| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 16:04:03
|
Sleyvas
That was some good reading for sure. Nice work on that idea. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
 |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 17:12:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Your words are true for physical products like video game consoles or cars, but not for purely intellectual properties, like video game franchises or any works of fiction. Any setting -- whether it's a movie setting or a video game setting or a comic setting does not need to make new content incompatible with old content. They just need to make new content that is different.
I think the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying, and that might cause confusion, is "need".
I agree that they don't need to change it up a lot to continue selling to the fans, but if they want to expand their customer base there is a lot that "needs" to be changed. The reason for this is that after a certain time the current incarnation of the product can be considered to have reached its maximum number of fans. To appeal to new fans change is needed. And unfortunately for fans the amount of sales a limited group can result in is limited, and the number seldom equates to the expected yearly growth percentage of the bigger companies. Take for example the aggressive policies of Games Workshop. For some time they had an expected growth rate of 20% per year. That's an insane number, and it also resulted in some really insane business practices, all to please the shareholders. Eventually they alienated enough fans for it to be unsustainable and they went back a bit on it trying to regain some of what they lost.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a need for change. I've stated more than once I accept in-setting changes, so long as they are explained and make sense.
My previous post was disagreeing with your statement that the new had to be incompatible with the old.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertYou don't sell more Superman comics by suddenly making him a little old Peruvian lady whose only unusual ability is being a crack sniper... You sell more Superman comics by giving him new friends and enemies and new challenges to overcome -- whether those challenges are keeping up with the Daily Planet becoming online-only, or a new bad guy that threatens Metropolis, or marital problems with Lois. You build on what you had before, while adding more to it.
Yet they changed Superman quite a lot over the years. They've changed his powers from being able to jump incredibly high to being able to fly. They've killed him and brought him back. They've removed his powers, given him new powers and so on. They even cancelled the comic and then brought it back.
Yeah, they've changed him, but they've not turned him into something else entirely, as you said was necessary in your prior post.
They've added to his powers and changed them, but they keep the character himself the same, and aside from the bounding thing becoming flight, they've generally gone back to what he was before.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertYou don't ignore what came before or make drastic changes that contradict earlier material, and when you make some change, that change needs to be explained.
This happens all the time though. Look at Wolverine in the Marvel Universe. It's been retconned several times.
Yeah, but those retcons have been explained away as psychic manipulation and things like that. They've changed his past, but they've never done a "yeah, this thing that we said was true before -- not only was it never actually true, we're otherwise going to ignore it and pretend it never happened."
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I don't have an opinion on whether that's a good thing or not. I am simply stating that is how it's done. They have plenty of reasons for doing it, but it's mostly because they want to make more money. Not because they want to appeal to fans. It's a risk taking for sure. Sometimes you alienate the whole fan base. But as long as you retain enough fans to spread the word you're in the positive. Positive here meaning making money. However if you do manage to alienate the whole fan base it will be a lot harder to sell your product to a new demographic, and when that happens you either blame the fans or you suck it up and return to something closer to the previous product. Both approaches are often seen in several businesses.
Again, the issue has never been making changes -- it's all been in how they handled them. One of the things that attracted me to the Realms, lo these many moons ago, was the fact that things were happening (changes!) in the setting and that there was a strong continuity.
Changes made on designer whim, without explanation, regard to prior continuity, or even consideration of implications -- these destroy continuity.
When even the basic facts about a setting are subject to change with no explanation, where can anyone begin to tell their own stories there? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 08 Dec 2020 17:13:03 |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 17:41:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Again, I'm not disagreeing with a need for change. I've stated more than once I accept in-setting changes, so long as they are explained and make sense.
My previous post was disagreeing with your statement that the new had to be incompatible with the old.
Are you saying that the big companies with insane expected yearly overturn growth can reach those numbers without expanding their consumer base? Because that's what I'm talking about. That's what's driving them to make such radical change. That's why they end up in situations where they completely retcon stuff that's been established prior.
quote:
Yeah, they've changed him, but they've not turned him into something else entirely, as you said was necessary in your prior post.
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I? I said change is necessary once you've depleted your fan base's purchasing power. At that point you need a bigger fan base and to attract those you haven't already attracted you need to target them specifically. That means you need to change some things. Is the change necessary? Yes, to reach the target numbers. Does it have to be radical? Not at all, and here's where I agree with you. Radical changes are mostly poor design decisions. Then again, if a change is too radical is individual. One person might consider a certain design decision alright, while another might find it unacceptable. And like I previously said a certain loss of the original fan base is calculated in the risk assessment they make when they decide on those changes.
quote:
They've added to his powers and changed them, but they keep the character himself the same, and aside from the bounding thing becoming flight, they've generally gone back to what he was before.
Like shooting laser from his eyes? Kissing people to make them lose their memories? Here's an article on how he's changed through the years:
https://superman.fandom.com/wiki/Superman%27s_Powers_and_Abilities
quote:
Yeah, but those retcons have been explained away as psychic manipulation and things like that. They've changed his past, but they've never done a "yeah, this thing that we said was true before -- not only was it never actually true, we're otherwise going to ignore it and pretend it never happened."
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
quote:
Again, the issue has never been making changes -- it's all been in how they handled them. One of the things that attracted me to the Realms, lo these many moons ago, was the fact that things were happening (changes!) in the setting and that there was a strong continuity.
Changes made on designer whim, without explanation, regard to prior continuity, or even consideration of implications -- these destroy continuity.
When even the basic facts about a setting are subject to change with no explanation, where can anyone begin to tell their own stories there?
You'll find no argument from me here. I fully agree with this statement. Small changes and strong continuity is nice. Big retcons done with a wave of the hand without respect for the established lore not so much. But the latter happen. All I have been saying is just that they happen and why they happen. Do I like it? Not really. But I can also choose to vote with my wallet.
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition? |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
Edited by - Returnip on 08 Dec 2020 17:44:15 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 19:17:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Are you saying that the big companies with insane expected yearly overturn growth can reach those numbers without expanding their consumer base? Because that's what I'm talking about. That's what's driving them to make such radical change. That's why they end up in situations where they completely retcon stuff that's been established prior.
I'm not addressing the numbers. I'm just saying you don't have to reinvent everything to keep growing.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I?
"To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product."
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
But as I said, every time they changed his past, they at least offered some explanation for why the previous past wasn't true. That's different from what we got with the Realms, which was either no explanation at all or "It's always been this way, but no one knew!"
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition?
The changes between 2E and 3E weren't as radical as the ones between 3E and 4E, but there were some that would have a big impact in-setting, even though they were ignored in the fiction. The entire planar structure became something different, for example. Dwarves, previously unable to even use magic devices reliably, suddenly had the same facility for magic as everyone else. And that one particularly irks me, because they gave themselves a way to explain it with just one sentence or two -- and then didn't bother to do so.
I wasn't as enthusiastic about the 3E Realms as I was about the 1E/2E; the unexplained changes and constant RSEs were not selling points for me. That said, while I did have some minor complaints, it was still the same setting I'd gotten into. It was the changes of 4E that really, really bugged me; it felt post-apocalyptic and unrecognizable to me. I still read the 4E source material, and there was some material I liked about it, but that material was a very small percentage. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 19:29:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I'm not addressing the numbers. I'm just saying you don't have to reinvent everything to keep growing.
Well, the administration in those companies seem to disagree.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
I didn't say that kind of change was necessary though, did I?
quote:
"To sell more you need to change it enough so that it doesn't work with the old product."
Ah yes. And I stand by that. I claim that the numbers they're forced to reach require these drastic decisions. But I also think that level of drastic change is not necessary to retain a living, evolving setting. Necessary for one thing, not necessary for another. Sorry for being unclear on that.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Oh, come on now. Changing someone's past is the same thing as saying what they previously said about his past is no longer true. And the retcon of Weapon X was definitely not well explained in my opinion. It was simply done so the comic would follow the same history as the movies.
quote:
But as I said, every time they changed his past, they at least offered some explanation for why the previous past wasn't true. That's different from what we got with the Realms, which was either no explanation at all or "It's always been this way, but no one knew!"
I disagree on the subject of Wolverine. But let's forget that and focus on the realms, and on that point I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
However, I don't feel that the changes done between 2nd and 3.x was that overwhelming. There were some contradictory stuff (but I'd be damned if there isn't some small contradictory stuff in every book released), but also a lot of established stuff that carried over. My world is a mix of 2nd and 3.x as I've previously stated because I like some things better from 2nd and vice versa. Do you feel that they ruined the realms with 3rd edition?
quote:
The changes between 2E and 3E weren't as radical as the ones between 3E and 4E, but there were some that would have a big impact in-setting, even though they were ignored in the fiction. The entire planar structure became something different, for example. Dwarves, previously unable to even use magic devices reliably, suddenly had the same facility for magic as everyone else. And that one particularly irks me, because they gave themselves a way to explain it with just one sentence or two -- and then didn't bother to do so.
I wasn't as enthusiastic about the 3E Realms as I was about the 1E/2E; the unexplained changes and constant RSEs were not selling points for me. That said, while I did have some minor complaints, it was still the same setting I'd gotten into. It was the changes of 4E that really, really bugged me; it felt post-apocalyptic and unrecognizable to me. I still read the 4E source material, and there was some material I liked about it, but that material was a very small percentage.
So we agree even on this point. I never even touched 4th because of the poor reviews I heard from my friends. I didn't play 1st so I don't know how it changed carrying over to 2nd. The changes between 2nd and 3.x weren't big enough to repel me, and in those few cases where I didn't like a change I simply rolled it back. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 22:12:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
So we agree even on this point. I never even touched 4th because of the poor reviews I heard from my friends. I didn't play 1st so I don't know how it changed carrying over to 2nd. The changes between 2nd and 3.x weren't big enough to repel me, and in those few cases where I didn't like a change I simply rolled it back.
I think we agree overall; it's just finer points we disagree on. But that's fine. 
I didn't touch the 4E rules because everything I read about them was enough to push me away.
I felt obligated to read the 4E Realmslore, though; so that I could speak on it with an informed opinion. I did not, however, give WotC a dime, aside from the price of two novels -- all of the source material, I bought on eBay. I didn't want to pay full price for something I anticipated disliking, and I very much wanted to vote with my wallet and not give WotC the money. I understand that they still got paid for the content, but they got well less than the MSRP and what they did get, didn't come from me.
As for 5E... I'm willing to try the rules; I've heard mostly good things about them. And I do have the books -- found a deal on the set with the fancy black box. My current group hasn't decided to go 5E, though, so I've not tried it. And I'm happy that they've rolled back most of the changes, in-setting (and explained rolling them back!), though I'm unhappy with the current design approach of cherry-picking from everywhere and offering minimal lore in the process. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 08 Dec 2020 : 22:39:47
|
Good talk.
I've also heard that they seem to have to some extent learned from the mistakes they made with 4th.
I'm hesitant about the Forgotten Realms in Magic the Gathering. It would make sense since the planeswalkers travel different planes, and as long as WotC use it to introduce the Forgotten Realms to Magic the Gathering players it could work. But I'm curious if they're gonna stop there, or try and introduce Magic the Gathering into the realms as well.  Personally I think some crossovers can work and I think it can be fun to make a character or NPC that's a pastiche of some famous fantasy hero from a different universe, as long as you make it fit into the lore. Not sure how that's gonna pan out in this case though. I guess we'll see next summer. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 02:48:10
|
Seeker Returnip,
quote:
Sounds like we're coming from a similar background. I used to be able to quote a lot of the realms by heart. I consider myself knowledgable but there's always more to learn. And that's why I came here, because I know this is the place to find those who know more.
Quite possibly. I am a business consultant by day (economics and marketing mostly), so I read a lot of relevant material there, and that of course takes away from my ability to dig into the Realms as much as I would like.
I've read so much though of the Realms though, that sometimes I think I've forgotten as much as I've read, haha.
quote:
The day you stop expanding your knowledge you're dead. At least that's what I try to live by.
No lie there, good sir, no lie there!
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 03:57:42
|
Master Rupert,
A pleasant evening to you as always good sir!
quote:
Wrong, all the way around.
All around? A bold claim indeed. Let me see if I can put some thought to that notion of yours! :)
quote:
Second, you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it. You just have to change it enough to keep people wanting more -- like TSR did for 20 years, with the Realms, before WotC decided that a cohesive setting with years of lore did not need to stick with that lore.
That statement appears to be couched in a bifurcation "...you don't have to reinvent something to keep selling it." Not necessarily untrue, but true if a third, fourth, fifth, etc. option can be shown. That third, fourth, fifth option being something someone can articulate through research that other potential customers would want. Like it or not, there exists a market segment now that is pushing support for what WotC is doing. Such is the nature of business. Now that being said, I will likely never purchase the current version of D&D and the Realms. It is unworthy of my dollars.
As to TSR: TSR may not be the right company to conjure up for success. The same TSR that got trounced like the 15th rate business company they were. Their managerial expertise is the trash heap that you saw WotC purchase it for at pennies on the dollar. Probably not the best example of a company to emulate. TSR quite literally redefined the word vacuous when it came to business expertise. In the accounting world, that's why they would be referred to as not being a going concern..... awkward.
quote:
That's the heart of what a lot of people have complained about: not that things were changed, the fact things were changed on a whim, without any explanation or thought to how it fit the overall continuity or what changes the impact would have. Like my example earlier: the Sea of Fallen Stars lost a huge volume of water, but coastlines didn't change at all.
No disagreements there: a valid point in my opinion.
quote:
Again, no one -- not a single person -- has complained because things were changed. We've complained because changes didn't make sense -- like Ras Nsi, a human, suddenly becoming a yuan-ti necromancer -- or because there was no explanation at all, like sorcerers suddenly being a thing, in setting, or the NPC who went from good to evil because a designer thought more evil NPCs were needed but didn't feel like actually adding one.
I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon fallacy, but I do understand your point. WotC made enormous changes when they wrecked lore in the Realms moving from 3e to 4e/5e.
quote:
Wanting to maintain the continuity of a setting is NOT hating change.
Agreed. I feel that is a good point.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 12:28:40
|
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
George Krashos
Master of Realmslore
Australia
6648 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 13:08:11
|
Just so you all know, the original turnover for CoS:W had a specific 9th-level spell called Hilather's Drifting Portal - which needed to be cast at the time a portal was created in 3E (because portals are magic items ...) to create that effect. That spell was edited out and the sidebar that exists now was put in. But the spell, like the sidebar, make it clear that this is indeed a specific phenomenon to both Halaster Blackcloak and Undermountain. For what it's worth, I consider the example to be a poor one in terms of saying anything about portals in the Realms generally, design intent, and the people who wrote the material in the first place. Lastly, and I've said this a gazillion times but I will say it again: for what it's worth and from my very specific personal perspective, if you are dissatisfied with an aspect of the Realms because you are viewing that aspect through the oily lens of game mechanics and rules, you deserve what you get.
-- George Krashos |
"Because only we, contrary to the barbarians, never count the enemy in battle." -- Aeschylus |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 13:22:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
..if you are dissatisfied with an aspect of the Realms because you are viewing that aspect through the oily lens of game mechanics and rules, you deserve what you get.
-- George Krashos
 True words. And indeed there's the implication that it is unique:
"The mad archmage of Undermountain long ago devised a number of unique properties for the portals he created in his terrible dungeon, including the odd drifting portals."
However, the sidebar (City of Splendors - Waterdeep, p 154) goes on to specify the rules for creating such drifting portals which turn out to be a pretty low requirement and suddenly they're not so unique anymore. Of course, as DM I can just ignore it, and the argument "it's in the rules" becomes moot. I just brought it up because it is in the rules how to build them which is interesting if they were meant to be a unique one-off. All of this is interesting in the unspoken meta discussion of this thread that is "what laws govern magic in the Forgotten Realms?". |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36782 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 15:01:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules.
The Pathfinder 1E ruleset was built on the D&D 3.5E ruleset (for a while, they called it 3.75!), so mechanics-wise, they should be fairly similar. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 09 Dec 2020 : 15:24:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Returnip
Ok, so I found the anticipate teleportation and greater anticipate teleportation spells in Complete Arcane (p 97) and they're interesting. They suggest that some sort of traceable energy is created when teleportation occurs.
In Pathfinder there's a spell that does almost exactly what I asked for in my original post. It's called trace teleport and gives you an idea of the origin if you trace from a terminus and vice versa.
Does anyone know how different Pathfinder magic is from realms magic? If I were to adapt that spell as a niche, researchable-only spell for D&D 3.5, what should I take into consideration? I've never played Pathfinder, nor read the rules.
The Pathfinder 1E ruleset was built on the D&D 3.5E ruleset (for a while, they called it 3.75!), so mechanics-wise, they should be fairly similar.
Good to know. I'm thinking I'll restrict it's usability a little to make it more niche. That way I can make sure it's not too good. |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 06:34:54
|
Seeker Returnip,
Good catch on Anticipate Teleport. I had meant to post that a while back, and got sidetracked. It did raise questions similarly in my mind as well.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 06:37:26
|
Master Krashos,
That is really interesting. I didn't realize that was a thing as you mentioned with the initial turnover.
Your point about the game mechanics and dissatisfaction is a very good one. I myself just enjoy the discussion and all that. I personally utilize very mysterious magic in my Realms (as I think was sort of the point earlier on).
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Returnip
Learned Scribe
221 Posts |
Posted - 10 Dec 2020 : 18:15:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by cpthero2
I personally utilize very mysterious magic in my Realms
I find it tricky to keep magic mysterious if the players have access to and control over it. Then it's just "oh, so that's how the rules handle it". It's a lot easier to keep it mysterious by making it vague.
- "I want my enemy dead".
- "Ok, then pray to your god".
- *prays*
- "The next day you read in the newspaper that a bus rolled of a hill side and burst into flames. Miraculously only one person was killed and two suffered second degree burns but are otherwise alright. The rest of the passengers escaped without a scratch". |
On the other hand you have different fingers. |
|
|
|
cpthero2
Great Reader
USA
2285 Posts |
Posted - 11 Dec 2020 : 02:58:34
|
Seeker Returnip,
quote:
O find it tricky to keep magic mysterious if the players have access to and control over it. Then it's just "oh, so that's how the rules handle it". It's a lot easier to keep it mysterious by making it vague.
I get what you mean here. It sounds like you and I have a similarly extensive background in mathematics and physics (though, I think yours is beyond mine, as I only have a a 3/4 degree in mathematics and a minor in physics). However, I implement magic mystery through a different knowledge system that I've created that severely restricts knowledge of the magic system. I also change things in between campaigns for "f*ck all" reasons, and they are subtle but impactful in the long run. The argument I use is that some wizard, priest, etc. found a way to affect the Weave, and things changed. It keeps people guessing.
Best regards,
|
Higher Atlar
Spirit Soaring |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Question re: one-way portal detection and analysis
