Lock-On's Current Multiplayer State

[Grimes]

My intent of this post is to provoke discussion in the area of multiplayer gaming. If you feel the need for personal insults then PM me privately rather than a public posting here. I believe the LO community needs a positive discussion of the multiplayer, not a continued whining fest over every little setting in the game.

 

I’ve always held an interest in game and level design. When the Orange Box came out I took advantage of the developer commentaries they bundled into the game. I explored the reasons of why Valve built a level and the game the way they did. To this day whenever I play Team Fortress 2 I try notice some of the little things they pointed out. Curiosity got the best of me, and now I tend to look at different games and gamemodes and try to rationalize WHY one is better than another and WHY is that level made that way? In many different games out on the market this question can be easily solved. Lock-on is a different story.

 

So I pose the question, WHY has the Multiplayer in Lock-on turned into a mostly Air-Quake atmosphere?

 

To be honest I can’t completely rationalize this one. LO as we know is a Flight Simulator. The flight sim fans out there are a diverse bunch. We have people who build their own cockpits fashioned after their favorite aircraft and at the other end we have people using cheap joysticks and a simple computer. We have pages of heated debates over aircraft and missile performance, whether a trained pilot could pull x amount of G’s, and we argue over the accuracy of almost every little detail imaginable. Yet when we actually play the game online we get blood thirsty and demand action. We forgo the ideals of realism we scream about for hours in the forums for instant gratification of a splash.

 

WHY do people join server A over server B?

 

This one is easy, simply put, bodies. The more people in a given server the more likely more people will join in. This is a proven fact. If you get people in a server more will join. It just works that way. But, joining is one thing. Staying is another. What other factors influence a player to keep playing online?

 

• Flight Times (Directly proportional to love of autopilot)
  
• Terrain (Flat/ Water/ Mountainous)
  
• Weather (Part system related, part feeling towards)
  
• Time of Day (Day [includes dawn/dusk as long as not to dark], Night)
  
• Aircraft Selection (Because you really love that Flanker-D)
  
• Ground Attack (You either love or hate)
  
• The Actual Mission (Air Quake Vs Everything else)
  
• X- Factors (How much time to play, who is in the server)

Did I miss anything? That list sums it up pretty well. Sure there might be one or two more minor factors, but those are the main ones.

 

Some of these factors, while not tested fully, do affect us online pilots. For instance I know some members of 3sqn opinions on each of those factors. I’m sure you can look at that list and know your opinion on each of them. If you can’t, have you really explored what this game has to offer?

 

Recently I came to the realization that a lack of real achievable objective is pushing us toward air quake. What does this mean?

Go in any server in Hyper-lobby, what DO you DO. You shoot each other down, that’s what. WHY, because you are RED and he is BLUE. Its tough luck welcome to the world of hard-knocks. Everyone knows Reds and Blues were put on the planet to do one thing, and that’s to kill each other. There is nothing wrong with Team Deathmatch style games, it is the purest measure of a skill set. It has the “I have more kills than you therefore I am better” attitude with it. My problem with that is we lose most of what separates a combat sim from an arcade combat sim.

 

Why?

Neither side has a real drive and mission to push themselves into action other than fly until you get shot at and then shoot back (or first). How do we fix this? Well we could blame the mission editor and its lack of built in variety, or we could just do what we should and find a creative solution ourselves. Make missions around an objective other than just shooting each other down. A2A combat should be “the means to an end”, not purely “the end.” In other words, it’s a by-product of the goal. Throw a curve-ball into the mission. Some of the more enjoyable sorties I’ve had online had been a response to protect an immediate threat to the awacs, or a couple squad mates are bored and we try to take out a specific target.

 

There has been a growing trend in shorter flight times and focus on pure-air to air combat. I’ll use the 169th and 104th servers as an example, they have earned this right through their popularity to be used as an example. Both are a lot of fun and have people in it at all hours of the day. Both servers have opposing fighters spawn at Maykop and Sochi, a mere 138 km away from each other. Fighters also spawn from close bases such as Gudata, Krasnodar and the mobile Admiral Kuz. They both fight in the more popular mountain area of the map. The problem is the idea in both servers is to fly directly north or south to meet your enemy face on. They both have units scattered around half of the useable game map, but when playing online only a very small portion is ever used. In either server, has 10% of that ever been destroyed? How about 5%?

 

I understand people play there for the A2A battles, that’s what the missions excel at, but why add all the extra fluff to it if it isn’t going to be used…. Ever. The only times Anyone EVER diverts 20 km outside of the strait line from Sochi to Maykop is

 

• Overflow. When all fighters from Maykop and Sochi are full, and players are forced to fly longer flights to get to the battle area. The fight spreads out quite a lot actually when this happens.
  
• Flanking Maneuver. Someone thinking outside the box for a change.
  
• Personal Objective. Usually to kill the AWACS. This is almost always a suicide mission.

Again I have nothing against the 169th and the 104th, if members of those squads feel offended by my opinion PM me. I’ve had many great times in both servers and I’m not trying to offend you.

 

The point of this post is to start the discussion of how we the community can improve Lockon multiplayer ourselves. Organized events like Red Flag, Black Sea Showdown, Cooperative Archer, and the Crimean Incident are all excellent events because they promote teamwork. However I’m talking on an everyday basis of multiplayer gaming. These events aren’t a daily occurrence, and that’s what makes them special, they are different and require cooperation between all the participants. I think they are the complete opposite I do think it is possible within Lock-on to have objective oriented multiplayer missions where teamwork and goals can be accomplished without requiring voice comms with teammates.

 

Let the discussion begin.

[golfsierra2]

My intent of this post is to provoke discussion in the area of multiplayer gaming. If you feel the need for personal insults then PM me privately rather than a public posting here. I believe the LO community needs a positive discussion of the multiplayer, not a continued whining fest over every little setting in the game.

 

So you expect to be the target of some nasty flaming for opening this discussion ? What is your picture of the average LO player then ??

 

There has been a growing trend in shorter flight times and focus on pure-air to air combat. ... Both servers have opposing fighters spawn at Maykop and Sochi, a mere 138 km away from each other. Fighters also spawn from close bases such as Gudata, Krasnodar and the mobile Admiral Kuz. They both fight in the more popular mountain area of the map. The problem is the idea in both servers is to fly directly north or south to meet your enemy face on.

 

The trend surely goes towards shorter flight times. Maybe people don't want to read endless, detailed mission briefings and 'waste time' preparing tactical formations, they just want to jump into their cockpit, take of and fire...

At least, this is what I have seen on many HL servers before. And maybe, team tactics are not that popular because it requires a certain amount of discipline and air combat knowledge, which not that much folks can provide.

IMHO, a negative example for this is the typical 'gunzo ladder'. Very popular, because it supports 'jumping into the cockpit, t/o and fire...' practice that degrades LO/FC to a typical ego shooter game.

 

The point of this post is to start the discussion of how we the community can improve Lockon multiplayer ourselves. Organized events like Red Flag, Black Sea Showdown, Cooperative Archer, and the Crimean Incident are all excellent events because they promote teamwork. However I’m talking on an everyday basis of multiplayer gaming.

Let the discussion begin.

 

RF worked well, and I think RF 08-2 will see again sufficient response to make it happen. CA was postponed and I don't know if it will take place at all this year.

The problem here still is that we have a very broad bandwidth of skills and preferences here, from the low end (ego shooter) to the experts (with military background).

 

I doubt that this discussion will have any visible impact on peoples behavior.

[*Rage*]

I play Team Fortress 2 now more than LOFC. Simply put its the most well thought out, deeply intelligent, and addictive games I have ever played. Even my flatmate who isnt a PC gamer went out and bought a brand new gaming computer so we could play online at the same time.

 

The reason for this is I think it was designed by a very talented team with a huge budget from the outset as a multiplayer game. Whether youre playing for 5 minutes or 4 hours you get a satisfyig sense of accomplishment using different methods (spy/heavy/medic/engie etc) that simply isnt possible in LOFC.

 

For that reason I think most people on an everyday basis will play either gunzo or airquake. Only preorganised events such as Red flag (which sadly ive always missed) have managed to cultivate that online fidelity that you describe.

 

Simply put...ive got 45-90 minutes to spare for gaming...do I :-

 

1) Play TF2 (not to detract from LOFC...but seriously guys..try it)

2) Gunzo it

3) Quick Splash-a-thon airquake (ultimately unsatisfying)

4) Try and organise a realistic mission - only to fail (lack of time/interest/phone/connection etc etc)

5) await the next RF

 

Ps. I agree with you on all levels, very intersting post.

[Aeroscout]

While I don't mind strictly a2a battles, I have realized that this is getting a bit boring.

Like you said, I also think too many of the servers have battles in the eastern mountainous region. What happened to the Crimean? It's no wonder ED got rid of it in Black Shark.

 

here are some of my suggestions to add to grimes' discussion:

• More battles over the Kerch strait and over Crimea. (I miss those a lot) I'm tired of that mission (on both 104th and 169th) with that tall mountain as bulls eye.
  
• encourage ground pounding by creating "walls of sams" that must be taken out first. (just an idea, don't think it will work)
  
• create a 2 fronted war with blue starting on both ends of the map (Crimea and Georgia) with Russia in the middle. Players can chose which side to start on.
  
• don't start a new mission on a server until an objective has been achieved by either side (I think 104th does this already.)
  
• longer flights than just Sochi to Maycop, but not so long as Dzhankoy to the Kerch strait. (I'm guessing Kirovskoye to Kerch Strait would be a good distance)

Just my 2 cents. I really hope online play can become more fun.

[159th_Viper]

LockOn by it's very Nature Lends itself to the 'AirQuake' mentality prevalant on the majority of servers.

 

The Simple Flight Model of the Fast-Jets and lack of any meaningful objectives other than the attending to of ensuring the demise of all other airframes on the opposite coalition and in some cases even your own leads to the inevitable scenario where the only aspect where any form of Dynamic Gameplay can be brought to the table will manifest itself in persons attempting to notch up as many kills in as short a time as possible - the rest be damned.

 

Attempt at meaningful co-ordination? In all probability too much effort taking into account the Inherent difficulty you have with Time Zones and spontaneity of attendance via Hyperlobby etc etc.......

 

Blame the Inherent Competitiveness of the Male Human Psyche - where else can you get away with Arbitrarily Spamming Volleys of Missiles at a Bandit..........sometimes getting a Kill and Gloating at the success thereof...........other times getting Splashed - and walking away only to come back and do it all over again!

 

It's Reality suspended in a Big Way and in all probability takes too much concious effort to do right when having regard to Ad Hoc Flights - vindicated by the amount of effort required at the L.O.C.E.R.F. Flights.

 

Can the LockOn Community improve Online Hyperlobby Flights? Personally having regard to the Inherent Dynamic of LockOn I do not think so..........Then again, here's hoping I'm wrong :)

[PoleCat]

Well first off no offense taken and an interesting thread. the 104th have run 3 maps so far just about a month apart and each different. One with battles directly over Kerch (The Battle for Kerch), one with longer flight times to the front (Operation Bloodhound), and the current one running (Operation Blue Tide).

 

We are not planing to remain static or with the same missions or concepts for very long and will most likely try all of the above. We are a very new squadron and we are equally new to mission building but we have some great ideas on the table and are going to be trying many different approaches as we move forward.

 

Thanks and keep these great ideas coming. We at the 104th will do our utmost to build on them in order to make all of our simming time more immersive and fun.

 

Skies the limit. Community Rules!

 

Out

[*Rage*]

LockOn by it's very Nature Lends itself to the 'AirQuake' mentality prevalant on the majority of servers.

 

The Simple Flight Model of the Fast-Jets and lack of any meaningful objectives other than the attending to of ensuring the demise of all other airframes on the opposite coalition and in some cases even your own leads to the inevitable scenario where the only aspect where any form of Dynamic Gameplay can be brought to the table will manifest itself in persons attempting to notch up as many kills in as short a time as possible - the rest be damned.

 

Attempt at meaningful co-ordination? In all probability too much effort taking into account the Inherent difficulty you have with Time Zones and spontaneity of attendance via Hyperlobby etc etc.......

 

Blame the Inherent Competitiveness of the Male Human Psyche - where else can you get away with Arbitrarily Spamming Volleys of Missiles at a Bandit..........sometimes getting a Kill and Gloating at the success thereof...........other times getting Splashed - and walking away only to come back and do it all over again!

 

It's Reality suspended in a Big Way and in all probability takes too much concious effort to do right when having regard to Ad Hoc Flights - vindicated by the amount of effort required at the L.O.C.E.R.F. Flights.

 

Can the LockOn Community improve Online Hyperlobby Flights? Personally having regard to the Inherent Dynamic of LockOn I do not think so..........Then again, here's hoping I'm wrong :)

 

Did you just finish watching the Matrix?

Just kidding:)

[mvsgas]

Grimes, I ask that to myself a while back when I started playing LOMAC FC on line. I don't think is the way the missions are written, It just hard to create a server (I'm guessing) that would please every one. And is hard to create goals that are achievable, fun but present a challenge. I guess that is one the reasons I prefer A2G, but even that is just shoot until you run out of ammo and repeat. I have learn to accepted. I have learn to play the games I have to their strengths. If I want some what realistic game play with immersion, I play Falcon (ANY version), If I want to just destroy some thing, I play LOMAC FC, If I want a combination of Helo flying and first person shooter, I play ARMA and to fly helicopters I just play FS2004, Ect. I guess that is why I have so many different Games/simulation:

Wings over Vietnam, Jane's F-18 with TSHv3, IL-2, aces pack, Forgotten Battles, Pacific Fighters, Falcon 4.0 (With SP2, SP3, SP4, Free Falcon, Red Viper, Open Falcon, Allied Force,I got like 13 gigs of falcon stuff wow) obviously Lock On, ARMA, FS2004, ect.

[S77th-GOYA]

Lack of planning and leadership is inherent in a 24/7 dedicated server. That equals airquake.

 

Team Fortress 2 has several defined roles for people to choose from. LO has fighters and mud movers that have no realistic chance to survive in the same airspace with an opposition fighter.

[Yeniceri]

Can the main problem on "air quake" be spontaneous joining to servers?

All pre-planned missions has "sold out" to the date..

But you can not put any kind of mission to an 7/24 server and expect cooperative flight action on planning level.

A server with lots of horsepower and wide bandwidth is not cheap nor common. The squadrons and/or individuals that have this kind of equipment needs to be more on to planned operations than serving 7/24 HL..

Dont get me wrong.. we need that too..But more planned operations will bring the need of flying and fighting in a more strategic and pre-planned way like we wanted to..

 

What do we have..

L.O.C.E.R.F which is an absolute success..

C.A. Which was delayed for technical problems as far as i know.

And BSS..Which is lots of fun but another airquake.

The main reason of BSS being an airquake is the scoring system IMHO.

Its based on hits, crashes and tk's. Personal scoring system provokes airquake. If the scoring was related to accomplished goals or failed objectives, the BS would be much more fun i think. That would remove the "me" and insert the "team and objective" to an already fun event.

 

What i am saying is..

PPL with servers.. Make more pre-planned well designed events with team and goal based scoring system..Everybody will help you..And we can fly more like squadrons and less like quake.

 

All this said

I would like to salute Fudd, Ice and Torwak and everyone involved for making these events and keeping the standarts high..

 

Cheers

Yeniceri

[Yeniceri]

Ice dont get me wrong..

I was not criticizing the planing..

just the scoring..

Sometimes 2-3 unit formation can ride thru a certain death to hold one specific area. And they splashed. But if they die for keeping the fort 5 more minutes until the main force arrives should be rewarded..That will take the BSS more to a air conflict level than shoot them all.

You know we attend BSS since the beginning and we are taking incredible joy from it..We will keep doing so..(we will right?:huh:)

 

Thats just my constructive critisizm for the sake of making a beautiful event, wonderful ..

[Yeniceri]

Oh.. sorry :)

[Grimes]

My whole Team Fortress 2 analogy is based through my experiences of "happy accidents," its easily possible to not be in any communication via voice comms and your team can coordinate an attack from just being at the right place at the right time. The VoIP, GUI, level design, and character class trade-offs make this all work quite simply and easily. TF2 is designed around that.

 

Obviously this doesn't translate to Lock-on where we have 1000s sq. km. and we can go anywhere we like. Its just a matter of "telling" a player whats going on in game. For example, I'll borrow a nifty idea from one of the Red Flags, theres a Spy Plane intruding into your airspace and gets near a base. Awacs or EWR spot the bandit. If you were near the airbase taking off or just at the right place at the right time, you would investigate, right? Its a "feel-good" victory for you.

 

Maybe programming the server to post a message at a specific time...

"The Blue team has launched a cruise missile towards the Red Spawn!"

"A Red CSAR helicopter has been spotted near WP3"

and of course actually putting a few AI in there so the lonely pilot who investigates gets rewarded.

[Pilotasso]

There are no aircraft in this SIM capable of realisticaly face a complex SAM defense network. The A-10 has no standoff capability and the Frog has a big bullseye in the but saying "kick me", not to mention both are desperatly slow to get anywhere. Naturaly players swich to AA, when their AG counterparts cannot keep up.

 

The solution to this would be to have multirole aircraft.

 

LOMAC is not a study SIM. Furthermore since it lacks the heavy avionics component of F4 it also atracted people more single minded about action. The flaws of the game with the missiles made it worse. This is why you dont see thorough planning and execution. This is an audience that was not tailored for that. At least most of us arent. Those that are, are much likely to be heavily outnumbered and dragged into everybody elses type of gaming.

 

Any plan for any given MP event usualy falls apart 1 hour into the mission. After that everybody turns into their own bravado again. :)

 

I think we just have to live with it.

[Fudd]

Any plan for any given MP event usualy falls apart 1 hour into the mission. After that everybody turns into their own bravado again. :)

 

I think we just have to live with it.

 

That’s not always the case as seen in LOCERF, but it’s a function of the quality of planning and the ability to make changes to the plan based on the threat.

 

I don’t think mission planning is actually the problem, it’s only a symptom.

 

If you were to break the community in to two groups, you would have those that belong to squads and those who don’t. I would say that a majority of those that fly in squads are open to organized flying and actually coordinating an effort. Often times the energy and time that this takes is saved for squad training events and community events such as LOCERF, BSS, etc. Many of those who don’t fly in squads are not interested in the extra time it takes to plan, learn comms and coordinate with those they are flying with. There are a few 'lonewolfs' that are an exception to this but the point I'm trying to make is, myself included, sometimes I just want to hop into a server a shoot $hit. It’s not all bad, because there can be a lot to learn in an “air-quake” environment.

 

I think that we need to appreciate those that spend the amazing amount of time and money on dedicated servers. I do a subpar job of hosting the 159th server and its plenty of work. I can’t imagine the work that goes into hosting well administrated dedis like 3Sqn, 51st 169th 104th, etc.

 

In order to change the type of environment of the server you’re flying in you have to be an example of change. If you show up with a well organized squad or group of players all on comms, in order for the other side to compete they must do the same. I've seen it happen several times. Even if its typing over chat the other team must become more organized in order to play on the same level.

 

There are plenty of avenues for an organized experience. Participate in community events as previously described, organize your team as I illustrated above, or invite other squads to matches either privately or on HL.

 

That’s my 2cents...

[Yeniceri]

I agree about multirole with Ice..

I see ppl (crunch for example) kick some serious SAM butt with Flanker..

[Grimes]

Guys I think you are missing the point.... This IS NOT about a specific server (or servers), this is about Lock-Ons multiplayer as a whole.

 

Its not a question of what we can achieve at the squad level, each squadron has proven that with their own achievements and training disciplines. Events like Red Flag have reinforced this ideal. No this is a question of how we can bring the fun that are objective driven missions to the "everyday casual" player of Lock-On.

[EvilBivol-1]

Question - how do other combat flight sims fare in this regard? Is it really a Lock On reality or a genre reality?

[mvsgas]

EvilBivol-1 Question - how do other combat flight sims fare in this regard? Is it really a Lock On reality or a genre reality?

IMO other games are like Lock on, (not the same obviously, but same idea) for example IL-2, (at least the server I have being in) that do the same, you take off and kill some thing. But other sims (FALCON 4.0 most versions), you can run a 24/7 game and at any time you can join and start a cohesive , plan mission that only took you about two minutes to plan. Granted, it is all thanks to the campaign engine but, the in the game you can do that. I don't know if I would put Falcon and Lock on or even Il-2 games in the same category. All those games are great in their own right, the only things they have in common is: A huge fan base and you fly combat aircraft. But, there are games out there that you can Fly online 24/7 with clear missions, rules and define goals other that kill or bee kill. I hope we can do the same in BS:cry:

[RedTiger]

Question - how do other combat flight sims fare in this regard? Is it really a Lock On reality or a genre reality?

 

I can speak for Falcon here, a little at least, and add to what mvsgas shared. I've never played Falcon MP but I have seen plenty of discussion about it. I've seen some people who play MP like you find in Lock On -- head to head. IIRC there's some on-going thing out there that people participate in that involves 4 on 4 air to air combat. The big challenge is to properly sort bandits and execute an organized attack.

 

The other and more common thing I hear about is people flying the campaign co-op vs the AI. I think the study-sim aspect of Falcon lends its self much better to co-op than it does head to head. The environment of the campaign also lends itself to very organized and well-planned play. People taking several hours for one mission, from the briefing to landing back at the airbase, is not unheard of. Some squadrons take it to the nth degree and use proper brevity code, overhead breaks, formation landing, etc. The AI in Falcon is still ultimately AI, but the missions you fly can be very, very difficult. There's absolutely nothing easy about flying an OCA mission on the harder difficulties in a "2010" campaign. It can be near suicidal, in fact.

 

My two cents on MP is that what Grimes described is one of the many reasons I don't play flight sims multiplayer. Understand, I don't really play anything multiplayer anymore (I play a MMORPG, but I primarily play that solo or with my wife), but if I did it wouldn't be a flight sim. If I wanted head to head MP kicks, a flight sim would be the last place I would look. First of all, Its simply not what I'm looking to get out of it. I don't want to associate that hobby with ANYTHING stressful or competitive. Second of all, as Grimes described with TF2, there are so many games that are designed from the ground up as MP games. I'd rather play something like TF or even an actual Quake game for MP over a flight simulator!

[thereminqblank]

I don't think that this issue is a result of the types of missions that have been created for the servers and, no offence to you guys, but I just don't think it's something that you're going to be able to change.

 

I just think it's a typical behavioural thing that can be seen in pretty much all multiplayer games – FPS, strategy, whatever. I’m not sure what urges someone not to play as a team in Lock On, but it could be one or more of the following:

 

1.No mic/no Teamspeak or Ventrilo - Whenever I join a game, I make sure Teamspeak is running, but most of the time I’m the only one on the Teamspeak server, even if there’s 20 people in the Lock On server.

2.Possible language barrier

3.The ‘glory factor’ someone mentioned earlier – ie just there for the frags

4.There’s a possibility that a lot of people join a game to wind down by playing for an hour or two, so don’t want to get into a co-ordinated game.

5.Can’t be bothered

 

Just a couple of suggestions:

 

a)I’ve never joined the SimHQ ArmA server, but read some of the posts about it over on their forums, and it looks like when you join the server during the evenings (US time) and don’t announce yourself on their TS server, you pretty much get booted. Simply because they want to run a co-ordinated game. A similar approach could be taken, but I’m not sure how many people you’d end up with in the server.

b)Run something similar to Black Sea Showdown. Choose a currently circulated map on your server, or create a new one, and announce a two or three hour time slot when you’re going to run a co-ordinated match. Invite people to join TS, say, an hour before the match is to begin. It doesn’t have to be on a massive level. Even if you get 20 people involved, that should still provide a pretty good game. However, I’m not sure how well this would work without a bit of prior registration and planning.

 

[/novel]

[golfsierra2]

Maybe programming the server to post a message at a specific time...

"The Blue team has launched a cruise missile towards the Red Spawn!"

"A Red CSAR helicopter has been spotted near WP3"

and of course actually putting a few AI in there so the lonely pilot who investigates gets rewarded.

 

That is an excellent idea ! So the players get some guidance about the mission objectives time after time without the need to read a lengthy mission briefing. Displaying those messages would provide quite some useful 'steering' of the activities going on.

 

I like this idea very much !

[golfsierra2]

I think this discussion is important regarding how missions are being made.

 

And as a second vital point how they are 'moderated'.

[Boberro]

I read your post and hope understood. First I would like to begin Lock on isn't simulator. It is arcade style game, hope all knows how much unrealistic it is, so I won't remind this. Also multiplayer modes are very poor, by that people also don't plan ect. As somebody mentioned here we don't have assignments, example one key with 2 wingmens or 3 whatever. I more and more often play on 169th with my polish friends and we're planning what to do, example last time we flew me as 25T and they as 5 escorst and we kill RED S-300 and Maykop. But to this often is required closer relationship between people. Summing up in my opinion most fault are poor multiplayer model and poor FC "realism" (I don't talk about 25T FM). It is my 2 cents.

[Shaman]

51 PVO is looking for challenge this April!

 

moved to: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=464010&postcount=16