Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  All

Author Topic: Qvist Rankings and Empires  (Read 16258 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2907
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2408
    • View Profile
Qvist Rankings and Empires
« on: June 10, 2016, 01:58:24 am »
+1

I know we have a few months to go before that time of year, but I felt now is as good of a time as anyway to discuss rankings! I love Qvist's rankings. They're awesome. With that said, Empires adds two things that offer some complications for rankings. First, we have split piles and we have Debt. Obviously, Landmarks are easy to rank. You rank them with the other Landmarks.

Here is what I think.

Split Piles:
I think the cards should get two rankings, one for each card, but when rating the card we should take into account the card on top or bottom. So, for Bustling Village, I would have to take into account that to get to it, 5 Settlers have to run out. Or, for Settlers, take into account that Bustling Village is on the bottom.

For Debt, I think they should be both rated as Debt cards and $6+ cards. Debt cards though are quite unique in that you can get the effect sooner than most cards that cost what they cost. So, there's that to take into consideration. Nonetheless, I think ranking them with other $6+ is a good idea since it gives a better baseline for strength.

Anyway, what other people's thoughts? I have also started a poll to see what everyone thinks.

Edit: Minor Clarification, I feel that if you vote $6+ that means Engineer is a $4 cost for ranking purposes. Forgot about when making the poll. Sorry.
Logged

LastFootnote

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6991
  • Shuffle iT Username: LastFootnote
  • Respect: +9655
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #1 on: June 10, 2016, 02:24:39 am »
+10

Debt cards should be ranked in their coin cost bracket. I thought the point of separating them was: what can you buy with $X.

$2 or less: Engineer, City Quarter, Overlord, Royal Blacksmith, Triumph, Annex, Donate
$4: Wedding
6$ or more: Fortune

Each card in split piles should be ranked separately. Except maybe Castles.
Logged

werothegreat

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8058
  • Shuffle iT Username: werothegreat
  • Prepare to be boarded!
  • Respect: +9367
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #2 on: June 10, 2016, 08:12:29 am »
0

Think of Debt as more of a penalty on the card than an actual cost (like how Banquet shoves Coppers at you).  I agree with LastFootnote's assignment of them to costs.

Split piles I think I'd prefer to have just ranked by the top card, but I'm less firm on that, and wouldn't mind either way.  My rationale is that you're judging the pile as a whole, particularly since the two cards in the pile synergize with one another.
Logged
Contrary to popular belief, I do not run the wiki all on my own.  There are plenty of other people who are actively editing.  Go bother them!

Check out this fantasy epic adventure novel I wrote, the Broken Globe!  http://www.amazon.com/Broken-Globe-Tyr-Chronicles-Book-ebook/dp/B00LR1SZAS/

Marcory

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 639
  • Respect: +1033
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #3 on: June 10, 2016, 09:10:13 am »
0

Think of Debt as more of a penalty on the card than an actual cost (like how Banquet shoves Coppers at you).  I agree with LastFootnote's assignment of them to costs.

Split piles I think I'd prefer to have just ranked by the top card, but I'm less firm on that, and wouldn't mind either way.  My rationale is that you're judging the pile as a whole, particularly since the two cards in the pile synergize with one another.

I agree, because Urchin's rating is almost entirely dependent on the strength of Mercenary. This is true to a lesser extent of Hermit/Madman.
Logged

ced

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 63
  • Respect: +98
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #4 on: June 10, 2016, 09:13:23 am »
0

Debt cards should be ranked in their coin cost bracket. I thought the point of separating them was: what can you buy with $X.

I don't know if I agree. A debt cost on a card is an advantage over a coin cost (well, aside from TfB), and I feel that ranking them like this is trying to treat the debt as a drawback.
Also, we already rank Stonemason as a $2 and Masterpiece as a $3 even though you don't buy those cards at those pricepoints. Debt is the same, but reversed. Masterpiece is a $3, but you buy it for $6. City Quarter is a $8, but you can buy it for much less.
Of course, I haven't had the chance to play with Empires/debt cards yet, so I don't know how they really play in practice and when you actually buy them. There's also a few debt cards where you probably will often buy them for close to the minimum value e.g. Wedding, Donate.
Logged

Qvist

  • Mountebank
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2381
  • Shuffle iT Username: Qvist
  • Respect: +4028
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #5 on: June 10, 2016, 09:16:04 am »
+5

My 2 cents:

If we compare debt cards with Peddler: Peddler costs $8 but you almost never pay $8 for it, still it is listed in the $6+ cards. Cards like Overlord you probably also pay less than $8, but still you have to take into account that you have to pay off the debt on following turns. So it is more an $8 costing card than Peddler. That's why I think Overlord should be ranked with the $6+ cards.

With split piles I'm less sure. The closest comparism is Urchin/Mercenary and Hermit/Madman, but ranking Mercenary and Madman individually makes less sense as you can't get them if you didn't buy Urchin or Hermit. Same goes for the Travellers Page and Peasant. You can get a Fortune though even though you didn't buy a Gladiator. So it might make sense to rank them individually. I'm open to some suggestions and reasonings. Castles though shouldn't be ranked separately; I'm pretty confident here.
Logged

J Reggie

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 681
  • Shuffle iT Username: J Reggie
  • Respect: +1068
    • View Profile
    • Jeff Rosenthal Music
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #6 on: June 10, 2016, 09:21:11 am »
0

I feel like these are calls that need to be made after people have had more time to play with these cards, especially the thing about debt. We really don't know what the opportunity cost of a debt card is, and won't know until the has been done informed discussion. Maybe it'll turn out they should go with the $6+ cards. Maybe it'll turn out they should go in their own category. Really only the playtesters know at this point.

drsteelhammer

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1524
  • Shuffle iT Username: drsteelhammer
  • Respect: +1455
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #7 on: June 10, 2016, 09:38:02 am »
0

Urchin/merc is the perfect example: You have to consider the bottom card when ranking the top one and vice versa. Split piles are exactly that with more player interaction.

Imagine a split pile with Scout/Goons: If you isolated them, Goons would be a top two card, but what would that rating mean? Nothing at all.

edit: Adding debt to $6+ would make Engineer sad
Logged
Join the Dominion League!

There is no bad shuffle that can not be surmounted by scorn.

amoffett11

  • Golem
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 189
  • Respect: +260
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #8 on: June 10, 2016, 09:43:23 am »
+1

How do you rank a Landmark?  The other cards are ranked by their judged strength at cost X, but Landmarks have no cost.  It's different from every other card, Kingdom cards or events, because these are all optional.  I have $5, should I buy X or Y or Z, or Event A or Event B?  Which card is best?  I'm going with X, Y and A, my opponent is going for Z and B, what a dummy, doesn't he read the Qvist rankings?

Landmarks though are more like rule changes; this game Variety counts for more, or I get points for trashing, or suddenly 10 Coppers is worth 15VP.  But it affects both players equally, and neither player has a choice in the matter, so I don't think it's possible to say "Landmark A is better than Landmark B".  They could be ranked based on popularity, but I don't think it actually makes sense to rank them by how "powerful" they are. 
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1767
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #9 on: June 10, 2016, 09:49:50 am »
+3

Incidentally, I'd support moving Peddler to the <=2$ cathegory, because that's what it costs >95% of the times it's bought. (definitely more than 90-93%, sorry)

Regarding Debt, I like LF's point.

Split piles are very different than travellers and other upgrading cards in that when you buy an Urchin, you buy a potential Mercenary, so Mercenary is part of Urchin's abilities. When you get a Patrician you're not getting a potential Emporium, you're just getting a Patrician. The fact that Emporia and Patricians always show up together (and one on top of the other) might influence their respective rating, but that's all.

And finally since we're talking rankings, what do you all think about throwing Potion cards in with the rest? (possibly in parallel with the Potion rankings, because more rankings more fun)
I'd prefer it, since cost-wise it makes more sense to me to compare Possession with Prince rather than with University.
I'd put Vineyard and Transmute with the 2$, Possession and Golem with the 6$+, and all the others in the 5$ group. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be more informative and interesting than just reranking those poor ten cards over and over. "How does Alchemist compare to Stables" is a more interesting question than asking (again) how it compares to Scrying Pool.

PPE:2
Logged

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1767
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #10 on: June 10, 2016, 09:52:31 am »
0

How do you rank a Landmark?  The other cards are ranked by their judged strength at cost X, but Landmarks have no cost.  It's different from every other card, Kingdom cards or events, because these are all optional.  I have $5, should I buy X or Y or Z, or Event A or Event B?  Which card is best?  I'm going with X, Y and A, my opponent is going for Z and B, what a dummy, doesn't he read the Qvist rankings?

Landmarks though are more like rule changes; this game Variety counts for more, or I get points for trashing, or suddenly 10 Coppers is worth 15VP.  But it affects both players equally, and neither player has a choice in the matter, so I don't think it's possible to say "Landmark A is better than Landmark B".  They could be ranked based on popularity, but I don't think it actually makes sense to rank them by how "powerful" they are.

Well, you could ask "how often and how far are you willing to stray from your default strategy for a given board in order to rack in this Landmark's points?"
Logged

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2566
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4297
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #11 on: June 10, 2016, 09:55:56 am »
+6

I would get rid of the cost categories and just make a global list (Landmarks separate)
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Deadlock39

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1722
  • Respect: +1742
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #12 on: June 10, 2016, 09:56:38 am »
0

How do you rank a Landmark?  The other cards are ranked by their judged strength at cost X, but Landmarks have no cost.  It's different from every other card, Kingdom cards or events, because these are all optional.  I have $5, should I buy X or Y or Z, or Event A or Event B?  Which card is best?  I'm going with X, Y and A, my opponent is going for Z and B, what a dummy, doesn't he read the Qvist rankings?

Landmarks though are more like rule changes; this game Variety counts for more, or I get points for trashing, or suddenly 10 Coppers is worth 15VP.  But it affects both players equally, and neither player has a choice in the matter, so I don't think it's possible to say "Landmark A is better than Landmark B".  They could be ranked based on popularity, but I don't think it actually makes sense to rank them by how "powerful" they are.

Well, you could ask "how often and how far are you willing to stray from your default strategy for a given board in order to rack in this Landmark's points?"

I agree with this. I would think of it as "how impactful are the points from this Landmark when it is present." You can compare two landmarks by considering which you would consider more important to your strategy (on average) if they appeared together.

Accatitippi

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1145
  • Shuffle iT Username: Accatitippi
  • Silver is underraided
  • Respect: +1767
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #13 on: June 10, 2016, 10:09:08 am »
+1

I would get rid of the cost categories and just make a global list (Landmarks separate)

I agree in principle, but I don't think it's feasible. I tried last time, and even splitting it in two different sessions I couldn't end my global list.
Unless you radically change the general concept and have each single player answer as many "which one is better?" questions as they wish and then make one global list taking into account those answers (weighted), skipping the individual list phase.
You'd need a solid algorithm, though.
Logged

Chris is me

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2554
  • Shuffle iT Username: Chris is me
  • What do you want me to say?
  • Respect: +3176
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #14 on: June 10, 2016, 10:13:27 am »
+1

These lists will never be perfect.

One cheap cop out would be to make a Debt list like we have a Potion list, but that's a cheap cop out. Maybe we could do that in addition to an integrated list, the way we do Events.

Another one would be to just assume Debt equals Coins and convert. And that works sometimes but not others. Like, Engineer could be compared to a $4 cost easily. But is Royal Blacksmith really an $8 cost? It seems weird to say so, but it seems weirder to compare it to Pearl Diver too. So maybe we treat Debt as Coins, because that makes more sense than the alternative.

On Potions: I would really prefer if potions were in whatever list they would be if instead of costing P, they cost $2 more (i.e. Scrying Pool is with the 4s, Familiar is with the 5s, etc).
Logged
Twitch channel: http://www.twitch.tv/chrisisme2791

bug me on discord

they/them

jsh357

  • Margrave
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2566
  • Shuffle iT Username: jsh357
  • Respect: +4297
    • View Profile
    • JSH Gaming: Original games
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #15 on: June 10, 2016, 10:23:09 am »
+1

These lists will never be perfect.

One cheap cop out would be to make a Debt list like we have a Potion list, but that's a cheap cop out. Maybe we could do that in addition to an integrated list, the way we do Events.

Another one would be to just assume Debt equals Coins and convert. And that works sometimes but not others. Like, Engineer could be compared to a $4 cost easily. But is Royal Blacksmith really an $8 cost? It seems weird to say so, but it seems weirder to compare it to Pearl Diver too. So maybe we treat Debt as Coins, because that makes more sense than the alternative.

On Potions: I would really prefer if potions were in whatever list they would be if instead of costing P, they cost $2 more (i.e. Scrying Pool is with the 4s, Familiar is with the 5s, etc).

I agree that Potions should join the main lists. They're rarely going to change positions, and the Potion list isn't very meaningful as-is since there is so much diversity. Like, duh, Scrying Pool is better than Possession, but Scrying Pool and Possession are rarely at a competitive cost.

I'm half tempted to suggest the Knights and Prizes lists be removed entirely too, but I guess there is no harm in them being there.
Logged
Join the Dominion community Discord channel! Chat in text and voice; enter dumb tournaments; spy on top players!

https://discord.gg/2rDpJ4N

Orange

  • 2012 WBC Champion
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 262
  • Shuffle iT Username: Orange
  • 2012 WBC Champion
  • Respect: +261
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #16 on: June 10, 2016, 10:25:16 am »
0

I think the OP meant Events and not Landmarks.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2907
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2408
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #17 on: June 10, 2016, 10:39:56 am »
0

I meant Landmarks get their own list. As far as Events go, I think we had the right idea last time.
Logged

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
  • Respect: +597
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #18 on: June 10, 2016, 10:45:35 am »
+7

I think ranking the cards by cost has always been a bit suspect, and now that there's debt, that makes it even less relevant. I suspect the original reason for that ranking system was to give players a sense of what cards they should usually look for first when they have an $X hand. Being able to identify the power level of cards in a kingdom is one step in evaluating what strategy to play. But it's a vanishingly small part of planning.

My suggestion would be a card database that lists a power level for the cards, from 1-10, with decimals (since it would be an average from a voting process.) That power level takes the cost into account. Expand would be one of the biggest power cards in Dominion at $3. It costs $7 for a reason. Chapel would be really marginal at $6 (I'd rather have a Count at that point.) The cost shouldn't be considered a separate thing from the rank.

The card database could be sorted, high/low or low/high, could be sorted by cost if that's what you're into, or even by set. There could also be checkboxes for card types and for card categories (draw, +actions, sifters, trashers, junkers, etc.) This starts seeming like a useful tool. It's not quite as useful as the Magic card database, which is set up much the same way, because you're not building decks from a collection, but still, a helpful study guide.

I realize that this might cause issues like Smithy having a higher power ranking than Nobles because of its cost. You usually wouldn't buy Smithy on $6 with Nobles in the kingdom (I said "usually" to avoid edge-case posts. I can think of a dozen.) But look at it this way: When you look at a kingdom with Smithy and Nobles on the board, the Smithy should jump out at you more than the Nobles, because it tells an important story about how quickly players are going to be drawing bunches of cards.

And that's really what it comes down to. When you look at a kingdom, which cards/events/landmarks should jump out at you as "pay-extra-attention-to-me" items due to their power level. Yes, sometimes there are a lot of different strategies in a kingdom and you should look for synergies and subtlety, and sometimes there are Goons.
Logged

Beyond Awesome

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2907
  • Shuffle iT Username: Beyond Awesome
  • Respect: +2408
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #19 on: June 10, 2016, 10:48:40 am »
+1

A 1-10 scale might be a good way to rank. And, we can still order by cost. Interesting idea.
Logged

aku_chi

  • Minion
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 556
  • Shuffle iT Username: aku chi
  • Respect: +1217
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #20 on: June 10, 2016, 10:59:21 am »
0

My thoughts:

Split Piles: Each card rated separately.  You never need to buy a Gladiator to buy a Fortune, and buying a Gladiator doesn't mean you'll gain a Fortune later, so the comparison to Urchin/Mercenary doesn't hold.  Of course, Fortune will be a less valuable card if Gladiator isn't often worth getting.

Debt: Two approaches seem reasonable:
  • Ignore the debt in the cost when classifying.  Most debt-cost cards will be in the $0-2 bucket.  This is pretty weird when it comes to comparing power levels, but it is certainly true that you can always open with Overlord (unlike the $6+ cards).
  • Convert the cost by making the gross assumption that 1 debt = 1 coin.  This isn't a perfect assumption, by any means, but it leads to sensible power-level results.  Most of the 8-debt cards are at least as strong as $6 cards.  We could do something similar for Potion-cost cards, potentially.
Landmarks: Comparing power levels of Landmarks seems... odd.  I have a construction of power level that can incorporate Alms, Borrow, and Save.  But, Landmarks...  I don't know how to do it.
Logged

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
  • Respect: +597
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #21 on: June 10, 2016, 11:07:42 am »
+1

Quote
You usually wouldn't buy Smithy on $6 with Nobles in the kingdom (I said "usually" to avoid edge-case posts. I can think of a dozen.)

Sigh. It's like a disease.

1. You're piling out for the win
2. +Action token on Smithy
3. +Card token on Smithy
4. +Coin token on Smithy
5. Cost reduction; you're buying two Smithies
6. You're trying to win the Smithy split
7. You're playing Procession and have a Smithy-$5 sequence in mind
8. Opponent is playing lots of Bureaucrats
9. Opponent is playing lots of Tributes
10. Colonnade, Museum, Obelisk, Orchard, Tower, Triumphal Arch, Wolf Den (you think Empires is going to be game-warping?)
11. Nobles is embargoed heavily
12. You're playing Horn of Plenty and you don't have a Smithy yet

Logged

JThorne

  • Apprentice
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
  • Respect: +597
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2016, 11:12:06 am »
0

Quote
Landmarks: Comparing power levels of Landmarks seems... odd.  I have a construction of power level that can incorporate Alms, Borrow, and Save.  But, Landmarks...  I don't know how to do it.

I actually think it slots in right with the others. If a power level is 1-10, what it's really saying is "How much is this card likely to be a factor in the game?" It's like the whole "skippable" series of discussions. If a landmark has a high power level, you had probably better plan on getting victory points from it or you're likely to lose. If it has a low power level, you can usually ignore it completely. Lost Arts is usually a major factor. Raid is usually skippable. Same principle.
Logged

enfynet

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1682
  • Respect: +1147
    • View Profile
    • JD's Custom Clubs
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2016, 11:26:42 am »
+1

I would keep it simple and use the Debt cost as an analog to Coin cost.

I also would treat Potion cost as ~$3 because of the special card needed to buy. (Eg. Familiar ranked with $6 cost cards)

Landmarks will be their own thing, because they are. That's a strategy discussion more than a power discussion.
Logged
"I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious."

Kirian

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7071
  • Shuffle iT Username: Kirian
  • An Unbalanced Equation
  • Respect: +9313
    • View Profile
Re: Qvist Rankings and Empires
« Reply #24 on: June 10, 2016, 11:53:37 am »
+1

My suggestion would be a card database that lists a power level for the cards, from 1-10, with decimals (since it would be an average from a voting process.) That power level takes the cost into account. Expand would be one of the biggest power cards in Dominion at $3. It costs $7 for a reason. Chapel would be really marginal at $6 (I'd rather have a Count at that point.) The cost shouldn't be considered a separate thing from the rank.

The card database could be sorted, high/low or low/high, could be sorted by cost if that's what you're into, or even by set. There could also be checkboxes for card types and for card categories (draw, +actions, sifters, trashers, junkers, etc.) This starts seeming like a useful tool. It's not quite as useful as the Magic card database, which is set up much the same way, because you're not building decks from a collection, but still, a helpful study guide.

I realize that this might cause issues like Smithy having a higher power ranking than Nobles because of its cost. You usually wouldn't buy Smithy on $6 with Nobles in the kingdom (I said "usually" to avoid edge-case posts. I can think of a dozen.) But look at it this way: When you look at a kingdom with Smithy and Nobles on the board, the Smithy should jump out at you more than the Nobles, because it tells an important story about how quickly players are going to be drawing bunches of cards.

And that's really what it comes down to. When you look at a kingdom, which cards/events/landmarks should jump out at you as "pay-extra-attention-to-me" items due to their power level. Yes, sometimes there are a lot of different strategies in a kingdom and you should look for synergies and subtlety, and sometimes there are Goons.


For several years I have felt this would be better than the Qvist ranking system, though I think ratings from 0-100 (with a single decimal in the averages) would be nicer because of its granularity.  However, (1) I'm not Qvist, (2) I don't have the time to do something like that myself, and (3) people probably aren't going to do two separate sets of voting for two different lists.

It's not even the separation by cost that I think is the problem; it's the fact that it's impossible (in my opinion) to separate (for example) Mountebank, Cultist, and Rebuild.  They're all power level 100.  Others would likely disagree, and they'd end up in a ranking, but I wouldn't have to find some way of ranking them relative to each other.
Logged
Kirian's Law of f.DS jokes:  Any sufficiently unexplained joke is indistinguishable from serious conversation.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  All
 

Page created in 0.17 seconds with 23 queries.