Servers as a karma ladder?

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 19:58:28

Yeah I agree that this forum has gone way off topic, I did not intend for my idea to take over the entire post. So if this only applies to people who are murdered, then okay. But what if it goes, as has been suggested, that it happens for all death. If it applied to all death, I think there would definitely need to be an age limit.

Let's say, once you reach the age when you can fend for yourself, you get 4 extra hunger bars and you're immediately on the clock. Your time to stay alive has officially started. Thoughts?

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2018-05-02 20:01:08)

YAHG · 2018-05-02 20:10:45

FeignedSanity wrote:

Yeah I agree that this forum has gone way off topic, I did not intend for my idea to take over the entire post. So if this only applies to people who are murdered, then okay. But what if it goes, as has been suggested, that it happens for all death. If it applied to all death, I think there would definitely need to be an age limit.
Let's say, once you reach the age when you can fend for yourself, you get 4 extra hunger bars and you're immediately on the clock. Your time to stay alive has officially started. Thoughts?

Just for murder. You can kill wayyy more people through starvation than murder while not getting caught.

Just hide a basket of pies behind a tree in some useless area, then nibble on extra food while you go about your work.
I saw a lady eat 5-6 carrots in a minute or so, I called her out on it but I was unarmed child so little I could do to her.
There is no one in charge to tell, who can deal with shit and they have no reason to believe you over them anyways as it is.

YAHG · 2018-05-02 20:11:53

Thorware wrote:

Consider this idea:
If you die, you can never be reborn to the same family (anyone with a common Eve ancestor), UNLESS:
If you die of old age, you unlock a special "get reborn into family" button. If no family mothers are available, it can place you in a holding state to wait for a young girl to grow older or for a birth cooldown to end before you come back, and you can always choose to stop waiting and get reborn normally. Possibly a player reborn this way is indicated (glow/icon/etc) so mothers are incentivized to keep a baby born this way, someone that already knows the town, is invested, and wants to help. If you are abandoned anyway, that's the end for you in this village.
Benefits:
1. If you kill a griefer, they are banished from your family, and in all likelihood your entire village, permanently. (Eves wandering in could potentially give them a second chance.)
2. It's common to want to see what happens with a village you have spent a lot of time in, and help develop it further. By surviving to old age you demonstrate that you thrived in the village, so you are able to return to that village as your reward for a good job.
3. If you mess up and die accidentally, you lose the ability to satisfy that desire to see how the village continues. That's a harsh death punishment just like Jason would like, without preventing you from spawning again and continuing to play if you like, just somewhere else.
4. The survival of a village is the story of a family/dynasty/country, all working together for common long-term survival. As people die prematurely, they are "voted off the island," and new blood will be born in instead. (As an aside, I believe bell tower construction should be restricted to a single family line.)
5. This solution involves no "black magic" or complex player voting, it's simply a tweak of the "get reborn" mechanic. It also seems relatively simple to implement.
6. This solution eliminates baby suiciding as a means to get reborn into an old town.
A drawback is that if a village is very successful and lasts a very long time, if the player base is too small, eventually everyone will accidentally die sooner or later and eventually there will be nobody left to be born into the town. A solution might be to have a cooldown of something like 6 hours to get reborn into the family line instead of a permanent lock.
Murder will sting in this solution because someone just ruined your chance to keep playing in your area. But murder is terrible, and that's life.
I realize that this approach is a small violation of the "one hour, one life" concept to live a totally new story in the next hour, but I think that the benefits and using it as a reward for a life well lived (new game+) outweigh this violation.

https://onehouronelife.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=1406
Amen

kubassa · 2018-05-02 20:13:08

FeignedSanity wrote:

But I don't think that's what the game is about.

Your opinion.

FeignedSanity wrote:

Maybe make 10 out of the 15 servers for people who want to do this, sure, fine.

What does this even mean?

FeignedSanity wrote:

Or maybe make it easier to host your own server, something like DST.

Why would people play a game where they have to play on a personal hosted server to play with friends and family. That is an asinine comment for sure. I play games with friends and family. Maybe you are loner and no one wants to hang out with you online but many of us have people we like to play with online.

FeignedSanity wrote:

But if you're "baby suiciding" just to play the game with your IRL friend or family, then you're ruining it for everyone else.

How exactly is it 'ruining' anything for anyone? Just making the comment doesn't make your statement true. Why would you want someone born to you that doesn't want to be there. That leads to griefing.

FeignedSanity wrote:

I know people tend not to think of others, but that's what this game is all about. Thinking about others.

The irony is strong with you young padawan. Some people play games with friends. That lack of that option rules out a very HIGH percentage of players ever even playing the game. Will you be happy when there is just 10 of you playing the game the exact way you want them to? YOU should think of others and realize people have friends.

FeignedSanity wrote:

You're actions are not for you, they are for the other people in your family. The ones living, and the ones that come after.

When i play with my nephew this can still be the case. What exactly are you arguing?

Last edited by kubassa (2018-05-02 20:19:41)

Anshin · 2018-05-02 20:14:23

I *LOVE* this whole server karma ladder idea!

Looking forward to server 8, with seven levels above, and seven levels below...

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 20:23:29

Kubassa, I'm not discussing it in this post anymore unless Jason is posting something about it in this thread. I'd like to move the discussion to a more relevant post so this one can get back on track.

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 20:26:50

YAHG wrote:

Just for murder. You can kill wayyy more people through starvation than murder while not getting caught.
Just hide a basket of pies behind a tree in some useless area, then nibble on extra food while you go about your work.
I saw a lady eat 5-6 carrots in a minute or so, I called her out on it but I was unarmed child so little I could do to her.
There is no one in charge to tell, who can deal with shit and they have no reason to believe you over them anyways as it is.

Oh dang, yeah that's a good point. The other servers would fill up mad quick LMAO.

kubassa · 2018-05-02 20:36:00

FeignedSanity wrote:

Kubassa, I'm not discussing it in this post anymore unless Jason is posting something about it in this thread. I'd like to move the discussion to a more relevant post so this one can get back on track.

You can just say 'you are right I have no argument' or 'your right I have no constructive ideas to back up my statement'.

You make a bunch of claims that where false I'm going to call you on it. The post was and still is on topic.

Last edited by kubassa (2018-05-02 20:36:23)

Atticus · 2018-05-02 21:29:19

edit: why do I even bother...

Last edited by Atticus (2018-05-02 21:46:05)

jasonrohrer · 2018-05-02 21:34:35

Kubassa, this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends.

Obviously, if you want to do that currently, you have to fight against the game every step of the way. Baby suicide on the main servers, or using a custom server setting to play on one of the vacant, high-numbered server.

If I wanted to make a game that was easy to play with friends, I would have made the game way differently. You would have a friend code that you could share to control who your mother was.

Heck, the whole birth thing wouldn't even be part of a game that was meant to be played with friends, since it doesn't make sense. The whole point is that a STRANGER is your mother, just like in real life. If I wanted to make a game to be played with friends, I would make a game where you and your friend were the same age and behaved like friends, not like parent and child.

So I'm not going to avoid implementing features just because it might make it harder to play with friends.

You have high numbered servers, and custom servers, if you really want to do that.

jasonrohrer · 2018-05-02 21:38:31

One question remains about a lineage ban for everyone (where you can only be part of a given family once): will the lack of new blood doom a thriving village and prevent longer-term group projects? How likely is a village to simply "run out of babies" because they run out of new players to participate in their family line?

I just ran some stats, and daily unique players for the past 3 days (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday) are:

1044
906
889

Considering two days together, Monday and Tuesday, there were 1280 unique players over those two days. Thus, there is churn of 300-400 players each day.

If a village has 20 people in it which need to be replaced every hour, then it needs at least 20 fresh players born to it every hour to keep going. If there are 900 players to go through, the village can survive 45 hours before running out of people. Given that this is close to the all time record for a family line to survive, this seems pretty good. Add to that the churn of 300+ new players each day, and at the end of 45 hours, they should be have about 600 new people available, letting them go another 30 hours, at which point there will be 300 new people available, taking them another 15 hours, for a grand total of 90 hours. These are all back-of-the-napkin calculations.

And all this assumes that they don't ever go on a quest to recruit a new family line to their village (ring the bell, or whatever), which of course would let them extend their village as many times as they want.

Sounds pretty good.

And maybe there could be a glacial 24-hour cooldown on this effect, which is too long to wait out with an "I'll come back later" attitude, but would still allow you to "make the rounds" tomorrow and revisit villages you were once part of long ago.

SSDarkMoon · 2018-05-02 21:46:51

I am thinking about
in the future ,a guillotine with a law paper or some kind of things can down the person 3 grade.

Lepisma · 2018-05-02 22:16:48

jasonrohrer wrote:

If a village has 20 people in it which need to be replaced every hour, then it needs at least 20 fresh players born to it every hour to keep going. If there are 900 players to go through, the village can survive 45 hours before running out of people. Given that this is close to the all time record for a family line to survive, this seems pretty good. Add to that the churn of 300+ new players each day, and at the end of 45 hours, they should be have about 600 new people available, letting them go another 30 hours, at which point there will be 300 new people available, taking them another 15 hours, for a grand total of 90 hours. These are all back-of-the-napkin calculations.

But how many of those 900 players live to 60 for every life? I don't think the supply will last the full 45 hours. It might still be plenty of time in the end, especially for a large village, but small villages just starting out are likely going to have a high mortality rate and burn through their supply much more quickly. There's also the male/female ratio and birthing age window (14-45?) to consider. How many babies does the average female produce? How does having more active villages influence that birth rate, since the babies will be spread out? My concern would be that this is best-case-scenario math, and reality might not be able to reach that bar.

Last edited by Lepisma (2018-05-02 22:19:06)

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 22:39:31

Well, I think that it isn't on topic at all. The original question was regarding servers and a karma system. It is entirely about using the servers as a way to enforce said karma system. It had nothing to do with your lineage or your ability to be reborn into it. So I made a separate post where I gladly invited you to continue the conversation there. I find it kind of pathetic that your initial instinct is to assume that I'm running and hiding from you because I'm not man enough to admit my faults or when I'm wrong (and yes I consider making statement you can't back up as a fault). But since Jason has continued the discussion in this thread, I'm guessing that this is now what he wants this to be about. So I will follow suit.

For your first point, I'd really like to say "No shit Sherlock, thank you for pointing out the obvious", but I'm going to avoid it and just take the time to inform you that unfortunately this is a forum my good man. 90% of it is going to be people voicing their opinions, thoughts, and ideas. I never once implied my statement to be anything other than my opinion. I even specifically said that "I don't THINK" making it painfully clear to all but the most negligent readers that this is first and foremost, my opinion. And judging by Jason's statements earlier, it's clear to see that Jason shares this opinion. So does that make my opinion now fact? I don't know, so feel free to let me know.

jasonrohrer wrote:

Not sure that I've heard the notion of banning everyone from repeat lineage before....

That means that you'd pretty much only get a chance to play in a given city once, unless you migrated back to it with a different lineage later?
Yeah, that certainly aligns with the spirit of the game.

I do need to make the game I'm trying to make, and not remake minecraft creative mode with parenting or whatever.

I've always wanted dying in this game to be a HOLY FUCK emotionally-rattling moment. This life is over, I can't believe it, I'll never see any of you again, please remember me, goodbye, I love you all. I want you to physically weep every time.
I think the game is pretty close to this if you play occasionally. The first time you live to old age with your grandchildren running around you as you die.
But being born back to the same village in the very next life subverts this somewhat.

Secondly, I'm referring to the ability to play on the un-populated servers with your friends. I was suggesting that if he did implement this, to maybe leave 10 of the servers as they are so they can still be used for this. I have personally used this feature to play the game with my own friends so I would not disrupt anyone else's experience on the main server. You know, the considerate thing to do. I'm not sure how I could've been any clearer on what I had intended this to mean.

Third, many people do play on personally hosted servers. I'm guessing Don't Starve Together never had any appeal because people only want to play with their friends if it's the main server.
Honestly you are sounding more like the loner considering you've never even fathomed this as a possibility, but thank you for making assumptions about my personal life. Next, tell me what my favorite color is and what I like to do on the weekends. Sorry if I'm being a little too heavy on the sarcasm, but I feel like this entire conversation is a waist of my time. And I assure you that none of my comments could possibly be any more asinine than yours.

Fourth, I am aware that making a comment doesn't make it true, although I'm not entirely sure if you've grasped the concept. Since you're so blissfully unaware of the recent problem the community has been having with them, let me explain it to you in a way that even you could hopefully understand. Children are necessary for a settlement to survive. Are you still with me? Okay, let's hope so. It is very easy to die in this game, most people seem to manage it effortlessly. So let's say you're in a scenario where you are an eve, and have had 4 boys. You still need a girl or you're doom and the clock is ticking. Yay, look at that, you just spawned in as their first and probably only daughter. That's great, now their work wont be for nothing...oh, you ran off and suicided because you didn't get born into the city you wanted...no, you're right sorry. After thinking about it and sounding it out clearly, I completely agree. Being a suicide baby couldn't possibly ruin any one else's experience in the game. Man, I'm on a role right now

Fifth, the irony is indeed rich, I will give you that. This whole conversation has been filled with it, but I'm not sure you're entirely grasping it, my friend. I am aware that people want to play games with their friends, there are games for that. I'm also aware that people want to play games alone, there are games for that. But how many games are there for people that want to experience meeting new people, and knowing that your time with them is fleeting and therefor precious? Go ahead and name me a few, I look forward to it.

Sixth, (and thankfully finally), I have spent my entire time on this post explaining my argument. Even the 14 page essay I wrote for you is explaining my argument, so I seriously doubt you'll grasp it even if I give you a recap here. I will say that your nephew is one person. I'm sorry I forgot that the bunnies you caught will just be so that your nephew can survive. I forgot that those pies you are making are just so your nephew can eat. I forgot that apparently when you play this game, you seem to only be thinking about the people you already know; otherwise you would've known what I was talking about here.

Side note:I guess Jason already set you straight on this, so that's pretty nifty.

YAHG · 2018-05-02 22:42:19

Lepisma wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
If a village has 20 people in it which need to be replaced every hour, then it needs at least 20 fresh players born to it every hour to keep going. If there are 900 players to go through, the village can survive 45 hours before running out of people. Given that this is close to the all time record for a family line to survive, this seems pretty good. Add to that the churn of 300+ new players each day, and at the end of 45 hours, they should be have about 600 new people available, letting them go another 30 hours, at which point there will be 300 new people available, taking them another 15 hours, for a grand total of 90 hours. These are all back-of-the-napkin calculations.
But how many of those 900 players live to 60 for every life? I don't think the supply will last the full 45 hours. It might still be plenty of time in the end, especially for a large village, but small villages just starting out are likely going to have a high mortality rate and burn through their supply much more quickly. There's also the male/female ratio and birthing age window (14-45?) to consider. How many babies does the average female produce? How does having more active villages influence that birth rate, since the babies will be spread out? My concern would be that this is best-case-scenario math, and reality might not be able to reach that bar.

We also want to reach further though too don't we?

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 22:44:19

jasonrohrer wrote:

One question remains about a lineage ban for everyone (where you can only be part of a given family once): will the lack of new blood doom a thriving village and prevent longer-term group projects? How likely is a village to simply "run out of babies" because they run out of new players to participate in their family line?

I just ran some stats, and daily unique players for the past 3 days (Sunday, Monday, Tuesday) are:
1044
906
889
Considering two days together, Monday and Tuesday, there were 1280 unique players over those two days. Thus, there is churn of 300-400 players each day.
If a village has 20 people in it which need to be replaced every hour, then it needs at least 20 fresh players born to it every hour to keep going. If there are 900 players to go through, the village can survive 45 hours before running out of people. Given that this is close to the all time record for a family line to survive, this seems pretty good. Add to that the churn of 300+ new players each day, and at the end of 45 hours, they should be have about 600 new people available, letting them go another 30 hours, at which point there will be 300 new people available, taking them another 15 hours, for a grand total of 90 hours. These are all back-of-the-napkin calculations.
And all this assumes that they don't ever go on a quest to recruit a new family line to their village (ring the bell, or whatever), which of course would let them extend their village as many times as they want.
Sounds pretty good.
And maybe there could be a glacial 24-hour cooldown on this effect, which is too long to wait out with an "I'll come back later" attitude, but would still allow you to "make the rounds" tomorrow and revisit villages you were once part of long ago.

Nice, then it seems like there's really no problem with it other than the people who will be unhappy with the change. Thank you for taking the time to calculate and share this data. Sure, it'll probably need tweeking and fine tuning (like everything else). But it's nice to see that "best case scenario" it's possible, and worst case (at least to me) sounds reasonable.

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2018-05-02 22:46:18)

kubassa · 2018-05-02 22:51:55

jasonrohrer wrote:

Kubassa, this isn't a game that is meant to be played with friends.

Yet you are posting about how to solve 'griefing issues'. I get it that you want the spawn to random to strangers. If the game to be is 'repeat 6 things in your hour' over and over, IE get a farm, get a forge, it gets monotonous. Why even expand a crafting tree when you may have to do the exact same thing every time you play the game, six days consecutive, never even having a chance to reach the higher tiers of the crafting tree?. Why punish players that want to play in the big city to move on from crafting the forge for 11 day in a row and crafting some of the new content you create.

I'm not asking you to make anything to 'suit' me by no means. The game doesn't make any sense if you can't progress through the tedious stuff and move on. The city that gets built is by the same people every time and people keep trying to get to it because they don't want to have to make a carrot farm from scratch again. Trying to find ways to make it harder for them to get back that city, even if they were a good citizen, is odd. I will remember though that the people playing are strangers so no need to become friends with them in the game because I will never see them again. So you people using code letters.... GG.

jasonrohrer wrote:

You have high numbered servers, and custom servers, if you really want to do that.

When there is only two people in 'high numbered' servers, say me and my daughter, you are right we can play together but when we can't have any children because it's just the two of us the 'high numbered' server just is not a fun option. Same goes with the 'custom' servers.
It is your game and if you want to alienate people from your servers you can.

Last edited by kubassa (2018-05-02 22:53:33)

Potjeh · 2018-05-02 23:21:57

If randomly grouped civilizations aren't viable that just means the game should be rebalanced so they are. Random grouping is *the* core concept of the game.

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-02 23:42:23

Kubassa, are you really trying to sit here and say that "solving griefing issues" only applies to people that play with friends? Where is the sense in that? The people you're most likely to grief ARE random strangers, because you don't know them; who cares what they think about you. I feel like you live on a different planet, you feel so disconnected. And your comments lead me to believe that you've hardly played the game at all. First off, you are not doing the same thing every time. Just because you aren't playing with a group of friends, doesn't mean you're always born to eve's that have nothing and you're gonna be on carrot duty. A lot of the other "random people" know how to make a forge (crazy, and I thought you were the only one that knew how to do it as well). I don't know if I'm going to bother reading anything else you write because it's so nonsensical and frustrating. But yes, by all means, just because you're never going to see them again, be a dick. I'd say that logic sounds about right from what I've seen of you so far.

YAHG · 2018-05-02 23:50:56

Just because villages are not lasting longer that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

The game shouldn't make it so that it isn't possible to survive, hard is fine but not possible removes the challenge and just makes it dumb..

Alleria · 2018-05-03 00:07:06

There's two glaring problems of the permanent lineage ban that nobody seems to be addressing.

1. Jason's maths doesn't account for off-peak, which is about 30-40 players and lasting for a few hours. This already "culls" the less desirable civilisations from the world, as a much smaller playerbase is born to the same amount of cities. Also, how many of these players have been hit with that civs lineages "ban"? I doubt we'd ever see a dynasty last more than 18 hours ever again.

2. This would make migration or forking the population an inherently bad thing. I personally like to splinter off if my civ is in a suboptimal location and I think I can find a better place. However, this would mean that my new civ would be in direct competition with the old civ for babies. This means we'll be cycling through the potential players at double the speed as before. No longer will I be able to tell girls to migrate out of the city and form new settlements, and instead when it comes to population management, my only options will be either to murder, or create conditions in which they'll starve to death. There'd be no longer a means to pleasantly solve overpopulation... A new "grief" will emerge where when born as a girl, you migrate and waste that dynasties babies.

One pro is that if Eves did coord track and find their way back to the civ, it'll mean there's an incentive to keep around non-dynastic members. I think there'd be great RP value to running around your village seeing the Smith family and the Deatherages coexisting. The problem with the current meta is that bell towers would not enable this, since a dynasty will no longer survive long enough to complete a belltower.

Another thing we'll see is tech stagnation, and Kubassa rightfully pointed out, once a civ has cycled through the "good" players, they are just going to fall down and collapse. This isn't an IF, but a WHEN. The average player eats more than they produce in labour.

Last edited by Alleria (2018-05-03 00:16:51)

FeignedSanity · 2018-05-03 00:11:41

YAHG wrote:

Just because villages are not lasting longer that doesn't mean they shouldn't.
The game shouldn't make it so that it isn't possible to survive, hard is fine but not possible removes the challenge and just makes it dumb..

Well judging by the actual data, is seems that we haven't even come close to reaching the limit this sort of system would set. If the data showed that the current player base couldn't possibly support this kind of thing, then I'd see you point. But it's right there. Now I give you, his numbers are kind of "best case scenario", but if you even half it, it still reaches the standard set by the unreasonable 111 generation.

Also I don't see the logic in making something impossible taking away the challenge. Arguably, if it was impossible, it couldn't get any more challenging, no? Besides, surviving wouldn't be the impossible part. Surviving indefinitely for as long as time stands, would be impossible with an outright ban.

Angel Carrillo · 2018-05-03 00:14:06

Pretty interesting idea Jason Rohrer. But there are some jarring flaws with this one. Though every system does have them so don't feel too pressured.

Alleria · 2018-05-03 00:22:49

FeignedSanity wrote:

YAHG wrote:
Just because villages are not lasting longer that doesn't mean they shouldn't.
The game shouldn't make it so that it isn't possible to survive, hard is fine but not possible removes the challenge and just makes it dumb..
Well judging by the actual data, is seems that we haven't even come close to reaching the limit this sort of system would set. If the data showed that the current player base couldn't possibly support this kind of thing, then I'd see you point. But it's right there. Now I give you, his numbers are kind of "best case scenario", but if you even half it, it still reaches the standard set by the unreasonable 111 generation.
Also I don't see the logic in making something impossible taking away the challenge. Arguably, if it was impossible, it couldn't get any more challenging, no? Besides, surviving wouldn't be the impossible part. Surviving indefinitely for as long as time stands, would be impossible with an outright ban.

111 generations is not an unreasonable standard, we could have gone on indefinitely, we just got tired and none of the public wanted to play with our city. I was in a civ that reached about 70 generations (rough estimate, I hope Jason could tell us the 2nd longest generation) on the main servers but it died out largely due to underpopulation. Jason's figures are a rough estimate. We'd never even reach 50 generations if people were banned from dynasties for 24 hours. The way 70 generations was reached was through the eventual settlement of 4 neighbouring cities. This meant that if one civ got griefed, the others could resettle later on. Settling multiple cities would be tantamount to griefing if this goes through.

Last edited by Alleria (2018-05-03 00:23:44)

danger1penguin · 2018-05-03 00:23:14

Okay, Ill be surprised if this wasnt already mentioned, but I didnt want to read the paragraphs that everyone wrote, so I just read Jasons because he is the one who we are trying to persuade.

If you “perma” ban lineage respawns, you need to make one huge change. Giving birth needs to be option. People arent letting kids die because they dont need them, they are doing it because the village will starve if they keep them. If we dont severely decrease birth rates (or allow control) more than half the people to a village will be wasted to prevent overpop. The ~45-90hrs u calculated will end up being more like ~3-5. Again, I know its not the game you intended to design, but like you said, players clearly exploit it because thats what they want. I dont think its anything like creative mode Minecraft, it is an option for us to see our work progress as a reward for working hard (talking about yahg’s thread on rebirth).

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2018-05-02 19:58:28

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#52 2018-05-02 20:10:45

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#53 2018-05-02 20:11:53

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#54 2018-05-02 20:13:08

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#55 2018-05-02 20:14:23

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#56 2018-05-02 20:23:29

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#57 2018-05-02 20:26:50

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#58 2018-05-02 20:36:00

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#59 2018-05-02 21:29:19

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#60 2018-05-02 21:34:35

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#61 2018-05-02 21:38:31

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#62 2018-05-02 21:46:51

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#63 2018-05-02 22:16:48

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#64 2018-05-02 22:39:31

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#65 2018-05-02 22:42:19

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#66 2018-05-02 22:44:19

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#67 2018-05-02 22:51:55

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#68 2018-05-02 23:21:57

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#69 2018-05-02 23:42:23

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#70 2018-05-02 23:50:56

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#71 2018-05-03 00:07:06

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#72 2018-05-03 00:11:41

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#73 2018-05-03 00:14:06

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#74 2018-05-03 00:22:49

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

#75 2018-05-03 00:23:14

Re: Servers as a karma ladder?

Board footer