Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

State of the Guild, March 2007

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • State of the Guild, March 2007

    State of the Guild.

    Commonly Known Goals (common to all players):
    1. Get to level 70
    2. Get keyed for instances
    3. Gain rep, gear, etc.

    Not-so-commonly known Goals:
    1. Develop Raid Leaders
    2. Chart new raid content
    3. Develop long term raiding plans
    4. Work out issues for support of raiding (smaller raids, need for teams, etc)
    5. Support development/improvement of individual skills ((What worked in MC or UBRS is not sufficient for TBC. For example, aggro management is trickier and crowd control is much more important (and harder).
    6. Streamline guild administration.

    Background:

    Tactical Gamer WoW guild evolved from a wide-open “big tent” group accommodating virtually any player, to a “casual raiding guild” that regularly mounted multiple 40 man raids each week. To accomplish the demands for 40 man raiding, we needed Class Leaders, DKP, guild bank, raid sign ups and a substantial administrative overhead to keep all that working together.We expanded and refined our officer group to handle the needs for the pre-expansion WoW.

    Now that the expansion has arrived, we are seeing a “new” game with seemingly familiar but different features. Instances are typically shorter. Gear is far improved over the old gear, but the demands of the new content are much, much greater than before. This is especially evident in the level 70 instances. The emphasis is on 5 man instances with 10 and 25 man instances in our future. We are already inching our way into Karazhan (the first of the 10 man instances) and a few of the heroic-mode 5 mans.

    As you would expect, there is a strong group of TG players who have worked quickly to get to level 70 and to explore new content. There is also a bigger group of guildies who have less time for in-game play whose progress is slower. It is natural for there to be some feelings of stress between the advanced players and those who are lower level or with less time invested in gaining rep/gear/keys. We all want to run with the big dogs and get the uber gear that is available only at higher levels.

    Current Situation:

    We have new guild leaders (Beep and Luna) taking over from Orion. We are looking seriously at the idea of fostering the creation of teams within the guild. There is substantial precedent in other Tactical Gamer games (e.g. BF2) for this idea. This would enable groups of “peers” to work together on a regular basis to explore new content and accomplish the common goals presented above. While these teams would be a more-or-less fixed groups, self-organized and created voluntarily by invitation from the organizer(s), RL schedules and other commitments would create opportunities for non-team members to fill open team slots for team events.

    Alts could be “full” team members in this scheme. Our early thinking is that each ‘toon could be on one (and only one) team, but that any ‘toon could sign up for available raid slots (subject, of course, to the Raid Leader/Squad Leader approval, the same as always). Teams would manage their own loot and their own scheduling (using guild raid signup site).

    While there are many advantages to the team or squad idea, there is downside as well. Occasional or casual players may not be able to commit to a fixed schedule of team runs. There is no problem, however, for teams to have a bigger membership than the actual number of slots available (e.g. 14 members for a 10 man instance). Nevertheless, there may be guildies who feel “left out” of the team/squad emphasis. Despite the idea that being on a team is optional, many may feel that being on a team is necessary. We don't think that's the case, but we don't yet have the experience to back that up.

    My first hand experience (from the golden days of Ghost Recon) is that teams were active but not dominant in play. It was always a good thing to be with your teammates whose playing style and quirks were known, but we always were welcoming to non-team members who were available to fill a spot and help out.

    For teams to be successfully incorporated into our guild, we would insist that they embrace the TG ideals of mutual respect, fair gameplay and fun. We are thinking that periodically “scrambling” the signups to encourage non-team group instance grouping would be a part of the landscape. We are thinking that each team leader should have some “official” status to help coordinate and deal with the administration of the team system guild-wide.

    We need to look at changing our guild administration and officer group to support the "new" game. For example, we don't really need class leaders the way we used to. Raid leading will pretty much rest on the shoulders of the team leaders (or their designated tactical leader). In our wilder moments, we consider getting rid of all officers and starting over to fill specific functions that need a guiding hand. We're thinking strongly that officer status should be tied to active leadership in the guild and not as a reward for prior service.

    In any event, we are not taking anything for granted. As we work through this broad framework, we'll keep you posted. In the meantime, feel free to share your own thoughts and suggestions. We ask that you keep the tone positive and respectful. If you feel that some of these ideas are "less than good", then say so, but be prepared to offer your own alternative.
    Beep


    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - (Isaac Asimov)

  • #2
    Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

    The whole idea of splitting into teams is a bad idea IMO

    I come from the FPS world, the battlefield series to be specific. I was a leader in a clan that competed heavily in TWL and CAL. We initially started out competing in the 8v8 ladders and leagues eventually expanding, as we grew, into the 10 man and 12 man competitive scenes. Eventually we began to get complaints from some of the members about not getting play-time in the matches, very similar to what is going on now in TG with respect to KZ. We decided to encourage the members that didn't get the preferred slots in the competition to form their own smaller teams and compete in the 2, 3, and 5 man ladders. At first it seemed to work very well, at one point we had the #1 spot on TWL's BF1942 CTF ladder, 2 teams in the top 5 of the BF1942 5man infantry, 2 teams in the top 5 BF1942 2man tank, 2 in the top5 BF1942 2man air 1 more in the top20, and a few other 8,10man seasons we were playing in where we finished in the top 3-4. The breaking point was when a few players wanted to join up and compete in a BFV tournament and were told that the team was full. They got their feelings hurt and eventually splintered off forming their own clan and reducing our numbers to the point at which neither group could field a competitive team consistently.

    I honestly see TG headed this way. I don't exactly know what the right answer to the problem is, but I know that if it isn't handled properly it could lead to a division among the guild that might prevent our successes further down the line in the future 25 man content.
    Uglyduck - Spec varies - Currently Prot
    MMORPG = Many Men Online Role-Playing as Girls

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

      I was really concerned about this when I first started seeing this naturally start to happen but after spending several nights thinking about it, I believe this is the way we should go. It will force the issue for MANY leaders to stand up in the guild and lead. Many people who had the capability to lead us back in the MC/BWL days but due to the lack of leadership spots or the fact that we really needed the focus to be more directed there were not any spots to be had, this will force those people to stand up and lead. We need team leaders to take us to the next level or we will surely begin to lose people to more organized guilds.. one by one. Hate it.. Love it... it doesnt matter this is the face of Burning Crusade. I like it in many ways..

      1. I am more likely to get my gear quicker (less locks to compete with *smile*)
      2. No more DKP
      3. More focused teamplay ... like we saw in Scholo, Strat, UBRS.. etc etc
      4. No waiting for 40 people to be ready!!
      5. Shorter time frames of instance runs.
      6. Less people means I get to know YOU better.. no longer a sea of faces..
      7. My alts can be full fledge members of teams... no longer excluded from raiding

      Yes there are some issues with this but TG as a whole (not just TG WoW) already has different divisions in it (|TG-Irr|) I am in Tactical Gamer Irregulars for PoE and 2142.. but it never stopped me from running with other teams but it does coordinate me into a group of people that try to help one another get better at the game. It doesnt break up TG as a whole but it makes sure that people with same playing schedules and goals get grouped together. If this is the face of things to come.. lets jump to it and start getting things formed now before we begin to lose people to other guilds that are already doing this. I for one.. am TG through and through I am here to see us through this no matter which way it leads itself. GAME ON!
      Last edited by Ashenhart; 03-01-2007, 06:17 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

        There are so many things about the Burning Crusade that are entirely different that Beep and I have been discussing ways to improvise and adapt to them. Above is an excellent summary of our most recent thoughts, and I hope everyone will read them carefully and ponder the ideas so we can get some solid feedback from all of you. If you like the idea, tell us what you like. If you dislike it, suggest an alternative. We're all ears, and we're doing our absolute best to accomodate as many people as possible while being effective leaders.

        I hope everyone is doing well- we'll keep you posted as we consider your opinions and new ideas, and attempt to incorporate it into the grand plan.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

          If we decide to follow through with this, the most important thing is where we place our loyalty. It should be understood that you are part of a greater good, the guild. On nights where we aren't raiding, we should attempt to group with people in 5-mans that we wouldn't regularly raid with...or go farm with them...get on TS and chat it up.

          I really wish more people would get on TS first, then log into the game. It just provides a better atmosphere, imo.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

            My main concern is that it feels like those who hit 70 first have left the rest behind. We've had nights "dedicated" to KZ keys, and instead we had people rep grinding, gold farming, or leveling alts. Instead of leading by "pushing" the guild, we have leaders who want to experience things and then come back and "pull" the rest through. Also, almost all of our leaders are in the same group, requiring new people to step up who have little to no leading experience. I see the same people in the same groups night after night. I've come to the conclusion that there are a great many that I simply won't get to run with anymore. These are my observations, I'm sure that those involved see the current environment totally different.

            Perhaps the fact I can't logon to meet 7pm start times hurts more than I thought it did. In light of this, I'm looking for people who can start instances/raids 9-9:30pm server time. I am up for helping people to 70, KZ key piece runs, rep grind runs, heroic runs, and eventually KZ. My hope is that there are like minded people in this time slot and within a couple weeks of helping each other out, I'll be more than happy to lead us in KZ.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

              Originally posted by Hitchins View Post
              My main concern is that it feels like those who hit 70 first have left the rest behind. We've had nights "dedicated" to KZ keys, and instead we had people rep grinding, gold farming, or leveling alts. Instead of leading by "pushing" the guild, we have leaders who want to experience things and then come back and "pull" the rest through. Also, almost all of our leaders are in the same group, requiring new people to step up who have little to no leading experience. I see the same people in the same groups night after night. I've come to the conclusion that there are a great many that I simply won't get to run with anymore. These are my observations, I'm sure that those involved see the current environment totally different.

              Perhaps the fact I can't logon to meet 7pm start times hurts more than I thought it did. In light of this, I'm looking for people who can start instances/raids 9-9:30pm server time. I am up for helping people to 70, KZ key piece runs, rep grind runs, heroic runs, and eventually KZ. My hope is that there are like minded people in this time slot and within a couple weeks of helping each other out, I'll be more than happy to lead us in KZ.
              I understand your concerns, and they are most definitely noted...this is not something any of us are taking lightly in our discussions. I would however like to clear up one potential misunderstanding before it gets chance to take hold. We do want to experience the new content. That much is true. We are not putting a hold on our own progression, to "catch everyone up" But we have no intention of "pulling" anyone through, or leaving anyone behind.. Everyone is going to be required to pull their own weight in every instance, and think about each situation. And, as part of that, the Keying process for Karazhan is tough. This is intentional. Because of that, we're expecting people to set aside the time and expend the effort to take steps themselves. To read up on the information, get a group going, etc. And the officers will be more than willing to come along, helping clarify situations, lending the experienced hand, and guiding the guild along. But we are not always going to be "leaders". Part of the BC endgame reality is that everyone has to step up and be a leader. Everyone has to make tricky decisions, and uncertain judgement calls, and act on them. And as such, the keying for Karazhan provides a perfect opportunity to cultivate this leadership in ourselves and others.

              If we run more karazhan key work nights (quite likely), If i'm on, I will be available. Ask for my help, and i'll be there, to lend my damage, my crowd control, and information from prior experience. But i'll be expecting everyone's input on it. And i'll expect people to be forming up groups themselves. This is BC.

              I wholly support a later group working on the attunement and other things. I unfortunately oft have to be abed too soon to really contribute, but id' be willing to help when I can, and I encourage others to get some late-night stuff going. I know there's those in guild who'd love it.

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

              As for the Squads Situation. I'd like to emphasize, yet again, that if this is indeed implemented, it is not going to be done in a way that fractures us. You're TG first, your squad second. The squad is more of a way for us to recognize groups that already are naturally forming, and have been, for quite some time. We've got some groups that set aside one night a week to play together already. we've got others who just find themselves together alot, due to playtime, class balance, and other conveniences.

              By officially recognizing these connections, we're able to give these squads a little more control over they're own actions..letting them better plan and organize activities, letting them handle their own loot rules, and giving them a better ability to plan and adapt to suit their individual needs...all things which can help grow our strengths, and tighten teamwork.

              Squads are still fully TGers, still subject to the same rules and expectations...including cooperation between squads. And when squads do work together, they'll likely be even more capable than when it was just an assortment of players. Squads are not a hard or permanent boundary either...there will be lots of play with members of different squads, and as people's lives and playtimes change, they'll likely often find themselves switchign to squads with more appropriate playtimes.

              As for 25 man raids, or other significant events...These will be the perfect opportunities for all TGer's to come together. Whether a pair of squads decides to tackle Zul'aman together one week, or we just grab a bunch of people and hit the Black Temple, these events will provide the same interaction and assortment of individuals that we've been used to at 60. TG's raiding big picture will be fairly unchanged...it's just the day to day 5-10 mans that would change.

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

              There's still discussion, and we're still open to opinions, input and suggestions. This is just a current idea for reorganizing things, and getting the guild back on track, and better able to serve more people's varied needs. The point is though, that we have to do something. BC is a new game, and requires a new way of organizing things..or we're all likely to suffer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                I expect to see lots of discussion around how we deal with the expansion.

                There is no "rule book" to follow, nor does the old scheme for supporting 40 man raids fit any more.

                We KNOW that there is unlikely to be a perfect solution (at least not initially:) ), so consequently we are trying to be open about the ideas we are considering. We also know that we aren't perfect, so any of you may be able to propose an improvement on our thoughts or a better idea.

                Despite how we "organize" things, we are likely to continue a shortage of critical classes (tanks and healers). If you want to help the guild, help your tanks and healers with their quests and leveling!!
                Beep


                Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - (Isaac Asimov)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                  I think the squad organization is great for FPS games with regular hardcore players. It allows the team to mesh together more completely. Squad organization will further seperate our guild IMO. You will form a better geared, well raided higher tier, and a pool of others to fill spaces when somebody can't make it. The lower pool won't have the gear or experience to be useful to the upper tier, and we will have BWL all over again, with bickering over who is ready, and who is not, and jealosy over who is getting good gear and who is on the "lower team" who cannot.

                  What we really do, by forming teams, is make that elitist guild that some of the hardcore raiders want, and leave behind all the rest without kicking them out, so they can fill slots if the elitists need them and they are deemed worthy. Allowing everybody to raid when it fits into their schedule is what made TG better than those other guilds. Those who want to be part of an elitist guild should have applied to one rather than whining about this one not getting as far, as fast as those other ones. We were a casual guild, and still are, but as squads are formed and seperated based on skill, gear, and playing time, we really change the nature of a good portion of the guild.

                  We had a better system, with open signups and multiple raids possible if we had enough to fill them.

                  This is not meant to say that I'm hard against the teams. Raiding does not matter to me as much as it once did, and with my work schedule, I won't be much of a difference one way or another on whatever team I end up on. I just don't like the direction the guild has gone in respect to raiding in the last 6 months. It's not the guild I signed up for.
                  Anahlahna and Friends

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                    The Squad system is really intended for 5 and 10 mans..not the open signup raids that We're used to at the 20 and 40 man levels. The squads are there to help people progress in the heroic 5 mans, and in Karazhan..small scale, but saved instances. This provides a regular small playgroup (probably between 13-15 in most cases), so that people can progress in these saved instances at a rate that suits their playtime.

                    The problem is that we can't be just picking up people for the saved 5 and 10 mans. IT just won't work, because everyone needs to know how everyone else plays. However, we still want to encourage TGers to work together. The Squad system gives people a regular group to play with, so that we can all progress within the 5 and 10 mans at a more efficient pace. Some will progress faster than others. However, by grouping these people together, and grouping the people with more limited playtime together, we allow people to play at their pace without feeling they're either being held back, or letting down others.

                    For the Raids (25+ man...Magtheridon, Gruul's Lair, Serpentshrine Cavern, Black Temple, Zul'Aman, The Eye), we'll still be supporting the idea of open signups, and they'll provide the perfect way for the guildies to all tackle something together, regardless of what squads they may be in.

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

                    Think of it this way. No one would complain if, at 60, we'd had a small group of people who ran scholomance, strat, and UBRS together, right? These are the size of instances that we're thinking of using squads for. Now, the reason squads are a benefit is the fact that, unlicke Scholo, Strat and UBRS....Karazhan and Heroics are Saved instances. Once you down a boss, you're there. This means that if you've just made balanced groups from the raid signup sheet, you'll likely end up with groups that, even if you get 10 people who want to work on it multiple times a week, coudln't, due to timing issues, or saved to seperate instances.

                    What the squad system can do for us is allow people to set up Karazhan raids at their own pace, progressing at a rate that works for those in it, and playing at times that suit their needs. This means that those that want to do more in Karazhan aren't frustrated with an inability to play, and those that can only do one or two runs a week dont' feel outclassed, as those within their squad will be playing at the same rate.

                    The thing is, people don't want to leave anyone behind, but neither do they want to be held back. So what if we have a couple squads who are better equipped and farther in? What's really so bad about that? If we don't do something so that both those playing every night and those playing once a week can feel like they'reboth making progress, and not slowing down others, the guild will have problems.

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

                    So honestly? I'd really like Karazhan to stop being considered a raid, since really, it basically isn't. It's Uber-UBRS. If we were proposing forming squads for Magtheridon and Gruul's Lair and the like, i'd be just as concerned and angry. But Kharazan isn't Endgame. It's pre-endgame. It's saved so the same group can work on the (admittedly long) instance over the course of several nights. It's hard, because people pushed for skill to be rewarded, for more tactically challenging, rather than strictly large number based, encounters. These are what the players wanted, and we'd be foolish not to maximize these benefits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                      Also, as one of the only Raid Leaders, it's hard to schedule raids. If I don't schedule them at a later time or an earlier time or on a friday rather than a saturday, I get squaked at. I honestly felt bad because I couldn't be many places at once or schedule more than I was willing to attend. I had ZG runs that fell through because I wasn';t there early on. I would run a raid for an hour and then have to log and the raid would soon fall apart. This is too much reliance on one person and needs to be done away with...make your own squads...stop assuming the officers have already made elitist squads or that because you aren't on the proper squad you will have no fun...rubbish. The game is what we make it. If you have an issue with someone on that squad, then I might understand being in the wrong squad...but not before...Let's work on teamwork, not random groupings and invites...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                        Just my view.... but if your going to create seperate cliques in a guild, you minds well split the guild and make your own small raiding team with like-minded people (Example: all those in for nightly raiding, all those for weekly raidind and so on.) and just have a general /channel Tactical Gamer place so everyone can stay connected.

                        Honestly, Im not saying that it *couldnt* work, but if people can raise a fuss about epics and get pissy at a numerous amount of mundane *GAME* related things.... this idea is going to head you right into trouble. Even if it all starts out with people accepting "little guilds" in the big guild, soon one group will have better gear, better attendance, have progressed further and people will feel jealous, left out and hurt.

                        This proposal works in theory and there are those mature enough to make it work. But i think TG is too big to please everyone, and not looking forward to the guild drama it will create (with drama being the number one reason people leave) it is going to cause a lot of problems.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                          Originally posted by ZariusZer0 View Post
                          The problem is that we can't be just picking up people for the saved 5 and 10 mans. IT just won't work, because everyone needs to know how everyone else plays.
                          I disagree here, if you have 10 skilled people, even if they have never played together, they will still succeed.

                          Originally posted by ZariusZer0 View Post
                          Some will progress faster than others. However, by grouping these people together, and grouping the people with more limited playtime together, we allow people to play at their pace without feeling they're either being held back, or letting down others.
                          By grouping like this, you have the "main" team only needing a roster of 14-15 since it consists of high attendance individuals. The more limited playtime group will need a roster of 30 to be able to always have the right 10 on for KZ. I think we can all agree that trying to bring a roster of 30 through KZ will be painful and frustrating.

                          An alternative could be that 50% of a roster is high attendance individuals, and 50% is lower attendance. You increase the roster size some, but maintain it so that you can always fill raids. This spreads out the more hardcore of the guild, and helps more teams succeed, although at a slower rate.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                            That is part of the problem, there is no right answer, there is no way to please everyone, and whether we work in squads, or we leave it open and just try to organize things (which has its own massive issues that no one is discussing), there are going to be problems.

                            If those who typically work faster than others due to extra play time, etc.. had to wait for others and not work on progression, they too would grow frustrated and might leave because of it, meaning we lose people with large amounts of knowledge from what they have seen. That hurts the guild as a whole too.

                            Yes, this proposal could create jealousy and bitterness if one group is progressing faster than another, but if they are putting in extra time and effort to make that progress, is there really a reason to be jealous? TBC has proven that things will not be handed to people. You have to put in a lot of effort to earn things even with help, as the Karazhan Key quest proves. If people expect to be able to do this or that, but not put in the same time as the ones who are achieving it, then that's an issue they need to deal with, not the people who have the time and are putting in the effort to accomplish it.

                            TBC = no free pass. Everyone has to pull their own weight and put in the personal effort to accomplish everything, every member must understand what is going on, make quick decisions as situations change, and be able to adjust on the fly, unlike Old World WoW (or OWW for short).

                            BWL showed us that constant variances in raid makeup/role makeup are ways toward failure. Our lack of a consistent group who knew all the fights and had a common goal prevented us from making the progress we were perfectly capable of doing in there.

                            What have we learned out of Karazhan? Every member counts. We have been in there 3 weekends, each time with a different group, and every time we have had slight differences in our experience because of adjusting to how different people played. This weekend we didn't have a 10th person (missing 1 DPS class), and that cost us our ability to down Attumen, someone we have had no trouble with the last two weekends.

                            To me, squads allow us to have people we can work with consistently, get used to, and know how they will react in heated situations, and are able to work towards a common goal with. People have different play schedules, different amounts of time to commit to raids, different statuses on key progressions, and these squads will allow people who group based on any of these things. If there is a group of later night people that want to form up, GREAT! Make a squad and do it! If there is a group that only wants to raid on weekends, Perfect! Have at it!

                            The issue is we CAN'T match everyone's play schedule, so it falls on everyone to find a group to play with that does, rather than it being the guild's responsibility to make sure everyone can do what they want every time. When you have 145 accounts to consider, no matter what decision gets made, there is always someone who isn't happy with it. Eventually happiness needs to be the responsibility of the individual; the guild just provides a mechanism and a pool of people to arrange what you want to do.

                            As a raid leader, I feel a tremendous amount of pressure to make everyone happy, to the point that when I am getting smacked from all sides, I don't get to enjoy the game because I have to worry about everyone else, not just the people I am working with, but the people outside the group that may or may not be hurt that we are doing something. With Talara and I being the only two people running things at the moment, that’s a hell of a lot to deal with. Personally, I would love to know I don't have to make sure 5 different groups of people with 5 different sets of goals, experience, and ideas are happy, and can rely on other people to take care of their group while I take care of mine. As much as people complain about our lack of healers and tanks, our most dire shortage is people who are willing to LEAD. It’s a hell of a lot easier to organize and coordinate 10-15 people than it is to try to organize 145.

                            The guild is what everyone makes of it (not just the officers). That means that YOU need to do something about it. I have heard a lot of responses on both sides of recent debates we have had, but I haven’t seen a single response from anyone saying “How can I help?”

                            That, to me, is the crux of the problem, lots of discussion, only a very, very few willing to take action to make things better.
                            Sajaman/|TG-Irr|Sajier - WoW Resto Shaman, BF2/BF2142 Assault/Medic

                            | | |

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: State of the Guild, March 2007

                              Here's another update RE: Squads.

                              The officers are currently chewing on the Squad idea front-and-center. Our goal is to come up with a description that will answer questions, define how the squads can operate (and cooperate) in a guild structure, and offer a foundation for acknowledging and managing a lot of the informal "squad" grouping that is already going on.

                              I hope to have something to present to the guild in a week or so, after which we can schedule a guild meeting on TeamSpeak to discuss, answer questions and review whatever other business is needed. In the mean time, please ask questions, share your thoughts, talk to the officer(s) of your choice about any concerns that you may have.
                              Beep


                              Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. - (Isaac Asimov)

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X