Unamelable Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 (edited) Having studied the game thoroughly I came to the conclusion that the game is just moving to the Beta branch stage since before that we always had alpha updates. And the fact that the developers have confirmed that the game will come out of early access in this state with an increased price tag. Wouldn't it be logical to change the name to 7 Days To Die (BETA)? Like everyone else is doing? Okay, now I have reason to cope on TFP for prioritizing this at the very last. Edited May 15 by Unamelable It's a disappointment (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 (edited) Why is it so easy for you and others to believe that 7 Days to Die will actually be Beta despite the 1.0 numbering system and yet it is so hard for you to believe that 7 Days to Die was essentially Beta during Alpha 20 and 21 (and this past year’s worth of development nobody has played yet) despite alpha numbering system? Since Alpha 20 the devs have caught a lot of flack for not adding significant new content and instead just adding art, improving visuals, polishing and finalizing current systems, ignoring the end game, and working on optimizations. During Alpha 18 Madmole stated that their focus would not be on the types of things veterans of the game would want (expansionary content) but on what would make the game look and play well for new players. What does that sound like if not beta? So it’s not that Beta stage got skipped. It’s that they never officially changed the numbering system. The true numbering system that fully reflects the development how it has gone would have been: Alpha 1-17 (A1-17) Alpha/Beta Hybrid 1-2 (A18-19) Beta 1-2 (A20-21) Beta/Gold Hybrid 1-3 (1.0-whatever) Gold (End of roadmap) In any case, it’s clear TFP hasn’t been, isn’t, and won’t be following a traditional development model regardless of the numbering system. Hopefully for their next game they will simply avoid any numbering system that references alpha and beta since people obviously fixate on the narrowest of definitions in order to either defend or criticize. So yeah, 1.0 is going to feel very beta-like just like alphas 18 and 19 felt somewhat beta-like and alphas 20 and 21 felt very beta-like. The devs clearly stated that the 1.0 tag is not a claim that the game is finished. It’s just the beginning of a new numbering system, exit from early access, and price change. Edited May 11 by Roland (see edit history) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneManStanding Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 I can't confirm this in any way, but it seems to me that they had to go official version in order to get released on console. Alphas and Betas tend to be very short lived things on these platforms rather than something which lasts ten years. An earlier alpha of 7 Days was technically still on sale on Xbox up until recently and it had been completely abandoned once TellTale collapsed -- I don't imagine that kind of thing goes down well legally speaking, an alpha being sold as a product. I'm sure someone at either Sony or Microsoft said they needed an official game this time, not another alpha. And I'm sure it's also important to make sure that the console and PC version are updated at the same time if crossplay is to be a thing. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdubyah Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 Why exactly did you come here? Every post you've made since joining has been negative criticism or garbage. If you have so many issues with the game and its devs, maybe just go find something else that you actually enjoy? I do agree with the above though. I think the console release prompted this mostly. Though it was always stated with the old console release that Sony/MS wouldn't allow game-breaking updates to console games. But now faatal is saying the future updates have a chance to do just that. So either there was some misinformation at some point, or rules have changed recently. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughphunghus Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 hours ago, Roland said: In any case, it’s clear TFP hasn’t been, isn’t, and won’t be following a traditional development model regardless of the numbering system. Hopefully for their next game they will simply avoid any numbering system that references alpha and beta since people obviously fixate on the narrowest of definitions in order to either defend or criticize. They should consider how Ubuntu did/does it: just a weird/unique name. Also makes it much easier to find info about a specific version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unamelable Posted May 11 Author Share Posted May 11 3 hours ago, Roland said: Why is it so easy for you and others to believe that 7 Days to Die will actually be Beta despite the 1.0 numbering system and yet it is so hard for you to believe that 7 Days to Die was essentially Beta during Alpha 20 and 21 (and this past year’s worth of development nobody has played yet) despite alpha numbering system? Since Alpha 20 the devs have caught a lot of flack for not adding significant new content and instead just adding art, improving visuals, polishing and finalizing current systems, ignoring the end game, and working on optimizations. During Alpha 18 Madmole stated that their focus would not be on the types of things veterans of the game would want (expansionary content) but on what would make the game look and play well for new players. What does that sound like if not beta? So it’s not that Beta stage got skipped. It’s that they never officially changed the numbering system. The true numbering system that fully reflects the development how it has gone would have been: Alpha 1-17 (A1-17) Alpha/Beta Hybrid 1-2 (A18-19) Beta 1-2 (A20-21) Beta/Gold Hybrid 1-3 (1.0-whatever) Gold (End of roadmap) In any case, it’s clear TFP hasn’t been, isn’t, and won’t be following a traditional development model regardless of the numbering system. Hopefully for their next game they will simply avoid any numbering system that references alpha and beta since people obviously fixate on the narrowest of definitions in order to either defend or criticize. So yeah, 1.0 is going to feel very beta-like just like alphas 18 and 19 felt somewhat beta-like and alphas 20 and 21 felt very beta-like. The devs clearly stated that the 1.0 tag is not a claim that the game is finished. It’s just the beginning of a new numbering system, exit from early access, and price change. If developers don't stick to a standardized plan making up their names just because they want to. It's a great breeding ground for shady things to confuse other players about it. In the beta-branch of steam I only see alpha titles. And from Roland's post I just heard that A20-21 are beta. and A18-19 Hybro-Beta. Why should I be told this by a moderator and not the name of the updates, I shouldn't as a player have to navigate the roadmap to find out their naming plan just because the actual names don't adhere to the standard rules. Minecraft Pre-classic (May 10 – May 17, 2009) Classic (May 17 – November 10, 2009) Indev (December 23, 2009 – February 23, 2010) Infdev (February 27 – June 30, 2010) Alpha (June 30 – December 3, 2010) Beta (December 20, 2010 – November 11, 2011) Official Release, or Java Edition (November 18, 2011 – present) Project Zomboid Conceptually, the game is in a similar style. But has an adequate update names unlike 7DTD. Pre-alpha 0.1.2 Pre-alpha 0.1.2a - May 29, 2011 Pre-alpha 0.1.3 Pre-alpha 0.1.3a - May 31, 2011 Pre-alpha 0.1.4 Patch 0.1.4d - June 22, 2011 Patch 0.1.4c - June 19, 2011 Patch 0.1.4b - June 10, 2011 Patch 0.1.4a - June 6, 2011 Pre-alpha 0.1.5 Patch 0.1.5d - September 7, 2011 Patch 0.1.5c - September 6, 2011 Patch 0.1.5b - August 28, 2011 Patch 0.1.5a - August 28, 2011 Pre-alpha 0.1.6 Patch 0.1.6a - September 12, 2011 Alpha 0.2.0 Patch 0.2.0r RC2.5 - July 24, 2012 Patch 0.2.0r RC2 - June 29, 2012 Patch 0.2.0r RC1 - June 29, 2012 Experimental Combat Build - March 30, 2012 Patch 0.2.0q - March 27, 2012 Patch 0.2.0p - March 27, 2012 Patch 0.2.0o - March 26, 2012 Patch 0.2.0n - March 26, 2012 Patch 0.2.0m - March 25, 2012 Patch 0.2.0l - March 24, 2012 Patch 0.2.0k - March 23, 2012 Patch 0.2.0j - March 22, 2012 Patch 0.2.0i - March 22, 2012 Patch 0.2.0h - March 22, 2012 Patch 0.2.0g - March 15, 2012 Patch 0.2.0f - March 13, 2012 Patch 0.2.0e - March 13, 2012 Patch 0.2.0d - March 12, 2012 Patch 0.2.0c - March 12, 2012 Patch 0.2.0b - March 12, 2012 Patch 0.2.0a - March 11, 2012 Alpha 2.9.1 RC 2.9.1 - April 29, 2013 Alpha 2.9.5 RC 2.9.5 - April 29, 2013 Alpha 2.9.6 RC 2.9.6 - April 29, 2013 Alpha 2.9.7 RC 2.9.7 - April 29, 2013 Alpha 2.9.8 RC 2.9.8.3 - June 26, 2013 RC 2.9.8.2 - June 26, 2013 RC 2.9.8.1 - June 26, 2013 RC 2.9.8b - May 15, 2013 RC 2.9.8 - May 15, 2013 Alpha 2.9.9 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 11) - November 6, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 10) - November 1, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 9) - October 16, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build) - October 16, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 5) - September 9, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 3) - September 9, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 2) - September 8, 2013 RC 2.9.9.17 (Build 1) - August 23, 2013 RC 2.9.9.16 - August 23, 2013 RC 2.9.9.15 - August 13, 2013 RC 2.9.9.14 - August 13, 2013 RC 2.9.9.13 - August 11, 2013 RC 2.9.9.12 - August 11, 2013 RC 2.9.9.11 - August 11, 2013 RC 2.9.9.10 - July 3, 2013 RC 2.9.9.7 - July 3, 2013 RC 2.9.9.6 - July 3, 2013 Build 14 Build 14 - November 12, 2013 Build 19 Build 19 (hotfix) - December 10, 2013 Build 19 - December 6, 2013 Build 20 Build 20 - December 11, 2013 Build 21 Build 21 - December 20, 2013 Build 23 Build 23 - December 23, 2013 Build 25 Build 25 v3 - March 25, 2014 Build 25 v2 - March 21, 2014 Build 25 v1 - Feburary 17, 2014 Build 26 Build 26 - April 2, 2014 Build 27 Build 27 - May 20, 2014 Build 28 Build 28 - July 2, 2014 Build 29 Build 29 - October 14, 2014 Build 30 Build 30 - December 29, 2014 Build 31 Build 31.13 - April 14, 2015 Build 31.10 - March 24, 2015 Build 31.9 - March 22, 2015 Build 31.8 - March 22, 2015 Build 31.7 - March 21, 2015 Build 31.6 - March 12, 2015 Build 31.5 - March 9, 2015 Build 31.4 - March 7, 2015 Build 31.3 - March 6, 2015 Build 31.2 - March 5, 2015 Build 31.1 - March 4, 2015 Build 31 - February 10, 2015 Build 32 Build 32.30 - September 17, 2015 Build 32.29 - September 15, 2015 Build 32.28 - September 15, 2015 Build 32.27 - September 7, 2015 Build 32.1 - May 26, 2015 Build 33 Build 33 - February 4, 2016 Build 34 Build 34.28 - May 26, 2016 Build 34.27 - May 18, 2016 Build 34.26 - May 18, 2016 Build 34.25 - May 18, 2016 Build 34.24 - May 18, 2016 Build 34.23 - May 10, 2016 Build 35 Build 35 - December 17, 2016 Build 36 Build 36 - January 7, 2017 Build 37 Build 37.13 - May 10, 2017 Build 37.12 - May 3, 2017 Build 37.11 - April 29, 2017 Build 37.10 - April 28, 2017 Build 37.9 - April 25, 2017 Build 38 Build 38.30 - November 23, 2017 Build 38.22 - October 6, 2017 Build 38.21 - October 3, 2017 Build 38.20 - September 29, 2017 Build 38.19 - September 26, 2017 Build 38.18 Build 38.17 - September 25, 2017 Build 38.16 - September 24, 2017 Build 38.15 - September 22, 2017 Build 39 Build 39.67.5 - June 15, 2018 Build 39.66.3 - May 31, 2018 Build 40 Build 40.43 - December 20, 2018 Build 40.40 - December 13, 2018 Build 40.3 - November 22, 2018 Build 40.31 - October 30, 2018 Build 40.30 - August 23, 2018 Build 41 Build 41.78.16 - December 12, 2022 Build 41.78.15 - December 5, 2022 Build 41.78.13 - November 30, 2022 Build 41.78.13 - November 30, 2022 Build 41.78 - November 9, 2022 Build 41.77.9 - October 20. 2022 Build 41.77.7 - October 17, 2022 Build 41.77 Hotfix - October 7, 2022 Build 41.77 - October 4, 2022 Build 41.73 Hotfix - August 8, 2022 Build 41.73 - August 8, 2022 Build 41.71 hotfix - May 24, 2022 Build 41.71 - May 19, 2022 Build 41.68 - March 14, 2022 Build 41.68 - March 14, 2022 Build 41.66 - February 25, 2022 Build 41.65 - December 20, 2021 Build 42 Build 42 - TBA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdubyah Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 3 hours ago, Unamelable said: If developers don't stick to a standardized plan making up their names just because they want to. It's a great breeding ground for shady things to confuse other players about it. In the beta-branch of steam I only see alpha titles. And from Roland's post I just heard that A20-21 are beta. and A18-19 Hybro-Beta. Why should I be told this by a moderator and not the name of the updates, I shouldn't as a player have to navigate the roadmap to find out their naming plan just because the actual names don't adhere to the standard rules. Why does it matter? Does the name of a release determine how you play it? Such a trivial thing to moan about... What makes it shady? Until 1.0, this game is and has been an EA title. Not like they are trying to fool anyone. Seems from the time you are taking to put this dribble into text, you obviously just have too much time on your hands. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 2 hours ago, Unamelable said: If developers don't stick to a standardized plan making up their names just because they want to. It's a great breeding ground for shady things to confuse other players about it. In the beta-branch of steam I only see alpha titles. Independent studios form precisely to break molds and constraints that a lot of their team members experienced when employed at big studios. There's no reason to look for nefarious and dark purposes for a small indie studio doing things their own way. In some cases it spells disaster and those studios crumble. In this case TFP has grown and had great success. The strict definition of 1.0 has been eroding in the industry for years. At this point the only reason to cling to a strict definition of 1.0 and castigate a dev studio for deviating from the classic model is for the sake of arguing. The toothpaste isn't going back into the tube as far as the industry is concerned and as players we can bemoan the new normal and pine for the days when a game was finished at the 1.0 version but it is just noise. It has no substance compared to the willingness of the vast majority of players to purchase an unfinished 1.0 title. At least TFP, released plenty of accompanying information clearly spelling out exactly how this 1.0 version was not considered the finished game. The only people who could possibly be confused would be those who didn't go to the source material and instead read some rando's conspiracy theory on the internet and believed them completely. 2 hours ago, Unamelable said: And from Roland's post I just heard that A20-21 are beta. and A18-19 Hybro-Beta. Why should I be told this by a moderator and not the name of the updates, I shouldn't as a player have to navigate the roadmap to find out their naming plan just because the actual names don't adhere to the standard rules. Sorry, but in this case I was just giving my opinion based on hindsight. Looking back I can see that the last couple of years were mighty beta-esque in the type of development that was happening. Like everyone else, though, I focused entirely on the tag and when talking about the game talked about it in terms of it being in alpha. Don't take what I posted as anything official. It just makes sense looking back. My point is not that TFP did a great job communicating to everyone what was going on. They did not. My point is that regardless of labels, it isn't exactly accurate to say that the beta phase got entirely skipped. The beta version numbering got skipped, absolutely, but the actual development that fits with what is normally done during beta phase has been happening. Can you refute that? So what is truly the most important? The numbering system or the actual work that was done? People are upset about the numbering and they are entitled to be upset about the things that anger them. I'm just glad that the game continues to improve and that there is a printed plan that covers the next year and a half of development. Communication about what they are doing and what they have planned was a shortcoming of the past and it appears they are changing that with everything they have outlined for the future and everything they explained about their intent with the 1.0 version. Are you not glad? It seems you are getting exactly what you want. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerfly Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 This ^ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerfly Posted May 11 Share Posted May 11 @Unamelable What I really respect in your post is not only the good and proper way to put it in, but also the reason. Been in software industry in many ways for the past 20 years at least, naming a version is just like your closest friends names you with the time passing by, it doesn`t change anything, you keep going and growing and getting improved. In 7 days to die it is nothing to really worry about just as in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maharin Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 I just can't believe it's not butter. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Crow Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 3 hours ago, Maharin said: I just can't believe it's not butter. Parkay! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pApA^LeGBa Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 Well, Beta get´s skipped because 1.0 is actually still alpha with all the things still missing. 1.0 isn´t a release. It´s just relabeling the game and rising the price. It still technically is early access, it´s just not called that anymore. Either because Sony or MS don´t want a early access game on their consoles or TFP needs money and they can´t sell early access for 45$. Wouldn´t be surprised if it was for the money tbh. 7 days still in development, the new game with UE5 TFP is working on wich they already hired a bunch of people for, paying Studio Illogica to develop Bloodmoons and the fact that the majority of sales already happened years ago. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaVegaNL Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) On 5/11/2024 at 5:27 PM, Roland said: Why is it so easy for you and others to believe that 7 Days to Die will actually be Beta despite the 1.0 numbering system and yet it is so hard for you to believe that 7 Days to Die was essentially Beta during Alpha 20 and 21 (and this past year’s worth of development nobody has played yet) despite alpha numbering system? Since Alpha 20 the devs have caught a lot of flack for not adding significant new content and instead just adding art, improving visuals, polishing and finalizing current systems, ignoring the end game, and working on optimizations. During Alpha 18 Madmole stated that their focus would not be on the types of things veterans of the game would want (expansionary content) but on what would make the game look and play well for new players. What does that sound like if not beta? So it’s not that Beta stage got skipped. It’s that they never officially changed the numbering system. The true numbering system that fully reflects the development how it has gone would have been: Alpha 1-17 (A1-17) Alpha/Beta Hybrid 1-2 (A18-19) Beta 1-2 (A20-21) Beta/Gold Hybrid 1-3 (1.0-whatever) Gold (End of roadmap) In any case, it’s clear TFP hasn’t been, isn’t, and won’t be following a traditional development model regardless of the numbering system. Hopefully for their next game they will simply avoid any numbering system that references alpha and beta since people obviously fixate on the narrowest of definitions in order to either defend or criticize. So yeah, 1.0 is going to feel very beta-like just like alphas 18 and 19 felt somewhat beta-like and alphas 20 and 21 felt very beta-like. The devs clearly stated that the 1.0 tag is not a claim that the game is finished. It’s just the beginning of a new numbering system, exit from early access, and price change. Ah, as the great Adam Savage said: 'I refuse your reality, and substitute my own!' I'm sorry, but the game wasn't in beta from A18-19 onward. Development limbo (or hell) isn't equal to the traditional beta-fase during development. Edited May 13 by DaVegaNL (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam the Waster Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 10 hours ago, Maharin said: I just can't believe it's not butter. ITS NO????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotor Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 55 minutes ago, Adam the Waster said: ITS NO????? Is duck season! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam the Waster Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 1 hour ago, Rotor said: Is duck season! I shouldn't be on the forums drunk lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unamelable Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 7 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said: Well, Beta get´s skipped because 1.0 is actually still alpha with all the things still missing. 1.0 isn´t a release. It´s just relabeling the game and rising the price. It still technically is early access, it´s just not called that anymore. Either because Sony or MS don´t want a early access game on their consoles or TFP needs money and they can´t sell early access for 45$. Wouldn´t be surprised if it was for the money tbh. 7 days still in development, the new game with UE5 TFP is working on wich they already hired a bunch of people for, paying Studio Illogica to develop Bloodmoons and the fact that the majority of sales already happened years ago. I've really forgotten what a LIFE train is. If MS/Sony's console policy was adequate. They would accept games in early access state. And apparently I'm just now learning that TFP is trying to shove the game into the console market because of this situation. That says a lot then, but the way the situation is set up to confuse players is unpleasant. It has to be admitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pApA^LeGBa Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) @Roland Now that i read this again, are you seriously trying to sell us that beta already happened with major content like bandits, new armor system, new quests still coming? That new content will definitely need major balance. I am too lazy to search for it, but i am pretty sure someone from the mod and/or dev team told us more than once during the A20/A21 phase that there will be a beta before release. Edited May 13 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riamus Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 11 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said: Well, Beta get´s skipped because 1.0 is actually still alpha with all the things still missing. 1.0 isn´t a release. It´s just relabeling the game and rising the price. It still technically is early access, it´s just not called that anymore. Either because Sony or MS don´t want a early access game on their consoles or TFP needs money and they can´t sell early access for 45$. Wouldn´t be surprised if it was for the money tbh. 7 days still in development, the new game with UE5 TFP is working on wich they already hired a bunch of people for, paying Studio Illogica to develop Bloodmoons and the fact that the majority of sales already happened years ago. Pretty sure they aren't paying to have Bloodmoons made. More likely, they are being paid to be allowed to make Bloodmoons. But it could be the first option. It just wouldn't make much sense to me. The Sony/Microsoft thing is far more likely as this was a sudden change and "needing money" isn't usually something sudden. But Sony/Microsoft saying it needs to be out of early access to release on console is quite possible and the timing strongly suggests that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 2 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said: @Roland Now that i read this again, are you seriously trying to sell us that beta already happened with major content like bandits, new armor system, new quests still coming? That new content will definitely need major balance. I am too lazy to search for it, but i am pretty sure someone from the mod and/or dev team told us more than once during the A20/A21 phase that there will be a beta before release. I’m telling you that looking back at the work that was primarily done during A20, A21, and currently for 1.0, it looks like beta phase work. That’s all. I’m not claiming that it was beta or was not alpha. I’m saying that despite features still missing from the game and a numbering label that says “Alpha”, the type of changes made to the game seem very much to be work done traditionally during beta. I don’t think the basic labels of alpha or beta really fit any more and I’m glad they aren’t using those terms in the numbering system going forward. I hope they never use them in their future games. You can go ahead and decide that the game is still in alpha and early access all you want. Knowing that, I will plan to continue to use the alpha defense in future conversations with you so you feel comfortable. 😜 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roland Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 (edited) 7 hours ago, DaVegaNL said: Ah, as the great Adam Savage said: 'I refuse your reality, and substitute my own!' I'm sorry, but the game wasn't in beta from A18-19 onward. Development limbo (or hell) isn't equal to the traditional beta-fase during development. Development Hell or Limbo is characterized by a long period of nothing getting done. Work on the project is halted and the ability to finish is in serious doubt by the creators themselves. 7 Days to Die has never experienced a period of time during which development halted with the devs meeting to decide whether or not to continue with it. Never. The work done from A20 to present has been continues with updates coming at the same regular (albeit long) intervals as always. People were upset because all the work was improvement to visuals, replacing store bought assets with in house original art, reworking and iterating existing features, and a bunch of optimizing and bug fixing. Someone hoping for brand new features and disappointed that there was very little of that might erroneously surmise that no work was done. Someone angry about it might purposely push a narrative of “development hell” despite the fact that it doesn’t even come close to fitting. I don’t know how someone can look at the list I posted above and NOT think, “Huh….that sounds like beta phase work” Edited May 13 by Roland (see edit history) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maharin Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 On a side note, TFP should add a brand of "butter" to the game and call it: "It's Most Definitely Not Butter" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unamelable Posted May 13 Author Share Posted May 13 wth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotor Posted May 13 Share Posted May 13 47 minutes ago, Unamelable said: wth I see you know not the Maharin. A rare breed, but mostly harmless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now