Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onslaught & Warfare: Discussion, Suggestions and Improvements

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #91
    Although I'm the kind of person that loves all kinds of bits and bolts and other things which involve constant decision making and unclear cost-benefit-analysis, there's something to be said for stripping down design to the most essential elements, particularly in the core ruleset.
    Join Project: Open Tournament: OpenTournamentGame.com | Project Trello | Discord | YouTube

    Subscribe to /r/UnrealSeries - The subreddit for free & uncensored discussion of Unreal series games!

    Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol

    Comment


      #92
      the orb was just one more thing piled on top of everything else added to ONS in UT3 that just cluttered up a working formula. It went from being a simple gametype to being more complicated by: the orb, a whole new set of vehicles, special nodes, hoverboards, deployables.. While all those things sound fun on paper being over complicated kinda killed some of the fun...

      Do new players want to spend time learning all that and then learning how to counteract all of it on top of the main UT formula?
      DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

      Comment


        #93
        I dunno, I don't know if it was the best solution, but it was a solution. Do new players like running to the center node in Torlan and dying and then waiting to respawn just to do it all over again? Neither sounds terribly entertaining.
        HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
        BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

        Comment


          #94
          a player could die with the orb too and if they got sick of going the center route they could always take the corner to corner node route... Apparently people havent got sick of it, I still see people playing the 2k4 demo servers daily that are Torlan only.
          DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
            How is the orb BS? It was meant to help solve one of ONS biggest problems and it did.
            With the Orb it made things too easy. I like the tense fighting for nodes and I feel some of that is lost with the Orb in Warfare. It's just one of the things that turned me away from UT3. Ok, so we got tired of people not being able to take over nodes quickly enough. Let's design a tool which allows n00bs to instantly take over a node!! It's better than the redeemer. I can instantly make it MY node! What is the general tactic here? Protect Orb guy. He can save us.

            IMHO, the orb takes the work out of the game. We no longer need to work at bringing down or bringing up the node. Just bring Orb guy to save the day. It almost instantly. I can see why most messages indicate defend defend. Once you finish defending, you take the orb in order to instantly take over the next node without even breaking a sweat.The Orb causes the maps to be finished FAR too quickly. Where is the sense of working for the node? Working to get it up and protect it while it is being built. All these elements are gone and can sometimes cause a map to finish extremely fast.

            It leaves me with a sense of "I wanted more out of this battle." Oddly enough, quickly switching between maps is not as entertaining as having a big juicy battle on one map. But, apparently, Epic figured "Hey, we know stupid people don't know how to properly bring up and take down nodes(console gamers), lets create a tool where they can instantly do both at the same time!"


            Node Configurations:
            Every node configuration is a linear pathway. What made maps like Dria and Dawn so great? There were constant battles going on through out the entire map. Constant pushes and constant pulls. It was madness, and it was great. What's the objective now? One big battle at a node. Now let's move the battle over to the next node. Great. We finally reached their core. Oh wait, one of their players reached prime with the orb. Let's do the same so we can quickly get back to killing the core.Also in UT3 we have been blessed with a large number of downsized maps.
            Last edited by d33p_Sky; 06-25-2014, 02:11 AM.

            Comment


              #96
              The orb was meant to break stalemates. It was quite common in 2k4 to have the entire game focused on a single node for the majority of the game. Especially on Torlan, it typically didn't even come down to the center node, but the base node. Once someone was there, there would be endless fighting for ages until they finally won, then smashed the core. It was really difficult to recover in that scenario in 2k4.

              In the same scenario in UT3, you at least have the option of bringing the orb in and preventing it from being contested. Or take the orb to the center and get it locked quickly. The problem ultimately is that there are other flaws in the gametype and the orb couldn't solve all of them. It was meant to sole a specific problem but other problems made it too overpowered in many cases.

              I agree that sometimes the orb made maps into few minute affairs instead of longer battles, but all those longer battles are pretty meaningless if you just get smashed in the end anyway. From my experience, if one team was moving forward in ONS it didn't really stop. Getting balanced teams that kept the battles going had the same effect in UT3. It just rarely, if ever, happened.
              HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
              BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

              Comment


                #97
                Originally posted by s2ta View Post
                With the Orb it made things too easy. I like the tense fighting for nodes and I feel some of that is lost with the Orb in Warfare. It's just one of the things that turned me away from UT3. Ok, so we got tired of people not being able to take over nodes quickly enough. Let's design a tool which allows n00bs to instantly take over a node!! It's better than the redeemer. I can instantly make it MY node! What is the general tactic here? Protect Orb guy. He can save us.

                IMHO, the orb takes the work out of the game. We no longer need to work at bringing down or bringing up the node. Just bring Orb guy to save the day. It almost instantly. I can see why most messages indicate defend defend. Once you finish defending, you take the orb in order to instantly take over the next node without even breaking a sweat.The Orb causes the maps to be finished FAR too quickly. Where is the sense of working for the node? Working to get it up and protect it while it is being built. All these elements are gone and can sometimes cause a map to finish extremely fast.

                It leaves me with a sense of "I wanted more out of this battle." Oddly enough, quickly switching between maps is not as entertaining as having a big juicy battle on one map. But, apparently, Epic figured "Hey, we know stupid people don't know how to properly bring up and take down nodes(console gamers), lets create a tool where they can instantly do both at the same time!"


                Node Configurations:
                Every node configuration is a linear pathway. What made maps like Dria and Dawn so great? There were constant battles going on through out the entire map. Constant pushes and constant pulls. It was madness, and it was great. What's the objective now? One big battle at a node. Now let's move the battle over to the next node. Great. We finally reached their core. Oh wait, one of their players reached prime with the orb. Let's do the same so we can quickly get back to killing the core.Also in UT3 we have been blessed with a large number of downsized maps.
                sigh.

                Please watch some youtubes or something of skilled Warfare players going about their game, concurrently both working the Orb and working the map in the familiar ONS sense. You will see a much different game than what you're describing.



                Perhaps Wail remembers the discussion where I expound on how the Orb introduces a "temporal window-of-opportunity" dynamic to ONS/WAR — compared to the only way to design a map properly in ONS, which was to necessarily double or triple both its overall size and the number of Prime Nodes.

                The Nodes are space, the Orb is time. Warfare crosses the axes of space and time to add a whole other dimension to the game, whereas playable ONS was strictly a matter of scaling the environment up in terms of space, to make sure everyone doesn't get chokepointed in the same location and prematurely grind the game to a halt.



                Too many of my old (and gone) UT2004 friends never saw the Orb as anything more than an overpowered, Node-specific superweapon … when in fact it's no such thing.

                Rather it's much more like a Flag to be captured; it's all the adrenaline-rush and run/support/defense dynamics of CTF, overlaid atop the already fun territorial contest of ONS.

                Maybe learning how to play the Orb needs to be easier. I'll certainly grant that. But man, once you learn, there's all kinds of fun to be had.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                  The orb was meant to break stalemates. It was quite common in 2k4 to have the entire game focused on a single node for the majority of the game. Especially on Torlan, it typically didn't even come down to the center node, but the base node. Once someone was there, there would be endless fighting for ages until they finally won, then smashed the core. It was really difficult to recover in that scenario in 2k4.

                  In the same scenario in UT3, you at least have the option of bringing the orb in and preventing it from being contested. Or take the orb to the center and get it locked quickly.
                  This, exactly …


                  Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                  The problem ultimately is that there are other flaws in the gametype and the orb couldn't solve all of them. It was meant to sole a specific problem but other problems made it too overpowered in many cases.
                  … and the rest I don't understand. Indeed I've been puzzled by how you hate (emphasis not mine ) Onslaught simply because it links Cores/Nodes together. That is such a fundamental feature of the game, and such an uncommonly broad condemnation, to where I'd be fascinated to see someone actually demonstrate the case against this, and for some alternative that would serve the game better.

                  Is it the sequential aspect of the Node-to-Node links that fails? Is it the control-point/territorial aspect of the entire game? Or is it just the outgrowth of an implementation-specific hatred … e.g., default ONS-Torlan (and some others) were indeed fairly broken (mostly due to the momentum/stalemate problems), therefore the instance invalidates the entire type/class, so to speak … ?

                  Maybe I infer too much, but for such strong opinions and absolute language, from my perspective it seems like you may be leaving an awful lot about ONS/WAR yet unexplored, or just in terms of the argument, at least untreated.

                  Comment


                    #99
                    I really enjoy the gametype, personally. I think WAR is a more fun version of ONS. But the orb does turn unbalanced towards one team into a five minute match in a lot of cases.

                    The thing I primarily hate about ONS/WAR is the link concept. Maybe it would be better if there were also "shield nodes" that had to be destroyed once a link was created, but that might reduce the velocity of the game. Other balance changes would have to be made. I just don't know if they can be fixed at all.

                    That's why I mentioned in other threads possibly using a system more like XMP has. XMP is control based, you have to own power stations in order to keep your base operational. It affects things like being able to respawn and base defenses including deployables. There are also capturable respawn points in various areas. I just like this system better because it doesn't focus all of the gameplay on one of a few chokepoints in the map. I was playing a WAR map the other day and I realized I hadn't even seen the entire map before despite playing it numerous times. That seems pretty ridiculous.

                    I will agree that part of the problem is simply that many of the maps are terrible, although I abhor Floodgate and for some reason tons of people love that map. I think Downtown is actually one of my favorite maps but it probably has to do with how effectively I used the shaped charge on that level so many times
                    HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                    BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                    Comment


                      Hmm. Well to me it seems like you'd be well intrigued by how the Free Nodes in WAR — e.g. Floodgate Node, Tank Node in Downtown, etc. — considerably expand gameplay out from the "main path" … to where an essential part of your team's strategy must always focus on how and when to retain or relinquish control on one side of the map, in order to take advantage of the greater opportunity currently presented on the opposite side.

                      Indeed, there's a whole other "spatial dimension" at play, more than the seemingly simplistic dot-to-dot-to-dot Node links would initially suggest, which helps a ton with relieving chokepoint pressure.

                      And so I wonder whether just maybe you might like Floodgate more than you think you do … and Downtown for more reasons than you think, too …

                      … and shucks, perhaps a few other maps as well …?

                      Comment


                        I'm still trying to understand your personal dislike for linking as a concept Brizz. The concept of entirely unlinked ONS, just with unprotected nodes out on the map sounds kind of chaotic and unlikely to work without a spawn-on-squadmate type of functionality. That works in Battlefield because you [generally?] only have 3 points of contention and as long as your squadmates are alive you can come into the battlefield at a point that's not far from fighting. I'd like to understand your perspective but you never really seem to be able to articulate what it is here that puts you off.

                        UT doesn't have squads or spawn-on-player functionality, and in some maps you can have 30 different nodes (although typically you don't get more than 3 in contention at any one time). Maps that choke down to a single node in the middle do tend to have a ton of unused space and are stalemate prone, that is why map design in UT2004 favored dual primes. Underutilized map area is a problem that won't be resolved without completely removing the node concept, however. Any control-point gametype has potential for underutilized areas in maps due to isolation from control points and lack of meaningful value for going there.
                        Join Project: Open Tournament: OpenTournamentGame.com | Project Trello | Discord | YouTube

                        Subscribe to /r/UnrealSeries - The subreddit for free & uncensored discussion of Unreal series games!

                        Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol

                        Comment


                          WAR-Downtown being played over, and over, and over, and over on the pub servers is one reason I ended up quitting UT3. I mostly hated that map and its linear node path. This 2k4 version of Downtown played better

                          DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by s2ta View Post
                            With the Orb it made things too easy. I like the tense fighting for nodes and I feel some of that is lost with the Orb in Warfare.
                            Several-minute long stalemates eventually cease being "tense" and instead become monotonous, especially for the team with a constant disadvantage, which is usually irreversible (e.g., team imbalance with even player counts, fewer resources due to fewer nodes, and inferior or non-existent teamplay). Also, fighting over the same choke point for the majority of a round utilizes, what, 1/4 of the map, at best 1/3? Usually a lot less for the larger maps. What about the rest of the map? Wasted or heavily underused space. If you like deadlock, why not just dispose with the pleasantries already by chopping out the middle of most maps to distill the quintessential experience?

                            Ok, so we got tired of people not being able to take over nodes quickly enough. Let's design a tool which allows n00bs to instantly take over a node!! It's better than the redeemer. I can instantly make it MY node!
                            Whose fault is it that a supposedly inferior player (i.e., "n00bs") was allowed to cap a node? Are you that inferior player capping nodes, the a player who lets bad players cap nodes, or none of the above? A bad player with little opposition can eventually destroy and build a node too... I never understood why players would complain about (getting beaten by) supposedly inferior players, especially in a game like UT. Orb runners are not specially empowered to make reaching nodes easier. Kill or obstruct them with a vehicle, which does have the advantage in UT3.

                            What are these better players doing when the enemy orb runner is closing in on their node? For that matter, what were they doing before the enemy orb runner closed in? As an active opposing player, their contributions should influence what the enemy orb runner can sensibly attempt. Why shouldn't those players take responsibility for failure or at all? Maybe learn from it for next time? If a player recognizes a flaw in their team's strategies but does nothing to remedy it, then they're not playing objectively, not fulfilling their role as a team member, and are (partly) culpable for any losses due to their negligence.

                            Also...
                            >implying that the redeemer is more skillful than the orb or requires any skill at all
                            The redeemer is arguably better than the orb for capturing nodes because it also clears many enemies away. A successful orb runner must still contend with all remaining defenders before its team moves up, except the orb runner will very likely die before that happens.

                            What is the general tactic here? Protect Orb guy. He can save us.
                            To whoever thinks this: do you even play WAR? How much experience do you have if this is your primary belief? The orb can be played a few different ways, but generally its most influential roles are solo stealth runs or duo taxi runs (i.e., grappled to a manta/viper or flying vehicle). "Protecting" the orb runner is substantially easier said than done. You help the orb runner out when you can, when you're not preoccupied, but it's often not possible to prevent the orb runner from taking damage without getting in the orb runner's way. Ultimately, the orb is your team's spearhead, and therefore a lightning rod for the entire enemy team. A good orb runner avoids and escapes fights that are unnecessary whenever possible, so it's usually better to distance the orb runner from teammates and vehicles that will attract more attention to it. It's rare that a (public) team can actually engineer and coordinate an effective offensive intended to clear a safe path for the orb; rather, in practice, the orb runner is the one leading the charge as an independent operative. Otherwise, dedicated orb runners devote a majority of their efforts to damage control.

                            IMHO, the orb takes the work out of the game. We no longer need to work at bringing down or bringing up the node. Just bring Orb guy to save the day. It almost instantly. I can see why most messages indicate defend defend. Once you finish defending, you take the orb in order to instantly take over the next node without even breaking a sweat.The Orb causes the maps to be finished FAR too quickly. Where is the sense of working for the node? Working to get it up and protect it while it is being built. All these elements are gone and can sometimes cause a map to finish extremely fast.
                            Oh? So does a 20 minute ONS round require more "work" than a 20 minute WAR round? Or is the implication here that ONS rounds are longer on average, implicitly correlating with gameplay quality? And who judges that? How long should an average round last? Can any of those assertions even be quantified or qualified? An opponent of ONS-style stalemates might liken your "work" to "exercises in futility" or "stagnation". Again, you must stop to consider that a recently captured node will still be contested by all the enemies in the area (whom the orb runner likely did not and will not kill), that a recently captured node is fleeting without friendly player presence. More over, if a team is so inept as to let the enemy orb capture their nodes without opposition, as implied in your woefully misinformed analysis, then that team certainly deserves to lose. Or would you rather weak teams be suspended in futile defensive stalemates? Lastly, both teams should have basically the same opportunities, with the exception of asymmetric maps, so most complaints about "poor gameplay" are naturally reflected back at the complainer.

                            A few other things... A consummate WAR player--and I see no reason to exclude ONS players--does not "finish defending". Defense isn't a Boolean state, local only to node and core areas; rather, it's an awareness of game events and regular decisions over whether or not to respond to those events. For instance, a conscientious player can give future redeemers higher than normal priority because the enemy team appears to have full control over redeemer spawns and is successfully wreaking havoc with that control. In this context, I would argue that asset denial is mostly a defensive strategy. I've also played in some very rare games where the enemy team has terrific offense that could not be reliably mitigated with normal defense, so then the best course of action to protect our linked node(s) was actually to attack more aggressively than the opposing team. Another defensively-minded decision. You may wave that off as semantics, but a good orb runner truly never ceases to reevaluate the defensive situation at its linked node(s), even if it means breaking off an orb run.

                            To inject some facts into this thread for everyone's benefit, I looked at some footage I have from decent public matches and recorded the number of fully built nodes destroyed, nodes successfully built without the orb, and nodes captured with the orb. Slight margin of error with double-counting...

                            Map Nodes Time Destroyed Built Capped
                            Downtown 3 linear + 1 unlinked 17:36 15 15 11
                            Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 9:46 12 11 12
                            Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 9:29 10 9 11
                            Avalanche 3 linear + 2 unlinked 5:30 7 9 2
                            Floodgate 3 linear + 1 unlinked 10:23 7 7 17
                            Floodgate 3 linear + 1 unlinked 21:29 23 35 36
                            The takeaway is that the orb may account for roughly half of the node changes in a typical game of WAR. Thus, the orb has minimal influence over the other half of node changes, and those changes were accomplished the good ol' ONS way.

                            Node Configurations:
                            Every node configuration is a linear pathway. What made maps like Dria and Dawn so great? There were constant battles going on through out the entire map. Constant pushes and constant pulls. It was madness, and it was great. What's the objective now? One big battle at a node. Now let's move the battle over to the next node. Great. We finally reached their core.
                            No? That's not what happens, actually... A gross oversimplification. Fights break out around and between both unlocked, linked nodes, usually with more fights focusing on the side of the team with fewer nodes or weak defense. When one node takes damage and its team's players are forced to respawn farther back, fighting then spreads out even more. Open areas, which often comprise large parts of UT3's maps, are also fair game for vehicles that can exert control over great distances and foot soldiers wielding AVRiL, shock, or sniper. Unlinked nodes, which are present on many maps, further disperse player attention and spawns. Then there's the occasional player who underutilizes their capacity for contribution puttering about on roads less traveled. All in all, a great many fights do not occur directly before a node, but rather a safe distance away from it.

                            Obviously, I've refrained from commenting on this thread because I would type a book's worth of information in response, and I don't particularly care to preach to those who've made up their minds on either side. I will say this, though: the theorycrafting about WAR from the opposition in this thread is... far more often than not, extremely misinformed. It's actually a very functional gametype once you figure out all the various counters to any situation on any halfway decent map. Without a doubt, the hardest part about UT3 WAR is learning: learning all the weapons, vehicles, movement, advanced movement, game mechanics, gametype mechanics, pickup timings, map layouts, map tricks, standard gameplay per map, orb running, good orb routes, et cetera. Then comes learning from experience, or learning how to become an effective WAR player, to put all that knowledge and ability to constantly refining use. It's a ton for any new player, and players with pre-existing knowledge and experience very often refuse to acknowledge their incomplete understanding of the gametype, blowing it off entirely. All of this "I don't like X about WAR" reads to me like "I don't want to learn how to effectively play the cards I've been dealt." I'll stop myself there before I ramble on in earnest.
                            WAR Gameplay with Commentary ...because you can't make a tutorial for strategy. (active again as of Feb. 2016)

                            Comment


                              I've played enough WAR to not terribly mind the orb, I'm meh about it: its not great but its not terrible.. The biggest issue I see with it would be in pub play if an inexperienced player or a saboteur grabs the orb and either doesnt know what to do with it or purposely denies the team from its proper use. Noobs and saboteurs are not very common in UT3 because of its small playerbase but if the game had lots of people playing there would be many more noobs and many more saboteurs. Just look at the rampantness of aimbotters that were in 2k4 for awhile as an example of people who were just out to ruin the gameplay for others.. The orb not being properly used by one team but being used efficiently by the other can turn the tides of a game even faster than in 2k4 ONS and you would be stuck with the exact same stalemate if the noob or saboteur keeps grabbing the orb..

                              That said, allow me to put on my armor now since I am sure I will get hate thrown at me with my next statement:

                              The fling with the orb has got to go

                              It should not be possible to throw a player halfway across the map with something as powerful as the orb.. It should not be that easy to instantly cap a node.. nope..
                              DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
                                Hmm. Well to me it seems like you'd be well intrigued by how the Free Nodes in WAR — e.g. Floodgate Node, Tank Node in Downtown, etc. — considerably expand gameplay out from the "main path" … to where an essential part of your team's strategy must always focus on how and when to retain or relinquish control on one side of the map, in order to take advantage of the greater opportunity currently presented on the opposite side.

                                Indeed, there's a whole other "spatial dimension" at play, more than the seemingly simplistic dot-to-dot-to-dot Node links would initially suggest, which helps a ton with relieving chokepoint pressure.

                                And so I wonder whether just maybe you might like Floodgate more than you think you do … and Downtown for more reasons than you think, too …

                                … and shucks, perhaps a few other maps as well …?
                                LOL... maybe, but not likely. Maybe that something to like in Downtown since the Tank Node only gives you a distinct tactical advantage and not direct control over the power core. The changes I would want to make to ONS/WAR would be to make it harder to actually do damage to the core and make it easier for defenders to "shield up" without being constrained to a single node (the shield node and the prime node could both be contested to shield up).

                                What I hate about Floodgate aside from the level design is that the Floodgate Node is designed to decrease the length of the game dramatically by giving people an "easy button" to do core damage. The layout of the level encourages you to the Floodgate Node and it is the most highly contested node in the map, so often a single enterprising chap can walk over and take all the nodes to link to the core, delivering a double whammy blow of flooding and doing damage when they gain the upper hand.

                                The two things I hate in ONS/WAR are 1) chokepoint battles that take forever even though they have been decided for ages (with one team having the clear advantage), and 2) single team smashes that end the game in 5 minutes. Both of those problems are linked to the existing implementation of linking and map layout.
                                Originally posted by Wail View Post
                                I'm still trying to understand your personal dislike for linking as a concept Brizz. The concept of entirely unlinked ONS, just with unprotected nodes out on the map sounds kind of chaotic and unlikely to work without a spawn-on-squadmate type of functionality. That works in Battlefield because you [generally?] only have 3 points of contention and as long as your squadmates are alive you can come into the battlefield at a point that's not far from fighting. I'd like to understand your perspective but you never really seem to be able to articulate what it is here that puts you off.
                                Have you played XMP? The challenge is I'm talking from somewhere that a lot of people are unfamiliar. In XMP, there were respawners around the map that you could capture to spawn closer to resources. Also, I realize I'm not articulating well. But, to be fair, this is the first time I've ever really tried to explain what I dislike about ONS really, so it's not that easy
                                Originally posted by sanch3z View Post
                                WAR-Downtown being played over, and over, and over, and over on the pub servers is one reason I ended up quitting UT3. I mostly hated that map and its linear node path.
                                I really enjoy the map but I can completely understand that you wouldn't because 24/7 Downtown was probably worse than 24/7 Face Any map over and over gets boring. I can't stand 2k4 Torlan for the same reason.
                                HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                                BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X