Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Haswell

0.33 PTS

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Azdule said:

If the PTS changes get released on Live, I think there would be a strong argument for "Russian Bias" being actually true.

Azdule also said:

"I did not test the Abrams line as it was clearly inferior to every other line."

Is it possible there has simply been a conscious decision to abandon the American or possibly the entire Western market?  I understand most of the players are Russians.  

All of this seems to be removing my incentive to spend any more time on this game until I see the final public version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  

Bob, Teykey, and others have already given out detailed feedback on this thread, so I'd just drop down some thoughts instead.

  • MBTs drift a lot. Not as much as the light tanks did some time ago, but still very noticeable. Having it buffed a bit can be a good thing as driving up hills can be a pain, and the decision to make them accelerate much slower past 32 km/h that the devs made last yearwas a strange one. However, they also seem to move too fast now, potentially outrunning TDs and outmaneuvering LTs.
  • MBTs now reload quicker, and Chinese/Russian tanks have significantly higher DPM. T-90MS can have 2500+ more DPM than the Leopard 2A6. Why is this a good idea?
  • Abrams' AP and HEAT-MP now share the same base damage before applying randomisation. It's difficult to see why one should bring the latter into battle anymore.
  • It's sad to see how T-14's 125mm HEAT offers greater damage and penetration than XM1A3's 140mm HEAT-MP.
  • Although this is said to be in live server as well, it is odd seeing the gun shells (calibre and even name) on MBT have different damage to those on LT or TD.
  • T-90s now have really high HEAT resistance even on the lower front plate. Western MBT HEAT actually won't penetrate those area anymore, at least not reliably if it's even possible. It's true that MBTs can now swap shells very quickly, but I'd think players would be more inclined to bring one type of shell instead i.e. AP.
  • Some vehicles that are said to be available for PTS phase 1 don't actually appear, or at least for some people (e.g. Type 96A, Type 99). On the other hand, there are also reports of players being able to bring vehicles outside of the list into battle (Black Eagle in particular).
  • Restricting PTS' opening hours to one particular region and pointing fingers at people not participating don't help, even when they don't represent the majority of the entire player base.

Looking back at one of the 0.33 Rebalance articles:

Quote

...we’ve decided on a couple of goals for the whole project:

  • Reducing the results of power creep, as described in the already mentioned article
  • Make all types of shells useful
  • Make the gameplay more dynamic

The last point is closely tied to the success of the 2018-2019 plans to improve low-Tier gameplay in order to make it more dynamic. Since the plan had been positively accepted, we started to introduce some quite dynamic vehicles over the last two years, all of which were more or less received. We’d like to achieve the same fun gameplay on higher Tiers.

Aren't the changes in late 2018 precisely what killed the balance and fun for low-tier gameplay? Now much of those vehicles don't get a revision anymore because "players tend to skip them and there's little point to invest development", but this is pretty much a vicious cycle of "players don't find low-tier fun → there is little incentive to play them → seldom play them or don't play them anymore → devs use that as an excuse to not do anything about them → ♻". The same can also be said for artillery. And now this is the argument for changing much of the gameplay element for high tier vehicles, this does not bode well with players even before the PTS kicks in.

What shall we expect for the second phase? What will get noted and changed after this phase? Should we embrace any kinds of expectations? There is already much pessimism and a jaded view that the devs would push on no matter what and ask players to adapt (or indirectly getting them to leave in this particular case).


aMcZOFg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After few more days, and i was checking some observations of people  ...

  1. Hellfire has efficient, like old times Thermobaric ATGM. 
  2. Delay between shots for AFT-10. I consider it as a totally unneeded change for AFT-10 despite its ATGM will do ridiculous big damage per shoot. 
  3. Non-penetrable damage from ATGM - in PvE it is often to have a barrage of ATGM on you from all bots on the maps. So even if the tank has APS up and positions properly ts armor, the strike of 3 x T-15 (12 missiles total with 250 damage each minus few dropped by APS) still can result in 2K+ non-pen damage. In such case, MBT need their APS cooldown removed.
  4. In PvE, the radical drop in visual range for MBT now has an effect of unnatural disappearance of closely positioned AFV bots, like in 20-30 meters. It was long loop of discussions over past years how bad impression the game creates when very close and huge model of tank disappears in air. 
  5. 7 seconds reload of 152 mm gun on T-14-152 makes its DPM better than on T-14 with 125 mm gun. 
Edited by dfnce (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, dfnce said:

After few more days, and i was checking some observations of people  ...

  1. Non-penetrable damage from ATGM - in PvE it is often to have a barrage of ATGM on you from all bots on the maps. So even if the tank has APS up and positions properly ts armor, the strike of 3 x T-15 (12 missiles total with 250 damage each minus few dropped by APS) still can result in 2K+ non-pen damage. In such case, MBT need their APS cooldown removed.
  2. 7 seconds reload of 152 mm gun on T-14-152 makes its DPM better than on T-14 with 125 mm gun. 

With renumbered point 1, I found that the T-14 wouldn't take chip damage from T-15.  I'm not sure if this was a T-14 exclusive, or the T-15 didn't have chip damage?  The 2 games I played with the ATDU they were either nuked down before they could fire on me, or just simply penned my side.

Renumbered point 2- I take it that would be the standard AP round?  At this moment I can't really see the use of AP when the ATGMs are in game, but interesting how a 152 has a 7sec reload, but other tanks with 140 have a longer reload....

I heard there was some interesting issues with the HE shell doing more damage than it should / being able to pen a few x00mm of armour - like the Abrams line, you could shoot the front on top of the tracks to nuke down the turret, gun, ammo and crew.  I believe SS said something about planned HE changes that weren't meant to be brought in, were in the test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Azdule said:

With renumbered point 1, I found that the T-14 wouldn't take chip damage from T-15.  I'm not sure if this was a T-14 exclusive, or the T-15 didn't have chip damage?  The 2 games I played with the ATDU they were either nuked down before they could fire on me, or just simply penned my side.

Renumbered point 2- I take it that would be the standard AP round?  At this moment I can't really see the use of AP when the ATGMs are in game, but interesting how a 152 has a 7sec reload, but other tanks with 140 have a longer reload....

I heard there was some interesting issues with the HE shell doing more damage than it should / being able to pen a few x00mm of armour - like the Abrams line, you could shoot the front on top of the tracks to nuke down the turret, gun, ammo and crew.  I believe SS said something about planned HE changes that weren't meant to be brought in, were in the test.

ad 1 - The effect of slow health drop can be seen on tanks  with no ERA, in close encounter - when soft kill can't work effectively to pull ATGM away and hard kill APS is on cooldown. The case is that bots (i think of Bradleys) despite can't pen frontal armor sometimes, still deal said chips (Non-Pen) damage in way a infantry damage does. And my concern, that with such prevail of pve ATGM bots, spammed in groups, only few tanks can counter this effectively, like with ERA or whatever special magic ATDU has.

ad 2 - Yes, AP. Not sure if 7 sec bug or intended. Just what it is on PTS. Other 130/140 mm tanks fire faster too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the PTS is only available to me during bumfuck hours, my feedback so far is fairly limited. Much of what I want to say have already been covered by everyone else, but I'll try to be thorough anyway. Everything here is from a PvE perspective only.


Ammo changes

AP changes

Largely irrelevant, since it's still pointless to be using AP when you have HEAT (except HEAT-MP). Penetration decay with distance can be flat out ignored in the PvE setting, because the engagement ranges are typically within 300m and never far enough for the decay to matter in the slightest.


HEAT changes

For HEAT/HEAT-T/HEAT-FS, the increased raw alpha compensating for the lost thin armor bonuses AND increased penetration across the board allows them to continue to hold superiority over AP in all practical situations in PvE. Even though there are fewer targets and weak spots vulnerable to HEAT, skillful maneuvering and positioning can easily circumvent this limitation and the alpha advantage is enough to outweigh this drawback

For HEAT-MP their alpha and penetration can only be described as near identical to their AP counterparts. This makes them far less appealing to use over AP, since the primary advantage of HEAT over AP is the higher alpha. The argument that HEAT-MP has the ability to deal damage even with non-penetration is moot, as AP will be more likely to penetrate and deal full damage anyway.


ATGM changes

Massive penetration increases across the board for all gun-launched ATGMs makes them extremely appealing to use over every other ammo type. There are no practical advantages in using HEAT/HEAT-FS if you have the option to use gun-launched ATGMs instead. Softkill APS have little effect on them due to their velocities and short engagement distances. Hardkill APS may defeat your first shot, but you will always reload fast enough to fire another shot to make hardkill APS largely irrelevant.

Granting non-penetration damage to all HEAT-based ATGMs translates directly to receiving constant unavoidable damage in PvE, due to the abundance of missile-slinging bots wanting to make you suffer. There are also zero practical advantages for using HEAT-MP missiles if you have other alternatives with higher alpha and/or penetration (ie. Wiesel HOT).


HESH changes

Only tested this with the ATDU, the increased penetration does not in any way outweigh the massive disadvantage of lower alpha compared to AP, nor is the module damage significant enough to warrant its use. Because ammo rack explosions aren't reliable enough as they are, it is highly unlikely for HESH/PISH to inflict total damage per shot greater than AP. Not worth using at all.


General observations

Vehicles with gun-launched ATGMs and HEAT-FS/HEAT-T benefit the most from these changes, while those with HEAT-MP and HESH get the short end of the stick. In a less subtle sense, this is literally RU bias since 125mm guns do not use HEAT-MP and also have the choice of using ATGMs, while NATO vehicles with HEAT-MP get left in their wake.

Because of the general alpha increases (and also the universal reload buffs), this actually resulted in far lower TTK when playing MBTs against everything. The TTK on the production server is already low enough that individual targets don't tend to survive for more than 30 seconds when players start shooting at them, this change practically turns the game from what is already about fast-paced tactical decisions into an even faster-paced twitch shooter (ie. Call of Duty).

--------------------------------------------

ERA changes

Because I'm already somewhat adept at utilizing HEAT over AP in almost all circumstances, I don't find the ERA changes to have any impact on my gameplay at all. Since being able to perform well using HEAT already relies on knowing how to avoid ERA pieces, it's easy for me to instinctively avoid ERA as it is regardless of the shell type I'm using.

It is worth nothing that ERA almost never cover the frontal vulnerabilities of most vehicles. Seeing how most of the engagements in the game are either spamming AP against frontal targets and HEAT against flanks, I don't see how the ERA changes are significant in any way.

 

MBT armor changes

All the MBTs have cookie cutter armor profiles now, frontal vulnerabilities are nonexistent except in the lower plates (and occasionally upper plates for Leo 2s) and flanks are even more vulnerable thanks to the universal penetration buffs. There is practically no gameplay difference or distinctions between any of the MBTs now except in ammo types, they now all fall under the "hide your lower plate to be invulnerable" category.

This change however did NOT improve the survivability of MBTs noticeably, for both player and bots. Against bots, their survivability actually decreased due to their propensity to expose their flanks coupled with the universal alpha and penetration increases. For players. they are already bordering on being invulnerable as long as "front towards target" is followed in the production server, the armor changes are not too significant but does serve to remove weak spots that would otherwise get targeted by bots.

 

MBT mobility changes

Everything can now go fast, everybody can rush around at above 70km/h easily and even outrun squishy vehicles, which are supposed to have mobility advantages over MBT. If not for vision control, there would be zero purpose for the existence and utilization of squishy vehicles.

Movement also feels extremely slippery, almost as if terrain resistance got massively decreased. It is difficult to stop and/or turn precisely because the brakes distances are so long, as well as the overall slipperiness.

 

MBT view range changes

I don't find the changes to be significant, as even before the changes my general playstyle in everything with a modicum of armor is to be aggressive and push against bots. The lower overall view range does not matter when you are constantly within 200m of your targets, the maps in PvE simply do not have enough distance for MBT view ranges to matter when they have sufficient frontal protection to push into everything.

I understand the intent to reduce view ranges for MBTs is to allow more emphasis on squishy vehicles for vision control capabilities, but most maps in PvE simply do not offer opportunities or demand for squishy vehicles over MBTs being played aggressively. Overall the concept of the change is good, but when coupled with everything else it is still largely irrelevant.

 


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to stay short, atgm chip damage discourage mbt to do their job because of unavoidable damage, especially in pve since almost every bot is armed with them, and the fact that bots have near perfect aim would make them even more annoying to fight, they already punish people for being aggressive, but with more damage, pen and chip damage it would be unbearable. armor changes on mbt will standardize every tank making them all the same, removing everything skill involved, and removing each tank particularity like the atdu (that got basically bitch slapped with one of those giant gloves used by football fans). general ammo changes are useless, they way they are in live server is almost perfect heat changes are unfair in every aspect, only removing armor bonus and rise base damge would have been ok. dpm changes are utter retarded, various mbts are unique in some ways and with this dpm buff and armor nerf, they would play basically the same. the ability to swap ammo type would remove leclerc line gimmick. mobility changes will make mbt too fast, ruining afv and lt job to spot. the entire point of discourage mbt to camp got destroyed by the atgm chip damage and universal weak spots. overall, no one asked for this rebalance, all the changes we needed were reducing mbt view range and make changes to the tanks that suffer for power creep, but instead we got a ton of unnecessary stuff. all of this feels rushed, for me all of these changes could be scrapped because the only things this rebalance do, is removing the skill involved and making a big mess ruining the game for basically everyone. i hope it will be scrapped or the game will lose a big chunk of people, including me.

Edited by Pesa_ (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/update-033-pts-delay

Quote

Commanders!

Over the weekend, you have had the first chance to experience Update 0.33 and to tell us what you think about it. We have gathered a lot of feedback but need time to analyze it and review the data we’ve assembled.

 

Unfortunately, this means that we’ll have to postpone Stage 2 by at least a week in order to make sure that we can address your concerns properly.

We’d like to thank you for your feedback and the time you took testing Update 0.33 and will return to you in the near future with some more pieces of information and answers to your questions. We’d also like to ask for your patience so that we have time to process everything.

The promised prizes will be awarded this week.

I hope the extra time mean stage 2 will be far less of a shitshow, but after seeing how the stage 1 changes included stuff that nobody asked for I'm not terribly optimistic.

Let's see just how effective the feedback so far is, and if they decide to double down on everything people hated.


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, di_duncan said:

Plus, why would you trust the opinion of someone who hasn't even tested the vehicle(s) in question?

I have tested it, and it is crap.

The problem is that they've designated the Abrams line to be their "all stats are average" vehicle.  I'm sure their intent is to make it a fine all-around vehicle, but that's not how games work.

Other vehicles have things that they're good at that they can work to exploit, while also having things that they're bad at that they can avoid or try to mitigate.  But an "all average" vehicle isn't good at anything.  It's just... meh.  There's nothing that a good player can work to exploit, so even in the hands of a good player it's still... meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of things here, not everything have been addressed but at least some of them are here.

https://aw.my.games/en/news/general/update-033-answers-feedback

Quote

The Update 0.33 PTS Stage 1 is now over. During the weekend, you submitted a lot of feedback and allowed us to gather valuable gameplay data, for which we are grateful. Equally important are, however, the concerns you have brought up on the dedicated PTS channels and via the official forms.

 

In this article, we’d like to address the most frequently asked Update 0.33 questions and submitted complaints. Without further ado, let’s dive right into them.

Minimum HE damage for ATGMs

This is one of those things that appear clear-cut but aren’t. Don’t panic though; we’ll be addressing this issue. But it’s important to realize that this is a sword that cuts both ways. Yes, we implemented minimum ATGM damage but the frontal armor of MBTs was also buffed so that the Update 0.33 minimum damage results would in fact often result in full damage penetrations in Update 0.32. This way, at least some minimum threshold of dealt damage was kept instead of negating all incoming ATGMs outright.

Another aspect to consider is that in Update 0.33, it becomes harder to launch a missile and make the hit land while surviving to fire another one, making the ATGM damage output per battle lower in this update than in the previous one.

Still, with that being said, we’ll be doing the following:

  • This minimum damage will be reduced for thick armor (such as MBT fronts)
  • The damage will more depend on the caliber of the missile (ergo, the size of its warhead) so that smaller ATGMs (such as the gun-launched ones) don’t deal as much damage

This will do the following:

  • In PvE, AI opponents will not deal such damage to MBT fronts (or negligible amounts) as they do not take minimum damage into account when choosing their shots
  • In PvP, your skill will allow you to fire at weaker (but still too thick for outright penetration) frontal MBT areas while dealing damage

We do not want to remove this element outright for the reasons listed above, but also because it adds to the gameplay diversity. This mechanic performs better against thin but sharply sloped armor (used by Russian tanks) but is nearly useless against tanks that have unsloped but very thick fronts.

In other words, in PvE, the situation should not change at all compared to Update 0.32. But in PvP, players will get more options with ATGMs being able to chip away at the armor of static MBTs the way HE shells do now.

ATGMs do too much damage or are generally too powerful

ATGMs indeed need to be rebalanced a bit. This ties well into the previous point though. We made them more powerful because of the changes to the vehicles that use them. In Update 0.33, Tank Destroyers received, amongst other things, a nerf to their reload times within launcher magazines. What this means is that the vehicle stays exposed for longer when firing multiple missiles in rapid succession. In combination with their reduced viewranges and higher camouflage penalties for firing, this makes launching missiles a risky proposition in general. The situations where TDs with missiles devastate multiple MBTs at range are quite rare now because being spotted in the process invites inevitable counter-fire.

MBT frontal armor layout is now the same for pretty much all MBTs

This is still work in progress, it’ll get more diverse. It is not our intention to homogenize this aspect. Unfortunately, we didn’t have time to introduce all the changes we’d like to have during the first stage of the testing. During the second stage of testing, you will see more changes although we’ll continue to tweak this aspect through the weeks following the launch of Update 0.33.

Our goal is to remove specifically the worst weakspots that are impossible for players to hide. If a tank has a weak and massive turret ring for absolutely no logical reason, this makes the tank much harder to use and, subsequently, unpopular. That, however, does not mean the tanks will become impenetrable behemoths – yes, you guessed it; here’s where minimum ATGM damage (for example) comes to play. Of course, the best defense against any ATGMs is not to get hit, which is why we have, amongst other things, improved the performance of MBT smoke grenades and generators or, in some cases, partially increased MBT mobility.

But we digress. The main point is that this feature was incomplete during Stage 1 and we apologize for giving you the wrong impression.

Regular HEAT was buffed but HEAT-MP shells the NATO tanks use were nerfed

This was basically a bug (causing too high regular HEAT damage) combined with some missing adjustments. We do not plan to make HEAT-MP shells perform worse than the regular HEAT shells in general, although – and that’s worth stressing – not better either. What that means is that in some cases, their base damage may be lower due to the added HE effect, but not by that much.

HESH shells are now terrible

This was a bug in the sense that the rebalanced HESH shells were not ready for the PTS. They’ll get their performance back.

MBT flanks are too weak against MBT-caliber guns but too strong against autocannons

The intended part is for the MBT sides to generally be thicker in the front and thinner in the back.

Another intended part is to actually make different autocannon calibers different from each other. In Update 0.32, all things considered, 30mm, 40mm or even 50mm autocannons don’t get used in a different fashion and this change aims at remedying that. Our goal is to tune the smaller autocannons to the role of light AFV killers while leaving MBT sides to heavy autocannons, Light Tank cannons and ATGMs. We all know that the autocannon-ATGM BMPT combos are way, way too powerful and universal and this change will rectify that.

As for the weakness against MBT-class guns – the frontal part of the sides is thicker still and, in combination with the ricochet mechanics that aren’t going anywhere, provides reasonable protection. You’re not supposed to show your flanks to the enemy in your MBT, in case this wasn’t obvious enough.

And, last but not least, as in every point, this will be subjected to more rebalance so that the tanks armor matches out intentions.

MBTs have way too high damage per minute values

Overall, the rate of fire buff for all MBTs is intended as concentrated firepower will help MBT players to break through enemy lines. Our plan is to reward aggressive MBT gameplay, not to support camping. That’s the aim of this entire update. But, and now we are repeating ourselves, this will still be looked at and possibly rebalanced.

MBTs are now too fast (and other concerns regarding mobility)

Most vehicles (including MBTs) still have the same acceleration and maximum speed. What changed is the steering at high speeds and the loss of speed when steering (both having been improved). With this system:

  • MBTs basically keep their old (low) short-term mobility and agility while, in the long run, they are able to traverse maps faster in order to get to where they are needed
  • Attacking MBTs now have an advantage over the defending ones since it’s much easier to traverse corners quickly (and thus exposing your side armor less)

But, you know the last part already – yes, we are still going to do some fine-tuning.

Tank Destroyer viewrange was nerfed too much

We nerfed the Tank Destroyer viewrange roughly by as much as we did the MBT one. We also made the penalties for launching missiles worse and are going to make them even worse still. This was done in order to make sure that this class doesn’t generally spot as well as other classes by also receiving considerable firepower. Instead, in line with what was written above, firing at the distances that also allow the Tank Destroyer to spot its targets on its own will result in getting spotted almost immediately. This is intended but yet to be fine-tuned.

Tier 6-7 Power Gap

So... this is awkward. Yes, it’s there even though we promised it wouldn’t be, yes, it’s massive and yes, we know about it. Long story short, during the process of rebalance, we discovered that mid-Tiers would also need some love but there is only so much time and, as you might have imagined, this whole rebalance deal is not quick. After all, the last major rebalance did cost us six months and a whole development team. We could rush things even more but, in such case, major screw-ups are guaranteed and nobody wants that, us the least of all.

So, what’s going to happen is that for the time being, and we’re talking about a month or two, things will stay that way. It’s the least bad of all solutions, all things considered. We do apologize for that. The obvious counter-argument would be to just delay the whole thing until everything is ready but, for internal reasons we mostly cannot talk about, that’s not really an option. We will do our best to fix this as quickly as possible (in a matter of a few extra weeks). We’ll also tweak the matchmaker so that Tier 6 players aren’t terribly disadvantages by this unfortunate situation.

There’s a clear Russian bias because the Russian tech is getting buffed while the NATO tanks are getting nerfed!

Oh god. Not this again. Do we really have to address this? Okay, fine, just to be clear, once for all. This isn’t the Soviet Union. We don’t get monetary bonuses for making Russian tanks look good. We wish we were, but we aren’t.

On a more serious note, our goal is to make the game fun and balanced for everyone and most of the alleged “biased” cases can be easily explained:

  • Some western MBTs will receive lower frontal plate improvements (looking at you, Challenger)
  • (Russian) HEAT buff and (NATO) HEAT nerf was not intended (see above)
  • Some Russian vehicles were seriously underperforming, that’s why they got buffed the way any other vehicle would have been
  • T-15, T-80 or Black Eagle state was not intended (there’s a reason they weren’t on the list of available vehicles, they were not ready and shouldn’t have been viewed, even in the Garage)
  • Frontal ERA positioning that appears on Russian vehicles didn’t change their situation significantly – in fact, on the contrary, this was a considerably more significant buff for the western tanks with side ERA armor and also for some western AFVs with ERA
  • T-14 Armata health will be reduced

As for the general frontal armor layout of Russian MBTs, apart from the obvious considerations (the armor is well sloped but thinner than on western MBTs, western MBTs have better gun depression values and will receive LFP buffs where needed), you might remember from the Developer Diary articles that tank range will also play a role in MBT combat. Next time the PTS is on, we’d like to ask you to check the armor performance using the Armor Inspector feature at distances longer than just 100 meters.

To close things off...

Like we said before, we do appreciate the amount of feedback from all of you as well as your passion in submitting it. There’s a lot of work ahead of us. Some of you mentioned the desire for us to push that proverbial big red button and stop the update but, due to the features we have planned for the future (well beyond 0.33), that is no longer an option. The update lays down essential groundwork for future content and contains far more internal mechanic overhauls than you might imagine even if you don’t see their effect directly. And let’s face it, pushing that red button doesn’t always end well either. Just ask the people at Chernobyl.

What this means though is that we have a lot of work ahead of us to make you guys happy, because that’s what we want to do. Thank you for your patience and your help.

 


Spoiler

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...