• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

Possible new IPS

I saw a Cerebella/Double to this to my Peacock once- killed from 100% with one bar at start. (Think combo used 3 bars total, but earned 2 doing combo- it was one bar and something so it wasn't a pure one bar)
 
Well that's still a lot of resources actually earned and used and a lot given to the incoming character. People do that to me and half the time I'll just end up comboing into Val's resurrection and follow up because they gave me so much meter. That's a factor of discouragement for doing a TOD combo with no break in between. They bet it all on taking out my point character when the anchor is still a problem.
 
Alstein said:
I saw a Cerebella/Double to this to my Peacock once- killed from 100% with one bar at start. (Think combo used 3 bars total, but earned 2 doing combo- it was one bar and something so it wasn't a pure one bar)

That's a stacked example. Cerebella used to have massive damage (recently nerfed a bit), Double has the best lv3 DHC. By far not every team can do that sort of damage.
 
VIVIT_rv00 said:
That's a stacked example. Cerebella used to have massive damage (recently nerfed a bit), Double has the best lv3 DHC. By far not every team can do that sort of damage.

It may be a stacked example, but it's possible. (and it could be an issue with Double in general)

The IPS changes would cut that combo down to 90%.
 
nobody talking about the undizzy change in beta yet?

Any normal that has been IPS triggered (i.e. would let the opponent burst if you started a chain with it) now gives double undizzy inside a chain.

So let the new optimal combos that do 95% of the old ones but look different roll I guess.
 
What about heavy damage scaling with the methods in place right now. I don't think the consensus is that combos are too long, but rather that they are too long and damaging. With IPS, dizzy, and heavier scaling, wouldn't that favor more resets?
 
Tried it... rolled my eyes. Not liking it.

Less damage, less meter (in addition to less meter when you're under 1 bar now... which is not part of the "experiment"), certain DHC combos just plain out the window, Valentine is boring now/less appealing because my combos did push the MDE IPS/undizzy to the brink and the adjustment of omitting normals just to try to even get close only made harder linking points that's ultimately not worth it (and is definitely no longer universal) ... all for the sake of shaving a few seconds off of combos and shoving resets down my throat.

My universal Fortune combo got close because it wasn't that long to begin with. What changed is I can't follow up my last launcher so I ended with headless rekka (losing out on a little over 600 damage and whatever meter gain). But she takes a serious hit on DHCing into Valentine in the corner because Val's not allowed to do anything anymore. The adjustment (I tried several alternative "shorter" combos) was almost 2k less damage and builds less meter for every alternative. Fuck that.
Throw combos for Val suck as much as Headless Fortune's post-nom combos now. So does post-air scalpel super-based combos.
 
Shoving resets down your throat

but you can just mash them out of your jaw wtf.
 
Squigly still gets 9.2k for 1 bar/lv2 dragon, so I'm finding it rather hard to be mad at this, sorry.
 
What changes are currently in the beta right now? Is this whole new IPS thing in this thread on it? Or just the new undizzy stuff I read on the beta thread? I'm super confused... I wanna test what's going on.
 
Nothing on the main build.

The Endless Beta has current IPS, but an Undizzy change:
If you chain into any normal you used at any point (stage3+) before, it adds twice the undizzy.

So eg Filia does
s.HP
- j.MP j.MK xx AD, j.MP j.HK
s.MP s.HP
- j.LP j.LK j.MP j.MK xx H.Airball
s.MK c.HP xx Updo

then she uses j.MP and j.MK twice (1st airchain, later 2nd airchain) = 40 Undizzy added by both of them
and c.HP counts the same as s.HP, so that adds 60 Undizzy
 
IsaVulpes said:
Nothing on the main build.

The Endless Beta has current IPS, but an Undizzy change:
If you chain into any normal you used at any point (stage3+) before, it adds twice the undizzy.

So eg Filia does
s.HP
- j.MP j.MK xx AD, j.MP j.HK
s.MP s.HP
- j.LP j.LK j.MP j.MK xx H.Airball
s.MK c.HP xx Updo

then she uses j.MP and j.MK twice (1st airchain, later 2nd airchain) = 40 Undizzy added by both of them
and c.HP counts the same as s.HP, so that adds 60 Undizzy
So it penalizes if youve used the move period? Not just if it's an tracked ender youve already used in another tracked stage?

...hmmm idk im still feeling it out but at the moment its very un-intuitive to me :P i'd be cool if it penalized the same enders...then sure. but it's penalizing for using any move if you've used it already? (That's a question btw). I'll keep playing and reserve majority of judgement for now, but it just seems to hurt squigs a bit :( but anyways, ill keep playing around and see what combos i come up with.

and im guessing this is a way to meld current IPS with the "SPI" right? Like as a "best of both worlds" thing? I kind of like the other idea better theory-wise since it doesnt track pre-ender moves, but I'm gonna play with it more like i already said like 5 times lolll. ill be back.

VIVIT_rv00 said:
Squigly still gets 9.2k for 1 bar/lv2 dragon, so I'm finding it rather hard to be mad at this, sorry.
If there's only 1 combo that can reach those numbers, then that's cool...but people would just then wanna do that bnb over again. But anyways, that's not the point. It doesn't help to say youve found a 9.2 combo and not even post what the notation is. Just saying. If it was posted earlier in the thread, sorry, but I stopped reading every post around page 7.

P.S. If the combo starts with s.hp~s.hp im gonna tell whoever made it to gtfo (no offense).
 
Last edited:
IsaVulpes said:
http://skullgirls.com/forums/index.php?threads/skullgirls-pc-beta-updates-discussion.407/#post-21863

I dunno, I'm currently resetting too much to ever hit any Undizzy.
From what I've seen, it removes around 1 chain per character. Double can still do full Barrel Loop, Undizzy then triggers on her Ender.

I think Mike wanted to test 3x and 4x Undizzy for repeated moves later.

I don't really like this. I mean, I like the direction, but it's getting really convoluted and confusing now.

Yeah I can see that. I don't mind if it is mechanically confusing so long as it can be "felt" or intuited out (roughly).

I reset a lot myself, so I only ever hit undizzy when I overextend trying to go for a kill. I doubt this will affect me too terribly, but I'm definitely on the side of shorter combos.
 
The new change made my Parasoul 7.4k combo lose about 500 damage, and it no longer works midscreen without losing even more damage. Yet I can still do my corner bella horn combo 9.6k just fine. This seems like the opposite of what is supposed to happen with these changes. I feel like the bella combo is fine at 9.6k and does not need a damage or length nerf. I do NOT feel like my Parasoul combo should now be doing even less.

I feel like nothing about the combo system should be changed at all (except raising undizzy to 400), and I hope to god combos don't lose damage or length. And I like loops, I like how they look and I like doing them. My resistance to these changes isn't about re-learning things. I like long combos and I like resets, and I do not like that it looks like these changes are aiming towards resets being your only option. I want to be able to do both. Yes, I am aware this game is not made for me, but other people are stating their opinions, so here's mine

My 3 cents that no one cares about.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Darklightjg1 and Dime
Icky said:
I like long combos and I like resets, and i do not like that it looks like these changes are aiming towards resets being your only option. I want to be able to do both. Yes, i am aware this game is not made for me, but other people are stating their opinions, so here's mine

My 3 cents that no one cares about.

I think the problem is that we aren't moving toward "resets being the only option", but more toward long combos (+2 resets) not being the only option. The problem with long combos is that they are largely a 1 player game. There is no real dynamic interaction. You are either the one combo'ing or being combo'ed, but the mutually active portion of "not trying to get combo'ed" is relatively small.

Just my 3 cents as well.
 
I can't currently seen the MDE combos like "long combos", it's definitely not Vanilla or SDE. I honestly don't understand what the fuzz is all about with the combos. But one thing I'm seeing is that effective combos are starting to get "the one true path" to get to them. Since SG combo system is so open, all kinds of players can reach a considerably effective combo competitively-wise that suits their execution/memorization/hit-confirming needs.
 
For those who like loops, please explain why u like them? As far as looks, boring redundancy. As for doing them, sure cause it's easy street. Repeat inputs ad infinitum.
 
blufang said:
For those who like loops, please explain why u like them? As far as looks, boring redundancy. As for doing them, sure cause it's easy street. Repeat inputs ad infinitum.
It can put the opponent in a lull, allowing you to reset in the middle of a loop they don't see coming. Not sure if it's a loop but for my cerebella, I stick to the flowchart combo but throw in a bunch of resets at awkward points.
 
Broseidon Rex said:
It can put the opponent in a lull, allowing you to reset in the middle of a loop they don't see coming. Not sure if it's a loop but for my cerebella, I stick to the flowchart combo but throw in a bunch of resets at awkward points.

Your pro is that it could literally bore your opponent to death? I think that is one of the strongest arguments I've heard in favor of blocking them!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alstein, ukyo_rulz and blufang
blufang said:
For those who like loops, please explain why u like them? As far as looks, boring redundancy. As for doing them, sure cause it's easy street. Repeat inputs ad infinitum.

Well, for one thing, Icky at least already explain why he (or she, I can never tell) liked loops sufficently. You can just say something looks boring like you're right for saying it. I'm not sure if it's your intention, but this post comes of as you shouldn't like loops because I don't like them.
 
Agree lulling your opponent to sleep with loops is definitely a mark against them being in the game. It should be noted most players will take advantage of loops in a game if they exist, however it is almost universally looked at as a major design flaw. This is probably one of the reasons why Mike Z is constantly tinkering with the IPS system. He wants it to be "less loopy" (his words).

Sorry destruction_adv maybe I missed Icky's explanation, could u point it out to me? I just read multiple times that he/she likes doing them and the way they look. Was there anything else?
 
Yeah. I take back that point then. Though the logic still holds for having one bnb, multiple resets (cerebella flowchart).
 
Icky said:
My 3 cents that no one cares about.
I care, and i also concur :)

@blufang
I dont mind loops of no more than 3-4 repetitions. Especially if those loops take skill. At that point i think they are really cool. Anything more than 3-4 loops generally makes me a bit bored if the loop is EXACTLY the same... But no loop in sg is exactly the same as the loop that came before it.. So i actually like loops in this game even more than in others.

But i understand you not liking them, the same way i like the link system in sf4 and some people hating it.

Its just opinions, but i hope that clarifies it for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Icky and blufang
blufang said:
Sorry destruction_adv maybe I missed Icky's explanation, could u point it out to me? I just read multiple times that he/she likes doing them and the way they look. Was there anything else?

I know I sound like a dick answering a question with a question, but does there need to be anything else? If someone likes loops isn't that enough to say they like them? I doubt we want people to start every post about combos with a 75 page report on their personal sense of aesthetics and why it's valid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Broseidon Rex
Thx dimex for the explanation. Destruction_adv I am not trying to say people have to have a reason for liking something, and people are free to like whatever. Just was curious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dime
Some of the hypest combos in FG history were loops, tk badlands, IM's, ROM's, dust, tk Beni's lighting, sidewinder's etc. I agree that a good number is around 4. I have nothing against loops. What I don't like is easy infinites but that's a whole different subject, and I played XvSF for a long time and it still was fun even with all the nonstop bs.
 
Last edited:
Mwisk said:
Some of the hypest combos in FG history were loops, tk badlands, IM's, ROM's, dust, tk Beni's lighting, sidewinder's etc. I agree that a good number is around 4. I have nothing against loops. What I don't like is easy infinites but that's a whole different subject, and I played XvSF for a long time and it still was fun even with all the nonstop bs.

Hype to watch and hype to play are two very different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blufang and Broseidon Rex
Mwisk said:
Some of the hypest combos in FG history were loops, tk badlands, IM's, ROM's, dust, tk Beni's lighting, sidewinder's etc. I agree that a good number is around 4. I have nothing against loops. What I don't like is easy infinites but that's a whole different subject, and I played XvSF for a long time and it still was fun even with all the nonstop bs.
I dunno about you, but I don't find Barrel Loops to be the hypest shit in FG history. Maybe it feels different when your pulling them off, or maybe it just feels like grinding in a turn-based RPG, but personally I don't think you can call any of the loops in SG hype.

Anyway I've seen people complaining that their combos are losing damage or that some of their combos aren't losing damage, there will always be alternatives. Not everyone is going to have to learn a new combo for this new system but how is it any different from going into training mode and learning a new BnB for more damage?
 
  • Like
Reactions: blufang
I was thinking that I need to play games with shorter combos, but I also don't think SG needs to necessarily appeal to everyone. I enjoy doing stupid crap with certain characters, but if I want more footsies I can just play street fighter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darklightjg1
DARKNESSxEAGLE said:
I dunno about you, but I don't find Barrel Loops to be the hypest shit in FG history. Maybe it feels different when your pulling them off, or maybe it just feels like grinding in a turn-based RPG, but personally I don't think you can call any of the loops in SG hype.

Anyway I've seen people complaining that their combos are losing damage or that some of their combos aren't losing damage, there will always be alternatives. Not everyone is going to have to learn a new combo for this new system but how is it any different from going into training mode and learning a new BnB for more damage?

I want to specifically mention the line where you say "I don't think you can call any of the loops in SG hype" and then say, I don't think you can tell me how I should feel about something. People need to depersonalize things more, you can't just assume what you like is what other people like or that any opinon is less valid. I know most people don't really think that, but a lot of the time it's basically what they end up saying.

Now addressing how learning a new combo for a new system is differnt from learning a new combo in the same system. Going into training mode to learn a stronger combo is a decision you make yourself, having to abandon old combos and learn new ones because of a system change is a decision the developer makes for you. Really I've gotten to the point I don't even think I'm going to bother with learning new combos since it really does take me a LONG time to do. My execution really is that bad. After spending hours learning combos and then learning that they could soon be useless is disheartening. Here's the thing though, the combo I use most of the time, the aweful 5.8k Valentine BnB that I pretty much use for everything that isn't corner combo, still works under this new system. However, everything I was going to replace it with and haven't finished working on doesn't. Truthfully, I'm not exactly opposed to the change, in fact I'm entirely neutral too it since it doesn't change anything but things I had planned on doing since I already use short combos and resets most of the time, but I don't like this attitude ,no matter how unintentional it may be, that the people who like the game as it is somehow have a less valid opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darklightjg1
destruction_adv said:
I want to specifically mention the line where you say "I don't think you can call any of the loops in SG hype" and then say, I don't think you can tell me how I should feel about something. People need to depersonalize things more, you can't just assume what you like is what other people like or that any opinon is less valid. I know most people don't really think that, but a lot of the time it's basically what they end up saying.
So the fact that I took extra care to disclaim any instances where I could be accused of forcing words into people's mouths by using "think" and "personally" to ensure you knew it was my point of view that I was expressing and that I was not assuming everyone else thought the same went to waste.

And as for the second part, with the system that was described in the OP, you still get a minimum of 3 chains without any risk of triggering IPS. Minor adjustments (cutting out any pointless LP->LK or vice-versa and other such things) can give you 4 chains that won't trigger IPS and, as IsaVulpes made a huge point of in his thread about damage, most of your combo's damage will be done in those sections. For people who want to have the longest combos possible they can go into training mode and get themselves one, but for the people who don't want to spend hours squeezing out an extra 0.5-1k damage they can stick to 4k, 5k or 6k from their considerably simpler combos and just have to pull off 1 more combo/hit with 1 more reset than a player with 7k or 8k combos to beat a character.
 
DARKNESSxEAGLE said:
So the fact that I took extra care to disclaim any instances where I could be accused of forcing words into people's mouths by using "think" and "personally" to ensure you knew it was my point of view that I was expressing and that I was not assuming everyone else thought the same went to waste.

And as for the second part, with the system that was described in the OP, you still get a minimum of 3 chains without any risk of triggering IPS. Minor adjustments (cutting out any pointless LP->LK or vice-versa and other such things) can give you 4 chains that won't trigger IPS and, as IsaVulpes made a huge point of in his thread about damage, most of your combo's damage will be done in those sections. For people who want to have the longest combos possible they can go into training mode and get themselves one, but for the people who don't want to spend hours squeezing out an extra 0.5-1k damage they can stick to 4k, 5k or 6k from their considerably simpler combos and just have to pull off 1 more combo/hit with 1 more reset than a player with 7k or 8k combos to beat a character.

I'll admit I was being nit-picky with the way one phrase in particular was worded ("I don't think you can say..." rather than just "I don't think" because "personally I don't think you can say..." is pretty much the same as "Personally I don't think you can feel..." or even "Personally I think you shouldn't feel...". I think it's just the word "you" in there that I can't get over, but I think I'm rambling.)

The 2nd part though is a slightly different case though. Essentially the only thing I was commenting on was what I see the difference between learning a combo of your own volition and learning one because the one you already used was no longer usable because you asked that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DARKNESSxEAGLE
Fair-dos on that last part, I do admit I strayed off of my initial question in my response more than I should've done.
 
destruction_adv said:
Now addressing how learning a new combo for a new system is differnt from learning a new combo in the same system. Going into training mode to learn a stronger combo is a decision you make yourself, having to abandon old combos and learn new ones because of a system change is a decision the developer makes for you. Really I've gotten to the point I don't even think I'm going to bother with learning new combos since it really does take me a LONG time to do. My execution really is that bad. After spending hours learning combos and then learning that they could soon be useless is disheartening. Here's the thing though, the combo I use most of the time, the aweful 5.8k Valentine BnB that I pretty much use for everything that isn't corner combo, still works under this new system. However, everything I was going to replace it with and haven't finished working on doesn't. Truthfully, I'm not exactly opposed to the change, in fact I'm entirely neutral too it since it doesn't change anything but things I had planned on doing since I already use short combos and resets most of the time, but I don't like this attitude ,no matter how unintentional it may be, that the people who like the game as it is somehow have a less valid opinion.

The thing is, going into the training mode stops being effective once you can do the optimal combo. You can't rely on the lab to make a game great- a game's greatness has to come from its neutral game.


Also, the more important combos are, the more folks have to waste time in training mode learning to play before they can start playing, unless they're freaks like me who just try to learn on the fly. (I don't think the way I do things anymore is viable in modern fighters- at least for most modern fighters)

Everyone's opinion in the end really is the same- they want to make this game closer to how they feel it would be best. Folks just have different ideas because they weight things differently. Many folks on here love long combos, because it gives them an advantage, or they just like hitting opponents for 20 secs. Others hate it because they feel it's a barrier (The Sirlin philosophy), or because they feel it distracts from what the game really should be about- all of the VF folks I talk to who got into SG love the reset portion of the game and think the long combos distract from it (this is my crowd).

I'd love to see Mike Z chat with one of my friends who is pretty good at VF and is starting at SG (he lives in Burbank)- would be interesting to hear their philosophy.
 
Alstein said:
The thing is, going into the training mode stops being effective once you can do the optimal combo. You can't rely on the lab to make a game great- a game's greatness has to come from its neutral game.


Also, the more important combos are, the more folks have to waste time in training mode learning to play before they can start playing, unless they're freaks like me who just try to learn on the fly. (I don't think the way I do things anymore is viable in modern fighters- at least for most modern fighters)

Everyone's opinion in the end really is the same- they want to make this game closer to how they feel it would be best. Folks just have different ideas because they weight things differently. Many folks on here love long combos, because it gives them an advantage, or they just like hitting opponents for 20 secs. Others hate it because they feel it's a barrier (The Sirlin philosophy), or because they feel it distracts from what the game really should be about- all of the VF folks I talk to who got into SG love the reset portion of the game and think the long combos distract from it (this is my crowd).

I'd love to see Mike Z chat with one of my friends who is pretty good at VF and is starting at SG (he lives in Burbank)- would be interesting to hear their philosophy.

I don't believe that a game's greatness has to come from it's neutral game. I can agree that neutral is a part of what makes a great fighting game, but I wouldn't say it's the sole factor of greatness. I feel defining neutral as the only thing that can make a game great is too narrow.

Now I'd like to reiterate that I usually use a reset based style myself, and I've even said I'm neutral to the proposed change, but there's something about your post that bothers me. The part where you say long combos distract from resets. I'm going to ask a simple question, how do long combos distract those that want to use resets from using them? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but as far as I see it it's not the games fault if people would prefer go the safer route by finishing their combo rather than using a reset it's a choice of the individual. Why then should we not allow the individual to make that choice for themselves? Resets are , or at least I believe they are, a valid alternative to the safe route of finishing a combo as it, in fact they are even more rewarding in many cases, a reset based style is already valid. It is riskier, but valid. Why then should we limit or strive to eliminate another style of play from the game. Why limit the number of meaningful choices a player has, or maybe I should say why should we make these people change their playstyle if the reset based style is already valid.

I apologize in advance if I sound pretentious or insulting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darklightjg1
destruction_adv said:
I don't believe that a game's greatness has to come from it's neutral game. I can agree that neutral is a part of what makes a great fighting game, but I wouldn't say it's the sole factor of greatness. I feel defining neutral as the only thing that can make a game great is too narrow.

Now I'd like to reiterate that I usually use a reset based style myself, and I've even said I'm neutral to the proposed change, but there's something about your post that bothers me. The part where you say long combos distract from resets. I'm going to ask a simple question, how do long combos distract those that want to use resets from using them? Perhaps I misunderstand you, but as far as I see it it's not the games fault if people would prefer go the safer route by finishing their combo rather than using a reset it's a choice of the individual. Why then should we not allow the individual to make that choice for themselves? Resets are , or at least I believe they are, a valid alternative to the safe route of finishing a combo as it, in fact they are even more rewarding in many cases, a reset based style is already valid. It is riskier, but valid. Why then should we limit or strive to eliminate another style of play from the game. Why limit the number of meaningful choices a player has, or maybe I should say why should we make these people change their playstyle if the reset based style is already valid.

I apologize in advance if I sound pretentious or insulting.

Speaking for myself, long combos distract from resets when the reward for the long combo outweighs the need to reset. You can always play a reset based game if you'd like. Hell, you can only use j.lp if you want. But speaking optimally, I think the game favors long combos too much. With your average set up requiring around 1 reset or 2 confirms to end the game.

While neutral isn't the only thing that makes an FG great, since combos etc. are so easy to perform, I think we need to rely more heavily on the neutral game. At some point, we stop being impressed by 50+ hit combos because they aren't as hard as they seemed after your first month in game. It is the dance to get that confirm that is fun to watch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: countcb
Personally I find fighters to be made of 2 parts; the metagame and anything execution related. In Skullgirls the 2 of these are split 50-50 (more like 55-45 to the metagame to be precise though), so being good at the strategic side of the game puts you in as likely a position to win as being good at the execution side (which involves reflexes and other things, not just combos). This looks like it would be fine, right? An equal balance of the 2 constructive factors. Unfortunately it is lop-sided. This is because the entry barrier for execution is considerably lower than for the metagame. Why should players bother learning one half of the game when more often than not they'll be perfectly fine learning the easier half and just mashing super in situations where they would otherwise need to read their opponent?

So, I can think of 2 possible solutions to the problem as I see it. The first is upping the execution barrier, make links tighter, reversals harder, etc. There is a very obvious problem with this; everyone will have to actually relearn the combos (as in, actually relearn them, not just adjust a couple of moves and cut off the last 20 hits that only contribute 0.5k damage but consume an extra 10 seconds) and the entry barrier will be high, making the game as closed off as its fighting game brethren to newcomers. The second is to make the execution side of the game a less viable option, so instead of dividing the game 50-50, divide it 70-30, or 75-25 instead. What does this mean? It means you will be focused less on pulling off your single player methods that are equally useful against AI and will instead have to incorporate an understanding of how to adapt to various situations if you want to win against someone with skills in more than just the execution side of things.

Personally I feel like this latter solution is what the newly proposed IPS system is, by making combos either shorter or harder to pull off (depending on characters) and generally less damaging the execution side of Skullgirls is less important. It'll still be a case of whoever has the better execution will win when their brain-based skills are equal, but it'll stop people from neglecting 50% of the game.

I might even go as far as to say that the system being proposed may still be too kind, as there will still be optimum combos doing crazy damage, however it does seem to me like the best idea that can be implemented without changing the whole game at this point in time.

It's annoying that I have to add this but there are many people who cannot perceive the concept that when someone writes something concerning their ideas it is solely their own opinion being expressed and not them telling everyone to think the exact same things as them so I will state now that this is just that; my opinion on the matter and not anything else. It would be nice if I didn't have to put this at the end of every post on this forum but so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raz, Spencer, IsaVulpes and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back