Jump to content

"The PvP Update"


Recommended Posts

For the hardcore PVP player that may be fine and dandy but if TFP want to promote open world / sandbox / PVP then there needs to be a way for the somewhat more softcore to test the waters. =)

Bicycles were not ruined forever by the invention of the training wheels.

 

There are no weekly team meetings on how to best ruin the game. (these are all private meetings)

 

Do you have any statistics on how the playerbase is playing the game? Like... 80% of players are playing on single player/privately hosted servers. Eliminate the console population from that too.

 

 

 

Why do you keep calling us hardcore PVP players, as if you are putting us in a category to foreshadow the oncoming dissapointment?

 

There already is a way to "test the waters" with the claim strength modifiers. Set the mux at 64x and go to town.

 

But you are operating on a playerbase's complaints when their negative experiences are 1 part tough-game-difficulty and 3 parts you-got-hacked/exploited and lost your stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea they are. Which is what and how I enjoy playing it. Gazz is talking about changing that.

 

The only trouble is the proposed system (single scaling difficulty claim) will be very restrictive in terms of base design. It will also be very easily exploitable by the owner. As I understand it, the point was to create a disencentive to causing a lot of damage to a base. Well, everyone will just build a giant tower on one wood block. Defriend or get an ally to destroy that block. Then a large claimed structure will collapse causing the claim strength to spike thereby gaming the logic.

 

The only thing that is broke with the current system is that hacking and exploits have exacerbated the rate of raided bases combined with poor player expectations to trying out multiplayer.

 

To be clear, this is not even a pvp issue. This is a tower defense risk/reward game issue. Do the zombies care about not trashing the base too?

 

Or how about when teams claim a store, or a whole city with their indestructible claims? There is value in having destructible claims because valuable areas and resources can be lost and regained.

Edited by Poojam (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a big part of the issue is the inability to walk off a major setback that many players have. Rage quitting wouldn't be so universally understood if it didn't happen. Bloom explained to me that early game bases are easily destroyed but they take no real effort and that late game bases are too difficult to destroy but they take a huge amount of effort. His perspective seems to be that building an early wood or cobblestone fort or basic underground base might just take an evening of work and so no big deal if it is destroyed because you haven't lost much at all. From his perspective that is true (because he said it) but for a lot of people losing your base completely or having it re-claimed by somebody else is too much of a loss for them to want to continue. It doesn't matter that it was only one evening's work. It doesn't matter that it would be easier for them to start over and get back up to speed on THIS server since they still have their skills and such than it would be to start over somewhere else. Their feelings have been hurt and they now hate this server and won't play on it.

 

Both of you have admitted that this is true because you both have stated that on well run PvP servers guys like you will raid but not destroy an early base because you don't want to drive away the new players. Well the fact is that there are PvP players that are not so responsible as you and Bloom in wanting to build a good community on your server and not make things too disheartening for the new players. In fact there are a lot of those kinds of players out there and so unless TFP puts some kind of structure in place to safeguard the early bases of these new players they are going to quit. "Players I made rage quit" is not an official stat that is recorded in the game but it is a stat that some players love to increase.

 

I do think that these ideas about claimblocks should be options that can be chosen by server admins so that there can be servers where raiding can occur but total base destruction cannot or as Hal suggested total base recovery is something easily accomplished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Claim blocks could even be structured so that once it "grows" past a certain level the kid gloves come off and the base becomes raidable on a PVP server.

 

I was thinking that too... but then how to you stop the "younger" players from griefing the older players? Maybe have them only raidable by players that are also raidable themselves?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking that too... but then how to you stop the "younger" players from griefing the older players? Maybe have them only raidable by players that are also raidable themselves?

Raid them with what? Stone axes and no mining skill? =)

 

Just an idea. No idea on the exact scaling.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Raid them with what? Stone axes and no mining skill? =)

 

Just an idea. No idea on the exact scaling.

 

This all hinges on what triggers someone's base as raidable. You can get lucky and find a powerful weapon or tool even at a low level. Besides, I didn't say newbie, I just said younger, as-in they haven't hit the raidable trigger yet. :p Turn about is supposed to be fair play and all that.

 

If the settings were all configurable by the server manager then great, I'd say let it ride no matter what and let them figure out what works on their server and what doesn't. I think it is going to be impossible to make even most people happy with a single set of rules for PvP. This game is too awesome for one set of rules anyway. :p

 

This is a crafting game and some people will want to focus on that and include base building in PvP part of that. This is a survival game so some will want to focus on that and consider base destruction in PvP as part of the equation. But I'm not saying anything you don't already know, so, yeah.

 

Just put some of the ideas into play, make everything optional/configurable, let us test them out, and then adapt from there. As a community I'm sure we can provide adequate feedback. If not, raid our bases and boot us off your server. :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy the idea of PvP in this game. It's really why I build, because the conflict between players gives what I built a purpose and a chance to have that purpose tested.

 

As PVP is at the moment, two things stand out. The first is that end game armour (600 military, 600 hazmat shirt, 600 poncho, 600 gasmask) feels to me like an absolute necessity when going up against established players. With perfect armour, your resists to bullet damage is over 95%, isn't it? Trying to defend against that sort of disparity when you have mid level gear (so around 50% resists) isn't happening. I don't have a solution, and agree that the established player should be rewarded for their investment. Yet I feel like the resists on perfect gear are too high to permit appropriate counterplay, therefore necessitating opponents to grind for the same before engaging.

 

The second thing that stands out to me is just how quickly a fight is over for a person with mid level gear. This is anecdotal, but wherein a game like Golden Eye or Perfect Dark or Farcry you would have the chance to react to an opponent opening fire on you, in 7days people are often dead before they know where they are being shot from.

 

As regarding land claim blocks. I wish the claim range could be larger so that we don't have to go through the tedium of digging out so much of a land claim grid to protect a large base. However, once the claim size is larger than the range a pickaxe has from outside of the radius, a balance shift occurs which is heavily against those seeking to raid. Boring and uncreative towers which reach from sky to bedrock will always be the meta in the current system, but at least with a default claim size defenders have to be more creative to stop raiders from cutting into the middle of their tower and getting in.

 

Does anyone think it would be exciting if dynamite or TNT could be used as an effective raiding tool? (Pending a balance of values, of course.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Claim blocks could even be structured so that once it "grows" past a certain level the kid gloves come off and the base becomes raidable on a PVP server.

 

Sorry Gazz but all these ideas are simply terrible.

 

In your example I simply wouldnt 'grow' my base and it would remain unraidable forever, pvp players always find the tricks to get around silly rules.

 

Roland said earlier that players need an 'easy in' to pvp, I will state factually that this already exists, in existing game options.

 

Option 1 - Low zombie damage

Option 2 - 200% loot

Option 3 - 3 day respawn

Option 4 - Invulnerable claimstones

Option 5 - Drop nothing on death

 

All available from EXISTING game server options screen and would make for a very VERY easy learning curve.

 

 

You guys want to remove choice, you think that because a player is too stupid to pick a server config that is suitable for them and might pick a server with a more hardcore ruleset, that ALL players should be nerfed in response, and this is simply the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a very long time on these forums.

 

The server select screen shows all the options I listed above and the player decides the experience they want to have, now if i pick drop all on death, 25% loot with 30 day respawns and a claim protection of x4 then I get completely owned its MY CHOICE!

 

if you want carebear mode with drop nothing on death and unraidable bases then thats YOUR CHOICE. Or any settings in between. What is so wrong with letting people decide, themselves, on the game experience they want and then leaving them to it?????

 

The kind of zero patience low effort players you want to pander to are the same guys who turn down the difficulty to easy in SP games because they cannot make it past a certain checkpoint, and you know what, thats FINE, they dont achieve as much because they set the bar low for themselves.

 

And what for the love of god is so wrong with a players, you know, l e a r n i n g that maybe this server is a bit tough and they need to check server settings and play on an easier one???

 

Fix the dupes, fix the glitches, fix the hacks, THOSE are what spoil pvp, NOT being able to setup or find a server that caters to your playstyle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes and maybe, this is why I added the "restoring all/most stolen items" clause.

It wouldn't take much to keep a data base of who has stolen what from who or put caps on the potential size of re-embercements.

 

 

It is only meaningless if you make it meaningless.

 

 

 

Let me get this straight.

You don't actually find any reward from the loot itself?

The only Reward for you is the fact that you have weakened your opponent?

 

I don't know about you,

but for me the idea of being the best at something is because you are the best, not because you are able to keep all the good competition in a cage where they can not compete!

 

being the best should be about improving yourself above your peers. (forward progression)

not just reducing your peer to below your level. (backwards progression)

 

 

Sorry but this is a game, it simply is always going to be "little league".

 

His opinion on what motivates him is equally as valid as yours, fact is that the current options allow for both of you to have fun, restricting his playstyle to YOUR wants would be as dumb as restricting your playstyle to what HE wants.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Where does this notion come from that all of this would be hardcoded caps?

 

Have claim stone size and modifiers (as far as they work =) not been configurable?

 

It comes from people talking crap

 

Claim stone modifiers for both size of the claim and strength of the claim work perfectly, its only the offline strength aspect that's been broken for a while now, specifically that its the same online as offline.

Edited by bloom_meister
typo (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

One other balance issue that's relevant to PVP.

 

Within an LCB zone Secure Storage Chests take 200 punches, 100 hits with a good Steel Axe and max mining, and 50 hits with a shotgun. They are incredibly cheap to craft.

 

Wall Safes and Desk Safes are more expensive to craft and hold far fewer items, but they are less secure than a wooden box!

 

Storage Crates are great for helping you organize your goods. Also, they require more nails and more wood than Secure Storage Chests. However, they are FAR easier to break into within an LCB zone. Why?

 

Gunsafes are the most expensive for a player to craft, and despite holding more than the Wall and Desk Safe requires two blocks of space, so effectively holds half of what you can get from Secure Storage Chests. A player sees all of this and intuitively deduces that this is the most secure storage option of all. To their surprise, they are very very wrong.

 

Can we please see a balance pass addressing this? I'd love to throw my loot into metal safes instead of boxes that cost 10 wood, but that would only be helping those seeking to raid me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Can we please see a balance pass addressing this? I'd love to throw my loot into metal safes instead of boxes that cost 10 wood, but that would only be helping those seeking to raid me.

 

Add that one to the Pimp Dreams section. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
its only the offline strength aspect that's been broken for a while now, specifically that its the same online as offline.

 

Hey Bloom! Good to see you again. :)

 

That's a server config option, unless it's broken and I'm not aware of that. I played most recently on a server that has a 10x multiplayer if you're online, and a 20x if you're offline. Encourages people to attempt online raiding.

 

What sucks though is that the person being raided is then rewarded for giving up and logging out.

 

Would love to see something similar to the ORP mod in ARK (Offline Raid Protection) where claims take a while to spool up to full protection depending on the value of what is inside their influence. So in ARK, a full steel base with turrets would take much much longer for ORP to kick in than a small stone hut.

 

Not sure how to implement this with a decentralized system like 7DtD's LCB's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where does this notion come from that all of this would be hardcoded caps?

 

Have claim stone size and modifiers (as far as they work =) not been configurable?

 

I think Bloom has been irreparably scarred by the anti-PvP sentiments on the forum these past couple of years so his knee-jerk reaction to anything we say is that we are against PvP. We talk about additional options for configuring servers in more ways than currently exist and he says that is less choice and argues that keeping what we have now represents more choice than adding additional options....

 

I don't know how many times I have to write that nothing I put forward as an idea is anything more than extra options for people to choose and how many more times he is going to read that as THROW AWAY EVERYTHING AND FORCE ONE PLAYSTYLE!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only trouble is the proposed system (single scaling difficulty claim) will be very restrictive in terms of base design. It will also be very easily exploitable by the owner. As I understand it, the point was to create a disencentive to causing a lot of damage to a base. Well, everyone will just build a giant tower on one wood block. Defriend or get an ally to destroy that block. Then a large claimed structure will collapse causing the claim strength to spike thereby gaming the logic.

 

Easily addressed by not counting collapsed blocks, I would have thought that's how it would work anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Gazz but all these ideas are simply terrible.

 

In your example I simply wouldnt 'grow' my base and it would remain unraidable forever, pvp players always find the tricks to get around silly rules.

 

Roland said earlier that players need an 'easy in' to pvp, I will state factually that this already exists, in existing game options.

 

Option 1 - Low zombie damage

Option 2 - 200% loot

Option 3 - 3 day respawn

Option 4 - Invulnerable claimstones

Option 5 - Drop nothing on death

 

All available from EXISTING game server options screen and would make for a very VERY easy learning curve.

 

 

You guys want to remove choice, you think that because a player is too stupid to pick a server config that is suitable for them and might pick a server with a more hardcore ruleset, that ALL players should be nerfed in response, and this is simply the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a very long time on these forums.

 

The server select screen shows all the options I listed above and the player decides the experience they want to have, now if i pick drop all on death, 25% loot with 30 day respawns and a claim protection of x4 then I get completely owned its MY CHOICE!

 

if you want carebear mode with drop nothing on death and unraidable bases then thats YOUR CHOICE. Or any settings in between. What is so wrong with letting people decide, themselves, on the game experience they want and then leaving them to it?????

 

The kind of zero patience low effort players you want to pander to are the same guys who turn down the difficulty to easy in SP games because they cannot make it past a certain checkpoint, and you know what, thats FINE, they dont achieve as much because they set the bar low for themselves.

 

And what for the love of god is so wrong with a players, you know, l e a r n i n g that maybe this server is a bit tough and they need to check server settings and play on an easier one???

 

Fix the dupes, fix the glitches, fix the hacks, THOSE are what spoil pvp, NOT being able to setup or find a server that caters to your playstyle.

 

The thing about a lot of players is that they don't understand the game enough to know what settings they can or can't handle, they want PvP but they don't know what to expect. They don't know if x20 claim multiplier is high or low, or what that even means. It takes a lot of experience to understand these things intuitively and we take that for granted because we've played so much.

 

Players will be discouraged before they learn, they will quit before they learn. Should they learn? Yes. But Will they? Not very often. It's a small line of text on the server browser, I estimate most new players don't even understand the concept of it when they sign up for a PvP server. I still get players asking me how their base got raided since it was claim protected.

 

You list a combination of 5 different settings a new player would have to know about and understand in order to play with an easy learning curve, well if they knew and understood those settings they wouldn't need the learning curve because they would already know the game. They're just going to join the servers with the most people playing, like everyone else on every other game. The servers with "soft PvP" settings will be few and far between because they are boring for anyone who's already gotten past the learning curve. They aren't going to learn by playing SP or Coop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Bloom has been irreparably scarred by the anti-PvP sentiments on the forum these past couple of years so his knee-jerk reaction to anything we say is that we are against PvP. We talk about additional options for configuring servers in more ways than currently exist and he says that is less choice and argues that keeping what we have now represents more choice than adding additional options....

 

I don't know how many times I have to write that nothing I put forward as an idea is anything more than extra options for people to choose and how many more times he is going to read that as THROW AWAY EVERYTHING AND FORCE ONE PLAYSTYLE!!!!!!

 

I don't think you're far off the mark. I would lump myself into that category too quite frankly. But I think he, as well as several others that have posted in this thread, are still trying to make a sincere effort to provide input and guide the decision making process. I suspect you could agree that my trepidation (and likely others) that are passionate about this topic are not without basis.

 

Let's not frame the picture of how the conversation went after the fact to support your own interpretation of how the thread has evolved. I think there has been valid points on both sides of the aisle on most the relevant topics. Some better than others. Some from left field. It's all there plain as day if anyone cares to read it, or as you say "will turn it to Madmole for review" once it has borne fruit.

 

To be clear, you did say additional options later on down the line. This is not how it was represented in some of the "throwing out ideas" posts at the beginning of this topic. This thread was billed as a "PVP Mode" and ideas were pitched by you and Gazz to achieve those ends. What the "mode" actually meant in terms of server execution was not really communicated. I interpreted it as a standalone product like H1Z1's King of the Hill. Knowing how the dev's have portrayed the development of the game, I suspected this was something that was being explored so they sell it. It would be all packaged up to satisfy the "PVPers" and conveniently enable further silo'ing off the core game's development so that they could develop it to cater to their PVE-only audience's desires. I'm skeptical like that. Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

But on the arguments in question, it was quite specific that it was seen as a positive move to flatten out the progression curve, which could theoretically be customizeable. Fair enough. However, I don't understand how Gazz's ideas about creating a single, centralized claim block +/- perks protection assets +/- invulnerability status would be be compatible within the current or simple adaptation of the server customization variables. It seems likely that this is a stretch to say it could be supported both ways. ...? I'm all ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Easily addressed by not counting collapsed blocks, I would have thought that's how it would work anyway.

 

So a central claim block is going to recompute the health of the claimed area after every bullet hit/tool swing?

 

Don't you think that will be resource intensive?

Edited by Poojam (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you're far off the mark. I would lump myself into that category too quite frankly. But I think he, as well as several others that have posted in this thread, are still trying to make a sincere effort to provide input and guide the decision making process. I suspect you could agree that my trepidation (and likely others) that are passionate about this topic are not without basis.

 

Let's not frame the picture of how the conversation went after the fact to support your own interpretation of how the thread has evolved. I think there has been valid points on both sides of the aisle on most the relevant topics. Some better than others. Some from left field. It's all there plain as day if anyone cares to read it, or as you say "will turn it to Madmole for review" once it has borne fruit.

 

To be clear, you did say additional options later on down the line. This is not how it was represented in some of the "throwing out ideas" posts at the beginning of this topic. This thread was billed as a "PVP Mode" and ideas were pitched by you and Gazz to achieve those ends. What the "mode" actually meant in terms of server execution was not really communicated. I interpreted it as a standalone product like H1Z1's King of the Hill. Knowing how the dev's have portrayed the development of the game, I suspected this was something that was being explored so they sell it. It would be all packaged up to satisfy the "PVPers" and conveniently enable further silo'ing off the core game's development so that they could develop it to cater to their PVE-only audience's desires. I'm skeptical like that. Please tell me I'm wrong.

 

But on the arguments in question, it was quite specific that it was seen as a positive move to flatten out the progression curve, which could theoretically be customizeable. Fair enough. However, I don't understand how Gazz's ideas about creating a single, centralized claim block +/- perks protection assets +/- invulnerability status would be be compatible within the current or simple adaptation of the server customization variables. It seems likely that this is a stretch to say it could be supported both ways. ...? I'm all ears.

 

Madmole is not of the same mind as the developers behind H1Z1 and thinks they made a mistake splitting their game into two separate games (and charging for both). I seriously doubt he would follow in those steps. I said PvP mode because that is the language that has been used by the developers in their general talk about the subject. Nobody has made concrete plans in this respect and this thread is just to start centralizing different ideas about what could benefit PvP play.

 

I think the main idea of the developers is that they are not going to alter the current game to make it work for PvP gameplay and there is a sense among (not just Gazz and I) some that there actually should be some differences in the approach to this game when thinking solo and co-op versus competitive play. The good news is that if you and Bloom really truly feel that the current game is perfect for PvP as it stands and just needs larger servers, fixed glitches, and better admin tools then you are set because I'm certain that those three things are on the high priority list once the game goes beta and they start looking for what optimization can give them in the way of player numbers and of course polishing away all the rough edges so people can't look through the ground etc..

 

Separate mode in my mind is like what they used to have for Horde Mode and Arena Mode. A separate mode within the same game at no extra charge where fun additional options can be done to create competitive games within the world of 7 Days to Die. So in something like that Gazz could design and configure his indestructible single claim block and all the "carebears" who I supposed don't really do PvP up to your standards can create their own servers and play something that they call PvP but that Bloom would call "crap" but its okay because you guys would still be playing the regular default 7 Days to Die on your servers in a competitive atmosphere with all the deep vertical progression, multiple claim blocks, and "learn how or leave!" attitude you wish.

 

There will never be just one way to force everyone. The nice thing about different modes is that weird experimental options that would never work in the standard survival game could be implemented and made available and it would have no detrimental effect on the balance of the core experience.

 

So guys. Chill. We are looking for ideas for cool ADDITIONAL ways to look at PvP and create options for a wide range of people who like to play PvP and "PvP" depending on how religiously you want to look at your own version of competitive play. And many of these ideas will be in a separate mode (Just like Horde Mode used to be) so that if you like the way the game works currently it won't be polluted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger that. Options a plenty. Good.

 

Aside from those main technical fixes, the sound system needs to be dialed back in to something more reasonable. I talked about this in an earlier post in this thread. Those really are the big picture things in my mind.

 

If you're truly soliciting ideas;

 

Player built arena's/deathmatch areas are a cool thing that modders have been playing with for awhile now. It's PVP and fits the genre of survival a bit too. Think gladiator-type deathmatches within the same world. If the dev's could formalize that into something that can be accommodated in game as a prefab unit that would be pretty popular. I'm thinking it would be a large prefab where players gather to fight it out. Maybe make it so an audience can place bets on the survivor with dukes. The winner is given awards. I'm envisioning a large invulnerable paintball arena surrounded by grandstands. The grandstands would disable PVP for the audience until they leave the prefab area. Lots of possibilities on weapons/stakes that could be drawn up. This would definitely provide a means to scratch an itch for players that just want to fight. I know I have several friends that didn't stick with 7dtd because there just wasn't enough action. Once you killed someone they usually disappeared for the evening. Maybe you could even make it possible to fight boss zombies/herds of ferals etc/or bandit leaders as a challenger in the arena, such that it works in a PVE-only setting as well.

 

One idea I had about the education side of things is the development of an NPC that does that. I think a lot of players don't know what to expect when they join a multiplayer server that allows PVP. The disappointment raidees feel is because they didn't understand or know that they are being hunted by other players. So tell them in a fun way. For example, a lot of RPG and surival-genre games use wilderness guides or NPC's to disseminate tips, tricks, and dial in expectations for learning the game. Copy/pasta traitor Joel and build him into a hardcore character archetype housed within a fortified bunker. Make finding him part of the starter quests. Players could take him beer and ammunition or whatever he wants will change in exchange for certain information. You could trade these for guidance or medium-rarity items (calipers, chem stations, forges, skill books). Make the things he says (like the trader who talks ♥♥♥♥ all the time) a paranoid hardcore niche PVP type. "Hide your stuff or the other surivors will take it! They took my mother's favorite auger." I'm picturing the well-prepared survival guy from Tremors, Burt Gummer. You could make his place filled with absurd amounts of food and supplies. And I mean this in an endearing way, but you could name him Mr. Bloom :)

 

You could also achieve the same sort of thing with a simple, handheld radio that survivors start with. Let the broadcaster be some survivor cooped up in his base looking for friends out there.

 

Flash bangs would be a cool new item that I don't believe is implementable within the current coding. It has offensive and defensive capabilities for PVP. Most of the mechanics and player model templates are there to support the actions, but variables to be called on by the audio and visual need to be supported.

 

Refine support for clans/factioning to foster and promote cooperative play. Friends lists are a good start. But I'm talking leadership, building privledges on shared claimed areas. Take a look at ARK, which has a pretty robust factioning support system to get some ideas. This game is about survival, but it seems too common that people are going at it alone in the wilderness. Most people simply can't trust anybody to bring into their houses. I understand it can be brutal for new players. Logically speaking, survivors would seek the shelter and protection of groups if a post-apocalyptic event actually happened. Personally, I find the game so much more rewarding when you have a few allies and you can cooperatively build, mine resources, and protect each other.

 

As a logical extension of that, it would be neat if we could have clothing/armor items and signs that are customizeable and identifiable from a distance. Rust does this with a crude paint-like feature in game that is kind of neat. But if you wanted to be refined, it could be integrated into the steam workshop so that higher resolution emblems/icons can be made to incorporate into their bases and clothing. There are probably some significant backend changes that would need to be made such that when a custom model is worn by a player it shows up correctly to other players.

 

This is not just for PVP, but once you have steam workshop support for icons/emblems then allow the same for purchase and placement of custom prefabs. Create the backend technical support to allow players to go into single player, build a custom base, export it to the steam workshop, download it, deliver it, and enable any player to place it in the game. Empyrion does this with ships and it's really awesome. You download a schematic and must have the mats in your inventory.

Edited by Poojam (see edit history)
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...