Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.

  • @Sweltering-Nick

    I need to debunk this "exploits have to be benefitial" because that is the oxford definition of the word exploit, its getting annoying.

    So because I am a researcher I like to look at different sources and references to find a more concrete summary of information, aplicable to an especific situation, for that matter I will look into the term exploit in the following definitions:

    1. "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)" - Oxford dictionary

    2. "Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand." - Oxford dictionary

    3. "An exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers." - Developing online games, Jessica Mulligan.

    4. "Exploits: The player uses mechanics put in by the developer to circumvent the gameplay." - Gamasutra on Gameplay Loop-holes.

    And a small side definition for griefing in relation to exploits:

    1. "While players more frequently exploit issues to gain advantage for themselves, sometimes they may use them instead to irritate other players, known as griefing." - Wikipedia (uncertain source)

    Lets go one by one, and dissect what is their relation to the issue I'm bringing up.

    For 1, the term has more to do with a resource than the context of a system, the example listed for this one is "a new technology" being exploited to produce benefit from its use. This doesn't mean, of course that it can't be linked to the envionment of videogames, as it was correctly pointed out, using certain exploits can cause great benefit for the user, however in the broader sense of online games, having a benefit usually entails causing an negative to someone else like:

    • being stuck behind a wall, able to fire at people but not being fired at in overwatch.
    • duplicating items in mmo's causing economical inflations, like the infamous The Elder Scrolls Online dumping problems with the banks.

    So just because someone derives a benefit doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for other people, and in the issue I presented, the negative may be for both parties (loot is unretriavable). Even so, this definition doesn't really fit the exploit I presented so let's go over the other ones.

    For 2, using a situation for an unfair underhanded tactic, is more or less what making loot unretriavable creates, as players have the ever present possibility to deny others of loot in a very simple manner, given that the player has to be able to maintain his distance long enough to sink beyond the barrier, while people trying to prevent that will have to do an extra efford, on a time limit, to first stop them, or else the loot simply is taken out of play. As there is no natural mechanics in the normal play area to destroy loot or make loot unretriavable, it is questionable if an object outside the play area, somewhere players aren't supposed to be, can be considered a fair intended tactic for loot disposal.

    For 3, a definition in context of videogames, basically states that if its not in the developers intent, it is an exploit. Now how can losing loot be considered an advantageous bug? Well as most here have pointed out, having a way of ending chases without giving loot to anyone. There is however a way to do that in the game, but securing the loot to yourself instead, which is using any one of the 6 outposts scattered around the world, and since the chasers get nothing on both cases, the party that is not deriving any sort of gain is them, meaning that of course, the runners get the end of a pvp encounter and can return to their sailing until the next time they find someone. However it is clear that one way is intended and the other isn't, as mentioned before, due to how the barrier mechanic is obtuse in nature for the singular purpose of preventing players of swimming endlessly into nowhere, since they aren't supposed to be there, and the colateral effect of having loot be dumped there is just as obtuse.

    For 4, circumventing gameplay is more in line with shortcuts or level skips, however it could be aplicable to imply that using the barrier exploit circumvents theft, which is one of the gameplay elements of sea of thieves. This definition is slightly more apropriate to define this exploit.

    And finally 5, I threw around the word griefing, but I imagined the situation where someone holds on to a fort key from another crew's succesful fort raid, this person has the ability to make that key unretriavable, this would cause irritation and frustration on the enemy crew, due to how it would be impossible to retrieve the key once the exploit was performed. Engaging in pvp is not griefing, even chasing people can't really be considered griefing due to how that is not an exploit of any game mechanic, however spawn camping is griefing, since players are forced to spawn in their ship, if you keep the ship alive and watch the known respawn places, you are abusing a mechanic in a way unintended by the devs, so much so that the devs have directly stated how to deal with such a situation using the scuttle mechanic. In any case, a fort key can't be sold at an outpost, and their intended use is for the door, it can be not used at the door, but that is a simple choise and other crews have a right to disagree, however making the key permanently lost is only possible through the use of the barrier exploit, hence it could be considered griefing. Not just rare key items can be used for this example, but also regular items, stealing them from players without any intent on delivering them to outposts only to merely throw them beyond the barrier exploit.

    In the end, this should clarify once and for all, that this is an exploit, please I didn't need to do this, but most of you seem to have a hard time looking beyond the first google search result.

  • exploit in games are ultimately defined by player population and dev response TO their opinion.
    vast majority agrees its not an exploit, thus its not

    exploits are subjective to the user and owner. Users say it is not, owners do what users want.

    if it is an exploit - then being able to kill your own animals when you are losing a fight is also an exploit and needs fixing...

  • @urihamrayne said in Fix Red Sea exploit - teleport the loot back into the play area.:

    @madfingerer the quote served its purpose to highlight what is the devs intent of where the loot is intended to be in the game: fluctuating player hands or in an outpost. It wasn't debunked. You need to try harder if you want to counter the solid points made in the thread.

    Also I didn't make any personal attacks to anyone, so my integrity here highlights my intent to help the game, while your distructive behaviour shows the necessity for change.

    If loot is intended to be either in players' hands or at an outpost, why can loot sink and despawn in the water, and despawn eventually on islands?

    At best, shouldn't floating loot get carried with a 'current' and wash up at a nearby island? At worst, shouldn't it continue to float right where it hit the water? Shouldn't loot stashed at an island never despawn?

  • @lotrmith I think its a logistical problem, since servers are meant to be persistent and always online, eventually islands where people could spam objects would become full of items, like someone doing a merchant cheese would have 2 million coops in the dock.

    I don't dislike that items despawn after a certain time, I think its around 4 ingame days that they stay on islands and 10 minutes floating in the water, its plenty of time for anyone to find the items and deliver them to outposts.

    If I were to suggest a change I would do something in line with what you said: Loot floating in the water slowly moves towards the nearest non-stronghold non-outpost island until it lands in the beach, from that point it will take the usual time to despawn as any other item. It is a possible alternative to my fix of the barrier exploit.

  • @urihamrayne said in Fix Red Sea exploit - teleport the loot back into the play area.:

    @Sweltering-Nick

    I need to debunk this "exploits have to be benefitial" because that is the oxford definition of the word exploit, its getting annoying.

    So because I am a researcher I like to look at different sources and references to find a more concrete summary of information, aplicable to an especific situation, for that matter I will look into the term exploit in the following definitions:

    1. "Make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource)" - Oxford dictionary

    2. "Make use of (a situation) in a way considered unfair or underhand." - Oxford dictionary

    3. "An exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers." - Developing online games, Jessica Mulligan.

    4. "Exploits: The player uses mechanics put in by the developer to circumvent the gameplay." - Gamasutra on Gameplay Loop-holes.

    And a small side definition for griefing in relation to exploits:

    1. "While players more frequently exploit issues to gain advantage for themselves, sometimes they may use them instead to irritate other players, known as griefing." - Wikipedia (uncertain source)

    Lets go one by one, and dissect what is their relation to the issue I'm bringing up.

    For 1, the term has more to do with a resource than the context of a system, the example listed for this one is "a new technology" being exploited to produce benefit from its use. This doesn't mean, of course that it can't be linked to the envionment of videogames, as it was correctly pointed out, using certain exploits can cause great benefit for the user, however in the broader sense of online games, having a benefit usually entails causing an negative to someone else like:

    • being stuck behind a wall, able to fire at people but not being fired at in overwatch.
    • duplicating items in mmo's causing economical inflations, like the infamous The Elder Scrolls Online dumping problems with the banks.

    So just because someone derives a benefit doesn't mean it doesn't cause problems for other people, and in the issue I presented, the negative may be for both parties (loot is unretriavable). Even so, this definition doesn't really fit the exploit I presented so let's go over the other ones.

    For 2, using a situation for an unfair underhanded tactic, is more or less what making loot unretriavable creates, as players have the ever present possibility to deny others of loot in a very simple manner, given that the player has to be able to maintain his distance long enough to sink beyond the barrier, while people trying to prevent that will have to do an extra efford, on a time limit, to first stop them, or else the loot simply is taken out of play. As there is no natural mechanics in the normal play area to destroy loot or make loot unretriavable, it is questionable if an object outside the play area, somewhere players aren't supposed to be, can be considered a fair intended tactic for loot disposal.

    For 3, a definition in context of videogames, basically states that if its not in the developers intent, it is an exploit. Now how can losing loot be considered an advantageous bug? Well as most here have pointed out, having a way of ending chases without giving loot to anyone. There is however a way to do that in the game, but securing the loot to yourself instead, which is using any one of the 6 outposts scattered around the world, and since the chasers get nothing on both cases, the party that is not deriving any sort of gain is them, meaning that of course, the runners get the end of a pvp encounter and can return to their sailing until the next time they find someone. However it is clear that one way is intended and the other isn't, as mentioned before, due to how the barrier mechanic is obtuse in nature for the singular purpose of preventing players of swimming endlessly into nowhere, since they aren't supposed to be there, and the colateral effect of having loot be dumped there is just as obtuse.

    For 4, circumventing gameplay is more in line with shortcuts or level skips, however it could be aplicable to imply that using the barrier exploit circumvents theft, which is one of the gameplay elements of sea of thieves. This definition is slightly more apropriate to define this exploit.

    And finally 5, I threw around the word griefing, but I imagined the situation where someone holds on to a fort key from another crew's succesful fort raid, this person has the ability to make that key unretriavable, this would cause irritation and frustration on the enemy crew, due to how it would be impossible to retrieve the key once the exploit was performed. Engaging in pvp is not griefing, even chasing people can't really be considered griefing due to how that is not an exploit of any game mechanic, however spawn camping is griefing, since players are forced to spawn in their ship, if you keep the ship alive and watch the known respawn places, you are abusing a mechanic in a way unintended by the devs, so much so that the devs have directly stated how to deal with such a situation using the scuttle mechanic. In any case, a fort key can't be sold at an outpost, and their intended use is for the door, it can be not used at the door, but that is a simple choise and other crews have a right to disagree, however making the key permanently lost is only possible through the use of the barrier exploit, hence it could be considered griefing. Not just rare key items can be used for this example, but also regular items, stealing them from players without any intent on delivering them to outposts only to merely throw them beyond the barrier exploit.

    In the end, this should clarify once and for all, that this is an exploit, please I didn't need to do this, but most of you seem to have a hard time looking beyond the first google search result.

    For a researcher, your research certainly isn't thorough... Did you even research the definitions themselves? Yepp, that's a thing. ._.

    Completely removing the objective (the treasure) from the game, is not what anyone considers "making FULL USE of", in fact, it's not making use of a situation at all.

    "make use of
    phrase of use
    1.
    use for a purpose.
    "they made use of a variety of methods in their research"
    benefit from.
    "they were educated enough to make use of further training""

    Your research is shallow... I have finally debunked you for the last time, and proven my point that your arguments are inherently flawed because they are constructed lazily. You're just pushing an agenda based on an emotional bias.

    I believe you have lost credibility, mate.

  • @sweltering-nick

    what are you talking about, there are 4 definitions of exploit citated with their source and a definition of griefing with it's source. You can check the sources yourself, why are you acusing me of not posting the definitions? What are you citing here that expression you posted came out of nowhere? On what basis are you acusing my research of shallowness, are you trolling?

  • @archangel-timmy said in Fix Red Sea exploit - teleport the loot back into the play area.:

    While nothing is truly yours until it hits an outpost (gold/rep), if the items are in ones possession, they get to dictate what happens to those items.

    That's a shifted goal post.

    A lack of explicit documentation/reference on their part isn't confirmation of your opinion though. Most of the specific mechanics of the game are undocumented outside of the company, so to say they didn't address this exact scenario directly somewhere means it wasn't intended is an assumption, an assumption I feel is inaccurate.

    They mention specifically what this mechanic is intended to do: "Beyond the edge you may stray, a fateful end if you stay." They are referencing the edge of the map and that you will sink if you go there. It works very much like every other mechanic of its sort... If you go out of the play area and you stay, you're killed.

    As I've said repeatedly, if the devs meant for there to be a means of getting that "if I can't have it, neither can you" satisfaction, they'd have given a means of accomplishing that inside the play area.

    This post has 13 pages now with people going back and forth, it has been on the front page more than most other discussions, and Rare hasn't acknowledged it one way or the other. By your logic above, since they haven't mentioned it, and surely by now they have at least noticed this discussion, then they do not share your opinion and the barrier functions as expected. That is another assumption and it would be great if they acknowledge this one way or the other.

    There's no reason to believe that, even if they did see this discussion, that they would publicly address it. Even I don't believe this should be the highest priority thing to be fixed. And, unless an exploit, bug, or glitch is so bad as to be considered "game-breaking" - like server dc's and features crashing the servers, no dev in their right mind would address it without first having an idea of how to address it. And, that's only if they decide they want to do something about it. They may very well decide that this is fine. They may also be working on a fix and might announce a fix when it's ready. Neither of us knows.

    Heck, animals can be taken out of play. If a player doesn't want another to have their chicken, they can take it out of play very easily. They should have the same choice with other loot as well. I am sure Rare didn't expect players to board enemy ships and needlessly slaughter their live-stock. It is loot which can be turned in, and the killing benefits neither side, it actually causes grief to one side. But that is a mechanic of the game, a mechanic that Rare didn't come out and say "Hey, we built this into the game because we want you to do it and take the loot out of play".

    The most valuable item for a thief from a Merchant Voyage is the empty cage - unless that cage already has a golden animal in it. Given that the value of animals is so much lower for thieves than for those on the voyage, it makes total sense to allow thieves to kill the animals - it's the only way to swap them out. A white chicken is pretty much worthless to a thief, but the empty cage means they could turn in a golden chicken. So, it makes total sense to allow the killing of animals. It's the only way to swap animals. The same can't be said for chests/skulls.

    And, of course, there is a benefit to the runner. The runner is trying to get the game itself to do something they, themselves, couldn't do: sink their attacker in order to prevent the theft of loot, so that they can have the satisfaction of saying, "If I can't have it, neither can you." And, you can only really gain that satisfaction by taking advantage of the Red Sea Mechanic.

  • @urihamrayne said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    @lotrmith I think its a logistical problem, since servers are meant to be persistent and always online, eventually islands where people could spam objects would become full of items, like someone doing a merchant cheese would have 2 million coops in the dock.

    I don't dislike that items despawn after a certain time, I think its around 4 ingame days that they stay on islands and 10 minutes floating in the water, its plenty of time for anyone to find the items and deliver them to outposts.

    If I were to suggest a change I would do something in line with what you said: Loot floating in the water slowly moves towards the nearest non-stronghold non-outpost island until it lands in the beach, from that point it will take the usual time to despawn as any other item. It is a possible alternative to my fix of the barrier exploit.

    I don't think it's logistics. Servers shut down, restart, or merge often enough that I can't see this ever being a problem. It could only even come close to occurring due to deliberate player action, such as spamming merchant quests, but even that has its limits... you can only roll three quests per person per game 'day', cheesing back when it was possible required coordinating logging in and out.

    All other things already have built in metrics. Islands and shipwrecks that haven't been touched for hours have some loot, but they're not overflowing with riches. There are quite obviously programmed spawn points for objects and maximums set for internal zones (everywhere that can spawn an object has a coded name, ie islands and shipwrecks... that's probably why the unnamed islands don't even have supply barrels.)

    Rather, I believe it is developer intent.

  • Sank myself and a few chests in the red sea last night.

    Felt good denying you

    No fix required

  • Exploit Shmlexploit! (phew)

    The process of what's happening here is no exploit!

    It's a very real, tried and true mechanic that has been employed through-out history!

    It's called the Scorched Earth Policy.

    The enemy(chaser) is relentlessly advancing and our hero(runner), seeing no other alternative, makes the heart wrenching decision to "burn the world down"!

    And whether or not satisfaction is gained by it's employment (which is simply up to our hero to determine - as it was his/her time and effort that placed the treasure aboard their ship)... it's certainly no place for the chaser to cry "don't do the... "If I can't have it neither can you" thing"!

    As the current treasure holder, they can do with it as they wish! If you want it, go EARN IT!

    It didn't get on their ship for FREE, don't expect it to get on yours that way!

  • @zenzuki The out of bounds barrier is an object in the world intended to keep players inside the boundaries of the world, its purpose is not destruction of loot, as it clearly doesn't destroy the loot that passes through it and has it float like everywhere else on the map, however makes it unreachable by anyone due to the barrier's initial purpose, it is a clear oversight.

  • @byf8ththrugrace said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    exploit in games are ultimately defined by player population and dev response TO their opinion.
    vast majority agrees its not an exploit, thus its not

    exploits are subjective to the user and owner. Users say it is not, owners do what users want.

    This is not the way this works at all. Owners do not always do what users want. There are a large number of users that want to get rid of crossplay, or add safe zones, or PvE servers. With some of that, the “owners” have said no.

    if it is an exploit - then being able to kill your own animals when you are losing a fight is also an exploit and needs fixing...

    It’s not an exploit; it’s an exercise in futility. As I said earlier, unless there’s a golden animal in the cage, the most valuable thing to the thief is the cage. And, even if you do kill a golden animal, the thief can use the cage to replace it. You can’t deny a prize to a thief by killing your own animal - more often than not, you’re just saving a thief the time and effort of doing the killing themselves.

  • @gerinako86 Good job :) That's what anyone who tries to steal from me gets: nothing but aggravation and wasted time.

  • @entspeak said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    This is not the way this works at all. Owners do not always do what users want. There are a large number of users that want to get rid of crossplay, or add safe zones, or PvE servers. With some of that, the “owners” have said no.

    No they have not. Optional cross play will likely come due to the overwhelming popularity of the request.
    safe zones and PVE servers can claim no such thing. sure there a tons of threads about it, but most of them get squashed immediatly and do not have much of a following. If there was a post opened for safe zones and 90% of the players wanted it and showed interest, Rare would implement it. regardless of their "vision" for the game, their "actual vision" is to make money and stay relevant. that means you follow what your overwhelming player majority want.
    automatic rifles would be dumb in this game, and thus gain no traction. but hypotethically if the player base magically came together was wanted this, the Devs are not stupid. they will often appeal to the masses and increase profits any day.

    It’s not an exploit; it’s an exercise in futility. As I said earlier, unless there’s a golden animal in the cage, the most valuable thing to the thief is the cage. And, even if you do kill a golden animal, the thief can use the cage to replace it. You can’t deny a prize to a thief by killing your own animal - more often than not, you’re just saving a thief the time and effort of doing the killing themselves.

    you have denied the prize to the thief. the prize is the loot. a cage is semantics-holds zero value. you can get one through spamming any merchant quest or finding them on random islands, which in all reality probably would have been faster than the "chase" that ultimately ended in the person driving off into the Red Sea anyways.

    one faction is not somehow exempt from this supposed "exploit" if it even is an exploit

  • @byf8ththrugrace sagte in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    if it is an exploit - then being able to kill your own animals when you are losing a fight is also an exploit and needs fixing...

    No worries because exactly that will be the next discussion we have about soon after the op opinion would come true.

  • @byf8ththrugrace said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    you have denied the prize to the thief. the prize is the loot. a cage is semantics-holds zero value...

    It has value when you put an animal in it. If you had a white chicken and killed it to deny it to a thief... you think you’ve denied them something when they were most likely gonna kill that chicken anyway and replace it with a golden one? All you did was save them time and, maybe, some bullets.

    Most of the time, a thief is not going to know what's on the ship they are after. We are talking about making the most of what happens to be on the ship when you take it. If it’s animals, kill the animals and take the cages. I’m not saying that a thief is thrilled that the ship they attacked had animals instead of chests, I’m sure the latter would be preferred - definitely worth more. But, when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade.

    one faction is not somehow exempt from this supposed "exploit" if it even is an exploit

    You’re right, they shouldn’t be able to take cages off the map, either.

  • @byf8ththrugrace "you have denied the prize to the thief. the prize is the loot. "

    Your mistake is to think that we are talking only about things that can be sold back to outposts for rewards when I have explicitly said multiple times that this is about ALL items that the game has that includes:

    • Crates
    • Coops
    • Pens
    • Baskets
    • Gunpowder
    • Chests
    • Skulls
    • Fort Keys
    • Trinkets
    • Any other item you can pick up and drop

    It doesn't matter if the item has value or not, if it gets purposely stuck behind a barrier intended to only keep players inside the boundaries of the world, there is an exploit in place, it needs a patch.

  • And all of those I'll continue to sink in the Red Sea

    You are welcome

  • @urihamrayne sagte in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    there is an exploit in place, it needs a patch.

    You can go on to hit the dead horse over and over again but the majority of the players didn't care about your view of the things .

    That's not something to mean rude but it's that what happens here.

  • @byf8ththrugrace
    You are right but better let it go ...
    This discussion is pointless . It's ok that way because everyone have the right for a own opinion.

  • @urihamrayne Have you made a support ticket for the barrier issue? That might actually get the devs looking into that.

  • @entspeak yes I did.

  • @entspeak said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    @urihamrayne Have you made a support ticket for the barrier issue? That might actually get the devs looking into that.

    @urihamrayne said in Fix Red Sea exploit - move the loot back into the play area.:

    @entspeak yes I did.

    Pffffffftt.
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
    alt text
    I can already see it.
    .

    alt text
    Dear Rare,
    You know that area you coded into the game that has a limit? Well you screwed up and didn't make it big enough! The playable area should be infinite. Stop oppressing me with your rules and laws. You should fix this by making the items of value more obtainable to ME! I even quoted an employee that I believe said, no person should not have a say in what they do with their own ship and items aboard it. And, no! I don't want to make any reasonable suggestions or have any other ideas like the border be increased with added damage the farther you go out. I WANT THEIR LOOT AND I WANT IT NOW! I know how to cry exploit as a basis for my tears and expect you to change the way you designed your game.

  • @madfingerer pathetic strawman, try harder.

  • @entspeak no sir lost lost if not reached does not deserve the chests uahauhauh

  • @MadFingerer Please refrain from posts containing callouts against other users, as well as personal attacks. These are violations of our Forum rules, and your post has been removed accordingly.

    Derogatory Language
    Name calling and using derogatory language against Community Members, Rare Employees, Global Moderators or Deckhands will result in a warning, then temporary ban from the Forums and a final warning. If the action is persistent or increasingly aggressive, a permanent ban from the Forums will be issued.

  • I think it's a fair use of the in game mechanics. I'd rather dump my stuff in the sea than see it go to a thief. If you're skilled enough to sink me before I sink you, or if you can prevent my escape, so be it it. If you can keep me from doing the red sea dump, then also so be it.

  • The people that earn Treasure cannot do with it as they please? Nope this should be left in as is.

  • I totally agree with the author. As it is right now, it just make people able to grief.
    For exemple yesterday we fought a galleons and we had like 40 treasure inside ours.. we sank them like 4 times because they just spawned near us and came back every time. We finally ran out of cannon balls and they sank us, the time it took for them to get everything on their ship was the time it took us to come back as well. Seeing us coming they just sailed towards red sea to finally sink the further they were able to go so noone get the loots.

    This red sea just encourage players to flee and die in a way that the game makes it impossible for anyone to get the stuff, not by them hiding it or throwing out to sea, just by dieing in a way that makes it impossible to sail there ...

    Quite frustrating to see the game allowing such griefers

  • @flokiller94 You shouldn't resurrect posts that are months old, the mods will scold you for that.

    But to comment on your reply, You sank a ship 4 times and still didn't think to turn in the loot? Seems like them sailing back to you 4 times should be plenty of time to change course to an outpost and make a stand where you could resupply as well. If they managed to finally sink you after catching you 4 times in a row they earned the right to sink your loot in the red sea.

    I think that loss is on you and your crew, mate.

  • As this thread was 5 months old, and revived today, it will now be locked. Please feel free to start a new discussion on this topic!

    A general reminder to all, please avoid reviving threads aged past 30 days, as it is considered a necro, and is against our forum rules

    Bumping Threads
    Bumping threads with content that is not providing additional information to the original post is not permitted. Resurrecting very old threads is also not permitted. A warning will be issued and the thread locked. Ignoring the warning will result in a temporary ban from the Forums and a final warning. If the action continues, a permanent ban from the Forums will be issued.

487
Posts
156.3k
Views
486 out of 487