Star Wars Roleplay: Chaos

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Suggestion Fixing Ally Rules & Improving Invasions

Luna Terrik Luna Terrik
I'd say I just outright disagree.
Its not wrong, its fair.
The faction with the best writing in the invasion wins. Not who had the most members.

Jacen Voidstalker Jacen Voidstalker
I did put in an opt in clause, look at then end of the OP.

Caden Evesa Caden Evesa
I understand where you are coming from, any rule we choose will have potential for abuse. But frankly I'd rather have more frequent Invasions thusly so people aren't excluded. But also have fair invasions over all.
 
I'm not talking about who has the better writing, I'm talking about excluding people for the sole reason that the opposing side has fewer.

And then you have things like what Mig Gred Mig Gred said. This would actively exclude new writers who might not be "in" yet. If it's about the better writing like you say, then the invasions would feature the same writers over and over again because, in the end, winning is what matters.
 
Overcomplicated, promotes cliques to an even greater degree, exclusionary to members who belong to a faction based on some vague idea of balancing numbers...even if it is optional is ridiculous in concept and implementation would fix nothing.

Tl;dr version:No.
 

Caedyn Arenais

Guest
C
I've voiced my concerns on this suggestion to Tathra as well as some of the other major faction owners already but for the sake of transparency I'll reiterate my stance here; Before I do however I want to point out that this suggestion has come from a place of wanting to make things fair and balanced and while I don't agree with the suggestion, I do respect that.

This essentially handicaps a faction for being big. They would have to pick writers and tell others they're not allowed to write because of this rule, excluding them.

A no from me.

Luna's original post summed up a big part of why this suggestion has me unconvinced. I don't believe that larger factions should be penalized in order to compensate for smaller factions, and the thought of having to tell my faction members that they cannot contribute to an invasion because the other side doesn't have the numbers does not sound fair to me.

I see where the suggestion is coming from in trying to make things fair for these smaller factions but instead of doing that, it's favoring them where larger factions are otherwise being forced to compromise because they've managed to stay major for however long, or they don't have as niche a genre as some other factions may have.

I am someone who liked the idea of having allies limited, but when it comes to limiting the members of invading or defending factions, I'm not in favor of this. As a Jedi faction, there is a large appeal given that the Jedi are a massive aspect of Star Wars. When you compare this to a faction like the Bryn'adul on the other hand who have a very focused agenda with a much more unique genre that's entirely foreign to the Star Wars universe, there's obviously going to be a difference in interest and potential member base.

Keep in mind I'm using the Bryn as an example as mine and Tathra's faction have been competing against one another lately. You could say the same for other custom factions with a genre or theme that's new to Star Wars.

I liked the suggestion because it's not been made before, it's original and I can see where the intention behind it has come from, but I'm unable to read into it without being able to see that it benefits the smaller factions more so than it does the larger ones.

It's been argued that due to this suggestion smaller invasions might be easier to manage, to judge and could be utilized more often in order to cater to this difference, yet having seen the SJC go four invasions this past month and having made the decision to give my faction a slower week due to people feeling burned out from them, I don't think more invasions are necessarily the answer to these concerns either.

Unfortunately it's a no from me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Subject 73 Red

We're more ghosts than people.
Tathra Khaeus Tathra Khaeus

I can definitely see where you're coming with this. I've participated in plenty of invasions, and a lot of the time there is a noticeable difference in numbers on one side, which quite often puts one side at an advantage as they do indeed have more individual stories and conflicts going on. Like you said, numbers do matter, as having more people allows for more creative stories to expand upon and grow throughout the conflict.

Let's think for a moment on how the current rules affect members and their ability to write and post to invasions, and how your suggestion might change these aspects. I'll mainly be looking at this from a storytelling point of view, and not a map game type thing.

Let's first think of the current rules:

Firstly, having anybody join is definitely a con It's a con in the sense that, like you and many of the other people here said, it can make it to where one side has a significant advantage in terms of numbers, and we know that numbers matter for multiple matters, and that anybody can join in is just completely bizarre.

Plus, having so many people can make it difficult for people new to the site who are participating in the invasion, as people just joining into major factions and the map game would be completely overwhelmed by both the amount of people and the overwhelming influx of stories, writers, and the intensity that some people write with, as many people here like to write well-detailed, specific responses and posts, which can discourage new writers from participating in major factions.

However, having many people in an invasion could have good affects, too. People would be able to interact with other writers they don't normally interact with. Also, they can be used for character development, and definitely development of a faction as a whole. This kind of story telling is what the map game is all about, to have stories that develop and affect your character and the characters around you. Having a lot of people might be daunting, yes, but that kind of pressure can drive people to write absolutely amazing stories and posts. Some of my best work was made in invasions, as having that pressure made me strive to become better, to reach a new level of writing, and to make me a better writer in general. That conflict, the strife, the struggle, and the specific emotions you get from invasions is what it's all about: to make amazing stories with people you've probably never even interacted with, and now you get to interact with them, write stories with them, and share a conflict together. No matter how good you are at writing, no matter how long you've been on the site, no matter how powerful your army is, it does indeed come down to one thing, and that's the writers and their powerful and emotional storytelling, and the bonds we create when we do invasions.

Now, let us think of how your suggestion would affect both writers and the map game:

I can see how enforcing a set amount of writers in an invasion would have both pros and cons. First off, pros are that it would allow for more intimate, personal roleplaying. Invasions are usually so big that it's hard to create a personal connection and experience with any few people, as there are people everywhere. It would allow for better and more personal and thought out storytelling, as instead of trying to connect with 20 writers on two separate, you're just trying to connect with 5 or ten writers, which allows for a more intimate and connected storytelling than if just anybody could join. This could create some really powerful and personal stories, allowing these writers to grow closer together, no matter which side they're on.

I do like the idea of not just one, large invasion but multiple smaller invasions and skirmishes, a sort of "war on all fronts" type of thing. So that even if one invasion gets won by one side, a different invasion might be won by the other, making it more strategic in term of the map game.

Of course, cons would be that it, like how Mig Gred Mig Gred said it, it would be seriously unfair to newer writers, as those chosen would be the ones known to be great invasion writers, or the most powerful and popular would only be able to join, excluding newcomers who want a chance to improve their writing abilities and to develop their stories through conflict and strife.

And then there's what Jacen Voidstalker Jacen Voidstalker talked about, where limiting invasions to the size of the smaller faction. This is, as many have said, completely unfair. Let's think about this though. If a large, powerful, wealthy, and populous nation with a large army went against a smaller nation with an army that isn't as large as the first nation's, who would win? Rationally, you think the larger nation would win, right? Mostly, yes. But if the smaller nation tactically out thinks the first, and uses tactics that both use their smaller size to their advantage and is very effective against the larger nation, such as guerrilla warfare, there is a chance that they could win. This means that the smaller faction's writers would have to work harder for their goal, making it that if they win, it makes all the much sweeter. Also, it allows them to develop their writing style and improve so that they can win, allowing them to be satisfied in their own work, too. Your suggestion eliminates this, making it so that they are forced to be on a level playing field, or at least it would come down to their NPC army, which isn't what invasions are about.

All in all: this idea is good in concept. You have a good concept, but it needs improvement before it can become a serious idea. Perhaps some improvements could be that instead of limiting the invasion participants and allies based on the amount of participants from the smaller faction, perhaps allies need to have a reason to be there. Like: perhaps to be an ally you need either a thread showing before the invasion on how and why they are going to assist that one faction, or they could explain it in depth in the invasion, and not just, "They called for help so we answered and their enemies are our enemies" and more like, "An important government official was on the planet and got caught in the middle of the fighting so we're here to rescue them". Or they could be treated like reinforcements, like allies could only come in if the side they're allied with is losing.

But I do like your idea of strategy with multiple, smaller invasions on multiple fronts. Think about it like this: An invasion could be divided up into multiple separate "sub-invasions", in multiple different threads. One thread could be for the fight for the capital city, another other could ground forces assaulting an enemy fortress on the other side of the planet, another could be for the fight between capital ships and bombers and fighters far above the atmosphere, another could be for fighters in the low atmosphere close to the ground engaged in dogfights, and so on and so forth. This could allow for multiple fronts, meaning that each part is important as the next. Like, let's say Faction A gets crushed in the capital ships fight, this could mean that in the other threads and fights they have less reinforcements, and less support, and the enemy has more reinforcements, but if the ground forces win the fight for the enemy base, that means that in the other threads they can call for help and summon their allies, and to even use the enemy weaponry against them. This would allow for a much more intense fight, and that your actions in one fight can have an effect on the other fights.

For now: Most people will say no. But if you made improvements, I can definitely see this being seriously considered.

If you're still reading this, thanks for listening to my ramblings. Just needed to get that off my chest.

Thanks.
 
Coren Starchaser Coren Starchaser
It is for fun, but I can assure you - being the underdog in this scenario isn't fun.

Jacen Voidstalker Jacen Voidstalker
That is what the opt in suggestion entails.

Luna Terrik Luna Terrik
We are talking about who has the better writing, because that's what invasions should be decided by and you get a better example of that with smaller teams involved.

But you are right, the exclusion of newer writers and stuff like that would become an issue.

Overall I'll say this;

Its very easy for the big factions to say numbers don't matter when they don't have to worry about it.

And to touch on something you specifically said Caedyn Arenais these were four massive campaigns, what we're talking about here with restricted numbers it wouldn't be 4 invasions in the month. Why? Because in that context all of the same people are writing in all 4.

In what I'm suggesting, you could spread about the writers and stress of just one or two invasions across four or more.

I don't think the burnout would be the same.
 

Caedyn Arenais

Guest
C
Tathra Khaeus Tathra Khaeus

"It's been argued that due to this suggestion smaller invasions might be easier to manage, to judge and could be utilized more often in order to cater to this difference...".

Just to clarify, I said this in reference to what you and I discussed via discord and what's been suggested here in that you said this:

"Likewise, with 'smaller scale' invasions you could just have multiple. Larger scale battles across a few star systems, that way nobody is excluded but also each individual Invasion is less of a headache and more of a cohesive story ".

While I do see the point, this doesn't make up for the concern I've voiced regarding the potential abuse/favoritism or the fact that this would force Faction Owners to pick and choose who takes part and who doesn't. While I do agree something needs to change, I'm not comfortable with this suggestion as it currently stands.

I would much prefer to bring back Ally restrictions rather than restrict the numbers of defending or invading factions where the narrative is meant to be focused around.

Apologies for not making that clear enough in my OP.
 
All in all, I like the idea of limiting allies. Perhaps a bit also of limiting members themselves. I know it's not the most popular of ideas, but having been on the receiving end of multiple invasions where every member of the smaller faction essentially had to fight numerous opponents, it's not fun. It does lean more heavily towards the larger factions in that case, because they can just instigate numerous invasions and overwhelm the writers IC and OOC. Granted, IC it makes 100% sense, but OOC it's just a chore and puts off PvP writing.

Someone's bound to say that's how it's always been, or it works as is. No, it really doesn't. Just because it's been that way doesn't mean it's right, or that it works. Invasions have been spammed for the OOC side of things, and that's not okay. Writer spam is also a thing, just outwrite and have more people writing. That way your faction has more chances for good writing and participation. That's not how it should work, it should be collaboration and story telling. Because of that, I like this idea of smaller invasions with less people.

While I like the idea of smaller, more personalized invasions, I do understand why others are opposed to it. It does limit larger factions, creates more cliques, and just generally hinders newer or less experienced people. However, it also helps bring balance to major factions and could create a better environment that's fair to everyone. That way it's not just writer spam and constant invasions to overwhelm others, but actual stories. In the end, that's why we're here, to write stories, not be worried and stressed over fake invasions about fake hexes, on a fake map, in a fake universe.

A way to combat the exclusivity of this idea would be a rotation system. Essentially, those who were part of the last invasion wouldn't be part of the new invasion. This way those who haven't been part of the last one can participate. Of course, if they don't want to, then you can have the same people again. It'd be like picking a team, just for writing, and more based on who wants to go.
Another idea to balance it out for larger factions. If it's a large faction invading a small faction, no more than 3(or some other number) writers from the large compared to the small faction. This would still allow story, multiple people fights, wouldn't hinder large factions to certain groups entirely, and prevent spam.

Another thing to possibly add, and this is in general, would a major factions limit. IE: You can only join so many. I know that's a story for a different suggestion, but basically this. You can only join the faction if they're allied, or it actually makes sense. You can't join every major faction simply to help in invasions and you gotta be part of the faction for a set amount of time. I know people like their freedom, but it is disheartening to see a whole slew of people join a faction just to be part of the invasion, rather than request an ally slot. It makes allies old and kinda useless. Why be an ally when you can be part of the faction, but wait, you're only part of it for this invasion, not any other threads.
Please don't start an argument over it, I'm just explaining the idea a bit so that people know what the first sentence actually means.

To conclude my 2 cents, I generally like the idea you have, but it would need to be adjusted so that it doesn't hinder one side or the other too much. I like the idea and would like to see something like it implemented, if only to prevent one faction overwhelming another with writers. At the end of the day, someone's bound to be unhappy, so it's best to see what works and what doesn't. We want to write, we want to tell stories, and that's what we'll do. Personally, I think this is one of those ideas. It needs some changes, more specification, and some polish. But I would like to see something like this implemented, perhaps not hard numbers, but a general limit to invasions would be welcome in my opinion. Thanks for reading my 2 cents on the matter.
 

Jerrick Shado

Guest
J
Coren Starchaser Coren Starchaser

Pfffttttt let's be real the percentage of people here who wrote for fun and those who are here for the competition is pretty much 50/50. It's NOT just for fun when there are always people here who are here only to win.

I hate to say this....but....
Tathra Khaeus Tathra Khaeus

Makes a really good points...
 
Bunker-level Normal
Coren Starchaser Coren Starchaser
It is for fun, but I can assure you - being the underdog in this scenario isn't fun.

I happen to agree.

I know what you're thinking here. Jordan and Meta agreeing on something? It's inconceivable!

I think the intent behind this suggestion is something I can get behind. Balancing the map game to give more smaller factions a chance to shine, and not just against insurmountable odds, will benefit Chaos in the long run.

I can't say I find any merit in the arguments about this being targeted specifically towards big factions. The current situation is clearly unequal and the scales are tipped their way. Invasions aren't all about the numbers, but if you can field more writers it certainly takes the stress off the individual writers to perform as well/better than the 2-3 writers opposite them. Even if there's a small amount of risk of losing the narrative with a large amount of people, the benefits here pretty clearly outweigh the risks.

That leaves the smaller factions at a disadvantage. Can we simply agree on that and move forward, because taking it personally is a waste of time? There are advantages to being a bigger faction, surely we can acknowledge that there are disadvantages as well, and make it acceptable to create some as well. Even if the map game doesn't have to be fair, it can still be better.

I can see the arguments for exclusion. I think this is a problem that needs a longer view on it, because I don't think the proposed solution necessarily fits right now. But balancing small factions against large in invasions is a worthwhile endeavor, and maybe exclusion is part of the compromise.

I don't know the right answer. I suspect this isn't it, but I also know the status quo isn't either.

And I think allies have nothing to do with the right answer, too.
 
Captain Jordan Captain Jordan

Thank you.

I think any big Major Faction needs to realise, they aren't big because they are the most awesome or the best or most unique or successful. They are big because they work at it, but also because its simply easier.

Yes, I choose a harder concept - that's on me. But lets not pretend the Sith/Jedi/CIS/Imperials are the most popular type of groups for a reason other than the fact they are the main star wars attractions.

I think any of the big Major Factions can be against this suggestion here, that's alright. But to suggest numbers don't matter, or that they don't have an advantage they shouldn't right now - its as old palpatine would say because; "those with power are afraid to lose it - even the jedi."


EDIT: Much appreciated, Jerrick.

And to add onto what I was saying, if you want to let chaos reign then just throw any categories for victory out the window and use a spinning wheel or a dice to decide who wins.

You see how silly that sounds? Just the same as not making Invasions actually fair. Don't be afraid of losing a fair fight - that should be the risk of the map game, not getting fethed over by a swarm inducing headache of 20 replies.

Even though big factions have every other conceivable advantage anyway, they could stand to lose this one.
 
sɪɴɴᴇʀs ʙʏ ᴅᴇᴇᴅ ʙᴜᴛ ʀɪɢʜᴛᴇᴏᴜs sᴛɪʟʟ
People always seem to take these suggestions personally even when it has nothing to do with them huh?

Anyway, I agree with Tathra that things should be balanced to encourage a fair fight anyway. I do see what people are saying about exclusion though, So I'd like to suggest this little compromise:

What if this was a Mandate? A mandate that allows factions with say... 10 maybe 15 unique writers or less(Assuming they can even show up) to limit the amount of enemy participants while Defending from their invasion to equal their number of participants(Including allies if this goes that way).

Notice the word Defending? Yeah, A smaller faction should know better than to kick a hornet's nest and If they do, They should take responsibility. But if they're on the defensive? I'm all for balancing to give them a chance.

This way it's a choice and not something you're going to run into across the entire board.

That's is my two cents. I don't have a strong opinion on how this goes tbh, But I do think the balance would't hurt.
 
I think the problem is allies have been made essentially useless which causes a lot of the imbalance. Something that Adenn Kyramud Adenn Kyramud said, I do like his idea of the rotation thing. Because lets face it, when wars are being fought troops rarely fight back to back invasions or defenses on the frontline and rotate out periodically. Which would be a good ic reason and a good way to allow people to still maintain there freedom. I however would like to add that defending factions should be allowed to ignore this rule when defending an invasion.

Aloy Vizsla Aloy Vizsla I think mandates are a little outdated at the moment and adding another mandate might make the system more unbalanced imo, but perhaps editing the mandates and having one of them include that may be a good compromise to your idea imo.

Tathra Khaeus Tathra Khaeus I can see what you are saying , I just dont think taking away and alianating newer writers or novice writers like me is the right answer to be honest. See above, with that being said I do agree that ally slots are broken friend.

Anyway guys , have a good day ! :) Its time for me to sleep.
 
The number one and biggest issue with this scenario and idea that many people have pointed out is it is exclusionary. I have seen ideas like this rip boards apart because new members feel left out so they don’t stick around. Members who have been around a little but are not the most proficient writes start to feel alienated. Then cliques of small writing groups start to form and elitism sets in causing rifts. It will destroy factions internally because they will only pick their best writers and even if someone new comes that is the god of writing they will be ignored because these elitist writing groups won’t be looking outside their group for new blood they already have “their Team”. In the long run this even has potential to destroy a board through stagnation new people eventually avoid a place where they can’t earn any sort of standing. Then it will just be same small groups writing together until they get bored or people move on to other things with no one new to replace the ones that left.


I know it’s a worse case scenario that it destroys a board but I have seen it happen. Exclusion simply breeds resentment. That to me is a major issue though I have no doubt that this idea/scenario is coming from a good place.


Number two on the idea of fairness, I could state ton of old quotes like life isn’t fair or war isn’t fair, so on. Though those would be true statements this is also a game and story above all else so it wouldn’t hold much weight. However, that said the very story of Star Wars is the little guy over coming big odds. The rebellion a small group taking on overwhelming odds of the Galactic Empire. The Underdog overcoming adversity and pushing back the oppressor. That is what Star Wars is about the rebellion didn’t get a fair fight from the Empire they just played the game smart to overcome the unfair advantage the Empire had. From a story and writer perspective overwhelming odds and unfair advantages is what Star Wars is about.


As writer and storyteller IMO I don’t think the issue is in unfair numbers advantage. It’s rather the idea of wins and losses. It can be fun to write the loss but after the hundredth loss its get’s demoralizing and you start to feel like your character or group can’t make any head way. With Winning it is great but you learn nothing from doing it all the time and there is no struggle to overcome in the story. This mentality of win at all costs is a hard one to overcome. I have seen it done but it requires a lot Cooperation and communication between factions and individuals. It is very possible to write a story where the Empire takes over the whole galaxy and smaller factions have to team up and push them back, then fracture and turn on each other just as the empire is about to feel it’s defeat. Then keep it rubber banding like where another faction becomes the oppressor or the one that is overstepping. Something like that though doesn’t require a fairness rule it requires factions willing to work together to write a story, factions willing to lose no matter how big they are, and most of all communication and cooperation.


It’s not necessarily easy to set something like that up because far to often we buttheads and want to be stubborn. We want to win because we think our idea is better or we are just tired of losing all the time. Often pride and stubbornness are what get in the way of communication and cooperation.

Number three with factions it is true groups like the Jedi and Sith will always be popular because they are the staples of Star Wars. This does not mean a unique faction can not ever achieve such a level of popularity it really can. Though Jedi and Sith are popular I have seen them fail on many boards because they fail at the three main things a faction needs to succeed.

  • Good Leadership, people who are dedicated to the faction and moving it forward. Good leaders have to carry about their members make sure they all feel like they have a place and are important even in small ways to the over all plot of a faction. They stay engaged with he people in there faction and be willing to take in there members ideas. Also be able to take their members criticism and concerns with factions, thread, or future plans.

  • A simple main concepts and goal. It isn’t that a faction can’t have complexity internally and story wise it can. However, the main concept of the faction what it is about and where it really wants to go should be simple and straightforward to pull people in. If your idea is to complex from the start most people will just be turned off to it weather it is because they think there will be no room for there input or just because they can’t follow it completely. Simple doesn’t mean dumbed down, it just means for example we are sith we are warlords seeking to conquer the galaxy. It’s simple but there can be all kinds of complexity about how you go at succeeding towards the main goal.

  • Engagement the most successful faction seeks out new members they don’t wait for members to find them. A new person shows up even if their bio doesn’t fit your faction go engage with them find out what they want to do, explain your faction to them, welcome them, and live an open invitation to check out your factions and discord. You might be surprised how many writers show up with a generic idea because they aren’t sure what they want to really do and once they hear your pitch for the awesome faction you are in, they will see what they really want to do.

If all three of those are followed your faction will grow and this numbers thing won’t matter. You can make your faction “Popular” it just takes some work.



In no way is this a slight on the OP, his faction, or idea I do not feel the idea comes from bad place. I understand the issue I just don’t agree with the solution as presented. I think it causes a worse problem and there are better solutions that mainly rely on communication and cooperation between factions and individuals. IMO A factions popularity is full dependent on how it is ran and operated not uniqueness or difference from canon.

Great discussion though OP.
 
Last edited:
Torrack Torrackstur Torrack Torrackstur

I understand what you're saying but let me preface what I've been saying; I have never and do not wish to exclude new writers. That's not what I want at all. I know you're not accusing me, just want you to know we're on the same page in that regard.

Blade Ice Blade Ice

Very good points regarding elitism and stagnation, I can't really argue that. But again Chaos has had its fair share of cults of personality and whatnot, cliques and toxicity perpetrated through the current system. Its surprising the site hasn't torn itself apart with the current rulings.

On point number 2 I have this to say;

- It may be rebellion vs empire, but we didn't need 15 vaders and 12 tarkins vs 3 lukes and 4 akbars to sell it. The antagonist and protag numbers were nearly even, always have been regardless of the context of the battle or its scale. And yes life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean when you load up Halo or Battlefield that that means one team gets 6 and the other gets 2 in your deathmatch.

Invasions are proposed as 'who writers better wins' on that premise, I'd argue similar numbers is only fair. In regards to numbers, as someone who has participated in Invasions with similar numbers and ones with vast differences. The ones with similar numbers are better stories, more cohesive stories and genuinely down to the skill and collaboration of the writers involved.

I'm not saying my opinion is the ultimate decider, but I'd like to think I'm at least above average in writing, but if there's one thing I'm stellar at its competitive gaming. I know what's competitive and skill-based when I see it.

Number three;

I agree, a unique faction can achieve similar levels of popularity to Jedi or Sith. But only so unique, only so different. Different coats of paint, if there a way to make my Single Species/Alien Genocidal/High Culture/PvP-centric Major Faction as easy or inviting as Sith/Jedi?

I would've done it by now.

I'm already incredibly proud of what my underdog Faction has accomplished. Just went toe to toe with the Jedi and Sith Factions in two massive conflicts - at the same time.

Good leadership; I'm the leader, so I'm the last person to ask if I have good leadership. Ask my members.

Simple Concept; Genocidal space aliens is simple, but I don't make it easy to fit in. I am very a much a picky eater when it comes to what fits. But I have allowed expansions where they made sense. Risen-Srael, Ashaka, Warlocks, ect.

Engagement: I talk to nearly every person who comes into the discord, either just to see if they need help or wanna maybe join the Faction if that concept is something they vibe with.

All in all, I don't expect a Faction like mine to ever have the numbers of something like the biggest Jedi or Sith Factions. Numbers shouldn't matter, but they very much so do in a competitive environment. Even if the competition is who can write better.

And don't worry, I don't consider your comments to be slights or insults or such. Your opinion is yours, and Aloy Vizsla Aloy Vizsla said; people just take stuff too personally.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom