2261 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

But ME3 is not a game that makes money based onhow long you play it. WOW is a game that benifit if ithas extra thing for the player todo because they get more profit thatay. ME3 only has an entry fee to buy the game, the dev get no extra pay for how long the game is.

That doesn't really matter; WoW is built around resource management, much as ME seems to be based around Galactic Readiness. Developers create games of different lengths for all kinds of reasons. The primary point is regarding resource management, which Bioware hasn't specificed on. But given that they've told us that GR can affect the ending, that indicates that it is a resource of some kind.

As for the mp in ME3. Bioware has made itclear how important GR is...It very important and can improve the armada we have.As for advantage made by the gr gain by mp, this is a pointless consern, because is does not effect your desisions. In ME2, you can have a speced out normandy and still have people and yourself die in the last mission because of bad orders and no loyalty in your crew. Think of it that way.

It doesn't affect your decisions, but I think I just demonstrated how it can potentially affect your gameplay experience, no different than the WoW example. If I can achieve the optimal single player ending only by grinding resources/planet scanning for 3+ hours compared to MP, then the developers didn't balance out the mechanics correctly. Bioware has made all kinds of balancing errors in their history. I can easily see it happening again.

1.Yes, it dose matter. Why? Because the point of mmo is to make profit based on extended plays. They cut short the amount of money on purpose and  add thing that make people want  to play the game. BW has no reason or drive to cut the amount of GR you get in the sp. In short,getting gr in the sp and getting gr in the mp will be equal.

2. Which is why I stated it's like the Normandy upgrade system in ME2.  How well the Normandy is upgraded my not effect your dissensions in the final mission, but it can effect your game greatly by killing key people in your team.

[CptBomBom00]

Could we move on onto something else?

This is purely my own opinion and I don't mean to offend or angry anybody.

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...


1.Yes, it dose matter. Why? Because the point of mmo is to make profit based on extended plays. They cut short the amount of money on purpose and  add thing that make people want  to play the game. BW has no reason or drive to cut the amount of GR you get in the sp. In short,getting gr in the sp and getting gr in the mp will be equal.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter why the MMO has you engaging in a grind fest; the point is that you are still engaging in a grind fest, which people specifically want to avoid in ME3. If there's one thing we detest more than a grind fest, it's a grind fest which Bioware has balanced around an aspect of the game we don't want to touch. Why do they get X, while we get Y? If MP can attain the optimal ending in an hour while it takes us three hours, it's essentially punishing the player for not engaging in multiplayer, despite their attempted claim that the two remain separate.

2. Which is why I stated it's like the Normandy upgrade system in ME2.  How well the Normandy is upgraded my not effect your dissensions in the final mission, but it can effect your game greatly by killing key people in your team.

And the Normandy upgrade system was rather terrible, I'd argue. The only thing saving it was that resources required was small, especially for imported characters.

[CptBomBom00]

And here I agree and I hope we don't need to upgrade the Normandy Again in ME3.

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


1.Yes, it dose matter. Why? Because the point of mmo is to make profit based on extended plays. They cut short the amount of money on purpose and  add thing that make people want  to play the game. BW has no reason or drive to cut the amount of GR you get in the sp. In short,getting gr in the sp and getting gr in the mp will be equal.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter why the MMO has you engaging in a grind fest; the point is that you are still engaging in a grind fest, which people specifically want to avoid in ME3. If there's one thing we detest more than a grind fest, it's a grind fest which Bioware has balanced around an aspect of the game we don't want to touch. Why do they get X, while we get Y? If MP can attain the optimal ending in an hour while it takes us three hours, it's essentially punishing the player for not engaging in multiplayer, despite their attempted claim that the two remain separate.

2. Which is why I stated it's like the Normandy upgrade system in ME2.  How well the Normandy is upgraded my not effect your dissensions in the final mission, but it can effect your game greatly by killing key people in your team.

And the Normandy upgrade system was rather terrible, I'd argue. The only thing saving it was that resources required was small, especially for imported characters.

Then the issue is with Galaxey at war not the mp, which I pointed out. On top of that your not force to do so to progress, just toget the right ending.
And the normandy upgrade system added more roleplaying to the game. It allowed you to be more involved with your ship.

[CptBomBom00]

I just don't know what to say here.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It can just as easily mean that you like ME1, like ME2 a little less, and see what's known about ME3 so far, and you're disappointed and disgusted by what ME3 will likely be. 

That still means the same asmy point. If you truely hate something, you cut it away from you. If you go as far as regulary state what wrong with something, you care about it enough to want it to be improved. No matter what you say, even if you don't buy ME3 day one,you will beinfluence to buy ME3 based on reveiws and fan feedback. It's not going to be a bad game unless the cut alot of things from it...which they are not.

Don't presume that everyone else thinks the way you think.  You keep doing it. 

[CptBomBom00]

Everyone has a different way of thinking and that's why we have the forum for.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CptBomBom00 wrote...

Some people assume that ME3 is going to be something, something, blahblahblah.
What garbage wait and see that what I think.

I need something to make up for MP, Origin, "CLOSE COMBAT IS AWESOME WATCH THIS HOLOWEAPON!!" and marketing that looks like a repeat of The Awesome Button before I have any enthusiasm for ME3. 

Clearly someone did not get the notice that BW is trying to sell the game to new people as well.
Also, clearly someone never saw when they showedthe rpg features of the game.

Actually, I did see the "features".  We have a quick marketing blurb and a couple fast clips.  Big freaking deal.  Give me an in-depth demo and we'll see. 

As for who they're marketing to, frankly, I don't give a damn.  It sounds like DA2 marketing. 

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It can just as easily mean that you like ME1, like ME2 a little less, and see what's known about ME3 so far, and you're disappointed and disgusted by what ME3 will likely be. 

That still means the same asmy point. If you truely hate something, you cut it away from you. If you go as far as regulary state what wrong with something, you care about it enough to want it to be improved. No matter what you say, even if you don't buy ME3 day one,you will beinfluence to buy ME3 based on reveiws and fan feedback. It's not going to be a bad game unless the cut alot of things from it...which they are not.

Don't presume that everyone else thinks the way you think.  You keep doing it. 

This is just human nature. No one stays with something they turely hate by choice. If they stay with it by choice, then their is a degree of care. If yo u truely were never going to buy me3,you would not be on theis forum complaining about it.

[Taciter]

Il Divo wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

This is an illusion.  You have to ask the question: 

"If you're so concerned about getting the optimal ending, wouldn't you have traveled to every backwater planet anyways regardless of MP rewards?"  "If they took out MP now, Wouldn't you still have to get the best endings the same way you were going to before, since you were never going to play MP?"

Yes and no. If you want a relevant example, let's consider World of Warcraft, a game built around making money and obtaining better gear.

Every time I kill an enemy, they have a small amount of silver on them, which adds up if I kill enough enemies. On the other hand, the game also features instances which involve cooperating with other people, to kill major bosses, which typically results in much more gold much faster. But assuming we limit how gold is obtained to these two scenarios, we run into a problem. If I don't like playing with other people, my primary means of making money is incredibly slow and boring.

That's the ME3 fear right now; Bioware has not specified how important galactic resources are, but they have told us MP can affect SP, which raises the concern that MP will have a huge advantage on this front. If they design an incredibly tedious resource management, you're pretty much repeating ME1/ME2, but here it's mandatory. More than anything else, many people want their "optimal ending" to be reflected through story choices, not resource management.

Hear hear! And that is EXACTLY why I made a solemn vow never to play another MMORPG ever again - 'co-op' fanaticism. I can't recall how many times I undertook the same level 80 solo instance in 'Age of Conan' (the basement of a house) in a futile effort to procure even a fraction of the loot so readilly dropped by minions in group instances but it must have been over 200 times at least (4 daily quest repeat allotment x 7 days a week x 2 months).

When I finally bucked up the courage to express my resentment towards Funcom's obsession with co-operative play, the universal roasting I receieved was sufficient to put me off multiplayer gaming for life. I was mercilessly berated then scournfully condemned to "f*** off and play single player games" followed by "can I have your stuff?".

That's when I discovered 'Mass Effect', it had been sitting in my Steam games library for some time but until then I'd felt no compulsion to play it. In view of my recent experiences with the multiplayer community, I decided to give it a shot (seeing as it was the very antithesis of 'Age of Conan') and lo and behold... a revelation! Since then, nothing else has come close to emulating that experience - not even Mass Effect 2, though it was a welcome development.

If I do seem sceptical of this MP 'addition', it's because I was the one who had to suffer the indignity of communal rejection in the face of fanatical multiplayers and I was the one who had to forsake a meticulously constructed 3 year escapist refuge on the basis that "multiplayer isn't for you!". Now having finally discovered my ideal refuge - the single player Sanctum of the 'Mass Effect' Franchise - a fortress in which I felt safe from the insideous pandemics knows collectively as 'multiplayer gaming', I discover that the walls have been breached.

I would have felt reassured if Bioware had announced plans to incorporate AI squad options in the multiplayer addon as this would have reinforced the legitimacy of their claims to have retained an absolute commitment to maintaining 'Mass Effect's' status as a single-player game. Just for a change, I'd like to be the one standing on the moral high ground in defence of a developer, I want to be the one who says 'This game isn't for you - you need to go and find a multiplayer game!'. But as it stands, it's like watching history repeat itself. This may only be an 'additional extra' or as the multiplayer fanbois so euphamistically put it - an 'option' but this looks undeniably like the thin end of a very unwelcome wedge to me.

Modifié par Taciter, 18 octobre 2011 - 03:10 .

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

CptBomBom00 wrote...

Some people assume that ME3 is going to be something, something, blahblahblah.
What garbage wait and see that what I think.

I need something to make up for MP, Origin, "CLOSE COMBAT IS AWESOME WATCH THIS HOLOWEAPON!!" and marketing that looks like a repeat of The Awesome Button before I have any enthusiasm for ME3. 

Clearly someone did not get the notice that BW is trying to sell the game to new people as well.
Also, clearly someone never saw when they showedthe rpg features of the game.

Actually, I did see the "features".  We have a quick marketing blurb and a couple fast clips.  Big freaking deal.  Give me an in-depth demo and we'll see. 

As for who they're marketing to, frankly, I don't give a damn.  It sounds like DA2 marketing. 

That was a fact market blurb? They when on a tangent about the rpg features every chance they got. They did it in E3, COMIC CON, Games con, and then thecurrent Comic con. They let people examin it in detail.Explained it in preveiws. We even have a topic of all the rpg features we can findon the forum. It's was not a fast blurb.

[CptBomBom00]

So some people think that MP in ME3 is bad and that makes the RPG/shooter game into World of Warcraft?

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

This is an illusion.  You have to ask the question: 

"If you're so concerned about getting the optimal ending, wouldn't you have traveled to every backwater planet anyways regardless of MP rewards?"  "If they took out MP now, Wouldn't you still have to get the best endings the same way you were going to before, since you were never going to play MP?"

Yes and no. If you want a relevant example, let's consider World of Warcraft, a game built around making money and obtaining better gear.

Every time I kill an enemy, they have a small amount of silver on them, which adds up if I kill enough enemies. On the other hand, the game also features instances which involve cooperating with other people, to kill major bosses, which typically results in much more gold much faster. But assuming we limit how gold is obtained to these two scenarios, we run into a problem. If I don't like playing with other people, my primary means of making money is incredibly slow and boring.

That's the ME3 fear right now; Bioware has not specified how important galactic resources are, but they have told us MP can affect SP, which raises the concern that MP will have a huge advantage on this front. If they design an incredibly tedious resource management, you're pretty much repeating ME1/ME2, but here it's mandatory. More than anything else, many people want their "optimal ending" to be reflected through story choices, not resource management.

Hear hear! And that is EXACTLY why I made a solemn vow never to play another MMORPG ever again - 'co-op' fanaticism. I can't recall how many times I undertook the same level 80 solo instance in 'Age of Conan' (the basement of a house) in a futile effort to procure even a fraction of the loot so readilly dropped by minions in group instances but it must have been over 200 times at least (4 daily quest repeat allotment x 7 days a week x 2 months).

When I finally bucked up the courage to express my resentment towards Funcom's obsession with co-operative play, the universal roasting I receieved was sufficient to put me off multiplayer gaming for life. I was mercilessly berated then scournfully condemned to "f*** off and play single player games" followed by "can I have your stuff?".

That's when I discovered 'Mass Effect', it had been sitting in my Steam games library for some time but until then I'd felt no compulsion to play it. In view of my recent experiences with the multiplayer community, I decided to give it a shot (seeing as it was the very antithesis of 'Age of Conan') and lo and behold... a revelation! Since then, nothing else has come close to emulating that experience - not even Mass Effect 2, though it was a welcome development.

If I do seem sceptical of this MP 'addition', it's because I was the one who had to suffer the indignity of communal rejection in the face of fanatical multiplayers and I was the one who had to forsake a meticulously constructed 3 year escapist refuge on the basis that "multiplayer isn't for you!". Now having finally discovered my ideal refuge - the single player Sanctum of the 'Mass Effect' Franchise - a fortress in which I felt safe from the insideous pandemics knows collectively as 'multiplayer gaming', I discover that the walls have been breached.

I would have felt reassured if Bioware had announced plans to incorporate AI squad options in the multiplayer addon as this would have reinforced the legitimacy of their claims to have retained an absolute commitment to maintaining 'Mass Effect's' status as a single-player game. Just for a change, I'd like to be the one standing on the moral high ground in defence of a developer, I want to be the one who says 'This game isn't for you - you need to go and find a multiplayer game!'. But as it stands, it's like watching history repeat itself. This may only be an 'additional extra' or as the multiplayer banbois so euphamistically put it - an 'option' but this looks undeniably like the thin end of a very unwelcome wedge to me.

But you don't have to play the mp...

[Il Divo]

dreman9999 wrote...


Then the issue is with Galaxey at war not the mp, which I pointed out. On top of that your not force to do so to progress, just toget the right ending.

No, the issue is with MP affecting Galaxy at War. If MP is removed from the equation. that might require that they balance it entirely around the single-player.

That's where the WoW grinding example comes in. If I dislike grinding creatures for money, but I dislike instancing with other people even more, I'm going to grind. But if instancing weren't a source of income, that might force the developers to rebalance how grinding works to be more efficient or effective.  A player who obtains enough GR in an hour through MP is getting a much more enjoyable experience than I, who was required to planet-scan for four hours.

Although, that is not to say that Galaxy at War doesn't sound pretty weak on its own; I'm just demonstrating how multiplayer can make that even worse.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 octobre 2011 - 03:13 .

[Taciter]

CptBomBom00 wrote...

So some people think that MP in ME3 is bad and that makes the RPG/shooter game into World of Warcraft?

Hardly! If the announcement had been that ME3 was to be an MMORPG that might have been the case but I think you're missing the gyst of the argument.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

It can just as easily mean that you like ME1, like ME2 a little less, and see what's known about ME3 so far, and you're disappointed and disgusted by what ME3 will likely be. 

That still means the same asmy point. If you truely hate something, you cut it away from you. If you go as far as regulary state what wrong with something, you care about it enough to want it to be improved. No matter what you say, even if you don't buy ME3 day one,you will beinfluence to buy ME3 based on reveiws and fan feedback. It's not going to be a bad game unless the cut alot of things from it...which they are not.

Don't presume that everyone else thinks the way you think.  You keep doing it. 

This is just human nature. No one stays with something they turely hate by choice. If they stay with it by choice, then their is a degree of care. If yo u truely were never going to buy me3,you would not be on theis forum complaining about it.

And I'm sure you sincerely believe that.  Whatever.  Doesn't make it true about everyone, chief. 

[Taciter]

dreman9999 wrote...
But you don't have to play the mp...

I find it's useful to actually read the posts to which you intend to respond.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Taciter wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

This is an illusion.  You have to ask the question: 

"If you're so concerned about getting the optimal ending, wouldn't you have traveled to every backwater planet anyways regardless of MP rewards?"  "If they took out MP now, Wouldn't you still have to get the best endings the same way you were going to before, since you were never going to play MP?"

Yes and no. If you want a relevant example, let's consider World of Warcraft, a game built around making money and obtaining better gear.

Every time I kill an enemy, they have a small amount of silver on them, which adds up if I kill enough enemies. On the other hand, the game also features instances which involve cooperating with other people, to kill major bosses, which typically results in much more gold much faster. But assuming we limit how gold is obtained to these two scenarios, we run into a problem. If I don't like playing with other people, my primary means of making money is incredibly slow and boring.

That's the ME3 fear right now; Bioware has not specified how important galactic resources are, but they have told us MP can affect SP, which raises the concern that MP will have a huge advantage on this front. If they design an incredibly tedious resource management, you're pretty much repeating ME1/ME2, but here it's mandatory. More than anything else, many people want their "optimal ending" to be reflected through story choices, not resource management.

Hear hear! And that is EXACTLY why I made a solemn vow never to play another MMORPG ever again - 'co-op' fanaticism. I can't recall how many times I undertook the same level 80 solo instance in 'Age of Conan' (the basement of a house) in a futile effort to procure even a fraction of the loot so readilly dropped by minions in group instances but it must have been over 200 times at least (4 daily quest repeat allotment x 7 days a week x 2 months).

When I finally bucked up the courage to express my resentment towards Funcom's obsession with co-operative play, the universal roasting I receieved was sufficient to put me off multiplayer gaming for life. I was mercilessly berated then scournfully condemned to "f*** off and play single player games" followed by "can I have your stuff?".

That's when I discovered 'Mass Effect', it had been sitting in my Steam games library for some time but until then I'd felt no compulsion to play it. In view of my recent experiences with the multiplayer community, I decided to give it a shot (seeing as it was the very antithesis of 'Age of Conan') and lo and behold... a revelation! Since then, nothing else has come close to emulating that experience - not even Mass Effect 2, though it was a welcome development.

If I do seem sceptical of this MP 'addition', it's because I was the one who had to suffer the indignity of communal rejection in the face of fanatical multiplayers and I was the one who had to forsake a meticulously constructed 3 year escapist refuge on the basis that "multiplayer isn't for you!". Now having finally discovered my ideal refuge - the single player Sanctum of the 'Mass Effect' Franchise - a fortress in which I felt safe from the insideous pandemics knows collectively as 'multiplayer gaming', I discover that the walls have been breached.

I would have felt reassured if Bioware had announced plans to incorporate AI squad options in the multiplayer addon as this would have reinforced the legitimacy of their claims to have retained an absolute commitment to maintaining 'Mass Effect's' status as a single-player game. Just for a change, I'd like to be the one standing on the moral high ground in defence of a developer, I want to be the one who says 'This game isn't for you - you need to go and find a multiplayer game!'. But as it stands, it's like watching history repeat itself. This may only be an 'additional extra' or as the multiplayer fanbois so euphamistically put it - an 'option' but this looks undeniably like the thin end of a very unwelcome wedge to me.

WELL SAID, sir.  Well said. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you don't have to play the mp...

I find it's useful to actually read the posts to which you intend to respond.

Why should he?  Everyone thinks just like he does, so there's no need, right? 

[dreman9999]

Il Divo wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


Then the issue is with Galaxey at war not the mp, which I pointed out. On top of that your not force to do so to progress, just toget the right ending.

No, the issue is with MP affecting Galaxy at War. If MP is removed from the equation. that might require that they balance it entirely around the single-player.

That's where the WoW grinding example comes in. If I dislike grinding creatures for money, but I dislike instancing with other people even more, I'm going to grind. But if instancing weren't a source of income, that might force the developers to rebalance how grinding works to be more efficient or effective. Believe it or not, how others are able to play affects our own perceptions as well. A player who obtains enough GR in an hour through MP is getting a much more enjoyable experience than I, who was required to planet-scane for four hours.

Although, that is not to say that Galaxy at War doesn't sound pretty weak on its own; I'm just demonstrating how multiplayer can make that even worse.

No,it's not. How can you say they did not have GR in mind in the begining. If so, then that would mean that even if the game had no mp, you still had to do side mission to build up GR any way. So in the end, mp or not, they were going to make GR a feature of the game. If your have an issue with grinding then mp has no issues in it because reguardless if you play the mp or not you still have to get GR build up in the sp, aka grinding as you put it. This means the issue is not with the mp.

[CptBomBom00]

did anyone expects this in ME3.

[Il Divo]

Taciter wrote...

Hear hear! And that is EXACTLY why I made a solemn vow never to play another MMORPG ever again - 'co-op' fanaticism. I can't recall how many times I undertook the same level 80 solo instance in 'Age of Conan' (the basement of a house) in a futile effort to procure even a fraction of the loot so readilly dropped by minions in group instances but it must have been over 200 times at least (4 daily quest repeat allotment x 7 days a week x 2 months).

When I finally bucked up the courage to express my resentment towards Funcom's obsession with co-operative play, the universal roasting I receieved was sufficient to put me off multiplayer gaming for life. I was mercilessly berated then scournfully condemned to "f*** off and play single player games" followed by "can I have your stuff?".

That's when I discovered 'Mass Effect', it had been sitting in my Steam games library for some time but until then I'd felt no compulsion to play it. In view of my recent experiences with the multiplayer community, I decided to give it a shot (seeing as it was the very antithesis of 'Age of Conan') and lo and behold... a revelation! Since then, nothing else has come close to emulating that experience - not even Mass Effect 2, though it was a welcome development.

If I do seem sceptical of this MP 'addition', it's because I was the one who had to suffer the indignity of communal rejection in the face of fanatical multiplayers and I was the one who had to forsake a meticulously constructed 3 year escapist refuge on the basis that "multiplayer isn't for you!". Now having finally discovered my ideal refuge - the single player Sanctum of the 'Mass Effect' Franchise - a fortress in which I felt safe from the insideous pandemics knows collectively as 'multiplayer gaming', I discover that the walls have been breached.

I kind of ran into similar problems with WoW. Not even necessarily because I didn't want to play with others, but I didn't like doing raids and found the experience less enjoyable, which meant I was limited to small groups or solo play. I hold no grudges; the game had existed long before I even joined, but it certainly affected my enjoyment that I couldn't experience the high end content without joining 24 other players.  

I ran into the same problem with PvP content.

I would have felt reassured if Bioware had announced plans to incorporate AI squad options in the multiplayer addon as this would have reinforced the legitimacy of their claims to have retained an absolute commitment to maintaining 'Mass Effect's' status as a single-player game. Just for a change, I'd like to be the one standing on the moral high ground in defence of a developer, I want to be the one who says 'This game isn't for you - you need to go and find a multiplayer game!'. But as it stands, it's like watching history repeat itself. This may only be an 'additional extra' or as the multiplayer fanbois so euphamistically put it - an 'option' but this looks undeniably like the thin end of a very unwelcome wedge to me.

There is a sliver of hope here; while Bioware has denied AI squad-mates (a shame), tentatively Brenon has confirmed that it is possible to engage in multiplayer solo. So depending on how it's balanced, it would involve resource management in a scenario similar to Pinnacle Station, which is hardly the best scenario but also not the worst.

[Taciter]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you don't have to play the mp...

I find it's useful to actually read the posts to which you intend to respond.

Why should he?  Everyone thinks just like he does, so there's no need, right? 

lol.. that's why nothing ever get's resolved in these forums. There IS no debate.. just the same stobborn perspectives.

I tried to foster support in the concept of AI squad mates as an additional 'option' and it was unceremoniously cast aside in favour of subscribing to one of two polar opinions. These people aren't interested in looking for compromises!

[dreman9999]

Taciter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
But you don't have to play the mp...

I find it's useful to actually read the posts to which you intend to respond.

I did. You stated you find mp to be bad and a bad effect on you. You turn to sp games because of that. And you feel upset that mp is added to ME because of your past history with mp. What I'm saying is in the end, your not forced to play the mp, so you can easily keep your sp refuge.

Modifié par dreman9999, 18 octobre 2011 - 03:24 .