6 cases where the opposing civ also gets the additional food crate. The first spawn in my example above would then be more balanced. There, the opponent still gets 100w and 100f but China also gets +100f. In the second spawn, there is no change. Still not ideal, but it balances the crate spawns without messing up the consistency in China's start that ES wanted to accomplish by fixing their wood crate. The situation would then be:

Other civs get:
100w in 1/6 of spawns
100w + 100f in 1/6 of spawns, China gets +100f
100f in 1/3 of spawns
100c in 1/6 of spawns
100c + 100f in 1/6 of spawns, China gets +100f

Anyway, moving on.

We're currently considering removing a wood crate, adding 100f and adding the random crate(s). This would be a slight buff, so we'll have to consider ways to compensate.

The impact would be, compared to China's current 200f 300w start:
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f (other civs: 100w)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f (other civs: 100w + 100f)
In 1/3 of spawns they get +200f -100w (other civs: 100f)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +100f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c)
In 1/6 of spawns they get +200f +100c -100w (other civs: 100c + 100f)


Ok I got your point, but I still disagree. My objection are the same as before. In particular:

1) A civ deserves whatever crate makes it balanced and fits the general rule behind it. You can't change shit randomly, otherwise you're not a proper patch maker you're just a toddler playing with numbers. If you start that approach then anyone is qualified to make changes which is simply dumb. Let's adopt Vane's patch then.
There is a rule underlying base crates and I tried to figure it out. And btw it's there for a reason, to ensure long term balance. It's one of those things you're not supposed to touch because otherwise it inevitably fucks up the balance even if you can't see it in the short term. Unless you put another general rule in place of the old one, that has to remain untouched without exceptions.

2) Dynamic balance is still balance. To me fixed vs variable is balanced as long as the EV of the aleatory crates is the same as the actual value of the fixed one.
So in the current situation China gets a better spawn half of times, a worst spawn in 1/3 of times and the same spawn in 1/6. To me that's balanced more or less. More or less because you also have to factor in other side factors like best treasure gathering tools and the free goat (worth atleast 30f at 100f).
And it is not just theorycrafting. It is balanced in practice too. China doesn't autolose games because the opponent gets a starting TP with 100w 100f. In fact China can always get a fuckin TP if they want to. 100f is not impactful to the point that it deserves a change. Sometimes they prevail in discovery, sometimes they start little behind. AOE3 works this way and it is totally bearable. It is just part of the game, like proximity of resources to the TC or luck with treasure placement, etc. Removing randomness doesn't make the game more balanced nor it makes for a better user experience, since variability is what makes the game entertaining in the first place.

3) Now, you cannot agree with the dynamic balance concept. I can understand people can be narrow minded, haven't seen this concept in other games (e.g chess) so they can't cope with it. Afterall food =/= wood so it doesn't even matter which is better. Fine.
Then just makes things perfectly identical. Why are you even thinking of pseudo-creative solutions. If the issue is balance then just revert things. Remove the fixed wood crate and give China the random wood/gold and the random food crates. I don't get why they should still obtain an extra fixed food crate on top of the random ones. Spain doesn't fucking get 300f 100w. They get 200f 100w. China should get 200f 200w plus the random crates if you want to make things balanced.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

16 Oct 2017, 21:45

Jerom wrote:
Garja wrote:But they're not down 100f? Sigh. How hard is to understand that fixed 100w fully compensates 2 inferior random crates?
Besides, does China suffer from the current starting crates? No.
And last but not least. If you really think 100f is so important for China, then make them exactly like other civs by removing the fixed 3rd wood crate and enabling the 2 random ones.

This is why I don't want to argue with you. How does fixed 100w make up for a 100w 100f start? How is china not literally 100f behind then?

See the reference to dynamic balance point. 100w 100f is the only case where China gets a clear worst crate spawn. It happens 1/6 of times. 100f 100g is comparable to 100w. Again it happens 1/6 of times only. In all other cases China gets a better or same start. Since they sometimes get better and sometimes get worst, in the long term it's balanced. If you disagree with the concept of dynamic balance then just makes things fixed but fuckin equal.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8356

16 Oct 2017, 22:03

I think you underestimate the difference between 100f+100w and 100c. Related:
And it is not just theorycrafting. It is balanced in practice too. China doesn't autolose games because the opponent gets a starting TP with 100w 100f. In fact China can always get a fuckin TP if they want to.
I know China's start is fixed. However it's not about China's start. That's not where the imbalance is. It's about their opponent's start. Their opponent gets the TP with 100w starts, but not with food or coin starts. It's this difference that I have a problem with. Add the extra food crate to that and you have an even bigger luck factor in crate spawns whenever China is in the game.
Garja wrote:Then just makes things perfectly identical. Why are you even thinking of pseudo-creative solutions. If the issue is balance then just revert things. Remove the fixed wood crate and give China the random wood/gold and the random food crates. I don't get why they should still obtain an extra fixed food crate on top of the random ones. Spain doesn't fucking get 300f 100w. They get 200f 100w. China should get 200f 200w plus the random crates if you want to make things balanced.
I don't think adding a food crate is all that creative. I have considered simply removing wood and adding random crate(s) but this seems like too big a nerf to me. China would be worse off than they are now in 5/6 of the spawns, with 1/6 (the coin only start) being a lot worse. Adding a food crate is a slight buff, but to me is preferable to the relatively big nerf. Potentially with compensation.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

16 Oct 2017, 22:45

How is it 5/6 of spawns?
100w would be same as now.
100w 100f would be better.
100g would be worse.
100g 100f would be basically the same (they can buy wood at market and go market + village like now, plus 100f).
100f would be worse.

It's more like 1/3 is the same, 1/2 is worse and 1/3 is better.
Anyway, why even comparing to the current situation? It should be compared with other civs according to your underlying issue with fixed vs variable crate spawns? I mean everything is just uncoherent. Either you want it changed at the cost of worsening China situation or you accept current situation is fine.
And again on top of that, you're ignoring that they start with a free goat that coincidently works as a half food crate just before dropping the wonder.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

16 Oct 2017, 22:49

Rikikipu wrote:
Goodspeed wrote:By the way here's another possible change that I would like feedback on while we work on finalizing the list:

Town center cost decrease to 400w.

After the shock of reading this proposition, it's actually not stupid. It's true that we don't see oftenly people dropping another tc on the map. However I think you use the easiest solution. If TC aren't that much used, it's maybe because they cost slightly a bit too much, but overall because the meta is playing fortress asap, which means you do not have a lot of eco early on, and so you can't afford to drop a TC because it will hurt your unit spam. If the meta were more playing colonial, then later when you hit age 3 you have enough resources to build a TC, and map control is important at the stage of the game.
Another point though, is that we would probably see more TCs dropped if the map were bigger for obvious reason of map control.
Anyway I think your proposition is worth the shot although it seems weird at first glance

Exactly. It's all about meta. And it's not even safe to jump to quick conclusions. I mean, we can only say TCs are underused not that they are bad. In fact I bet I could get away with sending 1k wood and dropping a 2nd TC since the meta is so passive that you don't get punished before the TC itself help catching up with military.
User avatar
Finland somppukunkku
Advanced Player
Donator 02
Posts: 2691
ESO: PrinceOfBabu

16 Oct 2017, 22:54

Garja go sleep.. mom wouldnt be happy knowing you spend all day discussing if chinese people should have 1 box more in 10 years old video game
Co-Founder of Somali Kabuli Gaming
Homo management SKG
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8356

17 Oct 2017, 05:13

Garja wrote:How is it 5/6 of spawns?
100w would be same as now.
100w 100f would be better.
100g would be worse.
100g 100f would be basically the same (they can buy wood at market and go market + village like now, plus 100f).
100f would be worse.

It's more like 1/3 is the same, 1/2 is worse and 1/3 is better.
Anyway, why even comparing to the current situation? It should be compared with other civs according to your underlying issue with fixed vs variable crate spawns? I mean everything is just uncoherent. Either you want it changed at the cost of worsening China situation or you accept current situation is fine.
And again on top of that, you're ignoring that they start with a free goat that coincidently works as a half food crate just before dropping the wonder.
Sorry 4/6. What's important is that the average crate spawn would be worse than it is currently. I would rather it be slightly better.

One reason I prefer that is that crate changes are impactful to the feel of a civ, and I don't want it to feel worse to China players than the current situation. I want it to feel like a positive change.
Therefore I'd rather buff the start then compensate with nerfs elsewhere that the players won't necessarily notice, than nerf the start and buff elsewhere.

Really though it's not that much better than China's current start.
On a wood start China would get +100f (300f 300w) where other civs get 100w, which means China is still getting the short straw compared to its current state. Here, China at least gets some compensation (+100f) for the other civ getting the best start.
On a food start, China gets +200f -100w. This is slightly better than China's current start in villager seconds, but considering vill walking time if they want to chop all the wood, it's probably actually worse. China will probably opt not to chop any wood in this case, which is how other civs tend to play this start as well.
On a coin start, China gets +100f +100c -100w. This is bad for them, but a coin start is also bad for other civs so that's fair enough.

It's barely a buff, if at all.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 10:28

It is a buff and it is somewhat relevant. On a 100g start they can always market while other civs struggle doing that if they also don't get +100f.
On 100w it would be like now but with extra 100f which is incredibly good. Aside from TP/village start at 4.30 or so, they could simply go market and age at 4 min or even sub 4 min. They defo age sub 4 min marketing with the +100f +100w start. It's not a TP but would be impressive anyway. 4.20 TP start is also impressive for China.

I still think that current China crate just works well in practice and there is no reason to change it.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

17 Oct 2017, 11:06

Garja wrote:How is it 5/6 of spawns?
100w would be same as now.
100w 100f would be better.
100g would be worse.
100g 100f would be basically the same (they can buy wood at market and go market + village like now, plus 100f).
100f would be worse.

It's more like 1/3 is the same, 1/2 is worse and 1/3 is better.
Anyway, why even comparing to the current situation? It should be compared with other civs according to your underlying issue with fixed vs variable crate spawns? I mean everything is just uncoherent. Either you want it changed at the cost of worsening China situation or you accept current situation is fine.
And again on top of that, you're ignoring that they start with a free goat that coincidently works as a half food crate just before dropping the wonder.

Because 100g means you should resign. Thats why China has fixed crates to begin with.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 11:07

eh?
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

17 Oct 2017, 11:08

China with 200f 200w 100g is so much worse than china right now.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 11:26

It is a bit worse yes. In other cases it is not worse, sometimes it is better. Also please note that gold can be used for market.
Netherlands momuuu
Ninja
Posts: 14237
ESO: Jerom_

17 Oct 2017, 11:35

Thats minus 1 villager, and minus 2 houses. It's pretty sad.

The reason china has fixed crates is because it's otherwise terribly inconsistent. A wood start would be so much better than a non wood start. Id argue that it's better to have 200f 300w on a food+wood start and especially on a food+coin start than to occasionally have no wood starts and then get that one extra food crate. It's just too sad for China to not have 300w.

The entire problem is that there are inconsistencies now and with your suggestion. While the proposed suggestion is realistically a net buff, it creates a more consistent civ and then allows you to actually balance it. Also, theres 2 ways to look at the china starts: 100f 300w base crates, always get the 100f spawn, and 200f 200w base crates, always get the 100w start.

If you assume the 100f spawn is balanced, this is the result:
1/3rd: food start, balanced
1/6th: wood start, china is screwed over because a wood start is much better than a food start for other civs generally
1/6th: coin start, china is slightly favored here because a food start is generally better for civs than a coin start
1/6th: wood + food start, China is massively fucked over, this would make it go from balanced to underpowered in this frame of reference
1/6th: coin+food start, China is screwed over because they're simply down 100c from the balanced. This is a pretty big deal, probably slightly worse than the wood start.

In other words, 1/3rd of the time, China would be balanced. 1/6th of the time, china might be slightly favored but not by much at all (the difference is smaller than for example the difference between a coin and food start when playing as japan, and against france for example I'd argue its just as fair). 1/3rd of the time China has a crate start that is significantly worse than normal. 1/6th of the time, China is absolutely screwed over just by crate starts because they don't get the 100f (which, again, is enough to make a civ go from top tier to below average, refer to the france -100f nerf).

Theres a problem here. You're denying that to begin with but it clearly is there. If you cant agree on that then I cant have a discussion with you.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 11:37

I'm doing market starts right now and they're not necessarily worse than the normal TP or 2 houses since you don't chop 100w and age at 4.20-4.30.
It's a trade off anyway. And in this case it's just 1 out of the 5 possible spawns., which btw is bad for the other civ as well.
I agree to think that the fixed crate was for them to be more consistent since they need more wood for a village and they also age a bit slow because they're an Asian civ.
That said it's probably just a design choice as well. If you compare fixed 100w with the possible 5 random spawns the EV is more or less the same.
User avatar
Netherlands Goodspeed
Retired Contributor
EPL Reigning Champs
Posts: 8356

17 Oct 2017, 11:59

China used to be relatively more reliant on that wood crate than other civs because they really wanted that second village. Right now, other civs are also more reliant on it because they gain a TP. There is no longer a discrepancy between how much China relies on the crate compared to other civs. Therefore the fixed crate is no longer necessary. I don't agree that it was ever necessary, but I understand the choice they made back then.

This is the time to undo it. The question remains, how? Again I want it to feel like a positive change to China players. Garja does have a point about the much faster age up should China choose not to chop wood or market start on 300w starts. This has the potential to significantly change the China meta which we don't necessarily want.

@Garja do you have suggestions for an early game buff to compensate for replacing the wood crate with random crates?
Maybe something like village cost to 100w 100f.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 12:14

Goodspeed wrote:China used to be relatively more reliant on that wood crate than other civs because they really wanted that second village. Right now, other civs are also more reliant on it because they gain a TP. There is no longer a discrepancy between how much China relies on the crate compared to other civs. Therefore the fixed crate is no longer necessary. I don't agree that it was ever necessary, but I understand the choice they made back then.

This is the time to undo it. The question remains, how? Again I want it to feel like a positive change to China players. Garja does have a point about the much faster age up should China choose not to chop wood or market start on 300w starts. This has the potential to significantly change the China meta which we don't necessarily want.

@Garja do you have suggestions for an early game buff to compensate for replacing the wood crate with random crates?
Maybe something like village cost to 100w 100f.

Those considerations are meta based. I mean TP and 2nd village just used to be dominant choices it's not like they can't change. And btw I don't think there is anything unfair when one civ gets the TP and the other doesn't as long as the 2 civs are different enough. Like china vs fre it's ok only one get TP, iro vs fre, I'd say iro suffer too much if fre gets TP because they're just too similar in current meta.
Anyway, I'm trying market starts with China just to avoid the wood chopping and the late age up. Since you can send 2 vills earlier (don't need to wait for 2nd village and market speeds up the first shipments by 10 secs) it is not bad. It's 2v + 5% hunt upgrade + like 25 faster first shipment. Also you age at a decent age and can get more market ups. It is particularly good for colo builds which are underrated on EP.
Suggestion to compensate the substitution of fixed crate? Just revert the fattening nerf. I noticed it makes the first sheep reach 100f 30 secs slower. That's like 15f or so food less you get from it.
I don't think China needs compensation for losing the wood crate. It's more or less the same just fixed vs random.
User avatar
Czech Republic EAGLEMUT
ESOC Dev Team
Donator 05
Posts: 3614
ESO: EAGLEMUT
Location: [WPact]

17 Oct 2017, 12:21

@Goodspeed How about a compensation in the form of extra goat or an xp crate? A food crate or village cost change seems like overdoing it.
Image
momuuu wrote:theres no way eaglemut is truly a top player
User avatar
United States of America Darwin_
Howdah
Posts: 1354
ESO: Anonymous_01
Location: United States

17 Oct 2017, 14:43

Yeah it would be cool if china got 2 goats with random crates. Then you would have to decide if you want to gather both in discovery for the age time, or wait until they are fully fattened for an even stronger, albeit slower, timing. Or you could gather one and fatten one to get a nice in-between. I like changes that promote decisions like that because they balance the game and add strategic depth at the same time because it isnt just a pure stats change.
somppukunkku wrote:This is not a fucking discogame.
User avatar
Italy Garja
ESOC Maps Team
Donator 02
Posts: 7913
ESO: Garja

17 Oct 2017, 14:54

2 goats is reasonable. A bit weird but still withing something acceptable.
User avatar
New Zealand zoom
EP Project Lead
Posts: 9010
ESO: Funnu
Location: New_Sweland

17 Oct 2017, 17:56

ez. ezgoat
Effective ESOC Patch notes

Blue-haired girl being slain

'This is no declaration, I just thought I'd let you know goodbye'
Said the hero in the story
'It is mightier than swords. I could kill you sure, but I could only make you cry with these words'

Forum Info

Return to “ESOC Patch Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest