Birth system idea

Floofy · 2018-11-19 20:53:25

One annoyance we have currently in the game is how some mothers who want no childs get spammed of them, and some mothers who desperately want childs gets none. Many solutions have been proposed for this (birth control, etc). I want to propose my own one, and if its liked here, i will post it in main suggestion sub.

The system would work like this: when a player clicks "login" to join a game, the system scans for all fertile mothers currently alive, and he is born under the mother with the highest score.

The score system works like this:

Age of mother - 5x -10y
x = Number of boys born under that mother (sudden death doesn't count)
y = Number of girls born under that mother (sudden death doesn't count)

For example, let's say we got these 2 mothers:

Clara is 38 and only had 2 boys (score is 28)
Sarah is 14 and didn't have any children yet (score is 14)

In this case, Clara will get the next child in priority.
There is 2 main objective to this system.

1: Increase everyone's chance to get at least 1 daughter
2: More babies when you're older and more ready to actually have them.

thoughts?

Tramax · 2018-11-20 08:03:04

I like the idea but it would ultimately lead to more kids being born to mums who are on the cusp of menopause. Wouldn't it be better if the 50th percentile of ages that are fertile have the highest priority?

Last edited by Tramax (2018-11-20 08:03:35)

lionon · 2018-11-20 08:43:02

Tramax wrote:

I like the idea but it would ultimately lead to more kids being born to mums who are on the cusp of menopause. Wouldn't it be better if the 50th percentile of ages that are fertile have the highest priority?

IMO the menopause just shouldn't immediately go hand in hand with the inability to breastfeed. Have that go 5 years later and it be fine.

Floofy · 2018-11-20 16:14:24

lionon wrote:

Tramax wrote:
I like the idea but it would ultimately lead to more kids being born to mums who are on the cusp of menopause. Wouldn't it be better if the 50th percentile of ages that are fertile have the highest priority?
IMO the menopause just shouldn't immediately go hand in hand with the inability to breastfeed. Have that go 5 years later and it be fine.

Yes this is a good idea imo. A bit annoying to get a baby at 39 and you can't feed him.

Anshin · 2018-11-20 16:46:47

Floofy wrote:

lionon wrote:
IMO the menopause just shouldn't immediately go hand in hand with the inability to breastfeed. Have that go 5 years later and it be fine.
Yes this is a good idea imo. A bit annoying to get a baby at 39 and you can't feed him.

+1 excellent idea

AlanB · 2018-11-20 19:59:49

Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.

And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.

When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.

My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.

We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.

These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.

IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.

Floofy · 2018-11-20 20:34:48

AlanB wrote:

Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.
And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.
When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.
My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.
We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.
These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.
IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.

I remember a moment where i had a single girl, and that girl actually had ZERO childrens. In my case, i had the opposite feelings as you. I just felt like the game wasted 40 minutes of my time. What's the point of building a town if you're gonna have 0 descendants?

I do agree with you struggles is fun, but when its just IMPOSSIBLE to have descendants because the game decides you get no daughters, that's not fun imo.

Heck, i agree the game should be hard and i'm all for making it harder (especially at later stages of civilization), but it should be hard for the right reasons (for example, the little starving story you described), not because you get all boys. That's not "hard struggle", that's stupidity.

AlanB · 2018-11-20 20:55:37

Floofy wrote:

AlanB wrote:
Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.
And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.
When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.
My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.
We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.
These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.
IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.
I remember a moment where i had a single girl, and that girl actually had ZERO childrens. In my case, i had the opposite feelings as you. I just felt like the game wasted 40 minutes of my time. What's the point of building a town if you're gonna have 0 descendants?
I do agree with you struggles is fun, but when its just IMPOSSIBLE to have descendants because the game decides you get no daughters, that's not fun imo.
Heck, i agree the game should be hard and i'm all for making it harder (especially at later stages of civilization), but it should be hard for the right reasons (for example, the little starving story you described), not because you get all boys. That's not "hard struggle", that's stupidity.

What time? Perhaps there just wasn't enough players on.

Floofy · 2018-11-20 21:14:50

AlanB wrote:

Floofy wrote:
AlanB wrote:
Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.
And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.
When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.
My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.
We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.
These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.
IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.
I remember a moment where i had a single girl, and that girl actually had ZERO childrens. In my case, i had the opposite feelings as you. I just felt like the game wasted 40 minutes of my time. What's the point of building a town if you're gonna have 0 descendants?
I do agree with you struggles is fun, but when its just IMPOSSIBLE to have descendants because the game decides you get no daughters, that's not fun imo.
Heck, i agree the game should be hard and i'm all for making it harder (especially at later stages of civilization), but it should be hard for the right reasons (for example, the little starving story you described), not because you get all boys. That's not "hard struggle", that's stupidity.
What time? Perhaps there just wasn't enough players on.

I believe it was before the jungle update. Most likely caused by that, since ZERO children for my daughter was really weird. (in my case, i had this daughter and a few more kids).

Tramax · 2018-11-20 22:09:12

AlanB wrote:

Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.
And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.
When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.
My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.
We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.
These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.
IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.

I know where you're coming from with that - however what I like about this suggestion is that Floofy isn't asking for the ratio of males to females to be modified - players will still be assigned male or female 50/50. It's just where they're allocated. If every fertile female in the game had x+2 amount of sons and x amount of daughters the next players to join would still have equal chance of being male or female - it's just that once the older women have a kid the younger women have a higher chance of getting one too.

To hammer it home - in a scenario where a woman was 28 and had no kids - she will have a higher chance than her younger sister to have a child. But this older woman would still have nearly the same chance of having 5 sons, no daughters while her sister may have two daughters and no sons. All that is being proposed is that a more equal chance to have kids exists - and then in conjunction with that you have a better chance of squeezing out one daughter because your spawning rate is higher than someone who already has one.

Floofy · 2018-11-21 17:30:25

Tramax wrote:

AlanB wrote:
Yesterday, I found an awesome spot as an Eve. A mix of various biomes. A lot of water. Had everything going real quick. One issue: had all boys.
And, I like the fact they were all boys. That's part of the game.
When a game starts getting 'tweaks' to make things easier/predictable you start losing emergent gameplay.
My favorite/most memorable moment was when I had a 'newb Eve' pop me out as a girl, then a few moments later another girl. Our Eve mom died shortly after due to starvation trying to support two of us. We were both still infants, but I grew up just in time to find a nearby berry bush and save myself and my little sister.
We ran around as kids, barely surviving, helping each other until I was 17 and had a baby girl. Then... a wolf got me. We said our goodbyes and my sister grabbed the baby. Went on for a few generations after.
These types of moments will get ruined if the starting/Eve mechanics were to change.
IMHO, it's the unpredictable moments (even in village building) that makes this game good. If things become more predictable and 'easier' then it'll kill the meaning of the game. Which, IMHO, is about the struggles and not the need to build a super-civilization.
I know where you're coming from with that - however what I like about this suggestion is that Floofy isn't asking for the ratio of males to females to be modified - players will still be assigned male or female 50/50. It's just where they're allocated. If every fertile female in the game had x+2 amount of sons and x amount of daughters the next players to join would still have equal chance of being male or female - it's just that once the older women have a kid the younger women have a higher chance of getting one too.
To hammer it home - in a scenario where a woman was 28 and had no kids - she will have a higher chance than her younger sister to have a child. But this older woman would still have nearly the same chance of having 5 sons, no daughters while her sister may have two daughters and no sons. All that is being proposed is that a more equal chance to have kids exists - and then in conjunction with that you have a better chance of squeezing out one daughter because your spawning rate is higher than someone who already has one.

Exactly

And in a way, this system isn't totally unrealistic. Humans don't have babies at random. A 35 year old women that never had a child is much more likely to hurry up and get one, than a 35 year old women that already had plenty of childs. Also a women that never had a daughter is more likely to keep trying.

betame · 2018-11-21 20:53:25

YES!

Currently, the birth control mechanic is warmth. The warmer you are, the more likely the next login will be your baby, and every mother has a chance.
But with the addition of Jungles and the lack of meaningful temperature-moderating tech, player heat is a terrible metric for our intent to have a baby.

An automatic intent-to-parent score is a smart solution, and I'd invite player-controlled tech solutions too.

But civs also collapse due to Nocturnal Infertility on lower-rung servers (server1 now has constant population with Steam, but other servers may have population fluxes)

Azrael · 2018-11-21 22:12:41

This whole concept is ridiculous, now we are actually considering implementing a system to make the game easier? Floofy you are a new user so i i don't excpect you to understand the game the way i do right now. Jason has tried over many months to make the game MORE difficult because before steam release and before a lot of present mechanics, the game was simply too easy. Now trying to hold an eves or a fertiles woman's hand would make the game even easier and not the direction this game should head. I can understand frustration with only boys, ive had lineages die out because of that, but if you think about it. Now with steam release there IS nonlack of girls, there is simply the incompetence of existing girls to which they die to stupid reasons and is completely preventable by all means. Instead of pushing new players aside and hoping for better girls being born, why dont we cherish the women we have? Try to make sure they survive and have kids of their own? Do we need to give everyone a get a girl free card? Even if you have no women, thats simply life, many parents wish they could choose their baby's gender but it is simply unrealistic. The struggle of having a woman to reproduce adds intensity to the game! Makes it possible for 30 gen+ towns to fail, so many people complain about the game being easy in later gens, this is an aspect to make it harder! Why ruin it???

Tramax · 2018-11-21 23:05:05

Azrael why you mad though?
It is a tweak not an overhaul... It's the equivalent of being able to make a basket at the foot of some reed stumps.
The idea isn't to guarantee a female child at all - as I said before correctly implemented it wouldn't be uncommon to have five boys no girls.

Azrael · 2018-11-22 04:23:36

Tramax, this can change the whole atmosphere of the game, make it easier and less intuitive. Why would we have a guaranteed birth system? It's just obviously ridiculous.

it's not realistic at all.

Tramax · 2018-11-22 04:59:10

Well what if the top priority scores had a weighted probability within them? That way the shuffling of scores mean that the third highest woman may just have a child instead of the highest priority and you can cry into your cup of tea as it happens.

MeIsZ · 2018-11-22 06:02:10

This is a great idea!

Floofy · 2018-11-22 06:56:12

Azrael wrote:

This whole concept is ridiculous, now we are actually considering implementing a system to make the game easier? Floofy you are a new user so i i don't excpect you to understand the game the way i do right now. Jason has tried over many months to make the game MORE difficult because before steam release and before a lot of present mechanics, the game was simply too easy. Now trying to hold an eves or a fertiles woman's hand would make the game even easier and not the direction this game should head. I can understand frustration with only boys, ive had lineages die out because of that, but if you think about it. Now with steam release there IS nonlack of girls, there is simply the incompetence of existing girls to which they die to stupid reasons and is completely preventable by all means. Instead of pushing new players aside and hoping for better girls being born, why dont we cherish the women we have? Try to make sure they survive and have kids of their own? Do we need to give everyone a get a girl free card? Even if you have no women, thats simply life, many parents wish they could choose their baby's gender but it is simply unrealistic. The struggle of having a woman to reproduce adds intensity to the game! Makes it possible for 30 gen+ towns to fail, so many people complain about the game being easy in later gens, this is an aspect to make it harder! Why ruin it???

First, you don't need to be condescending. I might be a new player but i already know almost all the recipes, and i very often initiate big families as Eve.
You completly missed the point of the post. The idea isn't to make the game easier. The idea is to make the game less luck based, more fair, and more realistic. Lineages should end because of actual difficulty, not because of a bad dice roll. And right now, its the main factor that determines when lineages are ended. Perfectly good and working towns are destroyed just because gen 21 gets no girls. That's no fun.

Floofy · 2018-12-02 21:10:00

MeIsZ wrote:

This is a great idea!

Thanks

Azrael · 2018-12-03 08:13:52

Floofy the point of the game is that no one can truly know when a civ will fail and wash away. Or when a lineage is halted and withered. That's a huge factor to this game, you don't get to come in here and suggest new ideas based on how YOUR experience is and how YOU think it's unfair.

The game is supposed to be unfair, Jason's original concept of this game when playing was supposed to be a one-time thing like you buy the game, you play it through one life, and you put it down. The game is hugely based on luck, this is true, chance is what we encounter on an everyday basis though. It's how we react to this luck that decides how good of players we are. If you're in a bad spot, be creative, an experienced player will know as an eve where the most optimal location is, even if he spawns in a really bad area. Having a lack of females is just how life is, preparing for it and trying to create an atmosphere in which babies are born more regularly (finding a good temp), or try to keep more females close to home so that they can have a higher chance of living longer and therefore have a higher chance of having more kids. Even just letting babies suicide in your arms when they want to leave is more effective as it lets your birth countdown reset.

Also, more "realistic"... that makes 0 sense. First of all, there are no 'adams' meaning that women can only have babies randomly by chance, there is no "she is older so she is more ready" when "the spork" gives you a kid, you take it. Since there are no sexual partners the whole "if she has more kids she should have a chance to have less" also doesn't work, as again, this is a primitive game about how children randomly 'pop' up out of nowhere. There is no reproduction (yet) it's SUPPOSED to be based on chance, it would be less sense if the game worked by those mechanisms as there are no "marriages" and no "partners" nothing that can halt or increase childbirth in that sense.

From 14-39 a woman has the same chance of having a kid boy/girl at her youngest to her oldest age. The only realistic option you can add at this stage of the game is to make "stillbirths" a thing, and to make them more common for older women, even then that DECREASES children born and does not help your case.

I would just try to focus more on what you're doing wrong with a lineage versus how Jason made his game not intuitive enough.

lionon · 2018-12-03 08:18:32

Azrael wrote:

You don't get to come in here and suggest new ideas based on how YOUR experience is and how YOU think it's unfair.

You should instead suggest on other peoples experience and thinking of fairness. Seriously, it's a *suggestion*. Of course it's from personal background. And who are you to tell people what they "don't get to come"?

The only realistic option you can add at this stage of the game is to make "stillbirths" a thing, and to make them more common for older women, even then that DECREASES children born and does not help your case.

Sudden infant deaths exist... but happen more to young women with less ressources around them.

alphabetter · 2018-12-03 11:26:42

Azrael wrote:

Floofy the point of the game is that no one can truly know when a civ will fail and wash away. Or when a lineage is halted and withered. That's a huge factor to this game, you don't get to come in here and suggest new ideas based on how YOUR experience is and how YOU think it's unfair.

cheese and crackers, you dont have to be so rude. i cant even stand to read the rest of what youre saying because youre being so condescending in the first three sentences, let alone what else you've said in this topic. suggestions and ideas are a part of this game, i dont know why you dont think thats a thing or that people cant do just that because of how long theyve owned the game, because guess what..... it has an official suggestion reddit. that jason reads. to see what players might want, and consider what they say to improve the game so more people enjoy it. why is it such a big deal for you that someone proposed something like this? ive had the game for months, and i cant see why youre being so rude about this.

disregarding that and going with the original topic again... floofy, i think this is a great idea, though i worry about how it might affect eves that have to abandon kids before they can set up, and how it would fair during busy hours, when the last girl of a town might not get ANY kids, bc another town has other girls that are ranked higher until she's too old to feed a child until they can eat on their own. a suggestion i would make is maybe its best to rank it in that family. so its like, lets say there are four families active. one of them is picked at random, and then the scores are calculated to see who the baby goes to from the available females of that lineage. it would certainly help in cases like this line: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=2174627, where delanee had 13 kids, gunnarr had seven, and between the two that died in birthing years, they had seven total. just as a way to keep things random to which family you're born into, but still give older women a chance to have more kids instead of the younger ones.

Floofy · 2018-12-03 17:39:31

alphabetter wrote:

Azrael wrote:
Floofy the point of the game is that no one can truly know when a civ will fail and wash away. Or when a lineage is halted and withered. That's a huge factor to this game, you don't get to come in here and suggest new ideas based on how YOUR experience is and how YOU think it's unfair.
cheese and crackers, you dont have to be so rude. i cant even stand to read the rest of what youre saying because youre being so condescending in the first three sentences, let alone what else you've said in this topic. suggestions and ideas are a part of this game, i dont know why you dont think thats a thing or that people cant do just that because of how long theyve owned the game, because guess what..... it has an official suggestion reddit. that jason reads. to see what players might want, and consider what they say to improve the game so more people enjoy it. why is it such a big deal for you that someone proposed something like this? ive had the game for months, and i cant see why youre being so rude about this.

disregarding that and going with the original topic again... floofy, i think this is a great idea, though i worry about how it might affect eves that have to abandon kids before they can set up, and how it would fair during busy hours, when the last girl of a town might not get ANY kids, bc another town has other girls that are ranked higher until she's too old to feed a child until they can eat on their own. a suggestion i would make is maybe its best to rank it in that family. so its like, lets say there are four families active. one of them is picked at random, and then the scores are calculated to see who the baby goes to from the available females of that lineage. it would certainly help in cases like this line: http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=2174627, where delanee had 13 kids, gunnarr had seven, and between the two that died in birthing years, they had seven total. just as a way to keep things random to which family you're born into, but still give older women a chance to have more kids instead of the younger ones.

First thanks for the little defense, i try to ignore that user since most of his posts are offensive and never constructive (unlike yours).

alphabetter wrote:

i worry about how it might affect eves that have to abandon kids before they can set up

I don't understand this part. My system means young Eves will get way less kids.

alphabetter wrote:

how it would fair during busy hours, when the last girl of a town might not get ANY kids, bc another town has other girls that are ranked higher until she's too old to feed a child until they can eat on their own.

My system gives kids in priority to girls who are close to being too old, who had no girls yet.

alphabetter wrote:

a suggestion i would make is maybe its best to rank it in that family. so its like, lets say there are four families active. one of them is picked at random, and then the scores are calculated to see who the baby goes to from the available females of that lineage.

Not a bad idea.

Floofy · 2018-12-03 18:08:00

Azrael wrote:

I would just try to focus more on what you're doing wrong with a lineage versus how Jason made his game not intuitive enough.

Let's take a few real life examples of me being EVE and failing.

http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=2185647

Kid 1: I don't perfectly remember what happened, i believe she ran off. Her last word wasn't F. Anyways even assuming i made a mistake, i don't think that letting your very first kid starve as a young Eve should mean auto loss.
Kid 2: Sudden death
Kid 3: This one ran off, i tryed to catch her and she went into yellow fever.
Kid 4-7: all males.

Not sure how i was supposed to do anything there, other than potentially try to be warm more often. But in last 5 years i purposely stood in desert, Hoping to get girls. I suicided at 40 due to no girls.

http://lineage.onehouronelife.com/serve … id=2176648

Kid 1: There was plenty of natural food around and i trusted the child to eat by himself, maybe shoulda baby sitted her more.
Kid 2: Sudden death
Kid 3: No idea how she starved. We had plenty of food at base
Kid 4-5: Males
Kid 6: Sudden death
Kid 7-10: all males

Then i suicided...

Of course, this only happens maybe 25% of the time. But if each gen has a 25% of something like this happening, its easy to see how getting to gen 30+ can be quite luck based.

Gederian · 2018-12-03 19:41:25

I think the concerns about older women having more babies is mute since a scoring system will also ensure that same woman has more babies when she is younger thus dropping her score when she is older.

We should have less eves and favor being born into an existing line. Just keep filling a city with kids until it collapses or people get smart and start spreading out. That's how we evolved anyways, one line branching out, not multiple fish growing the same feet 5,000 miles apart.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2018-11-19 20:53:25

Birth system idea

#2 2018-11-20 08:03:04

Re: Birth system idea

#3 2018-11-20 08:43:02

Re: Birth system idea

#4 2018-11-20 16:14:24

Re: Birth system idea

#5 2018-11-20 16:46:47

Re: Birth system idea

#6 2018-11-20 19:59:49

Re: Birth system idea

#7 2018-11-20 20:34:48

Re: Birth system idea

#8 2018-11-20 20:55:37

Re: Birth system idea

#9 2018-11-20 21:14:50

Re: Birth system idea

#10 2018-11-20 22:09:12

Re: Birth system idea

#11 2018-11-21 17:30:25

Re: Birth system idea

#12 2018-11-21 20:53:25

Re: Birth system idea

#13 2018-11-21 22:12:41

Re: Birth system idea

#14 2018-11-21 23:05:05

Re: Birth system idea

#15 2018-11-22 04:23:36

Re: Birth system idea

#16 2018-11-22 04:59:10

Re: Birth system idea

#17 2018-11-22 06:02:10

Re: Birth system idea

#18 2018-11-22 06:56:12

Re: Birth system idea

#19 2018-12-02 21:10:00

Re: Birth system idea

#20 2018-12-03 08:13:52

Re: Birth system idea

#21 2018-12-03 08:18:32

Re: Birth system idea

#22 2018-12-03 11:26:42

Re: Birth system idea

#23 2018-12-03 17:39:31

Re: Birth system idea

#24 2018-12-03 18:08:00

Re: Birth system idea

#25 2018-12-03 19:41:25

Re: Birth system idea

Board footer