Jump to content

New tough creeps (more fun, gold sink, new buffs)


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Poll: Like this? (36 member(s) have cast votes)

Like this?

  1. Voted It all sucks (2 votes [5.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.56%

  2. Voted Tough creeps (10 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

  3. Voted Combat moves (6 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  4. Voted New buffs/enhancements (10 votes [27.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 27.78%

  5. Voted Less gold (8 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 09:51

I think that FS currently suffers from several problems - and some of them could be squashed in one go. Boring combats, abundance of gold, not much room for difference between good and bad players.

I would like to see new content (probably 900+, as it would be a major change) to feature the following:

1) Creeps that have either huge armor or huge HPs or both, so that with the currently available gear and buffs they would take a large number of hits to kill (10-30 hits).

2) Item droprate and creep XP multiplied roughly by the expected number of hits (as to keep stam per level about the same)

3) Gold dropped by the creep multiplied only by a fraction (1/2 or 1/3) of the XP multiplier, so gold per stam drops significantly.

4) New enhancements and buffs that would have a significant effect in those long combats. (Examples: Acidic touch that gradually decreases armor, parry/block that causes some damage to the attacker when they miss in combat or hit your armor for 1HP only).

5) Possibly even arena-moves style of combat could be applied, where you'd have to spend a few turns of the combat on weakening your opponent...

What would the overall effect be? Combat would become more fun and more challenging - AND most of all, it would offer much more room for differences between gear and buffs.
These days, the only difference in levelling speed is levels of CA applied based on how many empowered relics your guild holds :). In the proposed change, if the average combat would last 20 turns, there would be a lot of room for somebody to set up really good and make it in 18, 17 or even 16 hits, while some slacker could need even 25 hits... more differentiation between the average, good and best, more challenge in equipment combinations (not just "slap the polar set on and fire away, adjusting only occasionally for attack".

#2 Dark Developer

Dark Developer

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 503 posts
  • Badge

Posted 24 November 2009 - 13:00

This could happen to 1 level just to test it.

#3 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 14:06

mmm seems to be fun to do (altough I would be a slacker due to the fact I don't want to spend time thinking out setups anymore before i hunt).

But I don't think the majority of fs would want this, all changes ingame are made to make it easier...


1) seems to be fun
=> making multiple hits would also mean it takes less long to hunt as well

3) not that sure about this one, if you make battles last longer it also means the odds become bigger that you are killed (ssi isn't godmode anymore if you have to make 10-20 hits). So it means that goldincome for people who aren't good at this is so low they aren't even able anymore to buy a standard potionset

4) new enhancements would be nice to see in work then.

5) hmmm not sure how this could be implemented in the current system

(could be an idea for new buffs maybe.)

1)
Creature-enhancement
Shield (possibility that the creature has a shield which blocks all incoming attacks)

buff: destroy shield
+0.3% chance/skillpoint to destroy the opponents shield making you able to hit the opponent

at 150 skillpoints and fury caster you'd get 52,5% chance to destroy the shield of the creature.

Conclusion

1) Would be a great idea, a new way in leveling for people who either spend alot of money to powerlevel or dedicated players who are ingame a long time.

2) Would be something older players can look forward to who aren't challenged that much anymore

3) Gives HCS alot of possibilities to create new buffs, which won't be sold to people who aren't at the content. Meaning higher levels get new things to play with and won't make a fortune on people lower then them

#4 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 14:24

But I don't think the majority of fs would want this, all changes ingame are made to make it easier...


Screw the majority :). I'm sure that some people who are at the top of content right now would appreciate a possibility to actually be better than the competition by skill, not just by donating or trading or whatever other activity that is not much fun.

3) not that sure about this one, if you make battles last longer it also means the odds become bigger that you are killed (ssi isn't godmode anymore if you have to make 10-20 hits). So it means that goldincome for people who aren't good at this is so low they aren't even able anymore to buy a standard potionset


Well, the gold reduction IS necessary. Current costs of levelling at maximum efficiency are roughly these:
EW1500, Unb190/200, Lib225, Doubler750, BE350, Wit350 (and that's assuming the worst case, when you have 2hits and you NEED all the damage you can get). What's the total cost? 8+10+2+1+2+2 = 25 FSP = 4M gold in the very worst case, but replace unb200 with unb190 and you're at 3M. Add stashed EWs and you're suddenly well under 2M :).

Compare with income from levelling - I think that with weekly stam, I usually make something like 6M, not that I count it exactly, ever... So if gold was dropped to 50%, I'd still be able to make a profit sometimes or at least break even...

5) hmmm not sure how this could be implemented in the current system


I've never done arena so I don't know what the interface looks like, but I guess that most of it could be copied - and just give the player a new attack button (there's room, nobody uses "attack with 60 stamina" anyway.

#5 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 14:52

Well, the gold reduction IS necessary. Current costs of levelling at maximum efficiency are roughly these:
EW1500, Unb190/200, Lib225, Doubler750, BE350, Wit350 (and that's assuming the worst case, when you have 2hits and you NEED all the damage you can get). What's the total cost? 8+10+2+1+2+2 = 25 FSP = 4M gold in the very worst case, but replace unb200 with unb190 and you're at 3M. Add stashed EWs and you're suddenly well under 2M :).

Compare with income from levelling - I think that with weekly stam, I usually make something like 6M, not that I count it exactly, ever... So if gold was dropped to 50%, I'd still be able to make a profit sometimes or at least break even...

A gold sink is needed indeed.
I hunt with EW1500, Unb190, dc200, Doubler750, BE350, Wit350 (lately alot again). I'm not stocked up on ew pots so I have to buy new ones after each hunt again. My profit on average is about 800k after each 5 days.

But the problem is if you reduce the golddrop too much, you loose the fact of own skill again.
A player with 10k stamina can be able to be a better hunter against tough creeps then someone with 20k stamina. However the person who can burn the higher amount won't suffer that hard from a golddrop compared to someone with a lower stamina. Which could eventually lead to the fact that like it is now people who have the option to spend alot of money (or are great merchants) fill in the top positions.

If you are able to buy all the best potions and buffs but make 2 hits more then someone with a lower amount of stamina in the begin. Eventually the person wth the lower stamina might not be able to buy some key buffs for himself anymore. Making the fact he can't donate as often as the other person, a slightly worse leveler

I've never done arena so I don't know what the interface looks like, but I guess that most of it could be copied - and just give the player a new attack button (there's room, nobody uses "attack with 60 stamina" anyway.


You setup your 10 skills in order and they match up to the 10 skills of the other player.

#6 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 15:07

A gold sink is needed indeed.
I hunt with EW1500, Unb190, dc200, Doubler750, BE350, Wit350 (lately alot again). I'm not stocked up on ew pots so I have to buy new ones after each hunt again. My profit on average is about 800k after each 5 days.


Odds are that when you reach level 900, you'll have a significantly bigger max stam and will have more room for profit that I want to cut down :).

A player with 10k stamina can be able to be a better hunter against tough creeps then someone with 20k stamina. However the person who can burn the higher amount won't suffer that hard from a golddrop compared to someone with a lower stamina. Which could eventually lead to the fact that like it is now people who have the option to spend alot of money (or are great merchants) fill in the top positions.


This is a problem indeed, but it's something that will always be present. Just like a big guild has life easier than a small guild, a player with big max stam has life easier than a player with small max stam. Somebody with stam for 2 days only will have to choose less-than-perfect levelling setup.

Eventually the person wth the lower stamina might not be able to buy some key buffs for himself anymore. Making the fact he can't donate as often as the other person, a slightly worse leveler


We should discuss at what "customer group" should the change be targeted. Is is a reasonable assumption that at level 900, having weekly stamina capacity would be "average"? That is, if the system is tuned so that with weekly stam, you can just about break even WHILE getting the best buffs and pots, it should be OK. If somebody's got lesser max stam, they'd be forced to find cheaper alternatives, but that's what happens in the game already anyway.

You setup your 10 skills in order and they match up to the 10 skills of the other player.


Yea, then it should not be a problem to set up 10 skills for PvE combat using a similar interface...

#7 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 19:23

Odds are that when you reach level 900, you'll have a significantly bigger max stam and will have more room for profit that I want to cut down :).

That's indeed probably the scenario. However the amount of lesser gold to drop has to be thought out carefully, the EOC people will reach lvl 900 fast. But before the majority of the game reaches it, it'll take some time.
If the leveling curve of myself stays the same I'll reach lvl 900 next year around august/september. However I'm ranked around the 150th place. By the time the majority of the people reaches it prices of potions/fsp will be completly different from now. So the change in golddrop per kill will be extremly difficult, to get right at the start.

The example of making major changes to content has been given this week

We should discuss at what "customer group" should the change be targeted. Is is a reasonable assumption that at level 900, having weekly stamina capacity would be "average"? That is, if the system is tuned so that with weekly stam, you can just about break even WHILE getting the best buffs and pots, it should be OK. If somebody's got lesser max stam, they'd be forced to find cheaper alternatives, but that's what happens in the game already anyway.

I think you probably already can say that probably most of the top 250 players currently have about 10k max stamina.

You probably can assume that by that time everyone will have about weekly stamina capacity. Breaking even while getting the best buffs and pots would indeed be ok.

I do however think that the biggest problem in determing the break even point will be the difference in lvl of the top/medium and low level players.

You setup your 10 skills in order and they match up to the 10 skills of the other player.

Yea, then it should not be a problem to set up 10 skills for PvE combat using a similar interface...


True, but it would bring a big change in terms of leveling (would mean a new pvegame actually). You'd also have to adjust the skill tree alot (probably a second tab for lvl 900 skills).

I'm not against the idea of using combatmoves in pve. However I do like it more to just add in more creature enhancements and specific buffs against certain creature enhancements. Which wouldn't change the game too much. But maybe a big change is what's needed for the game to remain interesting for everyone once they reach that level.

Not a pro or con on this, I'll agree with the masses opinion on this one

#8 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 19:36

When I was thinking about the idea of stronger creeps, I thought of what impact it would have on leveling equipment.

To my surprise, common items will become more valuable in this system.

If I make 20 hits with 100% elite hunter or I make 10 hits with 0% elite hunter. The 10 hitter will gain more xp.

A system of tougher monsters also allows the ability to create more setups for each level (which depending on how implemented can be focused on a lack in a combatmove (if that's implemented) or a lack in a buff.

Item's who then have partial elite hunter gain bonuses can be really usefull as well.

#9 dragon1234

dragon1234

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Badge

Posted 24 November 2009 - 19:58

Regarding number 3, Im assuming this is a change to doubler, but as people have pointed out in the other thread, it might not work because people cant make enough money to gain back what then invested. How about just adding the reduction in gold multiplier to those doubler potions that are more than x4. make it so that it follow the equation sqrt(x), but only active x>4...Im assuming that those people who uses the doubler potions used them because they have a high amount of stamina...

I see a problem with the tough creeps thing because of how the relics are working right now, If a guild control high level relics, they are guarantee 10% increase per relic for every stats, meaning that they will be able to hit/kill tough creeps alot easier than someone in a smaller guilds. Unless they change the high level relics to have some diversity, it would still favor the big guilds.

dragon1234 - Ranger - lv 45

NoExercise - Tank - lv 45

DragonStorage - Storage - lv 13


#10 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 20:33

When I was thinking about the idea of stronger creeps, I thought of what impact it would have on leveling equipment.

To my surprise, common items will become more valuable in this system.

If I make 20 hits with 100% elite hunter or I make 10 hits with 0% elite hunter. The 10 hitter will gain more xp.


Unfortunately there is not much common equipment that would achieve better results than guild-tagged forged legendary, even 100 levels behind - although with new equip, this might change, and especially if the new creeps would be very tough and new equip enhancements would become a necessity...

Item's who then have partial elite hunter gain bonuses can be really usefull as well.


That indeed.

#11 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 21:05

Regarding number 3, Im assuming this is a change to doubler, but as people have pointed out in the other thread, it might not work because people cant make enough money to gain back what then invested. How about just adding the reduction in gold multiplier to those doubler potions that are more than x4. make it so that it follow the equation sqrt(x), but only active x>4...Im assuming that those people who uses the doubler potions used them because they have a high amount of stamina...


Well, no, this was intended as a direct reduction of gold drop, because, as shown above, anybody with more than 4 days of stamina is currently making net profit even if they level up with the most expensive pots.

I'm all in favor of either reducing doubler's gold multiplication OR for introducing a buff that makes a tradeoff between XP and gold (it can be pretty steep - 10% more xp for 50% less gold would still be a net positive for top players and at the same time would be a massive gold sink compared to today). If something like this would be added, no more reduction would be necessary.

#12 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 24 November 2009 - 21:17

Well your calculations are missing DC225 and EA200 for maximum efficiency. Furthermore you are assuming all buffs can be found in-house and that the guild is at a stage where no deposits are needed. You are possibility also still hunting with UB200 and thus aren't factoring the cost of repairs.

#13 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 24 November 2009 - 21:32

Well your calculations are missing DC225 and EA200 for maximum efficiency.


Oh, you're right, although EA200 makes quite a small difference and DC225 is needed only rarely.

Furthermore you are assuming all buffs can be found in-house and that the guild is at a stage where no deposits are needed.


Yes. I'm talking about NEW creeps, probably 900+ or even 1000+, by which time all buffs are most likely to be available in-house. Guild upkeep - same thing, easily covered by the army of mid-to-high-level players.

You are possibility also still hunting with UB200 and thus aren't factoring the cost of repairs.


No, I don't use Ub200. Definitely not worth it :). Costs of repairs are next to nothing - if you don't have crystalline gear, even unb175 is pretty good.

#14 dragon1234

dragon1234

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Badge

Posted 24 November 2009 - 22:10

Regarding number 3, Im assuming this is a change to doubler, but as people have pointed out in the other thread, it might not work because people cant make enough money to gain back what then invested. How about just adding the reduction in gold multiplier to those doubler potions that are more than x4. make it so that it follow the equation sqrt(x), but only active x>4...Im assuming that those people who uses the doubler potions used them because they have a high amount of stamina...


Well, no, this was intended as a direct reduction of gold drop, because, as shown above, anybody with more than 4 days of stamina is currently making net profit even if they level up with the most expensive pots.

I'm all in favor of either reducing doubler's gold multiplication OR for introducing a buff that makes a tradeoff between XP and gold (it can be pretty steep - 10% more xp for 50% less gold would still be a net positive for top players and at the same time would be a massive gold sink compared to today). If something like this would be added, no more reduction would be necessary.


I guess, but leveling is already easier since they just fix the xp/creature so increasing it wouldnt really be a good option, pretiege also, we dont want people to go back to gaining a level/ 3k stam again because then there will be more of a log jam at the top since new content seems to come out every couple weeks or so..

dragon1234 - Ranger - lv 45

NoExercise - Tank - lv 45

DragonStorage - Storage - lv 13


#15 vtpitbull

vtpitbull

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 02:00

I think that FS currently suffers from several problems - and some of them could be squashed in one go. Boring combats, abundance of gold, not much room for difference between good and bad players.

I would like to see new content (probably 900+, as it would be a major change) to feature the following:

1) Creeps that have either huge armor or huge HPs or both, so that with the currently available gear and buffs they would take a large number of hits to kill (10-30 hits).

2) Item droprate and creep XP multiplied roughly by the expected number of hits (as to keep stam per level about the same)

3) Gold dropped by the creep multiplied only by a fraction (1/2 or 1/3) of the XP multiplier, so gold per stam drops significantly.

4) New enhancements and buffs that would have a significant effect in those long combats. (Examples: Acidic touch that gradually decreases armor, parry/block that causes some damage to the attacker when they miss in combat or hit your armor for 1HP only).

5) Possibly even arena-moves style of combat could be applied, where you'd have to spend a few turns of the combat on weakening your opponent...

What would the overall effect be? Combat would become more fun and more challenging - AND most of all, it would offer much more room for differences between gear and buffs.
These days, the only difference in levelling speed is levels of CA applied based on how many empowered relics your guild holds :). In the proposed change, if the average combat would last 20 turns, there would be a lot of room for somebody to set up really good and make it in 18, 17 or even 16 hits, while some slacker could need even 25 hits... more differentiation between the average, good and best, more challenge in equipment combinations (not just "slap the polar set on and fire away, adjusting only occasionally for attack".


You seem to be forgetting that people are going to post how to do it and everyone is going to follow the new guide to proper hitting your way.

It will change nothing.

#16 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 13:03

You seem to be forgetting that people are going to post how to do it and everyone is going to follow the new guide to proper hitting your way.

It will change nothing.


First, people who want to be competitive don't share.

Second, "how to do it" could be much more variable and much more complicated than today. Today it's just "slap on the polar set and you might want these alternatives to best-damage-equipment to cope with the occasional lack of attack". In the proposed system, it might be more beneficial to spent a few turns at degrading the opponent's stats in the right way, or it might be better to use brute force - but there would be much more room for variability.

Third, if the cows decide to be really mean, the creeps could actually change over time :). A different enhancement, a few hundred points shifted from attack to armor or whatnot...

#17 fs_dikkedwerg

fs_dikkedwerg
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 13:07

I think you kinda exaggerate with your 10-30 hit combats...

first of all you don't mention the gold sink it brings with it (is this wrong?),
because a 10hit battle is a 90% gold sink :/ (you are only talking about
correcting the droprate and XP for the number of hits)

second I don't see the "extra" challenge of 10hitting compared to 2 hitting :/
the idea is still getting enough def or armor to prevent being hit, only in a
10hit combat the creature has 10x as much chance to hit you in the combat,
and an armor setup will result in 10x 1 damage, instead of 1x1 :?

#18 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 15:27

I think you kinda exaggerate with your 10-30 hit combats...

first of all you don't mention the gold sink it brings with it (is this wrong?),
because a 10hit battle is a 90% gold sink :/ (you are only talking about
correcting the droprate and XP for the number of hits)

second I don't see the "extra" challenge of 10hitting compared to 2 hitting :/
the idea is still getting enough def or armor to prevent being hit, only in a
10hit combat the creature has 10x as much chance to hit you in the combat,
and an armor setup will result in 10x 1 damage, instead of 1x1 :?



that's where the idea of making the new buffs come into place or the combatmoves.

For instance in a real battle as an example your opponent can have a shield on, which takes all your attacks so you don't do any damage.

However if you then put a skill against it => dent shield, destroy shield, steal shield, the opponent looses the shield making the only option left for him to parry your attack with his weapon (the 2% miss for instance).

If you take it this way you can make the game so that you can force your opponent to miss, regardless of what your defense and armor is (even if it wouldn't be enough)

for instance:
creature has a sword and shield enhancement
you are buffed up in your setup, but due to the creatures shield you don't have enough attack to hit it.
you have the following skills at your disposal:
*dent shield: with a fierce attack, you hit the opponent causing his shield to show dents. Lowering the creatures defense with xxx
*destroy shield:in an all out blow you destroy the shield of your opponent. Due to the strength used, you can't attack the next turn
*steal shield: with a cunning move you are able to take the shield from your opponent. Opponent can't hit you for the next 5 turns, but your damage is lowered with xxx due to not being able to wield your weapon with 2 hands

=> this is an example of the options you have depending on your own stats and the creatures stats. If you lack a bit of attack being buffed up dent shield could be the solution.
However if you lack alot of attack destroy shield might be better.
If you then lack defense against the creature steal shield would be better.

These are all options you could encounter in a real life situation in combat. But the decision you make is based on what stat you lack against the other creature. So in a 10 hit combat it doesn't mean the opponent would have 10 attacks against you (steal shield, he'll only have 5 attacks, so if you go in armorsetup it would mean he'll do 5 damage, but you already have the ability to do 5 extra attacks where you can for instance boost yourself up or something like that. which in the end could mean you actually could be safe for the entire fight depending on your skill choice).

The option could be be entirely safe for 99% of the time but take 3-4 hits more, or go allout kill in 2 hits less but have a risk of 90% of dying.

Edit
----
To take this even further and give champion monsters a bigger use might be that some combatmoves would only be accessible to you if you learn if from defeating for instance a certain amount of a champion. WHich would take longer to kill and be alot harder but, makes you able to use different setups in skills.

Same goes with elite creatures, currently it is making a large group, buff yourself up shield imp, high ca and attack the elite..., this addition could make elite's alot harder. And instead of only dropping equipment they can as well drop a "move" recipe

#19 fs_dikkedwerg

fs_dikkedwerg
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2009 - 16:00

@ prezze

more buffs is not something to make life harder...well not for people with a
high max stamina...they will keep buffing themselves with all they need...

you only make hunting impossible for people with a low max stamina, because
they need all those buffs to lvl a bit normal...

I don't see why we need to change the whole lvling idea in this game. To make
1 hitting impossible is one thing...adding annoying enhancements like Hypnotize
are not going to work for me...there is no need for knowledge, only the need of
some luck those enhancement don't kick in too often...

if creatures get enhancements, which can be countered by certain buffs/moves...
where is the thinking involved, other than activate those buffs/moves?

there is only a difference between 1 hit killing and 2+ hit killing, because you have
to look at creatures att and damage too...I don't see why we need to force people
to make 10hit combats and burn a week stam in 2 minutes :/

#20 Prezze

Prezze

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 771 posts

Posted 25 November 2009 - 16:24

@ prezze

more buffs is not something to make life harder...well not for people with a
high max stamina...they will keep buffing themselves with all they need...

you only make hunting impossible for people with a low max stamina, because
they need all those buffs to lvl a bit normal...

I don't see why we need to change the whole lvling idea in this game. To make
1 hitting impossible is one thing...adding annoying enhancements like Hypnotize
are not going to work for me...there is no need for knowledge, only the need of
some luck those enhancement don't kick in too often...

if creatures get enhancements, which can be countered by certain buffs/moves...
where is the thinking involved, other than activate those buffs/moves?

there is only a difference between 1 hit killing and 2+ hit killing, because you have
to look at creatures att and damage too...I don't see why we need to force people
to make 10hit combats and burn a week stam in 2 minutes :/


I do agree with the buff part. However with the moves part I don't agree.

You can add recipes to champions, elite's. Which learn you a new move.
You can add moves to counter some enhancements, but with side-effects on stats. Some moves might be able to do the same thing, but have a different side-effect. Questrewards can be a choice in 2 moves, if you have choosen one, you'll never be able to get the other.

A combat will be decided based on the moves you have. So yes everyone has to do some thinking then. If your gear lacks enough attack and you don't have a move to increase attack or decrease the other opponents defense. You'll have to use another setup. If you have a move to increase attack and decrease opponents defence. One move might have a bigger side-effect then the other. It'll become more off who chooses the best move pallet against a certain creature with the equipment he has available.

This will change the fact that everyone just buy's the best buffs, slaps on the same gear and is either 1 or 2 hitting like it currently is. Everyone will still try to buy the best buffs available. And it already is that way that people with lower max stamina can't afford all the best buffs. I can't afford to get all the buffs on me, someone who burns 20k stamina can afford them.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: