Dominion Strategy Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All

Author Topic: Make an attack that dishes out Debt  (Read 21527 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #50 on: July 14, 2016, 04:45:16 pm »
+1

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.

In this case, it would probably be more appropriate to have one player buy the new Curser and the other player buy another Curser (probably test against a few different ones over multiple games).
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4993
  • Respect: +5327
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #51 on: July 14, 2016, 05:07:24 pm »
+2

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.

I agree to this. Test games aren't necessarily fun games. I personally often try to spot the most annoying playing style possible and go through with it. I suppose nobody did this with Rebuild (or Page, as far as i'm concerned).
Logged

Limetime

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1237
  • Shuffle iT Username: limetime
  • Respect: +1177
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #52 on: July 14, 2016, 05:36:41 pm »
0

Hmmm something like this?
Action 4
At the end of your buy phase pay up to 3 coins
Your opponent takes the amount you paid debt tokens
At the start of your next turn take the amount you paid last turn.
Excuse the terrible wording.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #53 on: July 15, 2016, 03:29:40 am »
0

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
You can tell the power of a card when you play with it so I fail to see why one should exclude a player from buying a card. It could be a totally balanced village but if it is the only village in the Kingdom and you can play a much better deck with villages in them even a crappy village will kick ass.
So this excluding-method is highly dubous.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #54 on: July 15, 2016, 04:10:35 am »
0

Strange that nobody whines about Knight pins here. IMO they provide the worst pin possibility. You can always mirror a pin strategy but if you lose the Knights split in a Kingdom in which they are good, well, that's it. A nasty Saboteur deck provides you at least an out via Duchies whereas Knights just empty out all the good stuff.

It's mitigated by Knights trashing each other, so when one player wins the split the Knights will eventually eliminate each other.  The split winner will still have some left, but rarely enough to lock out a player.
I have experienced some pretty harsh Knight games on the giving and the receiving end and lock-out did happen. Doesn't mean that the card is broken though; it is not dangerous in all Kingdoms and nasty attacks as well as preparing/defending against them or seeing whether they can become nasty in this particular Kingdom is at least to me part of the fun of Dominion. Anything that creates interaction in a fairly mutiplayer solitaire game is good in my opinion.


Quote
Debt Peonage sounds a lot like a Torturer that forces you to discard once Curses are gone.
Initially Debt Peonage is worse than comparable Cursers like Witch or Mountebank. It only becomes good once Curses are out.
So when there are other Cursers in the Kingdom the guy who goes for them has a card which is relatively better during the middlegame start and a relatively worse during the ending. If there aren't all players might wanna go for Debt Peonage. In a 2P game it is not an issue, Debt Peonage provides 2 Coin tokens for you and 2D for the other player, canceling each other out. In a 3P game Debt Peonage provides 3 Coin tokens for you and 2D for the other players so if everybody is playing one all get a net of -1$.
Seems trivial compared to the 3P Saboteur equivalent, all players trash/downgrade 2 cards.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #55 on: July 15, 2016, 02:26:17 pm »
+1

Quote
The only true test is to play a couple games where at least one of the players can't buy this card.
Ehm, that's not how Dominion works. Forbidding one player to buy ANY Curser significantly lowers his winning chances in most Kingdoms.

It's how testing card power works. If everyone buys <new card> then you don't really know if it's strong or not. Typically you'd throw in a card to compare it to, maybe mountebank or witch in this case. But if you cannot win without buying <new card>, well, that tells you something.
You can tell the power of a card when you play with it so I fail to see why one should exclude a player from buying a card. It could be a totally balanced village but if it is the only village in the Kingdom and you can play a much better deck with villages in them even a crappy village will kick ass.
So this excluding-method is highly dubous.

In that case, you set up a kingdom with <new village> and an existing village. One player is only allowed to buy <new village>; one player only existing village; and any other player can do what they want. That's only one data point, but is more likely to give you useful information than everyone buying <new village>. In the case of Villages and Throne Rooms, you've got to do comparative testing, since the strength of those cards is the cards it supports, rather than the card itself. I've never won a game by just getting Villages, no matter how many times I've tried.

So, yeah, you've got a point, cards that are enablers are bad candidates for exclusion testing. Still, Dominion is balanced enough that you can exclusion test, say, Witch, and see if it's balanced. There was a time when there were no other cursers to compare to it.

The downside of testing Debt Peonage with another curser on the board is anything that gives out Cusrses will boost the chance of Debt Peonage setting up a debt pin. But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #56 on: July 15, 2016, 02:50:55 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #57 on: July 15, 2016, 02:59:05 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #58 on: July 15, 2016, 03:14:29 pm »
0

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
I didn't. You can tell via merely looking at it that while Curses are not out yet Debt Peonage is weaker than Witch and Mountebank. It provides the defending player an out via the 2D and +1 Coin token is worse than 2 Cards or Mountebank's 2$ (Mountebank is of course better as it also copper-junks and worse as it doesn't always hit but if anything the copper-junking is stronger; i.e. I find it safe to say that Mountebank is superior to a hypothetical "+2$  Each other player gains a Curse." )
Logged

461.weavile

  • Salvager
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 62
  • Respect: +51
    • View Profile
    • Itemfinder RPG
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #59 on: July 15, 2016, 03:18:16 pm »
0

What if we take this attack in another direction? Perhaps:

Card \ Action-Attack-Duration \ (Cost)

Until the start of your next turn, all Treasure cards which do nothing when discarded also say "When you discard this from play, take <1>.

At the start of your next turn, choose a player (including yourself). +(1) per < > that player has.

The wording could be better, clearly...
Logged
Warlords and Wizards is my favorite expansion.

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #60 on: July 15, 2016, 03:45:46 pm »
+1

For the record, Donald X has explicitly stated that he does this kind of exclusion testing.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2016, 03:51:15 pm »
+2

But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank.
Sure and as I already said, in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger.

Sorry, I misread you. I didn't realize you'd already play tested it against other cursers. Carry on then.
I didn't. You can tell via merely looking at it that while Curses are not out yet Debt Peonage is weaker than Witch and Mountebank. It provides the defending player an out via the 2D and +1 Coin token is worse than 2 Cards or Mountebank's 2$ (Mountebank is of course better as it also copper-junks and worse as it doesn't always hit but if anything the copper-junking is stronger; i.e. I find it safe to say that Mountebank is superior to a hypothetical "+2$  Each other player gains a Curse." )

So you misread me. I was responding to your doubts about testing cards by limiting who could buy it in a game. Let me fill in the implied part of sentence quoted out of context. "But, as I not-so-clearly mentioned above, typically (when you comparison test Debt Peonage to other cards,) you'd want to compare it to other cursers like Witch or Mountebank."

My via-looking-at-it analysis is similar to yours - in the middlegame Debt Peonage is weaker and in the endgame stronger. I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake. I could be wrong. We'll never know for sure because neither of us will playtest the card.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #62 on: July 16, 2016, 02:19:12 am »
0

For the record, Donald X has explicitly stated that he does this kind of exclusion testing.
Link?

We'll never know for sure because neither of us will playtest the card.
Nope. Once I am happy with it I will play with it.

Quote
I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake.
+2/3 Coin tokens and 2D for everbody else might be strong but I already analyzed mirror play and showed that it doesn't lead to pins in this case.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #63 on: July 16, 2016, 03:39:18 am »
+2

Quote
I think once the curses are gone it's too strong and unbalanced because it doesn't have a built in brake.
+2/3 Coin tokens and 2D for everbody else might be strong but I already analyzed mirror play and showed that it doesn't lead to pins in this case.

Is that this analysis?  If you are forced to mirror to avoid the pin, that's not really a solution.

Here's the quote about playtesting:

Are there certain cards every new card gets tested with? Like Throne Room, Bridge, or cards it's particularly similar to? Do you make a point of getting every published card in a game with each new card? Or is random playtesting sufficient?

How do you decide when a card is sufficiently playtested? Does it have to survive a certain amount of games/time without being tweaked? Or do you just judge when it's hit the right balance of power, interesting-ness, and originality?
I don't focus on "every card" in any sense. A set gets played with each existing set and also in mixes. New cards get specifically played as I make them; then they're just in the mix and will come up sometimes. IRL I play through the set so everything from the new set does get in a game most nights. Cards that seem like they need extra testing get more testing. If some combo seems potentially like an issue, e.g. Throne Room plus whatever, I might specifically test that some; but I don't just test Throne Room with everything or anything like that.

A big classic specific testing thing is just, some players must buy the card, others can't. Typically, the ones that can't get a substitute, e.g. we're testing a Remodel and the ones who can't buy it get Remodel itself instead. That's just to reduce the chance that the new card seems strong because this is just a good board for its kind of thing. Those games are a lot less fun than regular playtesting though, for me anyway. I don't enjoy feeling pressure to prove that a card is beatable when obv. it may win due to factors other than how strong it is.

At some point the set feels done. The list of cards that maybe won't work out has shrunk down to some things that maybe still seem worth paying attention to but have consistently failed to produce problems. You can always keep making the set better but want to release the expansion eventually.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #64 on: July 17, 2016, 11:12:27 am »
0

There is no "solution" necessary as the card is far less horrible than deck trashers like Saboteur.
If you don't mirror a Curser you will probably lose in far more than 50% of the games. If you don't mirror a deck trasher you will lose, respectively in the case of Saboteur, anti-remodel some cards. If you don't mirror a debt attack you will get some debt.
No idea about what the problem is. Seems to be more of a personal dislike for attacks with pin potential than some objective remark about debt attacks.
Pins simply exist in Dominion and folks who dislike them can simply not play with the cards that create pin potential.

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 11:14:02 am by tristan »
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4993
  • Respect: +5327
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #65 on: July 17, 2016, 11:31:42 am »
+1

In my opinion, pins are something to be avoided at all costs. I'm with eHalcyon there.

Although honestly, the only pin i really know of would be the Masquerade one, and that pin only exists if several cards appear and the game is a 2 player one. It looks more like a (far from trivial to catch) oversight. Torturer is not a "pin". You can just gain Curses, which is a good idea more often than people think. Saboteur is not a pin, though it's clearly very close. Usually, Saboteur's just too bad to make this work. In either case, you could just buy Coppers, Duchies on $5 hands and gain Estates when your Duchies get trashed. And, well, hope to have your one Silver in hand when Saboteur is played. Knights are probably the worst, as Sir Michael is also a discard attack and could technically limit you to 3 cards a hand, but even then the "hope to draw my only Silver to buy a Knight/Duchy" thing would apply.

A debt attack that gives debt on buying cards is not a pin. You only get debt when you buy something, which is not only something you decide on your own, but also what debt keeps you from doing in the first place. Debt would actively keep you from getting debt.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 11:33:02 am by Asper »
Logged

GendoIkari

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9369
  • Respect: +10362
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #66 on: July 17, 2016, 01:55:00 pm »
+2

If you don't mirror a cursor, you might well lose, but you can have fun building a deck and playing the cards you want to while you lose. If you don't mirror this attack, you might end up in a situation where you are no longer allowed to buy any cards the rest of the gams, and thus have no meaningful way to continue playing.

Yes a couple pins like KC Masq exit, but that is an accidental byproduct of a rules quirk, not q feature of Dominin.
Logged
Check out my F.DS extension for Chrome! Card links; Dominion icons, and maybe more! http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13363.0

Thread for Firefox version:
http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=16305.0

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #67 on: July 17, 2016, 02:43:31 pm »
+3

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
Logged

Asper

  • Governor
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4993
  • Respect: +5327
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #68 on: July 17, 2016, 03:30:39 pm »
+1

If you don't mirror a cursor, you might well lose, but you can have fun building a deck and playing the cards you want to while you lose. If you don't mirror this attack, you might end up in a situation where you are no longer allowed to buy any cards the rest of the gams, and thus have no meaningful way to continue playing.

Yes a couple pins like KC Masq exit, but that is an accidental byproduct of a rules quirk, not q feature of Dominin.

I'm not sure who you are talking to. I'm talking about my suggested rewording to eHalcyon's card, that makes each opponent take one debt per play when that opponent buys a card. Claiming that this would mean he wasn't "allowed to gain a card for the rest of the game" is simply not true. Even if my opponent gained all of these attacks, without the support of KC or TR, the max amount of Debt i could have to take are <5>, as it can only be played every second turn. With KC, this becomes <15> at max, which isn't all that much on a KC board, especially one where my opponent had the time it took me to get 10 attacks and 5 KCs, and build a deck that reliably aligns them. We don't complain about how 5 Cutpurses lock out a player who owns nothing but his starting Coppers, do we?

Edit: Oh, it appears you replied to tristan. Sorry, i didn't read his suggestion. Ignore my post, then.
« Last Edit: July 17, 2016, 05:36:19 pm by Asper »
Logged

NoMoreFun

  • Torturer
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1832
  • Respect: +1697
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2016, 01:07:59 am »
+1

Speculator
Action/Attack - $5
+<1>
Gain a Gold to your hand.
Each other player gains a Silver on their deck. If they did, +<2>

This guarantees they'll be able to pay off the debt next turn.

Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2016, 01:22:04 am »
0

Speculator
Action/Attack - $5
+<1>
Gain a Gold to your hand.
Each other player gains a Silver on their deck. If they did, +<2>

This guarantees they'll be able to pay off the debt next turn.

Edge case!  Play more than 5 and they'll have more than <10>, but they still only draw 5 Silver next turn.

Anyway, I still think it's a bit iffy but I'm mellowing on Asper's version.  I still prefer having it increase the cost for the one who played it though, because I think it would be fun to have to play around that.  That'll be subjective though.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #71 on: July 19, 2016, 08:05:01 am »
0

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.
Logged

eHalcyon

  • Adventurer
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8689
  • Respect: +9184
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #72 on: July 19, 2016, 11:49:29 am »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.
Logged

Destry

  • Navigator
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 77
  • Respect: +75
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #73 on: July 19, 2016, 04:10:23 pm »
+2

About Donald's playtesting, looks like he said that he does this exclusion testing thingy rarely and dislikes it and, above all, that this method doesn't control for all the factors that influence the strength of an individual card.
I'd say that decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy. If a card is very good / very weak everybody should notice it after the game.

It's pretty clear that he does it. He describes exactly how, and calling it classic suggests that it's a common way to play test. It's not fun and it's not the only play testing to do, but it's still useful.

The secret histories are full of stories about subtly problematic cards that looked fine for a long time, until it wasn't. A single game is nowhere near enough playtesting. You can get a sense from just reading the card and thinking, and then a better sense from one game, and then better still from more games in different setups including this exclusion method. You want to hit that last one, especially for unique mechanisms like handing out debt.
I think you overestimate the amount (as well as the orderliness) of playtesting Dominion (expansions) get. There are ample of overpowered official cards which a Rosenberg-intensity level of playtesting would have detected.

Dude, I dislike using this argument, but as one of the playtesters with their name on the box, I know more about how much testing Donald X does than you do. Any card he suspects will be problem gets the exclusion testing thingy described in the quote above. Sometimes he'll test cards he thinks are fine, just to prove they don't need to be fixed. It's only one of his testing tools, but a crucial one to keeping the game balanced over the expansions.

No one is claiming Donald X's testing procedure is perfect and catches everything. He has only so much time and resources. But it catches more problems than "decent playtesters can feel the strength of a card without this exclusion thingy."

This isn't about your card. If you and your friends have fun playing that card then it's a good card for youse guys, whether or not it's flawed. I can understand reasons for not playtesting. Playtesting takes time and isn't always fun. I just hate hate hate - King's Court hate - the attitude that off-the-cuff evaluation is an adequate substitute for testing.
Logged

tristan

  • Saboteur
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1138
  • Respect: +193
    • View Profile
Re: Make an attack that dishes out Debt
« Reply #74 on: July 19, 2016, 05:11:49 pm »
0

Rebuild, which was added late in the process.

That's about it.

I think you underestimate. You should read the Secret Histories.
Rebuild is one crazy outlier. But there are ample of other overpowered cards. Cultist was certainly not used in more than 20 or 30 games, otherwise folks would have noted that it is a tad too strong.
It is not a big thing though. The notion that a fan card  HAS to be exclusion tested just because it introduces a new concept is as loco as Rebuild.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5  All
 

Page created in 0.086 seconds with 20 queries.