Jump to content

Egon von Sturmberg

ONE WORLD FOR ALL PvPvE - UPDATE: DEV POST

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

A lot of programming changes can be done to prevent this. Don't think of the game as it is now. Think of it two years from now.

What change ? Even change can't prevent theses exploits

 

3 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

I haven't banned anyone in the six months I've been helping to run a server.

Because you don't have official community ?
As I said, comminuty in unnoficial and official are completly different. They don't play same.
Did you play in official PvP ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, globytheoldpirate said:

What change ? Even change can't prevent theses exploits

Exploits get patched, lets move on from this.


 

 

5 minutes ago, globytheoldpirate said:

Because you don't have official community ?
As I said, comminuty in unnoficial and official are completly different. They don't play same.
Did you play in official PvP ?


I was a member of Uganda, No No No, and a few other mega companies. Ive fought week long wars against Chinese flag spammers. Trust me, I know.

But those differences don't matter.

 

Edited by PeglegTheAngry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Exploits get patched, lets move on from this.

That's not an answer
How do you prevent PvP's to be unraidable by using PvE friend ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, globytheoldpirate said:

That's not an answer
How do you prevent PvP's to be unraidable by using PvE friend ?

 There's the "self correction" method on which the enemy would kill the exploiter.

There's the "in game" method which would add various levels of major inconvenience to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

 There's the "self correction" method on which the enemy would kill the exploiter.

There's the "in game" method which would add various levels of major inconvenience to it.

Give exemple
How do you prevent a player in PvP to give all his stuff/tames to his friend in PvE before he disconnects so he never loose anything.
How do you prevent that ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They could make pvp an activated mode like some other games do, that way pvp'ers can fight to the death if they want to and pve'ers can watch if they want to, maybe it could change the colour of your health bar if pvp is active, same for a ship too. Individual duelling has been good in some games , i'm a pve'er mostly now  but I have many times taken part in single duelling in other mmo's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

How do you prevent a player in PvP to give all his stuff/tames to his friend in PvE before he disconnects so he never loose anything.
How do you prevent that ?

For the tames, don't let tames be declaimed again within 76+ hours of being declaimed. The same is true for boats.

As for a dude turning over all of his mats and BPs? I dont see that as a problem because it is a MASSIVE undertaking to do this every time he wants to play. The convenience factor alone is all that is needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

For the tames, don't let tames be declaimed again within 76+ hours of being declaimed. The same is true for boats.

As for a dude turning over all of his mats and BPs? I dont see that as a problem because it is a MASSIVE undertaking to do this every time he wants to play. The convenience factor alone is all that is needed.

 

Even with 72h
Tames are only used to raid, which is something you don't do everyday. Farm animal stay to PvE to farm as no use for PVP.

And it's not massive undertaking to pass ressource.
As only PvP ressource will be passed. All others stay in PvE side.
It could simply be a box with stuff with pincodes. Really easy to do

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

 

Your complaints have all centered around age; or you have given age as examples. If you feel that I am not adequately understanding you; perhaps stop involving youngsters in your complaints.

It's because age is the easiest example and the one most people can relate to.  It boggles my mind that you think I'm saying something bad about various age groups when I'm only pointing out the differences in them.  As a rule groups of 20 year old guys don't go to the park to hang out with the little kids and play on the seesaws.  They like different things.  They speak in different ways.  It doesn't mean they don't LIKE little kids, or that little kids don't like them.  It means they behave differently as far as their leisure time goes.  Same with 20 year olds and 50 year olds.  No senior citizens group is going to go hang at the neighborhood pool at the times it's full of screaming kiddies.  It's just not fun for them.  We are talking about how different groups of people want to spend their leisure time.  It's obvious that age plays a huge role in that.

I could talk about diferences in how women and men like to spend their leisure time, but that involves more nuance, and when the big obvious points aren't being understood, I don't want to try that.

Here's the important part -  all those people play online games.  Women, and young people and old people and gay people and brown people and people from different countries ALL play online games.

14 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

 

15 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:
  1 hour ago, Winter Thorne said:

When you mix ages and backggrounds in crowds, people are expected to behave differently.  Lots of people "get" this.  Some don't. 

YIKES, CAPTAIN

See?  Again, my mind is boggled that you think that's a weird thing to say.  I'm going to use age as an example again, but I'll add in gender and location, so maybe it's not such a big deal.  I know how groups of 16-20 year old guys (just for an example) talk, and some of the types of places they might hang out when they are on their own hanging out together.    (Same thing goes for girls...remember, it's just an example).   (And let me say here once, not ALL of them, but ENOUGH for the example).  They may use bad language, they may talk badly about women, they may use homophobic or racial slurs whether they really mean them or not.  They may be too loud and too physical.  They may break things.

Everybody knows they do this, and if they are on their own and not bothering anybody else, it's just considered part of growing up.

When they are in school or at work, or at the family reunion, or at a restaurant for dinner, they don't behave this way!  Because now, you're mixing ages and backgrounds and locations, and (most) people know that is not how you behave in those situations.

The problem arises when there are groups of people who assume everyone playing the game is just like them, and they're hanging out with their gang and can behave like that.  PvE attracts an older crowd,  because of the nature of older people's lives and the interruptions and limited playing time they have.  Pve also attracts more women players than pvp.  

I'm not sure what is so surprising to you about that.  But here's something that may surprise you -  I designed a game very similar to the one you're proposing with a friend who has been running private servers for games on his own server farm for over 20 years.    I like that game idea very much.  But I don't like it in this context.   That idea only works one of two ways - in a niche market where your entire player base IS one gang  and can all relate to each other on the same level, OR where you have a very robust GM presence such that someone steps in immediately to stop anyone going around being an ass.  We had three rules on our servers -  no cheating.  Immediate ban, you're gone.  Watch your language, and DBAD.  Violate those and you get a *zotz* from a GM and dying had penalties there. Repeat it enough times and you're gone.

Atlas has neither of those things.  It has a nudge toward the niche market in that it's separated pve and pvp, which tends to separate types of players as well.  But, as you point out, not entirely.  Pvp has some good apples, and pve has some bad ones.  But it helps just a small bit.  It's also interesting to point out that Grapeshot agrees about these kinds of behavior and has written a code of conduct for that, but have already stated they have no intention of enforcing it in the game in any useful way, so we're on our own.  Compounding this problem is the advent of voice chat where any idiot anywhere at any time can broadcast completely rotten shit into our livingrooms for the benefit of our friends and family as well.  

So this is where I'm coming from when you make the suggestion that pve players give up the little bit of separation that's helping them and get thrown into the pot with the pvp players, give up half the map including the spots that get loaded with goodies to make them more enticing, turn off general chat, turn off voice chat, and just kind of close their eyes and pretend it's not happening.  Grapeshot will do nothing about any violations of the code and nothing that helps about any griefing or anything else.  The proposition is lose/lose for us.  We get nothing we want.  There are other games out there.  Any pve player who hasn't secretly been longing for a chance to play pvp will leave.    So , I hope someone is listening...Jat's choice and Grapeshot's choice is clear...if you merge all the servers into one big server along these lines, you're going to lose a large number of players just from the wipe.  After that, you'd better put a few 24x7 GMs with some muscle in there, or you'll immediately lose any pve players you have left because you've given them nothing they want, and you're not going to make those numbers up with new purchasers eager to play a combined pve/pvp server with no active GMs.  And then you'll get to review everyone's scenarios for getting the servers filled up all over again.

As I said.  I like the idea.  Hell, I WROTE the idea years ago, but not in this environment and not with this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, globytheoldpirate said:

Even with 72h
Tames are only used to raid, which is something you don't do everyday. Farm animal stay to PvE to farm as no use for PVP.

And it's not massive undertaking to pass ressource.
As only PvP ressource will be passed. All others stay in PvE side.
It could simply be a box with stuff with pincodes. Really easy to do



PvP companies would not have refuge in PvE areas. Their enemies would still be able to attack them.


That means to keep thier stuff safe with someone else, they have to truck it across a PvP zone (dangerous), give it to someone else, go back, repeat... EVERY DAY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:



PvP companies would not have refuge in PvE areas. Their enemies would still be able to attack them.


That means to keep thier stuff safe with someone else, they have to truck it across a PvP zone (dangerous), give it to someone else, go back, repeat... EVERY DAY.

So PvP can't go in 50% or more of the map ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

They can, they aren't safe from PvP there.

Keep in mind that in that case the PvP don't need base or else, as everything is in PvE friend base.
So nothing to get in/out actually
The problem still there

My PvE friend does the base.
Else PvP live in the base, through pin code or simply unlock.
Then use boat (as really easy to build) to raid without repercusion (except boat maybe)

Edited by globytheoldpirate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, globytheoldpirate said:

My PvE friend does the base.
Else PvP live in the base, through pin code or simply unlock.
Then use boat (as really easy to build) to raid without repercusion (except boat maybe) 

Stop thinking about things as they are now. We have item owners and creators listed on items. This can be used to determine if something was stolen, therefor prevented from being stored in certain containers, thrown on the ground, etc. Chests placed in PvE made locked not matter what. There are always ways to prevent exploits.
 

 

1 hour ago, Winter Thorne said:

I could talk about diferences in how women and men like to spend their leisure time, but that involves more nuance, and when the big obvious points aren't being understood, I don't want to try that. 
They may use bad language, they may talk badly about women, they may use homophobic or racial slurs whether they really mean them or not.  They may be too loud and too physical.  They may break things.

Everybody knows they do this, and if they are on their own and not bothering anybody else, it's just considered part of growing up.

When they are in school or at work, or at the family reunion, or at a restaurant for dinner, they don't behave this way!  Because now, you're mixing ages and backgrounds and locations, and (most) people know that is not how you behave in those situations.



---------------------------

 

Atlas has neither of those things.  It has a nudge toward the niche market in that it's separated pve and pvp, which tends to separate types of players as well.  But, as you point out, not entirely.  Pvp has some good apples, and pve has some bad ones.  But it helps just a small bit.  It's also interesting to point out that Grapeshot agrees about these kinds of behavior and has written a code of conduct for that, but have already stated they have no intention of enforcing it in the game in any useful way, so we're on our own.  Compounding this problem is the advent of voice chat where any idiot anywhere at any time can broadcast completely rotten shit into our livingrooms for the benefit of our friends and family as well.  

Winter.... the more you try to not make it seem that way... the more NIMBY (and I honestly have no better word for this) culturally prejudiced your posts get. There is just SO much in this one... I just... look at what I quoted. Let's just skip to the parts that are actually relevant to gameplay, and not about a disaffected person's tenuous grasp of sociopolitics and intersectionality in the age of the internet.


Okay... so... again the italicized statement.... this is 110% a result of MMO games. They are clearly not for you if your concern is potentially negative player interaction, or being witness to it. You don't want to deal with other players who might get in your way or annoy you.  So far the only issues you have addressed have been your concerns about having people interact and play in a way that does not please you. I wish that you would reconsider your position, and if the devs do implement such a system, simply out of respect for their efforts... give it a try.

 

 

Edited by PeglegTheAngry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Stop thinking about things as they are now. We have item owners and creators listed on items. This can be used to determine if something was stolen, therefor prevented from being stored in certain containers, thrown on the ground, etc. Chests placed in PvE made locked not matter what. There are always ways to prevent exploits.

Ok so if PvE and PvP can't share things, interact, what the point of putting them in same server ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, globytheoldpirate said:

Ok so if PvE and PvP can't share things, interact, what the point of putting them in same server ? 

I never said they can't interact. I gave you answers to exploits. People would still be able to trade and such, just not recently stolen goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

I never said they can't interact. I gave you answers to exploits. People would still be able to trade and such, just not recently stolen goods.

If you allow PvE and PvP to interect, there will be a way to use that to have unraidable base..
The system can't work, because it's based on people to play fair
And that's not really how competitive work..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, PeglegTheAngry said:

Winter.... the more you try to not make it seem that way... the more NIMBY (and I honestly have no better word for this) culturally prejudiced your posts get. There is just SO much in this one... I just... look at what I quoted. Let's just skip to the parts that are actually relevant to gameplay, and not about a disaffected person's tenuous grasp of sociopolitics and intersectionality in the age of the internet.


Okay... so... again the italicized statement.... this is 110% a result of MMO games. They are clearly not for you if your concern is potentially negative player interaction, or being witness to it. You don't want to deal with other players who might get in your way or annoy you.  So far the only issues you have addressed have been your concerns about having people interact and play in a way that does not please you. I wish that you would reconsider your position, and if the devs do implement such a system, simply out of respect for their efforts... give it a try.

Aaaaand...now we're back to talking about ME instead of the points I've raised. 

I talk about game demographics, player profiles and how they are influenced by game design, and your response is to make it personal to me and imply that I'm just stating some unusual personal preferences.  That I'm unfamiliar with the MMO environment, and should just "give things a try".   This attitude comes up repeatedly that MMOs by definition, are toxic places and you shouldn't enter them unless you're willing to put up with that.  It's crap, of course, and nearly all developers agree because they write codes of conduct, even when they never intend to enforce them.

Here's my final comment and then I'm done - 

You have an idea for a specific game design which may appeal to some player segments, but not all of them.  You are completely in love with your idea to the point where it cannot be allowed to have any modifications , and it MUST include the entire playerbase, even the unwilling players.  And although it could easily be tried with just the subsection of players it might appeal to, you insist that everyone should be made to do this.   You attempt a hard sell of your idea on the forums by responding in great length to every objection, repeatedly posting your original lengthy design, and taking every opportunity to point out that **a DEV!** has responded to your post.

 

There are a good number of players who will quit after another wipe if that wipe is not being done to bring them something wonderful.  This idea does not bring anything wonderful for a large subset of pve players.  Draw your own conclusions here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this idea. To many options hurt the game population IMO. Single player is a bad idea. The private servers bad idea. Dont get me wrong thats how i played Ark, single player or a private server with wife and some friends. If the goal for atlas was to make a MMO... being an ark clone is not the way to go. 

The last MMO i played was ESO. Huge fan of ES series. ESO did a lot of what the OP suggested. There was an area that was PVP and an area the was PVE. And what you did in the PVP area affectes your PVP. Other MMO's like Aika had the same thing, a pvp and a pve side which one affected the other. Its not a totally new concept. I think if they had that mentality, basically force people to become a community, rather then allow every one to play in a protective bubble of seclusion it would have been a lot healthier in the long run. I think it would even have forced the devs to fix bugs/hacks/exploits a lot quicker as people who still want to play could be like "well guess ill just play singleplayer". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mardoqueo said:

I really like this idea. To many options hurt the game population IMO. Single player is a bad idea. The private servers bad idea. Dont get me wrong thats how i played Ark, single player or a private server with wife and some friends. If the goal for atlas was to make a MMO... being an ark clone is not the way to go. 

The last MMO i played was ESO. Huge fan of ES series. ESO did a lot of what the OP suggested. There was an area that was PVP and an area the was PVE. And what you did in the PVP area affectes your PVP. Other MMO's like Aika had the same thing, a pvp and a pve side which one affected the other. Its not a totally new concept. I think if they had that mentality, basically force people to become a community, rather then allow every one to play in a protective bubble of seclusion it would have been a lot healthier in the long run. I think it would even have forced the devs to fix bugs/hacks/exploits a lot quicker as people who still want to play could be like "well guess ill just play singleplayer". 

This is more of a sandbox MMo. A lot of people that play the private servers are playing by a specific set of rules that are different then the public rules and settings. They pay for the right to do so. You will not force them into public only force them to leave the game. So either way you will not end up with an extra person in public. The same with single player. Some just recently bought the game for single player/play with a few friends. You will not force them into public servers they will just stop playing and go play something else so again it will not be an extra player in public.

So for a sandbox type game it isn't really good to force things like this. I mean who cares if someone wants and enjoys playing solo. Who cares if a group of people enjoy playing RP without the hassle of of those that are just playing the game regular. It isn't always good to force things especially a sandbox type game. 

Now as far as having a separate pve and pvp I don't see an issue with grouping them together if done right. I do think it is still to early to say one way or another though. I imagine that they feel once the game is more involved and closer to getting out of EA or even when it is out of EA that more people will get back into it as well as new people.  If that happens then it might be to many people to make just one public server. If by that time the numbers don't go up I could see it happening and would have no issues if done is done right. Just leave those that enjoy the game in a different way as in solo and those that pay good money to play the way they want alone. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Mardoqueo said:

I really like this idea. To many options hurt the game population IMO. Single player is a bad idea. The private servers bad idea. Dont get me wrong thats how i played Ark, single player or a private server with wife and some friends. If the goal for atlas was to make a MMO... being an ark clone is not the way to go. 

The last MMO i played was ESO. Huge fan of ES series. ESO did a lot of what the OP suggested. There was an area that was PVP and an area the was PVE. And what you did in the PVP area affectes your PVP. Other MMO's like Aika had the same thing, a pvp and a pve side which one affected the other. Its not a totally new concept. I think if they had that mentality, basically force people to become a community, rather then allow every one to play in a protective bubble of seclusion it would have been a lot healthier in the long run. I think it would even have forced the devs to fix bugs/hacks/exploits a lot quicker as people who still want to play could be like "well guess ill just play singleplayer". 

People playing on solo and private servers won't play official cuz' that's not how they like to play.
So how is it a bad idea to not give them ? Atleast they are able to play

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

Aaaaand...now we're back to talking about ME instead of the points I've raised.

It is as if your "points" are based on your own personal prejudice or something.

Remember how I mentioned my HOA? I've heard this exact same line of trash you are giving me now about why we should kick the Mexican families out, kick the college kids out, etc.

ALWAYS with the same bullshit excuses to justify their prejudice  "its just DEMOGRAPHICS!" "It's not fair to US THE OLDER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY!!!" "They belong in their own community!" "Their cooking stinks!" "Those college kids are too loud and drink too much!" "Everybody knows THEY are like that!!!"

DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR TO YOU, WINTER?

You know what else these same people do? Complain that you aren't addressing their concern and are instead telling them to stop being prejudiced (which is against our bi-laws, go figure!)

8 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

That I'm unfamiliar with the MMO environment, and should just "give things a try".   This attitude comes up repeatedly that MMOs by definition, are toxic places and you shouldn't enter them unless you're willing to put up with that.  It's crap, of course, and nearly all developers agree because they write codes of conduct, even when they never intend to enforce them.

FIRST OF ALL: YES YOU SHOULD TRY IT BEFORE YOU THROW YOUR HANDS UP. TRYING NEW THINGS WITH AN OPEN MIND IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF A HEALTHY MIND.

Second: Toxic is subjective; personally I thing your segregationist attitude is toxic; but you and others may not hold such feelings. Again, if I wasn't prepared to take on or tolerate such attitudes...  I would have muted and ignored you long ago. It is really not hard to ignore or mute people... I fail to see how that is an unacceptable concession for you to personally make.


 

8 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

You are completely in love with your idea to the point where it cannot be allowed to have any modifications , and it MUST include the entire playerbase, even the unwilling players. 

Absolute bullpucky. I changed several aspects based on feedback including yours. Moving on now.

 

8 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

it MUST include the entire playerbase, even the unwilling players.  And although it could easily be tried with just the subsection of players it might appeal to, you insist that everyone should be made to do this.   You attempt a hard sell of your idea on the forums by responding in great length to every objection, repeatedly posting your original lengthy design, and taking every opportunity to point out that **a DEV!** has responded to your post.

Okay. First of all. I only responded with Jat's response because you challenged me to do so. So you are just gonna have to get over that bit.
Also, at no point did I ever say "everyone should be forced to play here" you did.

REMEMBER WHEN I SAID I 'WASN'T TRYING TO REACH YOU, WINTER'. BECAUSE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT A PLAYER WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THIS AND WOULD END UP ON A PvE UNOFFICIAL.

Remember when I told you "personal incredulity is not an argument against something?" I am SO SORRY that I wrote my thoughts out in a concise manor in a way that devs could understand and implement it. It is becoming clearer and clearer to me you think people should behave how you want them to. This is just another pile of jimmies on that prejudice sundae.

8 hours ago, Winter Thorne said:

There are a good number of players who will quit after another wipe if that wipe is not being done to bring them something wonderful.  This idea does not bring anything wonderful for a large subset of pve players.  Draw your own conclusions here.


I really don't think it matters if they quit at this point. We are dipping below 3k on the daily. Why bother trying to appease those who are left if they are losing interest anyway?
 

 

 

Edited by PeglegTheAngry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't lost interest in Atlas.  Just this game.   I'm waiting for Atlas II : Return to Blackwood

🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Mardoqueo said:

The last MMO i played was ESO. Huge fan of ES series. ESO did a lot of what the OP suggested. There was an area that was PVP and an area the was PVE. 

And Atlas devs surely wish they could have the 1402 people that played Oblivion in the last hour.     Why are these people not playing ESO since it covers the same provinces - you can go visit the capital again see the prequel version of it with modern graphics.      The reason is that you are forced into PVP if you want to tread the same ground as Oblivion.   

I think the devs realized that there are many not willing to play into a forced interaction environment, their reasons for doing so are not considered invalid to the devs because they can see that simply forcing choices on people was not working.  It is why they took  time out to get SP/coop versions working - by their own statement they realized the MMO PVP or PVE design of the game will never be attractive to a certain player.   

So they could impact sales by making a subset game  that ignored the fact that ARK did not get so popular because it was only a forced interaction MMO, or they could port over the SP/coop login screen knowing it will only increase sales.  Those who want only single player or cooperative environment are not going to play other games so the theorycrafting that a forced interaction server will cover the entire populations playstyle is not going to work - the devs know this. 

Now they may very well take interest in the topic and add a PvEvP server option - but since they know that it will cost them PVE and PVP players they have to consider the cost of forcing them into PvEvP interaction or keeping PVE and PVP seperated servers for those that want the always PVP or always PVE playstyles.

Since they already made the choice to expand their game into SP/coop - I think it is pretty clear they are backing away from forcing everyone to interact on the same server if they want to play the game.

The reality is if you want such a server - point them to the successful PvEvP unofficials and convince them to add that as a server type.   My inclination is they will not do it because such unofficial servers really only work with strongarm admins enforcing the rules, but if you think you can convince them that it can be done with stretching the thin admin staff they have....by all means lobby for it.    But as Colonies/Empire experiment shows they was willing to give both modes a try and see what the silent majority actually played disregarding vocal minorities.

If you stick to the approach of insisting it must replace all ways of playing the game - then you have already lost the argument and will never get the mode you want.  If the mode is so awesome then everyone will flock to it - and the devs will have no choice but to close the empty unused PVP and PVE servers and strip out the SP/coop code as a waste of resources.

The fact is if your argument is that the only way to get people to play the mode is forced choice, then you have already lost a large portion of the player base.

 

Edited by krazmuze
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×