Deleted the game and will not come back until at least something changes

Users who are viewing this thread

This is a thing of me being old Warbander where there was more of a "heroism" and I sorely miss it here. But also, if we're in "more realistic" setting as this game is trying to be, a nonsense. Have you ever seen a rider on horse in real life? Horses are massive beasts and you get your neck sore talking with someone sitting on them. Hitting their leg when they sprint towards you? BS. Nonsense. You'd be jumping away from their path if you knew what's good for you. Landing a lucky swing when they're in full speed? Maaaaaaaaaybe (with not enough a's), but it wouldn't do them much wrong anyway.
There's no good way to implement that 'fear/caution' in a game with multiple agents unfortunately. If we want cavalry to be more in line with reality, they should also make them exponentially more expensive than they are in the game. Accuracy, I don't know - I'd imagine back then they were more physically capable than we are given our dependency on technology. Horses are too tanky in the game - where I would think a good hit to their legs or an arrow or two should seriously hamper then (and stamina stuff).
It's a matter of this game's weird physics, still living under the impression that two opposite speeds add up, which is a common myth (watch Mythbusters, the episode where they test the car running into another one head on), ending up in gargantuous damage to rider's leg, killing him instantly more than often, which is BS.
The calculations maybe - they probably only have lateral speed factoring and not any Y/Z calculations.
I'd say that's logical, shorter sword from horse would be at disadvantage against longer on ground. However (and that's what I meant with the spear vs. sword thing, didn't really miss there, but came too close to feel the wrath which is silly as they have weapons barely long enough to hit you on ground and you can easily dodge them there), they shouldn't be really able to hit you, if there's enough distance. Let's say the "reach" of weapons is in metric cm. You might not hold the 2.35m spear at the very end, ok, but neither they do hold their 45cm axe at the very end, and they're capable of reaching 1m distance with their hit. Like, wtf? It's almost like the models of these weapons are way longer than they should be. Sure, account the arm's lenght into it, but it's still too long.
I still don't understand this, you shouldn't even be using a spear perpendicularly/melee (never works well, especially in this game), it's for charging and timing the thrust distance to be well away from their reach in the first place (it's already generous with lateral thrusts). If you're stuck in a melee fray on horseback - you're going to lose. If you're charging/glancing by an infantry with a 45cm axe and you miss, there's a good chance they can/should hit you (they don't often anyways); now add 3+ other infantry near, that's 3x that chance.
Most of the melee weapons (those stubby maces) are too short for this game - especially how janky the collision mechanics are, and the fact we only have 4 attack moves anyways (lateral arms only, no body/forward swing motion - except for the player's wasd/mouse abuse).
I say not. If it's supposed to be realistic, they'd have no chance. If it should be more fantasy, they wouldn't have chance either. Game-wise, it should be an ideal mix between the two. That's what the spears, pikemen and anyone with a long stick is for, to stop the charge. That we cannot differentiate from them right now so we can set them in their own category is a different matter. I'd so love to see pikes murdering a charge of heavy horsemen, me between them, don't get me wrong. It was my mistake to lead them in it, my mistake to fly straight into death. But to lead cav into something that's supposed to barely hit them and watch them die like nothing, that's just bad.
I don't even think cavalry were ever intended to 'charge' into anything even in real life. As aforementioned, horses are very valuable and it makes no sense running them into pikes, swords, axes, etc...they were for maneuverability and probably skirmishing. Gameplay-wise, since AI is stupid, should they charge into infantry, they should lose some forces (they do charge damage anyways) regardless the infantry weaponry; pikemen only make it further lopsided/stop the charge 'through'.

Cavalry and infantry are in a decent spot for the game, if we make cavalry even more OP (ie. swadian knights or beyond), either make infantry easier/cheaper to accumulate enmasse to 'balance'; or make cavalry prohibitively more expensive/challenging to acquire and maintain. TW wants them closer to each other in balancing, and this is what we got.
 
There's no good way to implement that 'fear/caution' in a game with multiple agents unfortunately. If we want cavalry to be more in line with reality, they should also make them exponentially more expensive than they are in the game. Accuracy, I don't know - I'd imagine back then they were more physically capable than we are given our dependency on technology. Horses are too tanky in the game - where I would think a good hit to their legs or an arrow or two should seriously hamper then (and stamina stuff).

The calculations maybe - they probably only have lateral speed factoring and not any Y/Z calculations.

I still don't understand this, you shouldn't even be using a spear perpendicularly/melee (never works well, especially in this game), it's for charging and timing the thrust distance to be well away from their reach in the first place (it's already generous with lateral thrusts). If you're stuck in a melee fray on horseback - you're going to lose. If you're charging/glancing by an infantry with a 45cm axe and you miss, there's a good chance they can/should hit you (they don't often anyways); now add 3+ other infantry near, that's 3x that chance.
Most of the melee weapons (those stubby maces) are too short for this game - especially how janky the collision mechanics are, and the fact we only have 4 attack moves anyways (lateral arms only, no body/forward swing motion - except for the player's wasd/mouse abuse).

I don't even think cavalry were ever intended to 'charge' into anything even in real life. As aforementioned, horses are very valuable and it makes no sense running them into pikes, swords, axes, etc...they were for maneuverability and probably skirmishing. Gameplay-wise, since AI is stupid, should they charge into infantry, they should lose some forces (they do charge damage anyways) regardless the infantry weaponry; pikemen only make it further lopsided/stop the charge 'through'.

Cavalry and infantry are in a decent spot for the game, if we make cavalry even more OP (ie. swadian knights or beyond), either make infantry easier/cheaper to accumulate enmasse to 'balance'; or make cavalry prohibitively more expensive/challenging to acquire and maintain. TW wants them closer to each other in balancing, and this is what we got.
I get your look on things. You want it realistic, I want it in terms of WB. Maybe it's just me being bitter because game took turn from RPG to realism. I just loved old WB because of this, it was balanced nicely on both sides, you coulda had your role (fighter, horseman, leader, support, and all things betwixt), you were a powerhouse, really felt something, but still died if you got mobbed, or shot if you were careless. Here, you're just another troop, even if more capable than others, and you die as easily as others. I don't think that too much realism adds to the game, quite the contrary, it hurts it, takes away the fun. If there was a mod that would fix my ailment for old WB in Bannerlord, I'd definitely play nothing else (Warbandlord doesn't count as it's still not as it was in old days), but WB grandpa is ancient, I know it through and through and can't even smell the old geezer, thus I'm stuck with this game. I guess we agree to disagree and that's good.
 
Flamebaiting, trolling
doesn't really fit in with

does it? Came here to make an idiot out of other people and ended up as one himself. Nice! Cool, I can go now.
It appears that the individual who arrived with the intention of belittling others has inadvertently achieved the opposite effect, and has now become the subject of ridicule. How amusing it is to witness the irony in such a situation. As for myself, I see no need to continue this exchange, for it has run its course and my time would be better spent elsewhere. Farewell.

Ok this has been hilarious brother you've been speaking to AI chat who just remade your own messages, I understand your frustration and soon modders will fix your problems, have fun, maybe try RBM?
 
It appears that the individual who arrived with the intention of belittling others has inadvertently achieved the opposite effect, and has now become the subject of ridicule. How amusing it is to witness the irony in such a situation. As for myself, I see no need to continue this exchange, for it has run its course and my time would be better spent elsewhere. Farewell.

Ok this has been hilarious brother you've been speaking to AI chat who just remade your own messages, I understand your frustration and soon modders will fix your problems, have fun, maybe try RBM?
I didn't come here to belittle others, unlike you did bro. Tbh I stopped reading that BS the moment it turned posh knight, I don't care much if it was you, AI, or old Cthulhu. It was obvious it's out there to ridicule me, no matter who or what wrote it. Why you do that for man? I don't recall having any sort of beef with you. Anyway, I'll move out for real now, we've been holding this thread up for too long.
 
I didn't come here to belittle others, unlike you did bro. Tbh I stopped reading that BS the moment it turned posh knight, I don't care much if it was you, AI, or old Cthulhu. It was obvious it's out there to ridicule me, no matter who or what wrote it. Why you do that for man? I don't recall having any sort of beef with you. Anyway, I'll move out for real now, we've been holding this thread up for too long.
Honestly the AI texts were the fun part
 
I honestly do not understand your argument.

"This is a thing of me being old Warbander where there was more of a "heroism" and I sorely miss it here."

I am not saying "Git Gud" but if you want to just be an unstoppable hero, and aren't good enough to do it on your current difficulty setting, then why not just lower the difficulty?

You complain it's not realistic but you clearly don't want it to be realistic. You want to be a "Hero". The things you claim are unrealistic ARE the realistic things.

You say you hurt your neck looking up at someone on a horse but are surprised infantry only hit their legs? What did you want that 45cm axe to reach his head? Of course calvaries legs get hit by infantry. Where the hell else would people be able to hit? You also seriously misunderstand on what Calvary can do/does. You should NOT be able to just charge through a shield wall on a horse unhindered. This is why they are generally used for flanking. They aren't tanks. They're flesh and bone no matter how big they are. They aren't elephants FFS lmao.

I 100% understand and admit this game has flaws and there is plenty of things that need tweaking with the combat and damage and those points you made in that regard are legit. However the majority of the things you are complaining about are just coming from your lack of understanding of the real world.

Seriously, the irony of you wanting to be an unstoppable hero and thinking that's realistic at the same time is mind boggling.

One or the other man and if the difficulty isn't fun for you then just lower it so you take less damage and deal more so you get that hero feel you want lol
 
I honestly do not understand your argument.

"This is a thing of me being old Warbander where there was more of a "heroism" and I sorely miss it here."

I am not saying "Git Gud" but if you want to just be an unstoppable hero, and aren't good enough to do it on your current difficulty setting, then why not just lower the difficulty?

You complain it's not realistic but you clearly don't want it to be realistic. You want to be a "Hero". The things you claim are unrealistic ARE the realistic things.

You say you hurt your neck looking up at someone on a horse but are surprised infantry only hit their legs? What did you want that 45cm axe to reach his head? Of course calvaries legs get hit by infantry. Where the hell else would people be able to hit? You also seriously misunderstand on what Calvary can do/does. You should NOT be able to just charge through a shield wall on a horse unhindered. This is why they are generally used for flanking. They aren't tanks. They're flesh and bone no matter how big they are. They aren't elephants FFS lmao.

I 100% understand and admit this game has flaws and there is plenty of things that need tweaking with the combat and damage and those points you made in that regard are legit. However the majority of the things you are complaining about are just coming from your lack of understanding of the real world.

Seriously, the irony of you wanting to be an unstoppable hero and thinking that's realistic at the same time is mind boggling.

One or the other man and if the difficulty isn't fun for you then just lower it so you take less damage and deal more so you get that hero feel you want lol
It's not a matter of being a "hero" man, and yea, I do play often with half damage to player. It's that enemies are always way too accurate when it comes to melee and it's silly to think you can always hit someone that flies past you, you'd get lucky hit at most. If there's 10 guys in a bunch, each and every one of them will land a hit on you, that's silly. In WB you had a bit leeway, here you're dead instantly, no matter if it's looter, t3 troop or elite, because all weapons deal too much damage and everyone is skilled equally in terms of damage and swing speed (another of my gripes with this game). And there's also a matter of some ranged hits that are really, really suspicious at times. Like few hours ago, I got shot by bandit horse archer, pretty far away from them, with shield up, in my uncovered leg (was foolish of me to not use big kite shield) all that while running like lightning. And you know how inaccurate horse archers are here, can't hit a barn if it stands still in front of them. Eaten a harpoon soon after that, pretty far away from sea raider that threw it, smack dab in my side, with my shield up, full speed again. It's like most times they can't hit a barn, but in certain moments they get a moment of clarity and suddenly start to lead their projectiles better than any player could. Even though I dislike the amount of realism that came with BL, I can live with that, but this stinks of something wrong with targeting.
 
It's not a matter of being a "hero" man, and yea, I do play often with half damage to player. It's that enemies are always way too accurate when it comes to melee and it's silly to think you can always hit someone that flies past you, you'd get lucky hit at most. If there's 10 guys in a bunch, each and every one of them will land a hit on you, that's silly. In WB you had a bit leeway, here you're dead instantly, no matter if it's looter, t3 troop or elite, because all weapons deal too much damage and everyone is skilled equally in terms of damage and swing speed (another of my gripes with this game). And there's also a matter of some ranged hits that are really, really suspicious at times. Like few hours ago, I got shot by bandit horse archer, pretty far away from them, with shield up, in my uncovered leg (was foolish of me to not use big kite shield) all that while running like lightning. And you know how inaccurate horse archers are here, can't hit a barn if it stands still in front of them. Eaten a harpoon soon after that, pretty far away from sea raider that threw it, smack dab in my side, with my shield up, full speed again. It's like most times they can't hit a barn, but in certain moments they get a moment of clarity and suddenly start to lead their projectiles better than any player could. Even though I dislike the amount of realism that came with BL, I can live with that, but this stinks of something wrong with targeting.
I really don't see this accuracy discrepancy that you are. I only ever feel like I'm "sniped" in a tournament, which makes sense. I don't think I've ever died to a random arrow or javelin in a real battle. So I find that odd.

All I'm gonna really add is that I find it REALLY odd that professional baseball players can hit a tiny ball that's moving 100mph but you think it's impossible to hit a big man moving 30 MPH on a horse? Lol
 
I really don't see this accuracy discrepancy that you are. I only ever feel like I'm "sniped" in a tournament, which makes sense. I don't think I've ever died to a random arrow or javelin in a real battle. So I find that odd.

All I'm gonna really add is that I find it REALLY odd that professional baseball players can hit a tiny ball that's moving 100mph but you think it's impossible to hit a big man moving 30 MPH on a horse? Lol
With 20 throwing skill? Doubt so. That equals dude that just picked up a stone, recruit level. Not a professional Wildling thrower with 160 skill..
Oh you mean with melee, sorry. That's also professionals, not recruit level. I'd tie this supreme ability to t4, maybe t3 troops, definitely not some hobo that just picked up a stick.
 
Last edited:
I get your look on things. You want it realistic, I want it in terms of WB. Maybe it's just me being bitter because game took turn from RPG to realism. I just loved old WB because of this, it was balanced nicely on both sides, you coulda had your role (fighter, horseman, leader, support, and all things betwixt), you were a powerhouse, really felt something, but still died if you got mobbed, or shot if you were careless. Here, you're just another troop, even if more capable than others, and you die as easily as others.
With all these comparisons going back to WB, there are also a lot of things in BL that don't really make this feasible, unfortunately, without overtuning/imbalance on the other aspects (playing 1400+ hours, you should know what I mean).
I don't think that too much realism adds to the game, quite the contrary, it hurts it, takes away the fun.
Absolute realism won't, but somethings need to be compromised with gameplay realism - just making infantry ****tier (than they are to other counterparts) doesn't do that as it will make them further obsolete; especially how easy cavalry are to obtain and steamroll with. The fun for me in games is the challenge and puzzle/gameplay involved to overcome the goals I set.
It's not a matter of being a "hero" man, and yea, I do play often with half damage to player.
So you're looking for a different type of game - you want to play the 'hero' and BL is doing away with that afaik (unknown if TW did by intention or incidental with their systems); the death/birth mechanic being a telling sign. Play RBM mod, that ups the armor where the elites are 'realistic' (but their outside-battle factors/costs aren't affected).
It's that enemies are always way too accurate when it comes to melee and it's silly to think you can always hit someone that flies past you, you'd get lucky hit at most.
I don't play sports, but I'm quite sure (ignoring the fear aspect as that's not applicable) I can hit something coming at me at the speed/size of a horse (in game ones are too fast) with a 5lb stick at least 90% (I haven't really tried) of the time. Now, medieval-age people they probably swung more sticks than I did, so can imagine they are a bit more adept at the 'physical' things.
If there's 10 guys in a bunch, each and every one of them will land a hit on you, that's silly. In WB you had a bit leeway, here you're dead instantly, no matter if it's looter, t3 troop or elite, because all weapons deal too much damage and everyone is skilled equally in terms of damage and swing speed (another of my gripes with this game). And there's also a matter of some ranged hits that are really, really suspicious at times. Like few hours ago, I got shot by bandit horse archer, pretty far away from them, with shield up, in my uncovered leg (was foolish of me to not use big kite shield) all that while running like lightning. And you know how inaccurate horse archers are here, can't hit a barn if it stands still in front of them. Eaten a harpoon soon after that, pretty far away from sea raider that threw it, smack dab in my side, with my shield up, full speed again. It's like most times they can't hit a barn, but in certain moments they get a moment of clarity and suddenly start to lead their projectiles better than any player could. Even though I dislike the amount of realism that came with BL, I can live with that, but this stinks of something wrong with targeting.
Honestly, at this point, it really does seem more along the lines of 'git gud'. How many hours, how many arrows, how many javelins, how many battles, how many enemies, etc...have you encountered in all your playthroughs - one will eventually find a mark.
The only thing I don't like is the accuracy-range of those top-tier bows (since I don't like using shields) but even then, easy to contend with if I just grab a shield.
Shields are too OP as is - do we really want them stronger with an even wider 180deg dome of protection? They completely trivialize throwing weapons, which, for gameplay, would assume to be 'shieldbreakers' at the very least.
Throwing weapon projectiles need to be faster but shorter range imo; and their melee mode more useful.
Besides all that, I really don't see any AI difference between how they target in WB vs in BL (in fact, think the logic is improved in BL).
 
With 20 throwing skill? Doubt so. That equals dude that just picked up a stone, recruit level. Not a professional Wildling thrower with 160 skill..
Oh you mean with melee, sorry. That's also professionals, not recruit level. I'd tie this supreme ability to t4, maybe t3 troops, definitely not some hobo that just picked up a stick.
Again, a recruit/looter isn't some baby just learning to walk (and I don't want them to be); I'm sure they've swung sticks at things as a child. Heck, I barely (or don't even) swing sticks, but I'm 90% sure I can hit something the size of a horse coming at me at like 35mph. Now, if this 'issue' came up first month of EA, yes - the looters were very scary back then with rocks but that's been tuned out.
 
Hmmmmm... Way you put it, it does make a lot of sense. It seems I might've treated the game wrong, came here from Warband, thinking it will be new Warband, and spent more than 1.4k hours without realising it is entirely different beast, instead blamed it on imbalance. If I try to take it as "realistic" and act accordingly, it starts to make sense. I guess I am the idiot after all. I guess I can't be blamed for that since it's so similar, yet so different, and I really wanted it to be what it was. Was it a change for good? I don't think so, but I'll have to live with that. Maybe there'll be a mod for me someday that fixes all my ailments, then it's gonna be golden. Oh well, it was fun, arguing with you dudes.
 
Hmmmmm... Way you put it, it does make a lot of sense. It seems I might've treated the game wrong, came here from Warband, thinking it will be new Warband, and spent more than 1.4k hours without realising it is entirely different beast, instead blamed it on imbalance. If I try to take it as "realistic" and act accordingly, it starts to make sense. I guess I am the idiot after all. I guess I can't be blamed for that since it's so similar, yet so different, and I really wanted it to be what it was. Was it a change for good? I don't think so, but I'll have to live with that. Maybe there'll be a mod for me someday that fixes all my ailments, then it's gonna be golden. Oh well, it was fun, arguing with you dudes.
In WB, victories more heavily depended on your player being involved in combat (smaller battle#, AI logic less experienced, etc...).
In BL, the AI agents are more competent individually (compared to WB) and the formations/tactics is better (improvements/bugs needed nonetheless). You can just as easily sway battles in your favour focusing only on playing hill commander than you could in TW getting kills more by proxy than directly.
 
Last edited:
In WB, victories more heavily depended on your player being involved in combat (smaller battle#, AI logic less experienced, etc...).
In BL, the AI agents are more competent individually (compared to WB) and the formations/tactics is better (improvements/bugs needed nonetheless). You can just as easily sway battles in your favour focusing only on playing hill commander than you could in TW getting kills more by proxy than directly.
The problem with Bannerlord is that there is not much else to do in battle if you cannot play the hero. Tactics in this game are pretty much nonexistant. The enemy AI is braindead, most battle scenes are to convoluted to manouver or even to orient yourself and battles are over far to quickly before manouverig your troops could have an effect.
 
The problem with Bannerlord is that there is not much else to do in battle if you cannot play the hero. Tactics in this game are pretty much nonexistant. The enemy AI is braindead, most battle scenes are to convoluted to manouver or even to orient yourself and battles are over far to quickly before manouverig your troops could have an effect.
I would aslo add that commanding troops is very clunky. It's difficult to position them properly unless you're physically standing very close to the point of destination, there's no way to target specific enemy formations etc. Basically, every time I have to fight a tough battle that actually requires tactics other than F6, I wish I was playing Total War instead
 
The problem with Bannerlord is that there is not much else to do in battle if you cannot play the hero. Tactics in this game are pretty much nonexistant. The enemy AI is braindead, most battle scenes are to convoluted to manouver or even to orient yourself and battles are over far to quickly before manouverig your troops could have an effect.
I think this is the biggest disappointment with TW and their BL.
The battles are way too ....... Arcade.
The fan base, I believe, would appreciate slower, more granular, " realistic " battles, with minutes and minutes to enjoy movement and positioning and patient tactics and right - timing ...... instead of it all quickly unravelling and rushing into some sort of turkey shoot.
Strange that Total War have likewise dumbed down their battles over the years, again not understanding their fan base, or just not caring anymore.
 
The problem with Bannerlord is that there is not much else to do in battle if you cannot play the hero. Tactics in this game are pretty much nonexistant. The enemy AI is braindead, most battle scenes are to convoluted to manouver or even to orient yourself and battles are over far to quickly before manouverig your troops could have an effect.
Don't disagree on that, but it is more useful than it was in WB (despite QoL/clunkiness); especially since these battles don't even last more than 5 minutes - doesn't have that same tactical maneuverability as TotalWar. It's not fun gameplay-wise for sure, and I get why some want to play that 'hero' racking up tens of kills as that's literally the only 'good' feature of this game.
But they should keep it challenging, so it does take some effort dodging hits/projectiles to stay alive and get those 50+ kills (as nothing else in game requires any effort anyways). I rather keep the player being as equally delicate as any other unit in the field - and it's stupid that if you do die early, you don't even get to play the 'good' part of this game. Why not allow you to take over another unit and have them be a 'hero' to get a few more kills than they normally would as AI; and just have them maintain the status quo tactics the player had prior to dying (instead of them defaulting to just charging)

Whatever half-assed implementation TW will be doing with that formation targeting (as they said are in the works) should provide some better complexity there.
 
I think this is the biggest disappointment with TW and their BL.
The battles are way too ....... Arcade.
The fan base, I believe, would appreciate slower, more granular, " realistic " battles, with minutes and minutes to enjoy movement and positioning and patient tactics and right - timing ...... instead of it all quickly unravelling and rushing into some sort of turkey shoot.
Strange that Total War have likewise dumbed down their battles over the years, again not understanding their fan base, or just not caring anymore.

People say this about a lot of different strategy games, that they want slow tactical battles, but I've yet to see a good implementation of it that doesn't just devolve into a slugfest with low infantry damage like RBM. This is also at odds with the player wanting to actually get into combat and not just move flags around for 20 minutes.

The reason real battles lasted for hours or days is that they wouldn't actually be in melee for that long, with the majority of the army in reserve. Ive never seen this implemented in a game because the AI never makes tactical withdrawals, once a unit gets into combat it just fights to the death or until it routs and gets massacres anyway. It never gets into a 2 minute scrap and pulls back it's infantry when it's not winning.

Without an AI that actually tries to survive the battle with minimal casualties, or doesn't just commit everything immediately, long battles are never going to be fun.
 
People say this about a lot of different strategy games, that they want slow tactical battles, but I've yet to see a good implementation of it that doesn't just devolve into a slugfest with low infantry damage like RBM. This is also at odds with the player wanting to actually get into combat and not just move flags around for 20 minutes.

The reason real battles lasted for hours or days is that they wouldn't actually be in melee for that long, with the majority of the army in reserve. Ive never seen this implemented in a game because the AI never makes tactical withdrawals, once a unit gets into combat it just fights to the death or until it routs and gets massacres anyway. It never gets into a 2 minute scrap and pulls back it's infantry when it's not winning.

Without an AI that actually tries to survive the battle with minimal casualties, or doesn't just commit everything immediately, long battles are never going to be fun.
Ultimate General Civil War pulled this off pretty well I think. The battles are heavily scripted though.

Generally speaking older total war games handled this a bit better than newer ones. Fights lasted a bit longer and when the enemy was on the offensive it wouldn't just rush you without formations like in newer iterations.

You are correct about the fact that people don't know what they are getting themselves into when they want properly slow battles. I tried RBM and found it too extreme even for my liking. Espacially because the AI side of things wouldn't make things worthwhile.

However there is a middleground to be had. BL battles are too quick even for the braindead AI it currently has. Making fights last a bit longer through improving armor and letting AI block once in a while wouldn't hurt at all.
 
Back
Top Bottom