In-Game Operators and math (ugh!)

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 06:10

#1

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

1) Regarding the direction of

1)
Regarding the direction of subtracting points on an opponent. I think, this is only allowed if you indeed target an opponent.
If not, all opponents loose 1 point or 1 point per card they have played.

***
2)
I don't know if I understand the problem completely.
But I think that the function of melee units should be protecting support units from harm.
If then these support units can do the scoring instead, both have a function.

If I where to translate damage in my game, to the scoring of your game. This is what I see.

The melee unit protects a support unit.
The melee unit will almost score nothing.
The support unit will be able to "shoot" twice.

So, this is how the scoring works.

A support unit is the +
Let's consider the levels 1 to 4. So +1, to +4.

A melee unit is the *. But itself can do something as well. It has a small +. Instead of adding this + to the score, it is added to the support instead. Let's say, this + is kinda like the durability of the melee.

Let's consider level 2 and 4 for the melee.
Level 2 has a +1 and level 4 has a +2. This way, the melee adds less (50%) than a support.

But a support is weaker without melee. It could die twice as fast (factorial design)

Either way, all melee can multiply a supports score by 2.

A level 2 melee with;
Level 1 support gives (1+1)*2=4
Level 2 support gives (2+1)*2=6
Level 3 support gives (3+1)*2=8
Level 4 support gives (4+1)*2=10

A level 4 melee with;
Level 1 support gives (1+2)*2=6
Level 2 support gives (2+2)*2=8
Level 3 support gives (3+2)*2=10
Level 4 support gives (4+2)*2=12

2 level 2 melee give only 2.
2 level 4 melee give only 4.
2 level 1 support give only 2.
2 level 4 support give only 8.

A melee can only protect one support. Or else you would get a chain of multiplications.

***
3)
You need stronger melee then, in terms of durability. A bit stronger, but...If it goes with threshold, maybe an extra weakness from something. So, that players need to prepare a bit longer for dealing with melee.

Also, find something that can bypass melee. And hit targets behind. Magic or something?

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 09:11

#2

let-off studios

Offline

Joined: 02/07/2011

WWKD?

What Would Knizia Do? Seriously consider this. His games are very often the most mathematical that come to mind particularly when it comes to scoring.

Without knowing much of anything of the design you're talking about beyond the scoring system, there's little I can provide. But some general guidelines include:

- Reduce all your factors by half and see if it makes things easier to compute, but still interesting. Personally, I think a swing of 4 points between you and your target seems a bit too swing-y, particularly in a game that's only up to 15 points. A shift of 2 points at a time (that is, +1 for you and -1 for them) seems less debilitating, but still worth it.

- How much "take that!" do you want in this game? If you want less, then you may want to provide more opportunities for Addition and Multiplication. I suspect you've tried an even distribution of the operations and found that scores end up lower than what you want. This might be another symptom.

- Also, subtraction is clearly less-valuable than division, so why do you want to include both? Try to find some means of distinction between those two in particular, so that subtraction still makes sense intuitively but is just as valuable as division in certain circumstances.

- Are you scoring at the end of the game, or progressively? Maybe you feel like you're being bogged down by all the math because you wait until the "end of the game" (whatever that means to you) before calculating scores.

Hopefully some of this is helpful. I suggest you have a look at Knizia's Kingdoms, which uses a fair amount of mathematics to determine player scores, including multiplication. There's no score cap, and scoring is calculated at the end of each round.

https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/119/kingdoms

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 17:29

#3

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Just a quick response

X3M wrote:

...Also, find something that can bypass melee. And hit targets behind. Magic or something?

Each unit has a RANGE from 1 to 3:

1 is a melee unit and can only attack one space/card away.
2 is a more versatile unit which can be either a unit with a bit more range which can be either Melee or attack Ranged/Support/Command units in the "back row".
3 is a very flexible unit that can attack ANY and ALL units from ANY position. Usually a bit weaker in health, you'll want these units to be protected by a melee unit.

Obviously ATTACKS are governed by the RPS-9 which determines who can attack who. Still working on scoring... I will review a bit later once I have a bit more time to reflect.

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 17:54

#4

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Knizia ... eh(!?) Kingdoms = 1994 (Some amazing stuff)

let-off studios wrote:

What Would Knizia Do? Seriously consider this. His games are very often the most mathematical that come to mind particularly when it comes to scoring...

Hopefully some of this is helpful. I suggest you have a look at Knizia's Kingdoms, which uses a fair amount of mathematics to determine player scores, including multiplication. There's no score cap, and scoring is calculated at the end of each round.

Actually it does help. I'm thinking about INVERTING the game. Some changes:

1. First player to SCORE 15 points wins (at the end of a round). If both players have a score above 15 points, the player with the HIGHER amount wins.

2. I had an Arcane die (Black 1d6) and I think that this will be the 1st operand in the equation. If you roll a "3" ... it means "3 ..." where "..." could be "+3" or "-2" or "x2" or "/3", etc.

3. I'm going to INVEST more time with the operators and operands. You've made me realize that while a "-1" penalty is NOT GOOD, it's better than allowing the opponent to have a card in play which is wreaking havoc with all your other units. Same goes with a Divide operator ("/").

4. The MATH is going to be about "TIMING". It's about WHEN do you defeat a "-1" unit and score one less point this round. You can inflict damage to units but might WANT to WAIT until the timing is right to score more points.

5. When you defeat an OPPOSING card, that is when you score. For example: Arcane die = 3... "-1" Wizard defeated = "2" VPs. If your opponent did not defeat anyone during the round, you score +2 VPs and he scores 0 VPs.

Let me digest a bit of the rest of the comment and see what I can come up with... But as of now, I'm sort of seeing HOW the game could be played and where the "strategy" would lie: offering a BIG round to pay off and score a TON of Victory Points (VPs).

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 19:04

#5

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

When an opponent's card is EXILED

When you defeat an opposing unit and it gets EXILED, that is when you SCORE "Victory Points" (VPs).

But the real "beauty" (and strategy) comes from having multiple cards "Wounded" and then ready for a BIG ROUND to score some MEGA VPs. What I mean by this is that ALL "damage" can be easily tracked. But you don't need to forcibly KILL all units in one shot... There is DEEP strategy in that you could span your kills in sequential rounds to score more points because of the Arcane die.

Let me do a few examples...:

1. Arcane die = 3, Kill a +3 and a -1 units. Score +5 VPs. You could have defeated yet another +3 which would give you +8 VPs... However

2. Arcane die = 2, Kill another +3. Score +5 VPs. Which results in:

+10 VPs versus +8 VPs... And you can have all kinds of fun with the multiplier ("x") in play for either side.

This is all very different in that I thought EACH PLAYER would "score" points based on the cards HE PLAYS into his area of play. So a +3 ... would have earned him +3 VPs...

Instead I have INVERTED the game such that the player PLAYS +3 card but the OPPONENT SCORES if/when he defeats that unit.

Subtle but may make for more interesting decision making... I've got to spend tonight revising cards and making more edits...

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 20:37

#6

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Lots to think about

let-off studios wrote:

What Would Knizia Do? Seriously consider this.

I have to admit, now that I am THINKING in "reverse"... I'm also seeing if the game can be "broken". Like what if someone during "Deck Construction" tries to build a deck with mostly "negative" numbers(!?) Is it possible? Do I want to be careful for this NOT to happen?? What can be other ways of possibly manipulating your Micro Deck to behave in an "unintended" way???

Things like that.

I also have to admit that the game IS "different". And while there is some mathematics towards winning and it has some depth of strategy... It's NOT a "Bam-Blam-Wham" type of game. TradeWorlds is very QUICK... Everything happens rather quickly when you play a game... From the Get-Go you're already making choices that you don't know how they will impact your "game" (so to speak).

Monster Keep (MK) is different. It's MUCH "slower". You need to THINK about what cards you want to play, in what zone too, who you are going to attack, which unit will do the attacking, will it be melee attack or advanced tactics, will you combo, can you attack without a counter, etc.

All this STUFF to "think about". Makes the game seem a bit "sluggish" because of all the THINKING that needs to happen...

And that's what worries me: you play the game and lose and don't necessarily understand why (to a certain degree)... Meaning was it the initial draw that gave you a poor start or did you not capitalize on opportunities during the game...(!?) All this ANALYSIS can probably make you BETTER at playing the game. But you need to LIKE that LEVEL of "strategy"!

Clearly the game is unlike anything I have seen before. It's got some interesting mechanics with it's RPS-9, operators, attack ranges, all kinds of cool weapons and advanced tactics... For a Micro Deck Card game, it packs a lot into "the product".

I will definitely give the game another shot (in this NEW incarnation) given the differences thanks to the ideas put forth ... I'm pretty sure that the game might be better suited for TEENS than TWEENS. I can definitely see a HIGHER level of gaming. It might not be a Magic: the Gathering (Nobody can expect to compete with such a diverse and complicated game as Magic) ... however it does have it's own strength as a Micro Game (with only 12 cards per player).

Wed, 01/23/2019 - 23:47

#7

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Here is some additional information

X3M wrote:

2) I don't know if I understand the problem completely. But I think that the function of melee units should be protecting support units from harm. If then these support units can do the scoring instead, both have a function.

Well Tanks (Melee only units) are part of Block "A". They come as some of the soldiers in the game. Each Faction has their own "Soldiers" and they come in three (3) different "flavors".

Tanks use the PLUS "+" operator. Each time YOU KILL a "Tank", you earn +?. So if the card was a "+3" (which is not abnormal), you would earn "Arcane Die" +3 VPs.

Range use their extra range (usually "2") to affect Melee (Tank) units from afar. The goal is to "chip-away" at the Tanks slowly, inflicting them with Damage each Round (until they are finally defeated and Exiled).

Supports can provide things like Healing, extended range ("3"), provide some other forms of protection or boons, etc. They are good for keeping your Tanks up and running to hopefully beat the opponent.

Lastly Command cards are unique cards which can only be present once in a player's Micro Deck. They usually have extended range and/or very good Advanced Tactics to deal all kinds of Damage and even instantly Exile an opposing underling (given sufficient resources).

ALL of these underlings rely on three (3) resources in the game which are RNG because at the start of each ROUND, the starting player ROLLS 4 dice: 3 white d6s and 1 black d6. Distribution of the white dice is done by each player depending on the cards in play and those in-hand. Black is the "Arcane" die and represents the first OPERAND in the VPs formula.

The "Arcane" die sets the tone for the round. Will it yield a high-scoring outcome or is it best to wait for the next round to defeat a few of the opposing underlings(!?)

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 08:15

#8

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Amazingly inspiring!

let-off studios wrote:

I suggest you have a look at Knizia's Kingdoms, which uses a fair amount of mathematics to determine player scores, including multiplication.

That game, although old (circa 1994), is pretty cool. I must admit I like the TILED "castles" of the older version over the "Plastic Castles" of the newer "re-printed" version of the game.

But I guess that's just a matter of preference.

Definitely a COOL game by Knizia... Very inspiring and different with its scoring mechanic being Addition ("+"), Subtraction ("-") and Multiplication ("x"). Very inspiring too!

Thanks for suggesting that I take a look at that game!

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 08:42

#9

wob

Offline

Joined: 06/09/2017

hi. division should be

hi.
division should be avoided if you can.
1) its harder than subtraction. addition and subtraction (and lower multiplication) only really require the ability to count. division is just that little bit harder.
2) you can end up with fractions. multiply any whole number by any other whole number you get a whole number. but unless your dividing by a factor of that number it wont be whole ( so no dividing odds by evens or primes by anything but itself)

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 08:58

#10

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

What about INTEGER division???

I plan to "document" in the rulebook INTEGER division.

As examples: 8 / 3 = 2, 5 / 2 = 2.

With relatively LOW numbers it's pretty easy to do. It's also a counting operator similar to "multiplication".

Simply COUNT the number of times you ADD the "Divisor" until you are EQUAL or ABOVE the Dividend. If you are above, then subtract the COUNT by one otherwise the COUNT is the quotient.

It's fairly easy to compute with relative small numbers too.

My Divisors would be between 1 and 5. Still not convinced(!?)

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 09:16

#11

wob

Offline

Joined: 06/09/2017

division isnt hard, your

division isnt hard, your right, and most adults should be able to do it. however for younger players (probably not an issue with your game) and a lot of adults it doesnt come naturally. some cant do it but most just wont unless forced. there are some maths that humans are just bad at, division, probability, judging group size, certain times tables etc.

your table will work, as would telling people to just round down, but why add it if you dont have to? subtraction is easier to do (for players) and easier to model (for designers)

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 11:28

#12

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I already am using Subtraction

wob wrote:

...subtraction is easier to do (for players) and easier to model (for designers)

Not sure I understood what you mean by the above comment.

I already have Addition ("+") which is usually Melee/Tank-type cards (yeah there are some cards that are a mix too).
Subtraction ("-") which are usually Ranged units that can deal damage to the opposing Melee cards (they're usually rather weak and putting them in the Front Row is not desirable).
Division ("/") which are usually in the Support Block offering more Range, some special Advanced Tactics (like healing or protection).
And then Multiplication ("x") which is found in the Command Block which offers stronger attacks, even better range and powerful Advanced Tactics too.

So the goal is to achieve 15 Victory Points (VPs). However if BOTH players achieve higher than 15 VPs, the winner is the one with the higher score.

I know what you are going to say: why would anyone "score" a subtraction or division(!?) Well the reasons for this is because sometimes those cards can be "annoyances". They usually chip-away at HIGH scoring cards. Leaving them In-Play is sometimes "risky" too. So you can risk losing -1 VPs in return for saving a Melee card worth +3 VPs to your opponent...

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 13:13

#13

john smith

Offline

Joined: 06/26/2017

I struggled with the Math

I struggled with the Math Anxiety stuff for years. I read post after post on forum after forum complaining about remedial math in games. Yet I saw game after game continue to use odds ratio CRTs and Die roll modifiers etc. and the games were never panned for it. It seems to be a phenomenon of online forums. After literally 10 years of round and round on the issue. I come to the conclusion that it is not really a factor. If the game requires it, as all conflict games do, it will be fine. As long as it makes sense and presented well.

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 20:09

#14

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I was thinking about this statement...

wob wrote:

...your table will work, as would telling people to just round down, but why add it if you dont have to? subtraction is easier to do (for players) and easier to model (for designers)

Because I didn't comprehend this "excerpt" ... I was thinking about it. Surely this seemed like it had "nothing to do with division"(!?) Yet as I reflected, I believe what you were trying to TELL ME was this:

(From my examples above): 8 / 3 and 5 / 2

I believe you were telling me to SUBTRACT from the Dividend to the closest match!

Right?! To do the following:

(Same examples as above): 6 / 3 and 4 / 2 which both equal 2.

Which might be a SIMPLER way of performing the MATH if maybe you are a bit older than a "tween" (10 - 13 years of age).

Did I figure this out correctly???

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 20:39

#15

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

You learn some new every day!

john smith wrote:

..Yet I saw game after game continue to use odds ratio CRTs and Die roll modifiers etc. and the games were never panned for it. It seems to be a phenomenon of online forums.

Wow you "taught" me a new word: "panned" (or severely criticized).

And in general I didn't want the "math" to be there for just any reason... I really wanted it there so that the "scoring" aspect could be something other than "trivial". Like I didn't want a scoring track first to 15 Victory Points (VPs) wins the game ... even if it was based on different points allocated per underling (simple addition only).

I wanted something more "thought-out". Something that would give players a bit of a "choice": do I defeat enemy "A" and earn more Tribute (VPs) or do I defeat enemy "B" and reduce the risk of more carnage even though I may earn less Tribute(!?)

It's these kind of "real-world" decisions that I hope to deepen the level of "strategy" in the game. Like I said, I wanted something more than just a track... And these "operators" provide an excellent way to force players to make choices and decisions which are severely important considering you ONLY have five (5) rounds to win.

Anyways for now the MATH will stay. I think it's simple enough for even a "tween" to understand. But I'm not sure about the playability which I will be playtesting to see how that all works now (with the changes suggested by the other BGDF designers).

Cheers!

Note: A couple notes concerning HOW your contributions have changed my design.

1. Instead of earning Tribute when you PLAY a card, you now earn it for "Exiling" a opposing underling. Of course that means that you will most likely need to make difficult decisions about HOW you are going to approach the game.

Like it was designed: Melee in the front row.

Or do you fnck with the game: Ranged units in front as fodder and force the opponent to LOSE Tribute by attacking these units!

Very FNCKED UP play styles... And I love it!

2. Instead of "cloning" or "stealing" Tribute, I've decided to make it an equation to determine the score each round. The division ("/") and multiplication ("x") now operate as IRL.

So 3 / 3 = 1, 4 x 2 = 8... etc.

3. This forced me to make small adjustments to the existing batch of cards. Some fine tuning because of some potential balancing issues. Nothing too major.

4. Each underling can attack ONCE per turn (and then he is exhausted). This was very important because it made the game more "gradual" than instant defeat of any and all underlings in a player's area of play.

Fri, 01/25/2019 - 21:59

#16

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

A little more about "division"

The divide ("/") operator is very controversial indeed. The reason this is true is because usually those kinds of underlings are "Guild" members. Guild is the class of thieves and bandits. So they "steal" Tribute and usually cause much chaos while in play.

Figuring out what to do with these underlings is very important, since they can (in some situations) swing the victory from one direction to the opposite.

In the first Blocks, there are to date TWO (2) Guild Members:

1. The Assassin. He can exile an underling at will given the right amount of "resources". He is weak in terms of Health and can be defeated in one to three turns (depending what cards you have in play).

2. The Bard. He can help in "disposing" of an assassin with his extended range and boomerang to strike from afar. He can also INSPIRE your underlings and score +1 Tribute for one exiled opponent.

Right now those are the only two (2) division-related cards which are part of the game currently. I may add a couple more ... Once I have finished trying the playtesting of the current cards.

Sat, 01/26/2019 - 05:13

#17

Fobs

Offline

Joined: 11/10/2018

game end condition

I could see two possible problems with your game end condition:

- It might be too predictable. If it is totally obvious that I well end the game in my next turn and win, than there is not much tension in the game.

-If there are too many negative cards, the game might never end. If you could construct an infinte loop of turns your game has in my opionion a design flaw. Each action needs to bring the game towards its end (its could be enough that there are less negative action cards remaining in the deck). Okay here it will end, since your amount of cards is limited.

Sat, 01/26/2019 - 06:49

#18

X3M

Offline

Joined: 10/28/2013

Regarding divisions

I try to avoid these as much as possible.

I only use additions and subtractions.
Multiplications are in the form of dice rolls.
Divisions are in the form of dice rolls.

You might have noticed that I used a division at one point for a possible vision mechanic. And only if I really have too. I only use 2, 5 and 10 for the bigger divisions. Because those are relatively easy.

The problem is within rounding. Dividing by 10, gives a nice solution. Dividing by 2 also allows for tricks. Dividing by 5 is a bit harder tbh.

But dividing by 3, 4, 6, 7 or whatever you need. They all will make dividing very hard. Even for adults.

But it can be made easier. To start with, you need to prevent decimals and rounding.
To do so, you first think of your dividing factors.
It is often only 2 and 3. Which multiplied, give 6. And players eventually know the answer by playing a lot.
So, the points that need division, are 6, 12, 18, 24 etc.
Which can result in 2 and 3, 4 and 6, 6 and 9, 8 and 12 etc.

You see that the problem with this is that you need very high initial points. Just to keep the result a nice round number.

So, I too suggest to either change divisions to something very simple. Or to remove it.

Sat, 01/26/2019 - 11:50

#19

wob

Offline

Joined: 06/09/2017

hi. i may have misunderstood

hi.
i may have misunderstood you. i thought, in order to simplify divisions that leave fractions, you were going to include a table. like those multiplication tables you got in school. ie an x axis showing the numerator and the y showing the denominator and where they meet is the answer that you have rounded off. if thats correct then its fine, i just dont like tables if they can be avoided. the alternative when dealing eith fractions is to round (an extra step for people) or to avoid certain numbers (if all your integers are even its never a problem)

as a general rule of thumb i try to eliminate as much player maths as possible (unless its one of those heavy war sims).
i even include counting as maths. the average person can count up to 5-7 things at a glance. any more is easy enough to count but it takes just that little bit extra effort.

Sat, 01/26/2019 - 20:26

#20

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I don't really need a table IMHO.

wob wrote:

...i may have misunderstood you. i thought, in order to simplify divisions that leave fractions, you were going to include a table. like those multiplication tables you got in school. ie an x axis showing the numerator and the y showing the denominator and where they meet is the answer that you have rounded off. if thats correct then its fine, i just dont like tables if they can be avoided.

I could add a "table" to the rulebook. But TBH it's really easy to do INTEGER division on small whole numbers (integers). I don't feel as I need the division table...(!?)

wob wrote:

as a general rule of thumb i try to eliminate as much player maths as possible (unless its one of those heavy war sims).

Well that's sort of my point. I WANT the MATH to add to the strategic depth of the game. It forces players to either use "creativity" and do things which may seem "unbalanced" to get an advantage or to play by the generally accepted rules as presented in the rulebook.

Sat, 01/26/2019 - 22:28

#21

john smith

Offline

Joined: 06/26/2017

questccg wrote: I don't feel

questccg wrote:

I don't feel as I need the division table...(!?)

To my phone: "Hey Google... what is fifteen divided by three"

I think its all in how you present it in your rules. If the decisions are interesting then people will look past the math as long as they understand the math is the engine to create those interesting decisions.

Sun, 01/27/2019 - 00:22

#22

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

Bell-curve

john smith wrote:

...If the decisions are interesting then people will look past the math as long as they understand the math is the engine to create those interesting decisions.

Well I certainly hope so. It's been a long journey with this design. I've had to second guess my "direction" several times what with some of the other ideas that I've had (or presented to me).

I'm certainly willing to write the "Monster Guidebook" for SpellMasters... That's a 120+ page effort that I'm spending to make right by the game community.

I, personally, guess that I'm trying to TOP a design like "TradeWorlds" with something even BETTER. And to be honest, that's rather difficult to do. If that means something "slower", with deeper strategy and higher tension... Well so be it. I'll playtest "as that": a sort of bell-curved game where the early adopters are low and slowly as the game becomes more re-known ... the middle of the curve with a ton of more players.

I guess that's kind of my vision for "Monster Keep" (MK).

Tue, 01/29/2019 - 00:16

#23

questccg

Offline

Joined: 04/16/2011

I wanted to add...

This design is "filled" with so much NEW stuff, it's unbelievable. Now I won't sit here and give the details... But suffice to say, there are a lot of issues that this design aims to tackle...

The Number #1 issue is "Playability" of a CCG (Customized Card Game). With its Blocks mechanic, the physical division of the Micro Deck (12 Cards), this game aims to give a highly SIMPLE mechanic of building a deck which in turn allows FULL "customization" for more experienced players. So in a way it makes the "Building" (or Deck Construction) to be easy to do, less than 5 minutes and the game can be played with a "Balanced" Micro Deck.

The Number #2 issue is "Mana/Resource Flooding/Screwed" found in most card games (TCGs or CCGs). This is resolved with a nice 4 dice mechanic which allows players to roll dice and use the results to attribute the values to three (3) distinct "resources" in the game. Sometime with a very good roll this results in MORE "resources" and therefore a highly combative round of play, sometimes it is a poor roll which results in LESS "resources" and therefore a more calculated round of play... However on the average, it results in a round with some combat and some calculated play too.

For now I will leave it at those two (2) issues. There are others but I will keep them as a surprise for the players (in the category of stat tracking and unit exhaustion).

User login

Navigation

Apr 24 2024

Apr 20 2024

Apr 18 2024

Apr 16 2024

Apr 15 2024

Apr 13 2024

Apr 12 2024

Apr 9 2024

Apr 6 2024

Apr 4 2024

Apr 1 2024

Mar 28 2024

Mar 21 2024

Mar 20 2024

Mar 19 2024

Mar 13 2024

Mar 8 2024

Mar 5 2024

Mar 4 2024

	TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg
	Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter