Village Revolts

As requested, please find here the opening comment on this contentious subject.

For me, as things stand right now, it is quite simply not working. Whilst there will obviously be a counter-argument that org size plays a major part in things, I beg to differ. For me, a number of things need addressing. I will briefly outline these below for your perusal.

Village feelings: These either need to go completely or provide some other benefit than they currently provide. Sure, it's fun for an org to build up feelings inbetween revolts, but it is my personal opinion that the feelings are just playing too much a part in the eventual outcome.

XP/Essence loss in org owned villages: This needs lowering. Many people are simply fearful about influencing an enemy org village owing to the massive losses. I would considerably lower this loss in said villages.

There's a couple to get the ball rolling.

Discuss.
«1

Comments

  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    I'll repost what I had in the other thread for the sake of it being in one place:

    I'm not sure I like the incumbent counter thing, or making Conquest generate non-pool power, but I really think passive village feelings need a change. Passive feelings gains are way too powerful. Being anything but Benign is just crippling yourself; it's not even a choice. Then you'll probably be Religious for the flavor/power or Conquest for that sweet Conquest pool (Commercial for flavor/comms isn't worth it. I wish it was. It's a tasty flavor.) Sure, you can't directly influence the feelings of a village you hold under Conquest, but a Benign Conquest government does not need to pay any attention to village feelings, because they'll be at max by the time that village revolts again no matter what. Benign is like the EZ Mode of government styles. Why would you be anything else?

    I don't think Benign should get you anything more than level 1 feelings passively. With the way village feelings are now, you just have to cross your fingers and hope no one in the org who owns the village is online when the revolt starts, because level 3 positive feelings are the standard, and they're really hard to beat. If there's a concern then that Conquest would be put at a disadvantage, maybe the current "the more villages you hold, the more other villages will passively respect you" could be changed to "the more villages you hold, the more your villages trust in your power" and a Conquest government with a decent amount of villages held (3+?) could get to level 2 passively in their villages. I don't think level 3 passive feelings should be possible for anyone, under any circumstances.

    (I'm not fond of feelings either. They didn't exist when I first started playing, and I liked it a lot better that way. I know they've helped Hallifax hold some villages for much longer than we would have been able to otherwise cough Rockholm cough but that sucks. I don't care if it sucked in my favorite org's favor. It still sucks! A village shouldn't feel like it "belongs" to one org like that.)
  • I like the idea of just getting rid of village feelings.

     

    It is impractical to enter an enemy village for prolonged periods of times. You have a large number of villages who are designed to be fortresses. You have a permanent distortion field hovering over them, a large portion of the villages can be guarded easily because they only have 1 or 2 entrances and if it is outdoors the entire thing will be littered with annoying statues. And at all times it is the owning org that controls these defenses, not the actual village.

    So non owning orgs have a real hard to nearly impossible time upping their feelings.

     

    And because I do not see them removing or changing village defense yeah, remove feelings.

  • edited February 2014
     

  • While we're at it, remove the 'perma'-distortion field.
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • I don't really think village feelings need to be gutted. They may or not need some tweaking, but by and large they function pretty well.

    I'm not really convinced they're 'too much' - elsewise orgs would be sitting on villages for extended periods of time, in spite of being unable to field much of an effort.

    Feelings provide a bonus, but from what I've seen it's not much of one. It makes those doing well do a little better, those slightly disadvantaged do a bit better, and those who are just doing well resolve the situation a bit quicker. To point, even at maximum feelings, the benefit is less than simply using the Crusade campaign ability. The feelings gains for Empire may or may not need reducing, though, and the Conquest Pool gain as well. I do feel like Conquest governments 'gain' too quickly, particularly for something with minimal (no) effort.

    You can point at feelings all you like, but it really feels like a red herring argument. Unless you have negative feelings, you really don't have too much of a disadvantage. It's uphill, but you can do it. Likewise, I've watched Celest get level 1 and 2 feelings on villages owned by hostile nations, and they remain a religious organization. While those villages probably aren't very well guarded, that's simply the nature of things. If you're letting your enemies' religious zealots come in and proselytize, you don't have too much room to complain.

    (I'm not fond of feelings either. They didn't exist when I first started playing, and I liked it a lot better that way. I know they've helped Hallifax hold some villages for much longer than we would have been able to otherwise cough Rockholm cough but that sucks. I don't care if it sucked in my favorite org's favor. It still sucks! A village shouldn't feel like it "belongs" to one org like that.)

    Village feelings existed long before you started playing, heh. They were simply removed because they were too influential and villages were being won far too quickly and were impossible to contest at the base level. As to the last part, it makes perfect sense that a village would prefer organizations that regularly engage them, either influencing them, helping commodity production, or simply by virtue of being a vast and influential organization (all relative to the type of government).

    Is the system perfect? Eh, probably not. I'm sure there's room for improvement. But as always, suggestions that start off with 'just delete it' aren't taken very seriously.
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    Eventru said:

    (I'm not fond of feelings either. They didn't exist when I first started playing, and I liked it a lot better that way. I know they've helped Hallifax hold some villages for much longer than we would have been able to otherwise cough Rockholm cough but that sucks. I don't care if it sucked in my favorite org's favor. It still sucks! A village shouldn't feel like it "belongs" to one org like that.)

    Village feelings existed long before you started playing, heh. They were simply removed because they were too influential and villages were being won far too quickly and were impossible to contest at the base level. As to the last part, it makes perfect sense that a village would prefer organizations that regularly engage them, either influencing them, helping commodity production, or simply by virtue of being a vast and influential organization (all relative to the type of government).

    Is the system perfect? Eh, probably not. I'm sure there's room for improvement. But as always, suggestions that start off with 'just delete it' aren't taken very seriously.
    They didn't exist as an active mechanic in the game when I started. You know that's what I meant, don't be pedantic! And even though I dislike them, I realize they likely aren't going anywhere. That's why the majority of my post was focused on pointing out what I see as their biggest flaw, and the adjustments I think need to be made to them for the system to work better.
  • I agree it shouldn't be overly strong. However, I like the concept of village feelings, i.e., doing things in villages during non-revolt periods will sway how they'll feel towards your org when the revolt happens. It gives motivation for orgs to keep their villages happy and non-orgs to sneak their citizens in to help that village out!

    Anyway, I would like to keep at least the concept of village feelings but certainly could look at reviewing the best way to actualize their intent.
    image
    image
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    edited November 2012
    I really do think passive feelings from government style need to be looked at. The way the system exists right now, there are all these options but no real choice. To me, that's a big red flag that something's out of whack somewhere! It would be great for the choice between Benign and Neutral to actually require thought, or if someone is feeling bold enough to go Despotic, that it would actually be possible (but still very difficult) for them to offset the feelings losses and come out ahead if they tried really hard. Speaking from the horrible yet thankfully short time Hallifax spent as Despotic Commercial, (AAAUGH WHY! I never want to see another fish or rockeater again!) that's like trying to stop a tornado by punching it in the face. Even if you throw that punch as hard as you can, it's not going to have any noticeable effect. Why should passive drains or gains be stronger than what dedicated players can do?

    I do think however that the strong negative feelings accrued by holding the village(s) that revolts alongside whatever the one you've got should stay. It should be hard to hold two of the same "type" of village at once. But then Celest has been holding Southgard and Rockholm simultaneously for a little while now, and always keeping up with feelings in them both (this is one scenario where Religious has an edge over Conquest), and I have to wonder how the gains/losses are divided there (how much did the drain for holding them both do, how much was from passive gains due to Benign, how much was due to just influencing the tits off them? Is the passive drain the same strength as the passive Benign gain so it would just cancel out to Neutral if left alone? That would be awesome to know, but I don't expect to ever know for sure.) 
  • edited November 2012
    Phoebus said:
    I really do think passive feelings from government style need to be looked at. The way the system exists right now, there are all these options but no real choice. To me, that's a big red flag that something's out of whack somewhere! It would be great for the choice between Benign and Neutral to actually require thought, or if someone is feeling bold enough to go Despotic, that it would actually be possible (but still very difficult) for them to offset the feelings losses and come out ahead if they tried really hard. Speaking from the horrible yet thankfully short time Hallifax spent as Despotic Commercial, (AAAUGH WHY! I never want to see another fish or rockeater again!) that's like trying to stop a tornado by punching it in the face. Even if you throw that punch as hard as you can, it's not going to have any noticeable effect. Why should passive drains or gains be stronger than what dedicated players can do?

    I do think however that the strong negative feelings accrued by holding the village(s) that revolts alongside whatever the one you've got should stay. It should be hard to hold two of the same "type" of village at once. But then Celest has been holding Southgard and Rockholm simultaneously for a little while now, and always keeping up with feelings in them both (this is one scenario where Religious has an edge over Conquest), and I have to wonder how the gains/losses are divided there (how much did the drain for holding them both do, how much was from passive gains due to Benign, how much was due to just influencing the tits off them? Is the passive drain the same strength as the passive Benign gain so it would just cancel out to Neutral if left alone? That would be awesome to know, but I don't expect to ever know for sure.) 
    The loss, IIRC (which admittedly has been a while) is enough that holding an opposing village would bring you to lvl 2 or lvl 3 'dislike'. In other words, to keep two opposing villages at lvl 3 'like' would mean having to do double the influencing/comm quests on both. Which, really, seems fair to me, though we can look at increasing it if we need to. However, Celest is pretty religious (haha) about influencing their villages, with three or four people who go through the villages three and four times a day to influence everything they find, solely for the feelings.

    The problem with Despotic vs Benign is that Benign provides a tangible and important benefit (feelings) while Despotic provides something that isn't felt as important (commodities/power). This goes back to the glut of commodities in the game. Maybe we should consider something along the lines of making Benign approaches generate 0 power and the village itself produce no commodities? Or capping how much in commodities cities/communes can hold? And making it so that all commodities decay if not in a rift, instead of just some of them at random? Or some combination thereof?

    Still doesn't really help make Religious Despotic appealing, though.

    I feel like Conquest is appealing solely because it's reward with 0 effort. Maybe we should just make Conquest governments not be affected by feelings period - good or bad - in lieu of generating positive feeling. It helps them hold more villages, and take more villages. Maybe at benign it has no effect, at neutral it has 15% of the effect, and at despotic it has a 30% of the effect. So if you're going despotic, you're actually getting commodities and power, but you have to deal with feelings (and no way to increase them), but to a lesser degree. Maybe we should just get rid of the Conquest Pool altogether then - I feel like it's 'too good' at the moment, and was added in just to ensure Conquest type wasn't unappealing. The negation (or partial thereof) of Feelings should be plenty reward.

    So, to recap, my off-the-cuff thoughts are:

       * Reduce commodity/power production to 0 in villages with Benign rulers, even for their own commodity shop.
       * If a government is Benign, commodity quests only have a chance of producing commodities in the comm shop.
       * Change Conquest effect from passive feelings and conquest pool to reduced feelings effects and no conquest pool.
          * Benign Conquest has 0 effect from feelings, but no commodity nor power production. Commodity quests only have a % chance to produce commodities in the village shop (33? 50?)
          * Neutral Conquest has only 1/6th of the effect of feelings, and moderately low commodity/power production. Commodity quests always produce commodities in the village shop.
          * Despotic Conquest has 1/3rd the effect of feelings, and moderate commodity/power production. Commodity quests always produce commodities in the village shop.


    That said, I don't believe passive gains from Conquest Benign, even now, are stronger than what players can do. I think Celest is a fine example of that. It takes a lot of effort, but they've worked a routine around it, and they're doing it pretty well.
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    edited November 2012
    I don't like reducing power/comms gains from Benign to nothing. That's more like clubbing it over the head with the nerfstick as opposed to toning it down a little. But "reward with 0 effort" isn't because Conquest is Conquest, it's because the boost from Benign is as strong as it is. I'd rather change that, see what happens, and go from there, as opposed to "rework ALL the things" and spend the next forever fussing over what worked and what didn't.

    Boop beep edit for more thoughts on Conquest:

    To me, ideally, the real "work" in Conquest should come in play in the revolts themselves as opposed to the in-between part. If an org wants to be Conquest, they should be able to earn it by dominating in revolts and keeping villages. Someone like Hallifax (sorry Halli ilu babe) shouldn't be able to pull off Conquest successfully. We are the craps in non-peaced revolts. An org should be able to reap the benefits of Conquest if they actually have the moxie to back it up, not benefit everyone who chooses Conquest equally regardless of Conquest-ability. 
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    edited November 2012
    Pretty sure it already works that way; the more villages you have, the more you benefit from Conquest (and if you have 0 villages it doesn't do you any good at all).

    While I don't necessarily mind reducing the passive gains from Conquest, you need to do something about enabling it to actually, y'know, have an active way to increase feelings.  One type of influencing for which many village denizens are immune just doesn't cut it.

    Also: Benign = 0 production?  That's pretty silly (and very over-the-top).  Your solutions kind of seem like a knee-jerk in the other direction, Eventru. :/

    The conquest pool is nice, sure, but it is specifically in a pool for a reason.  The power generated cannot be used on Ascendants, or on anything except guards / discretionaries (that's its limiter).  That is, to me, its balancing aspect.  If you have a huge pool, you have no access to any of it.  It just absorbs some of your other incidental usage and helps buffer you against those costs, but you never get that power directly.

    I personally feel that Conquest is fine as-is for that reason, as far as the rewards go.  The only real adjustment I can see needed for it would be that it should have:
    1) More ability to actively affect feelings, and
    2) Less passive gain.

    Halve the passive gain rates, and make it so that Conquest can earn positive feelings by Weakening, Paranoia, or Seduction influence.

    Religious gives you direct power that you can use any way you want.  You also get the full benefit of influencing, and can use whatever type any specific denizen is weak to.

    Conquest shunts the power gain off into a separate pool that only funds certain things, doesn't let you use all the influencing types (empower and begging aren't very conquest-y and are also the mindsets of many village denizens, either friendly or brave), and gives a little passive benefit... but not enough to really make much of a difference, if you aren't getting out there and using your more limited array of influencing.
    image
  • Xenthos said:
    Pretty sure it already works that way; the more villages you have, the more you benefit from Conquest (and if you have 0 villages it doesn't do you any good at all).

    While I don't necessarily mind reducing the passive gains from Conquest, you need to do something about enabling it to actually, y'know, have an active way to increase feelings.  One type of influencing for which many village denizens are immune just doesn't cut it.

    Also: Benign = 0 production?  That's pretty silly (and very over-the-top).  Your solutions kind of seem like a knee-jerk in the other direction, Eventru. :/

    The conquest pool is nice, sure, but it is specifically in a pool for a reason.  The power generated cannot be used on Ascendants, or on anything except guards / discretionaries (that's its limiter).  That is, to me, its balancing aspect.  If you have a huge pool, you have no access to any of it.  It just absorbs some of your other incidental usage and helps buffer you against those costs, but you never get that power directly.

    I personally feel that Conquest is fine as-is for that reason, as far as the rewards go.  The only real adjustment I can see needed for it would be that it should have:
    1) More ability to actively affect feelings, and
    2) Less passive gain.

    Halve the passive gain rates, and make it so that Conquest can earn positive feelings by Weakening, Paranoia, or Seduction influence.

    Religious gives you direct power that you can use any way you want.  You also get the full benefit of influencing, and can use whatever type any specific denizen is weak to.

    Conquest shunts the power gain off into a separate pool that only funds certain things, doesn't let you use all the influencing types (empower and begging aren't very conquest-y and are also the mindsets of many village denizens, either friendly or brave), and gives a little passive benefit... but not enough to really make much of a difference, if you aren't getting out there and using your more limited array of influencing.
    I don't think they're that extreme, at least not unnecessarily. Even if Benign had 0 commodity production, it would be a very long time before Glomdoring burned through its commodity stores. I mean really, how long would it take Glomdoring to burn off 46k steel, 58k iron, 68k cloth, or Celest 67k wood, 65k iron, 42k gems, etc etc. I suspect even if all commodity production stopped across the board for a six months, we'd only see a reasonable dent done.

    If we expand the influence types for Conquest, I'm of the opinion the passive gains should be more than halved, or remove the Conquest Power Pool (or drastically reduce its gains relative to Benign/Neutral/Despotic).

    Anyways, my thoughts were just as I said - off-the-cuff thoughts. Most people seem to be making Conquest out to be the end-all-be-all, particularly as benign. Figured it'd be an easy way to make other aspects more attractive! 
  • PhoebusPhoebus tu fui, ego eris. Circumstances
    Xenthos said:
    Pretty sure it already works that way; the more villages you have, the more you benefit from Conquest (and if you have 0 villages it doesn't do you any good at all).

    --! I CAN'T GET MY POST TO STOP BEING IN THE SAME QUOTE BOX SO WE ARE JUST GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ALL BEING THE SAME COLOR. !--

    With just one village as Benign Conquest, Hallifax still passively got to maximum feelings in Talthos by the time of the revolt. That's what I mean as it being the same across the board, and what I don't think should happen. According to HELP GOVERNMENT, any passive gains from holding more villages as Conquest are in villages you don't own, anyway. I think it'd make more sense if it was your own villages it had any influence over, and also if it really made a difference at all since I can't actually recall ever seeing that do anything.
  • Phoebus said:
    Xenthos said:
    Pretty sure it already works that way; the more villages you have, the more you benefit from Conquest (and if you have 0 villages it doesn't do you any good at all).

    --! I CAN'T GET MY POST TO STOP BEING IN THE SAME QUOTE BOX SO WE ARE JUST GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS ALL BEING THE SAME COLOR. !--

    With just one village as Benign Conquest, Hallifax still passively got to maximum feelings in Talthos by the time of the revolt. That's what I mean as it being the same across the board, and what I don't think should happen. According to HELP GOVERNMENT, any passive gains from holding more villages as Conquest are in villages you don't own, anyway. I think it'd make more sense if it was your own villages it had any influence over, and also if it really made a difference at all since I can't actually recall ever seeing that do anything.
    Well, that seems like a bug/oversight that we should address.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    edited November 2012
    Eventru said:
    Xenthos said:
    Pretty sure it already works that way; the more villages you have, the more you benefit from Conquest (and if you have 0 villages it doesn't do you any good at all).

    While I don't necessarily mind reducing the passive gains from Conquest, you need to do something about enabling it to actually, y'know, have an active way to increase feelings.  One type of influencing for which many village denizens are immune just doesn't cut it.

    Also: Benign = 0 production?  That's pretty silly (and very over-the-top).  Your solutions kind of seem like a knee-jerk in the other direction, Eventru. :/

    The conquest pool is nice, sure, but it is specifically in a pool for a reason.  The power generated cannot be used on Ascendants, or on anything except guards / discretionaries (that's its limiter).  That is, to me, its balancing aspect.  If you have a huge pool, you have no access to any of it.  It just absorbs some of your other incidental usage and helps buffer you against those costs, but you never get that power directly.

    I personally feel that Conquest is fine as-is for that reason, as far as the rewards go.  The only real adjustment I can see needed for it would be that it should have:
    1) More ability to actively affect feelings, and
    2) Less passive gain.

    Halve the passive gain rates, and make it so that Conquest can earn positive feelings by Weakening, Paranoia, or Seduction influence.

    Religious gives you direct power that you can use any way you want.  You also get the full benefit of influencing, and can use whatever type any specific denizen is weak to.

    Conquest shunts the power gain off into a separate pool that only funds certain things, doesn't let you use all the influencing types (empower and begging aren't very conquest-y and are also the mindsets of many village denizens, either friendly or brave), and gives a little passive benefit... but not enough to really make much of a difference, if you aren't getting out there and using your more limited array of influencing.
    I don't think they're that extreme, at least not unnecessarily. Even if Benign had 0 commodity production, it would be a very long time before Glomdoring burned through its commodity stores. I mean really, how long would it take Glomdoring to burn off 46k steel, 58k iron, 68k cloth, or Celest 67k wood, 65k iron, 42k gems, etc etc. I suspect even if all commodity production stopped across the board for a six months, we'd only see a reasonable dent done.

    If we expand the influence types for Conquest, I'm of the opinion the passive gains should be more than halved, or remove the Conquest Power Pool (or drastically reduce its gains relative to Benign/Neutral/Despotic).

    Anyways, my thoughts were just as I said - off-the-cuff thoughts. Most people seem to be making Conquest out to be the end-all-be-all, particularly as benign. Figured it'd be an easy way to make other aspects more attractive! 
    I truly dislike the fixation with "oh this is how much is out there, we need to change things to reduce those stockpiles".

    I have the same problem with pricing gold-sinks to gouge the people with money; if you look at the stockpiles, you're locking everyone else out of the market entirely.

    Does it truly matter if Glomdoring has tens of thousands of comms?  They're pretty much "out of the game" as it is at the moment, just like gold in the org coffers (a point that I believe you yourself made).  Reducing village production to nil is thus pretty much shackling anyone who uses the villages or village-quests to build up their stockpiles.

    The main reason that Conquest is seen as the be-all end-all is not so much for the rewards themselves as for the fact that it's easy set-and-forget.  You get the passive feelings and you don't have to work for them.  At the same time, you can't work for them, because influencing is restricted to 1 type, so there's no point in even trying.  The easy solution is to reduce the passive feeling accrual and allow you to more easily influence (more types).

    Touching the conquest pool accrual is... well, again, you're going after something that isn't even related to the problem just to make Conquest itself not be desired as an option at all (instead of appropriately balancing reward -> effort).  Same with going after commodity production.  You don't need to take a machete to the thing!
    image
  • I confess, I've been working to bring Gaudiguch's comm stores to 100k each. :(
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • I would like to submit that walking into an enemy village and influencing their denizens is not that hard/dangerous, and people are being wusses about not doing it more often. I do it all the time and I've only ever been attacked once. And I escaped.
  • Iytha said:
    I would like to submit that walking into an enemy village and influencing their denizens is not that hard/dangerous, and people are being wusses about not doing it more often. I do it all the time and I've only ever been attacked once. And I escaped.
    Say that again when people start putting 30 guards in villages.

    The only reason why most villages don't have guards is because they're all under Equinox control, and thus guards are unnecessary.
    If it's broken, break it some more.
  • Having a single big guard clump is not enough, except in very limited cases. You can pretty much always go around them and get into the village.
  • Iytha said:
    Having a single big guard clump is not enough, except in very limited cases. You can pretty much always go around them and get into the village.
    Easily remedied, place a ton of statues, and set guards to patrol the village. See how many escape then.
  • Guards set on patrol will be picked off.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Yeah, NPCs that chase are pretty easy to split up and kill at will.  I did that extensively during the recent event to kill off big clumps.
    image
  • At this point, I just pretend that villages don't exist. The very act of doing so raises my own morale.
  • CyndarinCyndarin used Flamethrower! It was super effective.
    I think influencing village denizens should be announced on CT like mobs do when they are being killed. Secret ninja influencers are impossible to keep track.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    I don't know... most of the "secret" ones these days are Mag newblets without cloaking gems.

    Syrath, Soraya, and so on.

    It kind of feels like they are being sent in as sacrificial lambs to appease my bloodlust. :(
    image
  • KagatoKagato Auckland, New Zealand
    It would be handy if you could have guard squads that can maintain unity so that you don't have one or two units splitting off, then you could have a group of 5 or so that wander the rooms, making it harder to pick them off individually
    Never put passion before principle.  Even if you win, you lose.

    If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from?

    If vegetarians eat vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?
  • (Serenwilde): A kephera sentry says, "<orgname> doesn't sound too bad, come to think of it."

    There are always ways to make a good message if needed. I'm not sure how I feel about the idea in general though; it sounds like it would basically make it far easier for orgs that hold villages to keep holding them.
    image
  • edited November 2012
    Xenthos said:
    I don't know... most of the "secret" ones these days are Mag newblets without cloaking gems. Syrath, Soraya, and so on. It kind of feels like they are being sent in as sacrificial lambs to appease my bloodlust. :(
    That's because am tired of just going to and from Nil, Spectre isle and getting culture... THNX 4 PVP XENTHOS :]
    There really needs to be more attention here in village revolts, so I understand why you would feel that way. No one else is doing nothing :(
    Edit: for Spelling Xynthin *sniggers* >..<
  • edited November 2012
    If you don't want people influencing your villagers, enemy everyone.

    Of course, your allies might not like that. Although then your villagers might hear good things about your allies. OH the decisions.
Sign In or Register to comment.