275 replies to this topic

[DuskWolf]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 November 2012 - 05:07 AM, said:

How this all works may be hard to appreciate in the want-it-need-it now, but over time I think GW2 players will come to appreciate this system.

A lot of words but you haven't told us why we should. There was a lot of hyperbole, yes. But no reasoning. Why is it that Guild Wars 1 didn't need this and it's perfectly fine and healthy?

[Midnight_Tea]

DuskWolf, on 22 November 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

A lot of words but you haven't told us why we should. There was a lot of hyperbole, yes. But no reasoning. Why is it that Guild Wars 1 didn't need this and it's perfectly fine and healthy?

Just because confirmation bias is blinding you to my reasoning doesn't mean I didn't offer any. I refute your claim.

As to your question, Guild Wars 1 isn't at all a similar game to Guild Wars 2. There aren't many comparisons to be made beyond the superficial. (i.e. the sequential title, same lore, same devs)

I do want to say though that GW1 did suffer exactly what I talked about --  the game's economy inflated to the point it was supplanted with a primitive token economy. GW1 was a game with profound problems and this was one of them. It arguably did "need" this.

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

So I am trying to understand this.  If the value of gold drops due to inflation, prices would be high on the TP.  But since there are not many gold sinks, players should be able to keep more gold in their stash in order to afford the expensive goods.  Do you agree?

There aren't many gold sinks for savvy players who avoid overusing WPs and don't die a lot.

Daesu said:

So why would buying gems with gold becomes not viable?  The price of gems would increase but so would the amount of gold that people have.  Are you afraid that people may hoard gems and not sell them then?

Worst case scenario: gold is so plentiful that the value of it drops to rock bottom. The result is a gold <-> gem market crash, and gems pretty much stop circulating since gold is worthless. This would be extremely bad for both players and ArenaNet.

Edited by Midnight_Tea, 22 November 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Daesu]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

I do want to say though that GW1 did suffer exactly what I talked about --  the game's economy inflated to the point it was supplanted with a primitive token economy. GW1 was a game with profound problems and this was one of them. It arguably did "need" this.

You have not replied to my post and I still do not see why GW1 economy would be unhealthy.  Why would a game where most people can afford what they need, be considered worse than a game where most cannot afford what they need?  (Unless they pay ArenaNet for gems or farm a lot that is).

It seems like this predicament GW2 economy is in, is necessary just to provide profit for ArenaNet.

Edit: Ok you just replied to my post so I am going to read it.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Expherious]

Shoelace Express - Priceless..... and.. umm... don't die?

[Trei]

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 04:59 AM, said:

If there is no cash shop to inject gold and still that many gold sinks then there is a risk of deflation to the economy.  Gold would be scarce, the prices of goods would fall and people still would not buy as they keep waiting for their prices to bottom out.

You assume the current gold sinks are tuned to account for gold injected by the cash shop... ?

The cash shop does not inject gold, it injects gems. It is not a gold faucet.
The market dictates the price of gems based on supply and demand.

The absence of a cash-gem exchange would only result in a lower equilibrium in the market.
Your spiraling deflation scenario kinda far out.

Gold is not exactly scarce currently, with or without gems-gold trade.
I don't buy gems to trade for gold, I hardly sell anything in the TP, but I have no problems getting gold to sustain my mundane expenses.

Edited by Trei, 22 November 2012 - 05:50 AM.

[Daesu]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 November 2012 - 05:29 AM, said:

There aren't many gold sinks for savvy players who avoid overusing WPs and don't die a lot.

There are still many more gold sinks in this game other than just WP cost.  I avoid using WPs like a plague and I still feel their effects.  There are gold sinks in the TP as listing fee and transaction fee.  There are gold sinks like manual costs (granted these are 1 time but they are not cheap), trait reset cost, and the cost of gathering tools, etc.

Quote

Worst case scenario: gold is so plentiful that the value of it drops to rock bottom. The result is a gold <-> gem market crash, and gems pretty much stop circulating since gold is worthless. This would be extremely bad for both players and ArenaNet.

But when that happens, ArenaNet can simply generate gems and satisfy the demand, thus taking gold away from the economy and balancing it.

[Spenn]

Seriously? I play casually and the gold keeps on coming in, and I'm not even trying to earn it.

[Daesu]

Trei, on 22 November 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

You assume the current gold sinks are tuned to account for gold injected by the cash shop... ?

The cash shop does not inject gold, it injects gems. It is not a gold faucet.
The market dictates the price of gems based on supply and demand.

The absence of a cash-gem exchange would only result in a lower equilibrium in the market.
Your spiraling deflation scenario kinda far out.

The cash shop (the currency exchange tab, whatever the game allows it) allows gems to be converted into gold, so buying gems is essentially the same as buying gold.  I can easily translate any gems that I have bought with real money into gold immediately.

So I (and anyone else) can inject new gold into the economy just by paying real money right?  If I have a million dollars to spare, I can inject A LOT of new gold into the economy.  This is where I would expect ArenaNet gold sinks to come into place to balance it out.  So the gold sinks should be designed to be able to balance the projected inflation resulting from the cash shop.

Thus, my reasoning for the gold sinks being there as they are and why players feel the urge to either farm or pay for gold.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 05:54 AM.

[lazykoala]

This specific gold sink never existed in gw1 so I don't get why they decided to add it now. There are so many other better and more creative ways to include gold sinks that I am all in favor of removing it. WP costs are a head scratcher too. If giving us mounts is a big NO due to lore or gw1 or whatever....then why isn't it the same case for repair costs? I dunno, but it feels like there are so many more little annoying things in gw2 than gw1 and it takes away from enjoying the game as a whole.

[Midnight_Tea]

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 05:34 AM, said:

You have not replied to my post and I still do not see why GW1 economy would be unhealthy.  Why would a game where most people can afford what they need, be considered worse than a game where most cannot afford what they need?  (Unless they pay ArenaNet for gems or farm a lot that is).

Again, GW1 and GW2 are two very different animals. In GW1 you didn't "need" much at all due to the game being much simpler. It having a barely-functioning bartering token economy didn't hold it back too much. It would have been a very different story if GW1 was a true MMO.

To be honest, I have a fair bit of sympathy for people who feel left out in the cold by the shift to GW2. For whatever that's worth.

Daesu said:

But when that happens, ArenaNet can simply generate gems and satisfy the demand, thus taking gold away from the economy and balancing it.

If you mean just flooding the market with free gems to try and balance out of control rising gold prices... well, congrats, you made gems almost as worthless as the gold. Thus people will, for a while, stop buying gems entirely. Thus the money hose chokes and they have some uncomfortable explaining to do next fiscal quarter.

That said, I'll be surprised if they don't hand out some free gems here and there as gold prices steadily inflate -- at least as a stopgap until the live team finishes new content.



EDIT: Oh, and for the record, I'm not making a value judgment about whether GW2's system is good or bad. I'm rather neutral on it. I just understand what they're trying to do with it, both for their own profits and the player's benefit (as well as where sticking points need to be, such as with WP costs). I also want to remind people where possible that GW1's economy kind of sucked, but it didn't need to be all that fancy for the kind of game it was.

Edited by Midnight_Tea, 22 November 2012 - 05:57 AM.

[Daesu]

Midnight_Tea, on 22 November 2012 - 05:54 AM, said:

If you mean just flooding the market with free gems to try and balance out of control rising gold prices... well, congrats, you made gems almost as worthless as the gold. Thus people will, for a while, stop buying gems entirely. Thus the money hose chokes and they have some uncomfortable explaining to do next fiscal quarter.

That said, I'll be surprised if they don't hand out some free gems here and there as gold prices steadily inflate -- at least as a stopgap until the live team finishes new content.

No I don't mean giving away free gems.  I was replying to your statement:

Quote

Worst case scenario: gold is so plentiful that the value of it drops to rock bottom. The result is a gold <-> gem market crash, and gems pretty much stop circulating since gold is worthless. This would be extremely bad for both players and ArenaNet.

If gold becomes worthless and people will not sell away their gems for gold, then ArenaNet can simply create new gems and satisfy the demand for gems, and removing gold from the economy in the process, before the inflation spirals further out of control.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 06:04 AM.

[Trei]

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

The cash shop (the currency exchange tab, whatever the game allows it) allows gems to be converted into gold, so buying gems is essentially the same as buying gold.  I can easily translate any gems that I have bought with real money into gold immediately.

So I (and anyone else) can inject new gold into the economy just by paying real money right?  If I have a million dollars to spare, I can inject A LOT of new gold into the economy.  This is where I would expect ArenaNet gold sinks to come into place to balance it out.  So the gold sinks should be designed to be able to balance the projected inflation resulting from the cash shop.

Thus, my reasoning for the gold sinks being there as they are and why players feel the urge to either farm or pay for gold.

If you noticed, gem prices is not static.
Your million dollars worth of gems is not going to be worth as much in gold as you would like to believe.
This gold you just got is not technically new gold either, someone somewhere earned it in game and bought gems with it to cause the gems you just sold to be worth that value.

Edited by Trei, 22 November 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Krazzar]

DuskWolf, on 22 November 2012 - 03:17 AM, said:

@OP

You are, and so are most reasonable people. They're completely unnecessary, Guild Wars 1 had neither and it's still as healthy as it always was. There can be arguments invented, but standing against GW1, they become clearly fallacious. In my opinion, taking both costs away from GW2 would do a lot to make it a more fun less grindy game. And closer to the original design ethos that ArenaNet had planned out.

GW1's economy was broken within one year therefore the premise of your argument is invalid. Simply existing does not make something perfect, although you can't even say GW1 has the existence of an economy, it has the shell of something that resembles an economy.  Hard to take a clearly flawed set of logic seriously, especially when it is mindlessly repeated so often. It does identify your problem with GW2 and why you like games like GW1,  GW1 is so easily broken and exploited you can be extremely powerful with no drawbacks, which is quite sad that you base your criteria of a "good" game on that.

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

The cash shop (the currency exchange tab, whatever the game allows it) allows gems to be converted into gold, so buying gems is essentially the same as buying gold.  I can easily translate any gems that I have bought with real money into gold immediately.

So I (and anyone else) can inject new gold into the economy just by paying real money right?  If I have a million dollars to spare, I can inject A LOT of new gold into the economy.  This is where I would expect ArenaNet gold sinks to come into place to balance it out.  So the gold sinks should be designed to be able to balance the projected inflation resulting from the cash shop.

Thus, my reasoning for the gold sinks being there as they are and why players feel the urge to either farm or pay for gold.

In order to buy most of the materials for a legendary weapon it would take approximately $80,000. Unless you're going to use the gems there is little reason to buy them. The "buying gold" argument is extremely exaggerated.

Wrong. It does not inject new gold into the economy, it shifts gold from one player to another, which occurs in the economy anyway as that is the purpose of any economy. That is an elementary aspect of the operation of the gem trade. Ignoring the basics of how the system works doesn't help your credibility on the topic.

Edited by Krazzar, 22 November 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Daesu]

Trei, on 22 November 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

If you noticed, gem prices is not static.
Your million dollars worth of gems is not going to be worth as much in gold as you would like to believe.

I know that gem<->price is not static but cash->gem price is static.  I will always get a pre-determined number of gems back, based on how much real money I spent on them.

But you are right that translating the gems to gold would bring down the value of gems with respect to gold.  Still, you can't deny that I can generate a lot of new gold through the cash shop using real money.  Where is the balance to check inflation in this case?  I can think of nothing else except for their existing gold sinks.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[Trei]

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

I know that gem<->price is not static but cash->gem price is static.  I will always get a pre-determined number of gems back, based on how much real money I spent on them.

But you are right that translating the gems to gold would bring down the value of gems with respect to gold.  Still, you can't deny that I can generate a lot of new gold through the cash shop using real money.  Where is the balance to check inflation in this case?  I can think of nothing else except for their existing gold sinks.

No, I really doubt you can sell enough gems for gold to have any noticeable impact in the global market, in your entire lifetime, even if you are a millionaire with zero money sense.

[Daesu]

Krazzar, on 22 November 2012 - 06:05 AM, said:

GW1's economy was broken within one year therefore the premise of your argument is invalid. Simply existing does not make something perfect, although you can't even say GW1 has the existence of an economy, it has the shell of something that resembles an economy.  Hard to take a clearly flawed set of logic seriously, especially when it is mindlessly repeated so often. It does identify your problem with GW2 and why you like games like GW1,  GW1 is so easily broken and exploited you can be extremely powerful with no drawbacks, which is quite sad that you base your criteria of a "good" game on that.

In order to buy most of the materials for a legendary weapon it would take approximately $80,000. Unless you're going to use the gems there is little reason to buy them. The "buying gold" argument is extremely exaggerated.

I don't know why you said exchanging gems for gold is extremely exaggerated, I do that all the time and I know other people who do too.

Quote

Wrong. It does not inject new gold into the economy, it shifts gold from one player to another, which occurs in the economy anyway as that is the purpose of any economy. That is an elementary aspect of the operation of the gem trade. Ignoring the basics of how the system works doesn't help your credibility on the topic.

You misunderstood.  Say I intend to translate my gems into gold right now, whose gold did they take from when the transaction is immediate.  When you tried to buy gems with gold, did you really have a choice to ask for a custom price (like the rest of the items on the TP)?  I think the answer to that is no, this means the gold I got through this, is not from the individual players.

Even if not enough players want to buy gems using gold, I would still be able to sell my gems for gold through currency exchange.  i.e. the gold is newly generated, not from individual players.  It is a currency exchange afterall and it wont error out on me just because there are not enough gem buyers.

Trei, on 22 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

No, I really doubt you can sell enough gems for gold to have any noticeable impact in the global market, in your entire lifetime, even if you are a millionaire with zero money sense.

The point wasn't to impact the economy.  The point was to indicate whether the gold that I traded my gems for in the currency exchange tab, is newly generated gold or not.  If it is, then I have essentially caused some inflation into the economy, multiply that by the number of people who exchanged gems for gold and you have a source of inflation that has to be balanced out by the gold sinks in this game.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 06:37 AM.

[Coren]

I would be ok to pay to go to a WP in an iter zone, nit a WP in my current zone. Makes more sense.

[Krazzar]

Daesu, on 22 November 2012 - 06:23 AM, said:

I don't know why you said exchanging gems for gold is extremely exaggerated, I do that all the time and I know other people who do too.

You misunderstood.  Say I intend to translate my gems into gold right now, whose gold did they take from when the transaction is immediate.  When you tried to buy gems with gold, did you really have a choice to ask for a custom price (like the rest of the items on the TP)?

The point wasn't to impact the economy.  The point was to indicate whether the gold that I traded my gems for in the currency exchange tab, is newly generated gold or not.  If it is, then I have essentially caused some inflation into the economy, multiply that by the number of people who exchanged gems for gold and you have a source of inflation that has to be balanced out by the gold sinks in this game.

Please research an aggregate market it's obvious there is a shortfall with that topic.

The gold is traded from other players. It is created in the game world first then shifted from one player to another. One player trades for a commodity that has no further impact on the economy and is most likely destroyed. Again research an economy to save everyone else more wasted time.

The point wasn't to impact the economy it's the impact on the economy due to inflation? That's a rather large contradiction. I'm quite finished here, no point in discussing this with people that have no idea what they're talking about.

[Sonzai_Moto]

Of the three gold sinks (repair, wp, and retrait), repair is the one I have the least problem with because it encourages better play, while the other two do the opposite. Costs for WPs can make it difficult to form groups or just take a while if people want to run everywhere. When my high level characters are joining with low level guildies, my guildies are using wps all the time, while I try to keep up by running. Retraiting is the worst because it discouraging experimenting with new builds or tailoring builds for different situations. I currently play a build that I can use everywhere in PvE, but isn't the best in every situation. I used to go support in dungeons, but then I'd have to pay to switch back to damage for solo play or WvW. So I ended just sticking with damage and leaving a few key PvE friendly traits accessible.

Individually, they are really aren't that costly. But all three taken together do add up. If I had to choose one to remove, it would be retraiting, even if there is that double hit with repair and wps.

[Daesu]

Krazzar, on 22 November 2012 - 06:32 AM, said:

Please research an aggregate market it's obvious there is a shortfall with that topic.

The gold is traded from other players. It is created in the game world first then shifted from one player to another. One player trades for a commodity that has no further impact on the economy and is most likely destroyed. Again research an economy to save everyone else more wasted time.

The point wasn't to impact the economy it's the impact on the economy due to inflation? That's a rather large contradiction. I'm quite finished here, no point in discussing this with people that have no idea what they're talking about.

Ok, let me try another way of explaining this.  Go back to when the game was first released, and assume nobody has any gems yet until they buy them with real money or with gold.  What if the very first gem buyer happens to pay with real money and immediately exchange it for gold?  What should the system do?  Should the system say "sorry, not enough gold to fulfill your transaction, nobody has shown a demand to buy any gems with gold yet"?  Or let the transaction go through?  The transaction goes through and it has to go through because ArenaNet guarantees that you can sell your gems for gold at any time.

In your scenario, the system has to error out because if nobody has bought any gems with gold, where did the gold come from for the guy who exchanged his gems for gold?  Which has to come first, the gem-seller or the gem-buyer (using gold)?  Furthermore, the gold that the gem-buyer supplied has to be greater or equal to the gold that the gem-seller is asking for at the beginning, which is not necessarily the case.  The gem seller could be selling his 800 gems from paying $10 and the gem buyer could just be interested to pay gold for 10 gems so how is the gold transferred between players in this case?  It is not a system where trader A trades with trader B, like the items in the TP.

Currency Exchange is a banking system with the "central bank" that has the ability to generate new gold and gems.  It doesn't matter whether the gem-seller or gem-buyer (using gold) comes first when the game was first released.  Anyway, for those who understand this, should understand that new gold is being generated whenever you exchange your gems for gold.

Edited by Daesu, 22 November 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[Heart Collector]

Eh, both are standard MMO gold sinks, I expected them to be in. Yeah they are rather annoying and are beginning to feel rather punishing for me, but I can live with them. Can't have it all easy! Though Trei and Coren made pretty good suggestions regarding waypoint travel in previous posts...

[raspberry jam]

Green, on 22 November 2012 - 01:53 AM, said:

Suck it up buttercup. Its a gold sink. Every mmo needs them to limit inflation/prices of TP goods. As you noted, the travel costs are another gold sink in GW2.

Go look at the TP and tell me if you think that gold sink inflation control works.

It doesn't. There is not a single piece of evidence ever that it works, or ever has worked, in a game with a reward system even remotely similar to GW2's. Inflation will happen regardless because the average coin reserves of each account just goes up.

[DOSGAMES]

Putting aside the deflationary purpose of Repair, Travel, and Respec costs; these things are needed to 'prod' the player into better behavior.  Repair and Respec Costs prevent players from endlessly banging their head against something and dying repeatedly. It's a "deep breath" that forces a player to step back and rethink things.  People may not like negative reinforcement but, its effectiveness is undeniable.

Travel costs are similar but, I think they also add a feeling of scope and scale to the world.  People endlessly complained about Flight Paths in WoW because they cost money and took time. Personally, I loved them. Not directly of course, it was annoying having to pay money and wait for 10 minutes to arrive to your destination. But, they made the world and it's distances feel coherent.  When you took several minutes of flight paths,  you truly felt 'out in the sticks'. You felt away from home. This adds a drama and weight behind particular zones.

If I had my way, I do away with Quick travel all together.  It completely removes the feeling of distance and scope. You never feel like your 'off the beaten path' or that you've drifted too far out to sea.  It's not a major thing, but adding a Travel cost at least reduces the ability of the player to meaninglessly bounce around the map.

[shanaeri rynale]

To open another can of worms. I know i'd WvW more if I didnt have to pay for armor repairs there. It's one of the mechanics that reward zerging(less chance of being killed in a zerg) rather than splitting off and doing skirmishes in small groups or as an individual.

[thelast]

WP cost and repairs are real pain at 80. No wonder why people don't play together.
As some posters above me said it's counter productive to help low level guildies, first you have to port to their zone and second they use WPs all the time, because it's cheap.
If there were no WP cost, people could just pop around on different maps and check on events, help random players with their quests.

Armour repair is another stupid gold sink and pisses me off. It is especially bad idea in WvW. Every battle there could be death, thats why so many people flee and leave their comrades. It's not cause they are cowards, but cause of repairs. If I die there 5 times, I have to capture five towers and more to get my money back. Another reason why so many people prefer to zerg, it's safer there, no death, no repairs.

[Dasryn]

thelast, on 22 November 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

WP cost and repairs are real pain at 80. No wonder why people don't play together.
As some posters above me said it's counter productive to help low level guildies, first you have to port to their zone and second they use WPs all the time, because it's cheap.
If there were no WP cost, people could just pop around on different maps and check on events, help random players with their quests.

Armour repair is another stupid gold sink and pisses me off. It is especially bad idea in WvW. Every battle there could be death, thats why so many people flee and leave their comrades. It's not cause they are cowards, but cause of repairs. If I die there 5 times, I have to capture five towers and more to get my money back. Another reason why so many people prefer to zerg, it's safer there, no death, no repairs.

this is called a valid argument.

the "argument" that you dont ride in a cab for free so why should you be able to travel for free in GW2, is not an argument.  this is a game, a game that you want to keep social.  two totally different objectives.

being a taxi driver is a business.  its your lively hood for many.

traveling with a waypoint is to connect a fantasy world.

do you see now?  taxi drivers dont diive cabs to be social.  traveling around in GW2 is to stay connect and social.  just like the poster i quoted said, if WP travel was free, then youd see a lot more movement in the GW2 world.

[Trei]

shanaeri rynale, on 22 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

To open another can of worms. I know i'd WvW more if I didnt have to pay for armor repairs there. It's one of the mechanics that reward zerging(less chance of being killed in a zerg) rather than splitting off and doing skirmishes in small groups or as an individual.

As long as you accept the flipside of it; you should conversely also not be able to acquire any gold from any activity in the WvW zones, directly or indirectly.

Yes, it would consequently make all PvE activity in WvW borderline pointless in more ways than one, which is why we are repairing in WvW currently.

[Dasryn]

i have a solution!

because we know that ANet has significant overhead, and that overheard demands that ANet produce numbers everyday - here is a solution that i think will satisfy many.

monthly travel passes.

one time fee with in game currency or a modest gem price that makes waypoint travel free for that month.  that way both sides win.

Anet gets to charge for waypoint travel, - players get to travel unlimited times with their pass that they purchased.

you can say this isnt technically free, but you get your moneys back if you waypoint 200 times or more in that month.

think of it like cellphones, you pay your bill, then you have unlimited text messages.  if you use 5 text messages a month, then you proly arent getting your money's worth, but if you text 2000 times a month, you get your money's worth.

im puttting this in the suggestion box.

[syrin]

I've played a lot of mmos and I know that they need money sinks but this obe has way too many. I mean between armor repair, waypoints, salvage kits and harvest stuff it's like they do their best to make sure you can't make any money unless you find something really rare and cool. Which with their drop rates is almost impossible.

[Trei]

Rickter, on 22 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

do you see now?  taxi drivers dont diive cabs to be social.  traveling around in GW2 is to stay connect and social.  just like the poster i quoted said, if WP travel was free, then youd see a lot more movement in the GW2 world.

I'm not sure how to explain this yet but... I could agree with this line of thought only if there are less waypoints in the world.

Perhaps it has to do with the perception of the size of the world.
Right now, even though almost all areas in Tyria is just within the vicinity of a loadscreen away, it does not feel small at all.
I am still, at times, getting overwhelmed by the vastness of the continents in Tyria, often simply by just seeing it zoom out as I open my map.

Part of it is precisely because the cost of travelling do often give me pause to consider legging it to my destination instead (not because I cannot afford porting, but because thriftiness is a virtue; do I really need to spend that silver?), and this consideration serves as a reminder to me time and again how big the world feels when I realise how far I would have to run if I do not port.

But that's just me.

Edited by Trei, 22 November 2012 - 02:42 PM.