Who can ever forget the epic battle shown at the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring? Sauron the Maiar was able to wipe out hosts of men and elves in a single swing. So terrible and powerful was he that he single handedly kept the armies of the last alliance at bay.
And yet…
There is a balance. Because what most people don’t realize is that the power of Sauron seemed great only in relation to his foes. Some time in the past, the host of Numenor – mortal men – no elves, so overwhelmed Sauron and his allies – when Sauron was at his peek, that they were able to take him prisoner (this didn’t end well for Numenor in the long run).
And before then…
The half-elf, Luthien’s guardian companion, Huan, single handedly defeated Sauron in combat. Single. Handedly. Huan was, essentially, a dog. How’s that for humiliating?
A single elf nearly crippled Morgoth in single combat. Morgoth is to Sauron what Sauron is to Aragorn. Morgoth was a Valar, an entire order beyond what Sauron was. Practically a god.
The point being is that you don’t have to cripple the champions to make the soldiers you train relatively powerful. The challenge is balance. And it is, to be certain, a significant challenge.
In the world of Elemental…
In the picture above, on the left, is Resana. She is the Empress of Krax. A Level 6 Channeler. She is quite mighty but only a wisp of what she will become later. Next to her is a party of Krax Legionaires. In Beta 5-B, they take 8 seasons to train (in Beta 5-A, the current public one, they’d take 17 turns to train). In 1 on 1 combat, Resana would win unless the Legionaires got lucky in combat (critical hits). But if there were two parties of them, she’d lose.
What changed?
What made training units unpleasant was that unless they were total junk, they took a long time to train. The equipment and skills were simply adding far too much training time. Why bother researching all this great tech if you couldn’t build it? So a considerable amount of time was spent relooking at how much equipment and traits should cost.
Another big change has to do with loot. This is something we will be working more on. But in previous betas, it was common (literally) to find high end weapons very quickly – just laying around.
What we are moving towards, instead, is where you find cool loot early on but it’s not nearly as over powering. Your sovereign and champions start out with fairly low grade weapons (8 attack). It’s a bit de-balancing to simply luck out and find a 12 attack +4 speed weapon. That’s a 50% increase in raw damage not to mention a 25% improvement in initiative.
So instead, Resana finds interesting weapons with trade-offs. A Iron War Hammer that does 12 attack (yay) but weighs a lot (slowing her down) and lowers her initiative. It makes her tougher in battle (she is doing more damage after all) but it also means she’d need troops to keep herself from getting swarmed. That’s just one example.
Powerful, rare weapons are out there still. But they have to be earned. You won’t just turn over some lost cargo and find a magic broad sword anymore.
The other change we made has to do with hit points. Previously, units gained 4 hit points per level. So by level 10, that’s an additional 40 HP. It doesn’t take long before the trained units become almost irrelevant to the battle because that level 10 champion would have 60 HIP while that newly trained unit might half less than half of that.
The Goal
We do want players who have invested in their champions to be able to win epic battles, single handedly. However, we also want players who invest in building an empire to be able to achieve victory equally effectively. In the early betas, the champions were considered to weak. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. Beta 5-B will be our first pass at bringing balance to this conflict.
99% of the investment in troops is the research costs of the technologies they need, and the cost of making a city have high production, the cost of constructing a fortress with all buildings, and the cost of building and acquiring mines.
If your troops die you don't lose any of that, you can just churn out more troops from your city of equal power to that first one.
You do raise a good point about the immortality of champions though. Their immortality is a rough fix for the fact you cannot properly recruit new ones nor upgrade them in cities. If you lose a level 15 champion you cannot replace him and lost the game. If champions were able to be trained in cities (as level 1) and then you could invest from cities to re-upgrade them, then like troops they could be replaceable via infrastructure (at the cost of a lot of time and effort) and then like troops they should be perma killable.
The problem that still has not been addressed in a real definitive fashion is that champions still snowball to the point where they steamroll the game. Cities do not provide a single thing that is absolutely vital to conquering the world other than a recovery-haven in the case of accidental death. Still. This is the problem that we had before these balance changes, and it is the problem we still have.
In my current game of the current build, my cities have not produced a single thing my champions have vitally required. Everything my cities produce is reinvested back into my cities. Everything my champions harvest from the world is distributed amongst themselves. The two operate utterly autonomously from each other.
THIS IS THE PROBLEM, STARDOCK. YOUR CITIES DON'T DO ANYTHING YOUR SOV/CHAMP NEEDS IN ORDER TO SURVIVE AND WIN THE GAME. THE TROOPS AND RESOURSCES IT CAN MAKE ARE NOT REQUIRED IN ANY WAY AND ONLY FUNCTION TO PRODUCE MORE UNNESSECARY CITIES.
Nothing your cities do or produce are required. Anything your troops can do, your Sov can do better. Until a game mechanic compels me to produce troops, bothering with a city and with produced troops will always be a less efficient way to play than simply soloing the world with your sovereign.
Some easy things you could do to make champions more reliant on cities are.
-Add a line of shop improvements that are required to purchase items, are upgradeable to get higher tech items, and increase selling prices.
-Reduce champion regeneration. Have a hospital improvement that boosts garrisoned units regeneration.
-Increase experience curve and make the adventure's guild into a line of improvements, that would grant a experience boosting trait to champions, increase champion strategic movement, decrease rough terrain penalties, and as now grant experience to garrisoned units.
Maybe introduce a line of improvements that champions must visit in order to actually spend their accumulated XP and gain their levels.
The thing is, that is still not compelling me to train units, only forcing me to build a city to unlock the win-buttons for my god-sov. I don't need troops, when my sov is perfectly capable of demolishing the world single handedly. There needs to be some enemies out there that are a legitimate threat to your soverign but that your troops have means to fight. The previously mentioned swarm/flanking traits for mass troops to overwhelm solo troops would help a lot.
As you noted the cost / benefit ratio of troops is extremely bad in the early game due not so much to the resources invested, but the time (in both production and research queues); whereas champions are relative powerhouses right out the door. I believe this is intended, to help generate the feeling of personally growing an empire, and capture the essence of both rpg and strategy game. However this underlying separation in mechanics never truly converges. Although the construction of more efficient cities does indeed help balance out the value of troops in the mid and end strategy games, the rgp snowballs unimpeded from day one: by the time troops become viable they are entirely unnecessary. The rpg is broken. Although superhuman, the whole reason to raise an army is because a champion's motives are out of reach for just one MORTAL. Currently, there is practically no potential loss to putting all of one's investments into champions, and foregoing this strategy game entirely. Immortals need nothing - the only reason to settle a city at all is for a re-spawn point. Giving champions all the attributes of a regular troop would just destroy the rpg even more.
"I suggest that Sovereigns become the only champions which cannot be lost - all other champions leaving their faction after the second and third injuries to explore the world under AI control, from a random location near where they were defeated, until hired again (free, to both kingdoms and empires). Four wounds equals death, creating a goodie-hut on the tile where the champion fell full of their equipment (and potentially fertile ground proportionate to their power?). Healing an injury should naturally extend a champion's life; lives which would become much more commonly protected and accompanied by support squads. Imagine how much less daring (yet no less powerful) that second champion would be after their first injury; and how much of an impact it would have on the story if one actually fell, only to then have a city flourish around their grave."
More...
Champions are in need of nothing because they are immortal; and as re-spawn points any city is already able to produce them on day one. If they could be lost like cities, towns and armies would be constructed to support their endeavours.
Four wounds = Death sounds great, but there's no reason to recycle all of the champion's equipment. Currently there's more than enough good equipment in a given game and equipment has far more of an impact on champion power than levels do. Maybe give any given piece a small chance to be recycled into the goodie hut, or create a new lair/dungeon based on the level of the slain champion that has appropriate rewards.
Quoting cardinaldirection, reply 107If they could be lost like cities, towns and armies would be constructed to support their endeavours.
Only if there are things in the world that are a legitimate threat to the champions that can only be dealt with via support from troops provided by a city. Just "your champions can perma-die" isn't going to compel everyone to build cities. Some people maybe, but for a lot of people it will just compel them to save & reload their game a lot more.
There will be no real reason to play the city-side of the game until the game presents challenges and obstacles only the city can solve. Period. Currently there are none. The entire world can be swept aside and conquered by your sov.
Give me a compelling game mechanic to build a city, and I'll build it. Give me a compelling reason to build troops rather than simply demolish everything with my sov, and I'll build them.
This. Game. Currently. Has. Neither.
The notion of losing a prized champion doesn't compel you to protect it with support troops, which can only be produced by a city?
I must assume that you don't play with the Spell of Making as well?
We agree that there needs to be more of an incentive to play the strategy game, it is actually quite fun. The problem is that there is nothing deterring the player from focusing solely on the rpg, no feeling of impending doom urging the creation of civilizations. Every champion is an immortal god, the benefits of impermanent societies will simply never be able to compare. The game would actually be both more fun and challenging if champions were mortal.
A new victory condition could be introduced which requires that a faction grow to a certain size population. Is this not the point of the game; it would certainly entice the development of cities (and the raising of opponents').
Read these bullets for a few more ideas if you haven't already.
To be honest, as long as you're not foolish in the early game, "losing" a champion is very unlikely, even with no cities for them to respawn at. If you're careful early on, pick and choose your targets until you get some good early-game loot, and play cautious for a little while, you can progress to the point where dying is little to no concern for all but the biggest drake/dragon armies surprisingly early on.
Even when I do bother settling cities, like my current game, I don't make troops until the end game when I have researched chain/plate and only then because I'm bored and want the extra units to expedite mopping up the world. I settle a city and my sov & 1 champ set off into the wilderness to begin the slaughter and rarely ever come home because they never need to. They get everything they need from the wilderness, and I never need to protect them with support troops. By the time I could make some, they are thoroughly and soundly weaker than the champions.
I have played with the Spell of Making, it's no real challenge to either destroy all the AI factions or complete the master quest before the AI has a chance to cast it.
I think there needs to be monsters at all stages of the game -- early, mid, late -- that are best suited to being killed by mass troops, not single champions. Until that happens, there is simply no compelling reason to make troops, and until there is a compelling reason to make troops there is no compelling reason to bother with cities.
I guess I find it hard to believe that your strategy wouldn't change if champions weren't permanent. It would definitely make them more a part of the strategy game, and less the focus of the entire game.
That being said, moving the first champion a player meets farther away from their starting location may actually alleviate this issue quite a bit!
Imho, there is another solution that should be considered, which is further nerfing heroes. I think Cogburn really nails it with this comment:
But having champions dying is one solution, not the only solution.
I would propose that champions get nerfed further, to such a degree that they are simply unable to take on the mid- and late-game monsters on their own. This creates a dependence on cities for two reasons. First, your lower level means the gear you'll be getting is the gear you research (cities) and buy (gildar). Second, without trained troops (cities) you'll simply be unable to clear the stronger monsters. If you can't clear them, you are not making land available, you are not collecting the magical rewards from their lairs, you are not getting across that barrier to the higher levels.
XP was nerfed in 0.980 by about 25%, then slightly nerfed again in 0.981 by another 3-4%. I would suggest nerfing it further down by another 50% of its current value. More if needed.
Because the intent of the devs is to have champions be able to "fight like Sauron" on the battlefield, we also need to increase the difficulty of all the monsters. We should be Sauron when fighting other factions. But against the dragons in the world, a god is a small thing.
Anyway, that's how I would approach the issue. It seems a rather good way to bring exponential growth of champions into line with the pacing of your empire.
Edit: Such a system would also be dependent on XP gained from fighting monsters suffering diminishing returns if they are not difficult to fight. If I'm fighting level 1 mites with my level 6 warrior in chainmail, I should be getting exactly 0 xp.
Nerfing champions into oblivion would NOT achieve brads vision where the player chooses to invest in one or the other and where playing "sauron" is a viable path.
It would merely mean that champions are useless and only cities matter.
Heroes are not dependent on empire development. Heroes progress on their own. The solution I proposed changes that. In order to effectively build your heroes, you should need to spend resources to do that. Without such a solution, there's no way to equalize the progress of heroes with the progress of your empire.
Without binding them together (empire+heroes), there is no choice at all to make because a player can always pursue both.
perhaps a simpler solution to the lack of need for troops could be that each attack by a hero/single unit can only kill ONE member of a multi-unit eg those packs of mites often have three/five members in each of the two/three units(3 health) in the mite armies, so a single hero would take between six and fifteen attacks to kill one mite army assuming curgen's hammer(50 attack) as the weapon in the hero's hand( and at present it is two or three attacks as it each group that gets crushed by the attack), while the mites are doing between six and fifteen attacks of 1-2 on the hero, but with a army of a hero+ two 5 explorers with their 5 damage sticks(each) against the three five unit mites(with their 2 damage sticks) unless all the mites focus on the hero and the explorers are too far away(highly unlikely)(15*2 against a 6 defense 15 health hero and 0 defense 5 attack explorer) would leave each of the units in the hero army battered, but alive.
and I have a vague recollection of a similar suggestion from BEFORE the beta ie each member of each unit has to be killed seperately and can not be mass killed except from AOE attacks like fireball,firedart(perhaps), blizzard, avalanche, flash flood, lightening mega-strike or tornado.
I realise that it is unlikely to get into the game since the feature lockdown, but should have been tried during the beta 1 & 2.
harpo
As I have explicitly pointed out, yes.
You solution was to half their XP gain, that in no way shape or form addresses the issue at hand.
I have pointed out in my wall of text various methods in which this can actually be solved, by making heroes dependent on cities for advancement or armies on harvesting monsters or both.
That way there is an opportunity cost and a choice.
Perhaps you didn't read my post. I am quite clear on how exactly the solution adresses the problem. Nerf heroes, boost monsters, make heroes dependent on cities (research, gildar, troops). What's missing?
Then you have a choice:
Either:
heroes gain XP too fast to the point where city strategies are not viable.
OR
heroes gain XP too slow to the point where you must rely on cities to be viable.
Maybe the soluton of Brad's vision just isn't realisable. Finding a common ground where heroes gain just enough XP that they need troops to support them in their endeavors seems to be the correct solution. Yes, this means Sauron isn't going to be smashing...at least not until very late levels. Wait a minute! Sauron WAS a high level villain! Sure, once he was a mere foot soldier, but everyone has to start off somewhere.
Therefore, Brad's vision can be realized....it's just a matter of WHEN in the game it is to be realized.
Just my thoughts...
The balance between heros and troops?
Nerf experience either doesnt work: as you said it has already been tried, my heros progress slower, I still dont need troops tho. I also have more boring drops, less cool stuff. Still no more troops.
It works to make heros useless. As I understand what you said:
1. Basically heros cant defeat any mid or high monsters on there own they have been made harder, nor can they farm low lvls for XP. They get stuck at lvl 3 or 4 or something.
2. They then need troops to take monsters. And need research to access kit in cities, and money to buy it from cities.
Correct?
THe following flows from that - Troops must therefore be good enough to actively help kill mid or high level monsters.
Then why do troops need heros? Heros kitted out with research tree equipment will have the same stuff ie same weapon, same armor, as your troops do, only theres only one hero per unit and multiple troops in a unit and multiple troop units in a stack.
Hero with less HPs and the same kit as troops equals Hero is stuck with a mage/support only role. Not a warrior role. Couple this with the low lvl and random lvl up perks and you find that you have a hero that doesnt have any magic or support stuff.
THis means hero really isnt needed at all.
How do heros 'Sauron'?
You have to take them with you in cotton wool at back, win battles with troops to lvl up. Again have to choose support or mage, and have to have lucky perks come up. Dont forget you have no troop ordering in battle, unlucky hero get put in the front and take an opening barrage from monster and dies?
I see what you mean leroy105.
To sum up the changes I proposed above:1) Nerf hero xp by about 50%. Also introduce diminishing return on XP from killing low-level enemies so the player can't farm them endlessly to reach higher levels over a longer period of time2) Increase the strength of mid- and late-game monsters
Heroes are meant to be strong, just not invincible. What I'm trying to achieve is making the progression of heroes more closely tied to that of the progression of your empire. In addition to support troops, you'll also require gear to be actually bought from cities and spells to be researched. Depending on Gildar to be bought, Mana income and Research to unlock spells/gear there is then a way to invest in heroes to allow them to grow. The trade-off is against troops - I can also choose not to collect so much taxes, build troops and have them be the base of my military power instead.
At the start of a game, a hero should be able to take on the easy stuff like mites, darklings, black widows and perhaps a banished ogre. As they grow in strength, they'll maybe even be able to take on a troll. But they don't get infinite XP from farming these low-difficulty enemies. They get a few levels and that's it. The gear is bad.
In order to progress to the next level of difficulty in monsters, they now depend on the progress of the empire. Support troops, spells, items, outposts. And so on.
So where are we at when we reach the end of act 1 (exploration/clearing)? Mid-game heroes are simply not able to win fights against monsters on their own, but each hero is still worth several units of troops when fighting factions.
Reading my suggestions I think
1) It is not possible within the current system to have such careful balancing of monsters and when you can kill them. What if a player simply groups up all his units at one place? Yes there is army size, but still, 4 champions in one place is going to be a lot stronger than 1 champion and a spearman unit.
2) It doesn't sound very fun to play. If the heroes are TOO dependent on empire progress, it will remove a lot of the RPG feeling currently in the game
Still, Cogburn was exactly right when he said that heroes require nothing from your cities to progress. There has to be a workable solution to that.
I have some suggestion to be considered for improving balance in heroes/troops/monsters. I'm sorry if added some other questions too.
- Heroes leveling up. As the problem is that they grow too powerfull, even if XP gain is nerfed, I suggest this: making the stats growing as a selectable trait. You want a mage? Then, chose magic but no health/attack/etc. improves. You want more healt/attack? Then chose it, instead of other traits. No interesting traits? Then, lets got for health/attack. This can make heroes customization more interesting, variated, and will not become so much powerfull. Mages will rely on magic, with a lot of less stats. Warriors/assassins will have to decide if improve basic stats or select a proper trait. Governors...that is the same: want more stats? then no governing traits. And vice-versa. Governing heroes should give interesting city bonus traits (like +attack/defence trained troops, or resources, or unrest), that makes a excuse good enough to retire them from battle. The Path selection at level 5 is good, and in this case, it could add the stats improvement also, like a "reward". By the way, I miss a Path of the archer too....
I think that on this way, heroes grow up according to player desire (and traits presented), but not so OP. And heroes must now rely more on research to buy better gear, and in troops for keeping them alive.
Does everybody agree in making heroes inmortal, even with the negative traits when they "die" (let's say fall, instead)? As said in other posts, I prefer they may have a chance of real death, instead of always a negative trait. Keeping negative traits is good idea, but as a chance, like saying: "omg, gangrene...but at least, my hero didn't die". Heroes should die, and so should allow a way to recruiting new ones, like a spell of Hero Calling. This spell might go in the Hero research tree, so as better hero recruiting tech, a better Hero Calling. Lots of mana needed for this spell, of course...and maybe a Cooldown to re-use. Or even better: a one use-only, like a scroll instead of a spell, but still requiring mana. That means only 3 hero calling (on level 5, 7 and 9 if I can remember). A good way to replace fallen heroes, or to get new ones if can't find more...With nerfed heroes, probably more will fall, and die. The dodge could be a way to determine real death. And a random in % of negative traits could be introduced. A base + % random, for example: -10% + random% at a skill, instead always a 25%. The random could be determined by the dodge or other skill.
- Troops. I still think the problem for troops is in the Warfare tech tree. It is too closed and straight, not allowing customization. And it takes a lot of research to get the improvements, and to research techs not interested to arrive to the interested. I talk about it in https://forums.stardock.com/432978 With a more open Warfare tech tree, allowing to choose between different attack/defense/mounts/training branches since the begining, it can help in developing customized troops, depending on personal wishes and in the available resources. And AI can focus on some of those branches (like Tarth-archers). Lowering production costs for basic items will help to start basic trooping earlier. After all, if heroes are nerfed in some way, troops at early game will be more important now. Everybody say that at early game, while researching and developing, we can use heroes to make quests and farming. If heroes are nerfed (and they MUST be nerfed), what will we do on the first 50 turns, but pressing Turn-turn-turn...?
- Monsters. If heroes are nerfed like I said, maybe is not necessary too much tune on this. Anyway, I find interesting this idea: Monsters should grow XP, and increase levels as turns goes by. For example, +1 level every 20/30 turns. This allow to get more challenge in later game... The random generated monsters should have leveling upon time too... Combining this with the previous hero nerfing, that might make troops a must have...
- Magic. I find this issue: how is it possible to cast in strategic map as many spells as mana allows? There should be some kind of limit to this... But turning to the magic balance... I think in magic as interdependant or complementary. Many opinions read about magic: from total magic fans, to magic haters. I think that to balance magic, first should balance the previous issues, and then, focus in magic will be easier. Of course, the power of spells must be controlled somehow... I think that Magic Tech tree should be tuned, in the style of the proposed in the Warfare: attack branch, defence branch, mana branch, hero branch, building branch. That can allow a real complement to the Warfare Tree, to the Civics Tree for resources, and to the hero researching.
- Cities. I read a post about how to control excessive number of cities, and big bonus that they can give. I think an easy way to do that is via UNREST penalities. Unrest in far cities should give many penalities to production, and even a bigger chance to rebel. So if you want that far shard, or crystal, or whatever resource, think in having many troops to get less unrest, and/or build a lot of buildings that reduce unrest,...or just build a fragile outpost. That will make troops a must have in expansion games. Many of us want to expand, as it is the only way to avoid enemy expansion after all... but it would give a way to control that expansion, with less productive and more problematic cities.
Speaking of cities, why not thinking in putting independent cities in the world? With their defences, and their growing upon time... It is a source of quests too. it's just another idea.
The opportunity cost where a player chooses to focus on boosting a hero OR focus on boosting his armies.
Making heroes depend on troops because they can't solo is NOT making them dependent on cities. Its making them useless while only armies count.
It makes more sense to make them DIRECTLY dependent on cities as I suggested by eliminating XP gain from killing enemies and instead acquiring XP and powerups via research, shopping, construction, sacrifice, etc. Or making armies capable of harvest (take a share of XP and convert it to research).
I don't think you understand.
I don't even recruit the first champion.
I kill every monster, wildland and opposing faction in the game with just my sovereign, never founding a city or recruiting a champion.
Literally every facet of the game aside from the sovereign is optional and quite often less efficient.
I personally do that too. I say "champions" because some people use a super stack instead of a sov solo.
But I personally prefer to use a sov solo.
I still PLAY the city game... its just that by the time I won the game with my sov the best unit I can field is a horse riding spearmen wearing leather armor. Aka, useless. So I never actually field any units.
I do recruit champions though so that I can cast steal spirit on them... om nom nom delicious souls.
If you scaled XP wsy down I will still play both games, the sov might be useless now or they might both be useful, but playing both is the only option because there is no opportunity cost. Using my sov or perhaps champions does not in any way slow down my city development. Using my cities does not in any way shape or form slow down my sov development.
Oh, and my sov always takes percipone's crown for 0 upkeep so he can stack all spells for great win. I don't use any mana, I do melee, eventually I get celerity and use up all my mana on that. That there is actually an opportunity cost since I could have converted said mana to gold to buy buildings to get research faster.
I don't believe the solution lies in striking a perfect balance where heroes gain "enough" xp that they can just precisely defeat some of the content while needing some troops from the cities to help them defeat the rest. There are vastly too many variables in the game to even attempt this, and it is flatly not worth while to even waste time on it. Which perks you take during sov creation, how many shards you get, how fast your research is, the monster density you play on (this is a big one), faction traits, if you are offered/take potential I/II/III, can you cast tutelage, how much xp you can "farm" from opposing factions... XP is not where the game can or should be balanced.
Game mechanics are the easiest and best way to force the player's hand on viable strategy and necessary tactics. Currently there are units with the trait 'overpower' where they do tons of damage to masses of troops. Flip the table and make units that have a 'swarm' trait that allows them to combine attacks against single models. Instead of a group of models doing 5x6 atk (easy to shrug off with armor) let them do 1x30, or hell even 5x30 against a single model like a champ/sov.
Stardock, put things in the game that your sov has reason to fear and throw fodder at. Make traits for troops that allow them to force adjacent enemy units to attack them. Have lairs send out raiding parties to cities so that we must garrison them. Make lairs have a shitload of units in them that are easy enough to kill solo but will wear down a sov/champ over time. Stop having every piece of equipment and gear a sov needs drop from goodie huts & lairs. Make some of the best items in the game things that you can research and produce at cities. Let us build buildings that allow us to add unique weapons to a city's production queue. Make us research spells! MAKE CITIES PROVIDE TANGIBLES THAT ARE NESSECARY TO WINNING THE GAME, THAT ARE REQUIRED TO EVEN SURVIVING IN THE WORLD. Right now my Sov is a self sufficient golden god of war because the goodie huts and lairs of the world hold everything he needs and the monsters of the world can be defeated strictly by the things he can do.
Fix. That. Problem.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
