NATION

PASSWORD

[Change #6] Custodian SC proposal

Bug reports, general help, ideas for improvements, and questions about how things are meant to work.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Todd McCloud
Senator
 
Posts: 4078
Founded: Oct 11, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Todd McCloud » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:34 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:It should be a total drain of all of their influence, assuming they have a large amount to begin with. It should be at least double what the normal del would have to pay, and even if they choose not to spend it all, their influence should get wiped. Why? Because there should be at least some hesitation about employing this, beyond the scope of what they will choose to do.

So... double influence costs of a normal delegate under the same influence, and once they leave the position their influence is wiped?
Hey I wrote a second book! Feel like reading?
This is the first book!

"Your uniform doesn't seem to fit. You're much too alive in it."

"You must be the change you want to see in the world" - Gandhi
"The worst prison would be a closed heart." - Pope John Paul II
Vekaiyu's Wiki Page | Ikrisia Levinile's Wiki Page | Vekaiyu & Kelssek co-hosted the XII Summer Olympiad

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9388
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:42 pm

Todd McCloud wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:It should be a total drain of all of their influence, assuming they have a large amount to begin with. It should be at least double what the normal del would have to pay, and even if they choose not to spend it all, their influence should get wiped. Why? Because there should be at least some hesitation about employing this, beyond the scope of what they will choose to do.

So... double influence costs of a normal delegate under the same influence, and once they leave the position their influence is wiped?

That is my opinion yes.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
All Good People
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 353
Founded: May 04, 2004
Libertarian Police State

Postby All Good People » Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:49 pm

I'm not sure I see why the Custodian should be charged more Influence than a Delegate. If the SC decides to empower a Custodian, I would expect the cost to be the same as a Delegate. On the other hand, I don't object to the concept of doubling the cost.

I don't think a region should be able to have multiple custodians at a given time, but sequential custodians would be possible as as the resolution expires. As to the time for expiration, I really don't know but my initial thought is one week.

I do think that a nation should be allowed to be custodian of multiple regions at once. If a nation has the Influence available to be Custodian of those multiple regions, I see no reason to limit it.
Westwind of All Good People
Three Time World Assembly Delegate of The West Pacific
Former UN/WA Delegate Lewis and Clark of The North Pacific
Co-Founder and Emeritus Rex Westwind of Equilism

The West Pacific Forum: http://twp.nosync.org
Equilism Forum: http://www.equilism.org.forum

User avatar
Ballotonia
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5431
Founded: Antiquity
New York Times Democracy

Postby Ballotonia » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:47 am

Wiping influence also means the resolution can be used in a hostile manner.

Ballotonia
"Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen, dan dooft het licht…" -- H.M. van Randwijk

User avatar
Whamabama
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 367
Founded: Feb 04, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Whamabama » Sat Aug 31, 2013 12:48 pm

An interesting idea.

What I would do in this idea is these.

A region should only be allowed one. The custodian would lose the same amount of influence as a delegate per each use. I see no reason why influence use should be different.

The length of the resolution I would say depends. Mainly because my idea is a bit different than those here.

In order to be a custodian, the nation targeted to be the custodian has to have an influence rating above a certain mark. For simplicity sake, I'll say you have to be a vassal. Custodianship is lost once the custodian uses enough influence to become a minnow.

"The sovereignty of one's self over one's self is called 'liberty'."
Founder of Equilism
E-Army Officer
Former Delegate of The Rejected Realms
Equilism's Forum http://www.equilism.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2826
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:42 pm

The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9388
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sat Aug 31, 2013 1:47 pm

Topid wrote:The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.

Then where is the risk or disincentive for using this?
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
Topid
Minister
 
Posts: 2826
Founded: Dec 29, 2008
Capitalizt

Postby Topid » Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:32 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Topid wrote:The custodian should most certainly not have his influence cleared for using his powers once. How much you use your power should be the factor in determining how much influence you spend. There should be a reason not to ban and ban until you just can ban anymore. Just my two cents.

Then where is the risk or disincentive for using this?

Twice the risk that the delegate will do it. Sacrificing the ability to use that influence later. Plus a little extra check because if grossly abused a repeal is possible.
Founder, Pacifica

User avatar
Ravania Prima
Attaché
 
Posts: 66
Founded: Aug 30, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ravania Prima » Sat Aug 31, 2013 3:01 pm

Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...
Posting as a free thinking individual


Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

User avatar
Nalt
Attaché
 
Posts: 93
Founded: Jun 09, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Nalt » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:29 pm

Ravania Prima wrote:Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...

The influence change is only in the feeders and sinkers...
Nalt
Member of the Glorious Magisterium of The East Pacific,
Behold the Sovereign East!

User avatar
Ravania Prima
Attaché
 
Posts: 66
Founded: Aug 30, 2011
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ravania Prima » Sat Aug 31, 2013 4:37 pm

Nalt wrote:
Ravania Prima wrote:Keep in mind that influence will be regained in six months. All these changes have an effect on one another. Losing all your influence won't be that bad if it isn't carefully gained over years...

The influence change is only in the feeders and sinkers...


Correct, for now... (but it was asked not to be discussed, so I'll just stand corrected)
Posting as a free thinking individual


Protect, Free, Restore: UDL

User avatar
Astarial
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jul 12, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astarial » Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:45 am

I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.
Ballotonia: Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."1
Purriest Kitteh, 2012

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9388
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:07 am

Astarial wrote:I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.

Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
Cerian Quilor
Senator
 
Posts: 3841
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Cerian Quilor » Sun Sep 01, 2013 9:35 am

Tim-Opolis wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:What do you think about influence cost? Don't worry about the numbers or the code, just describe what you think the role of influence should be, and perhaps suggestions like "double this" or "half that".

Well, alright!
Personally, I would once again suggest to have it be x2 of what the W.A.D can do regarding Eject/Ban. However, nations without influence in the region should also cost something to eject/ban. I 'd throw around 1-2/2-4 influence points for Eject/Ban respectively. This was it's not too draining, but it prevents a Custodian from being used by the SC in a potential coup (got to think of the worst case scenario). Furthermore, have all of the things that don't cost any influence cost influence (WFE Change, Flag Change, Embassies, Supress, etc). Not a ton, but an amount that would make it difficult for a rogue to be able to suppress RMB posts/constantly update back to a coup WFE/just go against a government of the region at least moderately difficult.

Definately. Again, the idea is that a custodian is a kind of backup defense, rather than a full-on defense, in case of a raid on the region. They shouldn't have too easy a time of it throwing the raider forces out.
Never underestimate the power of cynicism, pessimism and negativity to prevent terrible things from happening. Only idealists try to build the future on a mountain of bodies.

The Thing to Remember About NationStates is that it is an almost entirely social game - fundamentally, you have no power beyond your own ability to convince people to go along with your ideas. In that sense, even the most dictatorial region is fundamentally democratic.

User avatar
Astarial
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jul 12, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astarial » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:13 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Astarial wrote:I'm not sure that I agree with wiping a custodian's influence after they lose that status - seems like it might promote re-raiding in a way that could border on harassment.

Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?


A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.
Ballotonia: Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."1
Purriest Kitteh, 2012

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9388
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:19 pm

Astarial wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Liberations, the only precedent for a gameplay mechanics altering SC proposal, have the exact same downside. Why shouldn't the Custodian proposal?


A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.

Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
Astarial
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jul 12, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astarial » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:39 pm

Mallorea and Riva wrote:
Astarial wrote:
A liberation does not wipe anybody's influence - any cost is imposed prior to the liberation, when a password is set. A custodian will already be left vulnerable if they choose to expend most of their influence to ban a raider delegate (or if they're not provided ban powers, to eject at update) - taking what remains away seems excessive.

Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.


The parallels are silly. Repealing a liberation is probably just as easy as passing one - Cormac, wanna run the numbers? - and can be done in a matter of days. Regaining lost influence could take years.

The parallel would be if the WA could vote to restore the native's influence. And that would be even sillier. :P
Ballotonia: Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."1
Purriest Kitteh, 2012

User avatar
Mallorea and Riva
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 9388
Founded: Sep 29, 2010
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mallorea and Riva » Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:43 pm

Astarial wrote:
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Liberations leave a region open to reraiding by removing the native delegate's ability to password, until it is repealed. The native Custodian will become vulnerable to raider action until their influence recovers. The parallels are logical.


The parallels are silly. Repealing a liberation is probably just as easy as passing one - Cormac, wanna run the numbers? - and can be done in a matter of days. Regaining lost influence could take years.

The parallel would be if the WA could vote to restore the native's influence. And that would be even sillier. :P

That's why it's a parallel and not a perfect match dear :p

The point is that there should be a significant reason for defenders and natives to have to think about what they're about to do. This hardly works for Liberations, but it *might* be better with the Custodian proposal.
Ideological Bulwark #253
Major of The Black Hawks
Retired Charter Nation: Political Affairs in Antarctic Oasis
Retired Colonel of DEN Central Command, now defunct
Former Delegate of The South Pacific, winner of TSP's "Best Dali" Award
Retired Secretary of Defense of Stargate
Terror of The Joint Systems Alliance
Mall Isaraider, son of Tram and Spartz, Brother of Jakker, Tal, and apparently Sev the treacherous bastard.
Frattastan quote of the month: Major benefit of securing the delegacy of Asia ASAP: this debate ends and I don't have to read any more of what Mall says.

User avatar
United States of Natan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5746
Founded: Jul 21, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby United States of Natan » Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:15 pm

so, if the founder is not CTE'd, but does not currently occupy the region, then this would work?
Then it's a lie. Everything Fox News says is a lie.
Even true things once said on Fox News become lies.
(Family Guy: Excellence in Broadcasting)

Come check out the Natan Region, a fun, democratic region|Harris/O'Rourke 2020|
Liberal|Progressive|Hillary Supporter|Jew|Pro-Israel|Anti-Trump|Anti-Sanders|Anti-Bigotry

User avatar
Cerian Quilor
Senator
 
Posts: 3841
Founded: Mar 30, 2012
Iron Fist Socialists

Postby Cerian Quilor » Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:54 am

They can access the RCP anyway, and thus we don't need a custodian for them.
Never underestimate the power of cynicism, pessimism and negativity to prevent terrible things from happening. Only idealists try to build the future on a mountain of bodies.

The Thing to Remember About NationStates is that it is an almost entirely social game - fundamentally, you have no power beyond your own ability to convince people to go along with your ideas. In that sense, even the most dictatorial region is fundamentally democratic.

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8485
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Sep 07, 2013 8:44 am

Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.

However, in order to allow some regions to have a somewhat self-sustaining custodianship, would it be possible to allow for natives (still in Custodian Region) to donate some of their influence to the custodian pot? (perhaps in increments of 5-10% up to a max of 25% donated or something, and not being allowed to donate more than, say, one time weekly) That would allow for an active community to work together to keep their custodian active, with sufficient influence to do the work that's needed to protect their region.

In order to balance that with ensuring that inactive regions aren't kept in perpetuity by custodians, there could be a natural decay of a custodian's influence over time. If the natives aren't supplementing said influence with donations - and no regional admin actions use up influence, the custodianship will naturally end after, say, 4 weeks.

I know that influence donation has been tossed about the tech forum before, and there could be a coding reason why it's not feasible, but it seems like a nice partnership idea to allow some custodianships - that are working well - to be somewhat self-sustaining and not need to be endlessly re-passed by the SC. And, if the goal is to minimize the need for risky refoundings, that seems like an option could really work for certain regions in perpetuity. Of course, it may also eliminate too many targets for raiders to be an appealing option, too. But I'll let you gameplayers battle out those details, I guess.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Astarial
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jul 12, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Astarial » Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:32 am

Mousebumples wrote:Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.


Not to be too much of a nitpick, but this is pretty wiggly - in TNP, nations up to about 300 influence points are considered minnows, while in Osiris, the transition to Vassal happens at about 90. The gap of what constitutes minnow-ness is smaller the less influence is in the region, and larger the more there is... and being granted enough influence to ban 20 300-influence nations from TNP would be... Well, if you were giving it to a nation with zero influence, they'd have more influence than any single nation in TNP has - and Eras is no slouch, at 945 points.

In terms of the rest... I'm not sure self-sustaining custodianship is something to be desired. I see merit to a custodian able to interfere with the efficacy of a raid by unbanning nations, changing the WFE, that kind of thing (but, I think, not ejecting or banning, because the role of natives should be distinct from that of defenders), or to a custodian being appointed in the leadup to refounding an important region, to try to prevent it from being hawked, but if a custodian nation could be maintained indefinitely I think it would encourage an overwhelming number of SC resolutions that would take a whole lot of otherwise perfectly raidable regions off the table. And that wouldn't be good for the game.
Ballotonia: Astarial already phrased an answer very well. Hence I'll just say: "Me too."1
Purriest Kitteh, 2012

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8485
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:29 pm

Astarial wrote:
Mousebumples wrote:Random thought (regarding the influence of the custodian) - could a custodian initially be granted, say, enough influence to banject 20 minnows in the given region? I like the idea of the custodianship naturally ending when the influence level drops enough to make the custodian influence level that of a minnow.


Not to be too much of a nitpick, but this is pretty wiggly - in TNP, nations up to about 300 influence points are considered minnows, while in Osiris, the transition to Vassal happens at about 90. The gap of what constitutes minnow-ness is smaller the less influence is in the region, and larger the more there is... and being granted enough influence to ban 20 300-influence nations from TNP would be... Well, if you were giving it to a nation with zero influence, they'd have more influence than any single nation in TNP has - and Eras is no slouch, at 945 points.

True enough. I would figure the "same" amount of influence would be granted to any such custodian (i.e. the same amount for all regions), and that 20 minnows would be a good "baseline." Obviously TNP minnows are different than 20 minnows in my much smaller region.

And I see your point about not wanting a self-sustaining custodianship. (There's probably a reason that an SC proposal called "Refounding" wasn't offered as an option.) However, I could see the merits to having a variable length of the custodianship, depending on the situation at hand, and the benefits to having the custodianship naturally "end" should the custodian's influence bottom out. (Plus, wouldn't that add in another possible "challenge" for raiders? See if they can get the custodian to ban/eject enough raider puppets to zero out their influence and thereby bringing the custodianship to an early end.) Setting a maximum duration (say, 4 weeks to a few months) is good, but having an influence-less custodian seems somewhat worthless, would it not?
Last edited by Mousebumples on Sat Sep 07, 2013 7:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Sedgistan
Senior Issues Moderator
 
Posts: 28475
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Anarchy

Postby Sedgistan » Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:58 pm

All these points still need a fair amount of discussion:
Sedgistan wrote:The following aspects in particular need further discussion:
  • The amount of time that a Custodian resolution would be valid for prior to expiring.
  • Whether the custodian spends influence at the same rate as a delegate or at a different one.
  • Whether a region can have multiple custodians at once.
  • Whether a nation can be custodian of multiple regions at once.
  • Security Council proposal rules issues, especially regarding duplication.


Some quick thoughts:
Sedgistan wrote:The amount of time that a Custodian resolution would be valid for prior to expiring.

A period of around 3-4 months would prevent them from being used to significantly reduce the number of targets for invasion, while also ensuring the SC isn't constantly clogged up with "renewals" of expired ones.

Sedgistan wrote:Whether the custodian spends influence at the same rate as a delegate or at a different one.

Inevitably, people will try to use these on occasion to undermine Delegates. However, that's not the primary intention of the change - so I'd expect Custodians to spend influence at a higher rate (say around double).

Sedgistan wrote:Whether a region can have multiple custodians at once.

I'd say yes, because I think the SC would naturally limit such cases to only exceptional circumstances.

Sedgistan wrote:Whether a nation can be custodian of multiple regions at once.

Ultimately influence would make it pointless, so it doesn't seem necessary to ban it.

User avatar
Mahaj
Senator
 
Posts: 4110
Founded: Dec 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Mahaj » Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:12 pm

Thank you for answering your own questions. :)


lol but yes I agree with a lot of your points.
Aal Izz Well: UDL
<Koth> I'm still going by the assumption that Mahaj is Unibot's kid brother or something
Kandarin(Naivetry): You're going to have a great NS career ahead of you if you want it, Mahaj. :)
<@Eluvatar> Why is SkyDip such a purist raiderist
<+frattastan> Because his region was never raided.
<+maxbarry> EarthAway: I guess I might dabble in raiding just to experience it better, but I would not like to raid regions of natives, so I'd probably be more interested in defense and liberations

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Technical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Heaven-, Awesomeland012345, Cor Cada, Coryanhafflaruda, Miyuki Shirougane, Unified German-State, Wealthatonia, Westinor, Zedeshia

Advertisement

Remove ads