ZEBBEEE

Poll of the day: The Mission Leader

Poll of the day   46 members have voted

  1. 1. Select the roles (max 3) you expect the most from a mission leader

    • Deployment: chosing spawn point location
      25
    • Experience: know-how about unit type or mission type
      13
    • Leadership: defining the objective(s) and priorities
      32
    • Roleplay: execution of HC plan and reporting
      6
    • Social: generating friendship between mission members
      4
    • Supply: attribution of weapons and equipment
      5
    • Tactics: tactical planning and situational awareness
      29
    • Training: support to the learning of the game
      5
  2. 2. When will YOU endorse the role of a leader?

    • I rarely or never take the lead
      7
    • I take the lead in any circumstances
      10
    • When the objective can greatly impact the battle/campaign
      13
    • As soon as I play with squad members
      6
    • When there is a higher ranked officer to report to
      3
    • When our probability to win seems high
      3
    • When our probability to win seems low
      4
    • When morale is high
      2
    • When morale is low
      6
    • When there is a prepared battle plan to execute
      12
    • When I observe a lack of cohesion between players
      19
    • Only when all players are on my DISCORD channel
      1
    • It depends on the mission type
      12
    • It depends on the unit type
      2
  3. 3. What should be the ideal size of a team for real co-op play? (fire team, squadron...)

    • 2
      0
    • 3
      1
    • 4
      6
    • 5
      7
    • 6
      7
    • 7
      0
    • 8
      11
    • More than 8
      14

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

32 posts in this topic

Today I would like to ask your feedback about these three survey questions focused on the Mission leader and its roles. This is for validation-purposes only, so don't hesitate to make suggestions or corrections (remind my English isn't my primary language).

As part of an upcoming larger public survey this should help audit some core-concepts to help with business development or engineering decisions.

Thank you!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The questions are very good. I expect good leadership to take the leader's roll. As a mission leader myself on occasion, my favorite thing is to be leading my troops side by side as a team completing objectives together.
The thing I don't like is a leader or squad leader who splits from the team and does his own thing. Things that take me away from the action as a squad leader, take me out of my element and even a minute away from what's going on in front of you. But this a big part of being the squad lead so you have to live with it. I like when games make it easy and efficient to manage squad roles, I do not like menu hopping or multiple clicks for 1 action. I do not use discord or TS I lead exclusively from game with the people around me, as a SL I can not afford someone missing my message, not being on a VOIP channel doesn't mean lone wolf, it likely more wanting to be immersed without people talking in your ear constantly.

(8 + 1(you) is the best size squad imo. Any more then each individuals action becomes less managable and creates a mob. Any less and you're too inconsequential to face all possible threads (specifically as infantry but tanks and planes as well) There's a lot of things this game lacks for me. I do not feel that sense of cohesion when I look at the map, people are spread out in a blob instead of people in tight groups together, taking the same path to the same place doing the same things together on the way their, individual from the group further east who are running into their own obsticals.

Infantry play has a bad case of this especially. Nobody sticks together unless they're paradropped, or spawn at the same time and walk to the objective at the same speed, or take a truck if anyone is bothered spawning one in. Squads don't really exist in WWIIol only clans and people in your mission who aren't tied to the actual mission leader except that he provides you with a spawn then goes off somewhere to mark targets while we charge one at a time into the fight unless we got a depot or something which is where combat for me goes bad. The capture system is such a pain, not only does it take many minutes to capture a single point but it gets recaptured right after you leave so you end up running around a town playing cat an mouse it just doesn't work for me. Hope infantry play can get some love it's the #1 thing keeping me from investing my time or money into the game.

 

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll have better information from PM'ing the ML's in game

in my case, it's when something needs to be done.

a FMS, tank support, depot guard, or lack of defenders. if i see a deficiency in the battle i make a mission to make up for it.

 

i think a lot of ML's have the same attitude, "something needs to be done, so we make a mission out of it"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big problem with MLs is two fold.

 

  • ML is tied to spawn point, when the same spawn point can be used for multiple objectives and there is no linkage except the thinking of ML in placement if any and the ML leaving/closing FMS.
  • There are no game rewards or reasons particularly to organize teams, or something clear especially to new player due to multiple obstacles- lack of effective comms, no training to look at text or sign onto Discord, no compulsion or penalty for refusing to follow orders, no point system that helps get rank to get better leader tools/resources.  Why really act as ML just to be frustrated at cat herding?
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kilemall said:

  Why really act as ML just to be frustrated at cat herding?

Agreed.....  But then there's times when you're a mission leader and the side channel says the town you are attempting to defend is 'lost', and yet you and those around you find a way to hold the town, then turn the tide and liberate the town.  The frustration sucks, but risking the frustration also brings with it the chance at those truly awesome 'wwiionline moments' that separates this game from the rest, imho.

 

S!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I spawn in a town for defense I will usually be on comms making sure players are checking CPs and updating contacts and calling out enemy locations. I also try to lead by example and do a lap around non critical CPs and call out status and frequently check spawnables. I repair AI and ask others to do the same or call out AI that needs repair.

I think that is part of being a ML... Doing the less glamorous but critical parts of the overall mission. Naturally it gets rashers with squads in the picture since the whole squad becomes a quasi overall mission leader.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ML should be defined different as a SL.

A ML sets the spawn and sits back marking targets and commanding the squads through the map. A SL follows the ML orders who then translates that to objectives for his squad. A squad should not be co-communicating with another squad unless they're given the same objective by the ML.

Squads should be the ones fighting, ML should be managing the squads giving them targets, setting attack/defend objectives for CP's or against Marked FMS.
The less people doing the micromanaging the better,  but the people doing the managing should be  given better tools to command players.

Edited by knucks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me personally, ML is like a smaller battlefield version of HC in a way.

The ML is the field officer, though a lot times things just dont allow for it.
He should be out on the field, but back out of the immediate killing ground, kind of dont want him dead.

He is the coordinator, the logistics guy, the comms guy, he has a lot to do.
He may or may not directly set the FMS, but it is his job to find the place for it and coordinate with his mission mates
to have the FMS be supported.

he needs to assign objectives and divide his forces as needed among the various objectives
he checks the map a lot, tries to help funnel wayward bodies to where they are needed
Checks status of marks so killed ones can be removed, moved marks updated etc
Since he is a bit back out of the fray, he should try and watch/listen for things that may be trying to flank.

He has to handle the outside comms, as the guys 10 feet away from enemy guns can not stop to enter into long discussions
Need air support, he is the guy to reach out and get it for you.

Need to coordinate with another mission for a larger operation, his job too so you dont have comms cluttered with 7 channels
or trying to swap discord channels in mid firefight.

He also has to be dynamic and adaptable.
Sometimes the mission is small and he has to adapt to a more MCO type role, where he has to get in and close with the rest of the mission members
and yet he still has to try to find safe places to duck into for a moment to try to keep up the organization.


But the biggest thing is, everyone else has to be willing to try and follow him.
How well he is doing his thing won't matter at all if no one follows him and everyone tries to follow their own plan, or no one communicates and he has no idea what you need
or what your situation is.
He/She can't lead, if no one will follow
 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 mission per flag on target. Each mission holds 64 players seperated into squads of 8 with each having a SL. Mission leader dictates the battle while HC dictates the war, or do both because that is possible. SL set infantry spawns for their squad, and can build heavier spawn PPO's with a truck. 1 tank per squad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should be the ideal size of a team for real co-op play? (fire team, squadron...)

 

8 is good, but NOT much more than 8; maybe 9 or 10. Post Scriptum and Squad have this down perfectly (hence the name of the game, Squad). Bigger than 9 or 10, and teamwork and cohesion go out the window.

 

IMHO, we should have a fire team/squad-based spawn system with restricted "roles/weapons" that replaces the current worthless "mission" system. In terms of the max number per team...

"The German Infantry Squad in World War 2 for the most part consisted of 1 squad leader and 9 infantry men, thus a total of 10 men. ... Hence, in total the squad had 1 light machine gun, 1 submachine gun, 2 pistols, 7 rifles and several hand grenades, which were issued depending on the situation."

http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/german-squad-tactics-organization-in-world-war-2/

 

Instead of a mission list, you see a squad/section/fire team list, each with a leader and various available roles (max of 10 players). Leader would maybe have the ability to put down a temporary mobile spawn (which would be specific to that squad/section, thus ONLY allowing respawn for the 10 people in that section). Leader would have the ability to kick players from the section (mission) who don't follow orders or work with the team. Nothing "bad" happens to those players, but they'll have to find another section/squad (in order to get access to special roles/equipment) or just spawn solo as a rifle.

Regular MS's can be selected as origin by multiple squads/sections (so unlike now, multiple "missions" could originate from the same MS).

All channels would remain the same, the only difference being that Mission channel would have its name changed to Section (or Squad or Fireteam or whatever). I guess stick with the name "Section" so that we don't have to change the existing terminology with squads.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of having a single mission per town. I think the mission idea when it was first created back in 2000 was good in theory, but in reality it is not used as intended. For those of you who don't know what I am talking about the idea was that you would create a mission with a set objective. You would plan it out in the chat prior to spawning in. Billy would be the truck. Jimmy and Joe a tank. The next 6 were infantry. You would go "on the mission" as a group and complete it or fail it. After which you would do the same over again. The idea is that everyone would be doing non-overlapping missions which were being organized by a commander (either HC or field). In the end even on Day 1 it turned more into the free-for-all we have now.

I doubt that having "Section Mission" or whatever you want to call it would be any different. You still are in the situation where there will be multiple "mission" (no matter what you call it) to choose from prior to spawning in. And players will still bolt and do their own thing the second they spawn in.

This can partially be avoided by allowing players to spawn in as a group only, but that creates the issue of a defacto spawn delay (which some players may not like), and it doesn't address the issue what do the 7 guys do when they have been waiting for an 8th to join so they can all spawn in but nobody shows up. In a shoebox game like Post Scriptum you can easily jump to another server until you find the one you like. In a persistent game world like ours there is only 1 server. So that is an possibility that CRS would have to plan for if implementing such as system.

@Xanthus idea was very similar to what Hatch posted in another thread where there would be one spawning into a specific mission from the FB, you would ride into battle on a truck, which would then deploy a temporary FMS that would allow one-time respawning by the guys on that mission only. That gives the guys two chances to get to an objective as a group. One way to cut down on UI clutter with tons of mission on the screen is to have the mission after it is filled with players disappear from the UI.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game, as much as i would prefer otherwise, needs to allow for folks to spawn in and run around doing their own thing.

 

The best (and I hope quickest) way to improve unit cohesion is to rebuild the squads, (imho).

 

S! and Happy New Year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A relevant question is: what should be the role of the OIC (post-1.36) compared to the mission leader. 

Target OIC could indeed take over some responsibilities (spawn point location, equipment supplies, reporting to HC) to let MLs focus on tactics, and maybe behave more as team-leaders which could work on direct cohesion and support of max 3-4 men (or depending on their rank )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at a game called post scriptum. They have the formula you should follow. Same big maps, WW2, vehicles. Hugely popular and a die hard fanbase. They must be doing something right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, augetout said:

The game, as much as i would prefer otherwise, needs to allow for folks to spawn in and run around doing their own thing.

That's called lone wolfing and you would get kicked from a pub server in post scriptum for that. A person who leaves his squad to [censored] around alone is a disruption to the whole team, and treated as such. But this is an MMO and  you can't pull the same rules, but you can certainly enforce some kind of team play, the kind that isolates people who don't follow along and do what they're suppose to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, knucks said:

Look at a game called post scriptum. They have the formula you should follow. Same big maps, WW2, vehicles. Hugely popular and a die hard fanbase. They must be doing something right.

Problem with PS and any multi-server game is that it is episodic, so if you don't like your server you just go find another one. In a persistent MMO you don't have that option, so a lot of techniques (such as kicking players out of the server) don't apply.

To get at zebbeee question, I think the key for post 1.36 is to have the markings on the game map shared irrespective of mission type. There should be one guy who is in OIC role that keeps the map up to date and updates orders. One of the hardest is if the mission is another target you don't see markings. Other than that the key is to get squads back in the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, aismov said:

Problem with PS and any multi-server game is that it is episodic, so if you don't like your server you just go find another one. In a persistent MMO you don't have that option, so a lot of techniques (such as kicking players out of the server) don't apply.

To get at zebbeee question, I think the key for post 1.36 is to have the markings on the game map shared irrespective of mission type. There should be one guy who is in OIC role that keeps the map up to date and updates orders. One of the hardest is if the mission is another target you don't see markings. Other than that the key is to get squads back in the game.

These types of roles are being discussed with waypoints and marking

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Mission Aismov and Zeb are talking about is elements I've been pushing as what I call the Task Force- basically an adhoc organization that is like a supermission, one commander and an internal channel, a map of the AO/DO, switchable targets when the AO/DO changes, and most importantly MULTIPLE spawns on the same TF.

So if a spawn gets blown/taken, you don't switch to another mission to get to a spawn (which to me shreds player org short of solid squads constantly), you find another spawn on the TF screen and jump in.

 

AO/DO commander would have a toolset putting him in touch with all TFs pointed at the AO/DO, allowing him a direct picture and coordination.  An adhoc chain of command on a target.

 

This along with other HC tools needed is what I have been talking about all along re: game tools.  It's been very frustrating, I was ready to outline the TF in person something like 2012 and the game management volunteer blew it off cause he wasn't ordered to gather that information- more important then his apparent mission, whether the MOIC should be coded.

 

Grrrrrrrrrrrr.

Edited by Kilemall
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aismov said:

Problem with PS and any multi-server game is that it is episodic, so if you don't like your server you just go find another one. In a persistent MMO you don't have that option, so a lot of techniques (such as kicking players out of the server) don't apply.

 

When I said "kicking people," I meant that a section leader can kick a player out of the section. Nobody in PS gets kicked out of servers unless they maliciously teamkill or use racial slurs or something. Not being a teamplayer does NOT get you kicked from any server I've ever been on; going solo is your choice.

The same would be just as true for WWIIOL.

You see a list of sections instead of missions (each shows section leader and x/10, where x is the number of players in the section). You join a section; spawn in at the section leader's chosen origin. If you don't go along with the section leader and the team, then the section leader is free to kick you from the section (effective immediately). When you die or despawn, you'll have to pick a new section from the list. Simple. It works perfectly in PS, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work (even better) in WWIIOL.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xanthus said:

You see a list of sections instead of missions (each shows section leader and x/10, where x is the number of players in the section). You join a section; spawn in at the section leader's chosen origin. If you don't go along with the section leader and the team, then the section leader is free to kick you from the section (effective immediately). When you die or despawn, you'll have to pick a new section from the list. Simple. It works perfectly in PS, and I see no reason why it wouldn't work (even better) in WWIIOL.

The more I think about it the more I like the idea. Have one overall mission everyone is on for comms/map markings and spawn in with a section leader.

To cut down on mission screen spam the section mission (or whatever it will be called) would disappear from the menu. 

I would still have an option to spawn in as a solo player for the lone wolfs who want to do their own thing, and one for squads as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The options on question #2 don't really cover the fact that I tend to take the lead when I feel like the situation or the tools are conducive to actual leadership. 

Most of the time there's no way to take leadership in-game because you have so few tools available to you as a mission leader. And even if you did have more tools, everyone is scattered across innumerable missions so chances are you have few people or none to influence as mission leader. 

The only time in this game I ever felt like I had a reason to take mission level leadership, and the tools to do so, was right after the FRU was released. 

Because I was really good at staying alive and keeping my FRU up whenever it would get destroyed, I ended up having most people in the battle eventually join my mission. This in turn gave me a lot of sway over the course of the battle by being able to use my tools to influence the bulk of the infantry players participating in the battle. 

Because they were on my mission I could use map markers and text alerts to reasonably coordinate general objectives and recommend strategies for the players to use, while also keeping enemy alert icons accurately placed on the map to aid them. Also, because I would avoid combat entirely to survive so the FRU would never go down and was constantly monitoring the state of the battle, I was in a better position than anyone else to assess what needed to be done and then use my free time to give direction to the players. 

However, most players aren't use to following mission level leadership or don't want to - so merely offering suggestions as a mission leader likely wouldn't be enough to have a significant influence over the battle. Yet, with the original FRU, I had direct power over shaping the flow of the tactical battlefield even without their consent because I could dynamically shift the FRU's spawnpoint freely to anywhere I deemed the players would be best focused on. Whether or not they liked it, I could decide we were going to hit the left flank of the town and give up trying to get in on the right side, simply by moving the spawnpoint. I don't think most minded this because they were just happy to be fighting constantly and winning. But I don't know that most of them would have been inclined to voluntarily do what I suggested without me using my leverage as squad leader to shift everyone's priorities and positions via shifting the spawnpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ZeroAce said:

The options on question #2 don't really cover the fact that I tend to take the lead when I feel like the situation or the tools are conducive to actual leadership. 

Most of the time there's no way to take leadership in-game because you have so few tools available to you as a mission leader. And even if you did have more tools, everyone is scattered across innumerable missions so chances are you have few people or none to influence as mission leader. 

The only time in this game I ever felt like I had a reason to take mission level leadership, and the tools to do so, was right after the FRU was released. 

Because I was really good at staying alive and keeping my FRU up whenever it would get destroyed, I ended up having most people in the battle eventually join my mission. This in turn gave me a lot of sway over the course of the battle by being able to use my tools to influence the bulk of the infantry players participating in the battle. 

Because they were on my mission I could use map markers and text alerts to reasonably coordinate general objectives and recommend strategies for the players to use, while also keeping enemy alert icons accurately placed on the map to aid them. Also, because I would avoid combat entirely to survive so the FRU would never go down and was constantly monitoring the state of the battle, I was in a better position than anyone else to assess what needed to be done and then use my free time to give direction to the players. 

However, most players aren't use to following mission level leadership or don't want to - so merely offering suggestions as a mission leader likely wouldn't be enough to have a significant influence over the battle. Yet, with the original FRU, I had direct power over shaping the flow of the tactical battlefield even without their consent because I could dynamically shift the FRU's spawnpoint freely to anywhere I deemed the players would be best focused on. Whether or not they liked it, I could decide we were going to hit the left flank of the town and give up trying to get in on the right side, simply by moving the spawnpoint. I don't think most minded this because they were just happy to be fighting constantly and winning. But I don't know that most of them would have been inclined to voluntarily do what I suggested without me using my leverage as squad leader to shift everyone's priorities and positions via shifting the spawnpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Good testimonials and very constructive, thanks! 

The new HC-FRU partially bring back that ability and freedom, with restrictions though (access and supplies)

Audit and improvement of Leadership tools, how missions are managed, what they mean, etc. are certainly on the wish list. Just need to be sure what will please the most players in terms of priorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2019 at 2:43 AM, knucks said:

Look at a game called post scriptum. They have the formula you should follow. Same big maps, WW2, vehicles. Hugely popular and a die hard fanbase. They must be doing something right.

The same company also created a modern warfare version called "Squad".  Same basic model of spawning and organizational teamplay. I just referenced it in another thread about what WW2OL needs to focus on developing. It's not just about having tools, but it's about designing your game in a way whereby players want or need to participate in the system for success. 

Planetside 2 has also done some of this stuff to a degree. Although not as effectively as Squad, for various reasons. But many lessons can still be learned from Planetside 2 because the game's premise is so similar to WW2OL.

I've been saying for over a decade that WW2OL needed systems like that. But long ago a lot of people were way too content with the existing HC and squad system to realize that you absolutely needed an ad hoc way for players to coordinate dynamically together via in-game tools. More than that, it needed to become the primary means of organization. The HC/Squads should plug into the in-game system of organization - not the other way around. So everyone in-game gets included in the process, 24/7, not just the minority who choose to voluntarily go out of their way to learn how the HC system works and how to plug themselves into it. And the game has leadership potential 24/7, not only during the prime time hours or prime days when certain HC or squads are active. 

It also gives players more avenues for learning how to lead, and leading in a way that doesn't require consistent commitment day after day. One of the downsides of HC or squad leadership was the expectation that you were always on and always having to be doing stuff. Dynamic in-game systems free you to lead when you feel like it without the pressure of committing all your time to it. It also frees inexperienced players up to be able to get their feet wet without having to commit to a sustained leadership role they may not end up wanting to do or may not feel like they would be good at doing. 

Seeing it done in other games probably highlights for some what is being missed out on in WW2OL. And, as player numbers dwindled in WW2OL, I think it becomes more apparent how badly these systems are needed to coordinate dynamically the players that are there. 

 

Edited by ZeroAce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, ZeroAce said:

The same company also created a modern warfare version called "Squad". 

 

And that game comes from PROJECT REALITY, an awesome BF1942 mod. Hehehe dont forget it!

 

However, I still do not understand why people insist on comparing Squad / PS with WW2OL. The only thing they have in common is that they are set in a warlike conflict ....

By the way.... please go to the PS steam reviews and check'em. It seems to me that they are not doing things as well as some say.

I play Squad a lot. It is a good game if:

-You are lucky to have a good leader

-You are lucky to enter a serious server without waiting for a queue of 10 in primetime. Last Friday I was waiting for an hour to enter the Project Awesome Server...... for 10 minutes of match and starting again another match. Cause those games are only match based.

-You are lucky that it does not crash which is quite frequent even in gaming rigs. They have been at Alpha for about 3 years.......

What I mean by this is that everywhere there are problems and that they do not do things as well as some of us want to sell here.

S!

 

 

 

Edited by kase250
Grammar and spelling WITHOUT translator ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, forming all missions 1 mission per town would be a start. Like @ZeroAce said players spread across mission for the same objective is just useless scatter. Also I go back on that statement about squad being a good model, after playing a bit and really analyzing the meta game, I believe no one works together because you make it so easy not to work together. What I mean is every mission leader sets their MS close as possible to town, where everyone just walks and tanks come from way back and no one actually pushes together in a group, and my theory on this is because no one starts in a group, everyone spawns at different times in different areas and they trickle in one by one.

After playing Foxhole, being trucked into the front lines to our nearest FOB, from there everyone spawns and groups form up and push together, using armor as cover.
I think this is somewhat missing with the use of MS. I can't even be a trucker anymore, no infantry spawn in the FB to be transported, they wait for the mission leader to sneakly place his MS then they spawn there. I actually sat at Fb waiting for infantry to spawn and maybe 2 did, everyone else went MS to Warp to Depot spawn. I'm a bit disappointed how it all plays, there's no reason to work together when you can spawn so close to town in front of your armor and not actually have to push a line.

I remember seeing somewhere town capture being revamped, good because battles are a bit unnatural for my taste, how the focus is capture  the spawnable depot and then camp the enemy spawns/play cat and mouse on the capture points.
I no longer am in favor of infantry spawns close to town, I think the system should be flipped instead of a MS 500 meters out from town, it should be MS 500-1000 meters from friendly FB, that way you're still relying on armored personal carriers pushing with armor as well as infantry (every tank can carry infantry too so space is no problem). 

I think this serves the game better than the quick action MS close to enemy towns. A MS closer to FB will live longer, people can utilize PPO's to really fortify and dig in at a half way point from town. In the case the attack fails, they're able to fall back and have an epic battle in the open, tanks and all, infantry, smoke, everything. Players in Foxhole seem to be fine with having EVERYTHING from troops, guns, ammo, supplies, everything being trucked in from the next town, people dedicate themselves to logistics and that's kind of what I expect now from wwiiol if that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.