Soooo, this game's campaign...

[Hawk]

I'd say it was doing well until I got to the Cybran, it's like it was developed by a completely different development team. First mission I had to redo 3 or 4 times and then on that final one I was BARELY able to keep them from progressing past my Living room, rather then my front door because that was gone within the first minute. Then the second mission well I just died even though they were only point defenses but since they are "so bugged and are recapturing" my commander unit decided to take his sweet time getting out. Better make that 2 times now, good job guy, keep padding that game length the only way that you apparently know how, I got slightly farther but I found out that the bugged units capture and breed 100% faster then your own units. Ah now they are so “smart” that they are going through the water to capture my entire base because the Devs were so incredibly “clever” so that’s another restart, thanks for all the padding Devs, wish you could actual program. Ah then, THEN the developers make sure that even if you wanted to recapture your builds, your units will 100% destroy it before you even get the idea in your head to do so, again, “good job” guys. Now the third mission, oh boy hurry up and defend this other base across a chasm while the AI sends infinite waves ooops the research facility is weak and can't take 1 seconds worth of damage. I have honestly never been so insulted in all my life by a "game" and its campaign. This has to be one of the biggest cliffs I've seen in a long time in terms of difficulty progression, I would really LOVE to meet the dev team that came up with the Cybran one so I can voice my, displeasure, at how poorly of a job they did at continuing the GRADUAL progression, keeping in mind of course that this is all so far on normal difficulty. There is also nothing like having to rewatch every painfully made poorly written cutscene and dialogue until the genius Devs decide to let you take control of YOUR game so you can attempt their trash mission all over again. Granted based on how the game has progressed so far I'd say the Devs are just giddy with glee at how a player is having such difficulty with their game. To top it all off, I finally got to the last level and I was ABOUT to finish it, but you're game decided to zoom in on the "action" ie commander and I am now unable to do anything, good job guys, you SURE took care of the nasty bugs.

I’ve beaten all of the Total Annihilation games thus far and as I stated before it’s never been this ridiculous of a spike. Yet this game is proving to be, not a challenge, but a wall that the Devs put in to add artificial game length or to say it another way, padding the game. I really hope that this is not done by anyone from the original team from Cave Dog because they dishonor their on dead company’s memory by making this kind of obvious trash. It’s no wonder why people gave Sup Com 2 a pass, stating 1 and FA being the superior game and I’m starting to agree with them.

[Ceejay]

I will give you the first level, it is hard(well not now, but it was on first play through), but from that point onwards, that is all you man.

The 2nd mission while annoying i did not find all that hard, which ever way you want to play it. Make a line of turrets to stop his engineers (I tend to take a couple of his engineers over first then get them building turrets, also you need to watch your turrets as they often do not target the engineer taking them over, so you have to do it by hand till you have enough down), then how you finish the level is up to you, I prefer to either spawn megaliths, or upgrade my commander and walk him through the lot.....as for being taken over by sea....just three turrents on the shorline at the bottom will stop anything the ai throws at you from that direction, even on hard.

I quite like this level, its kind of unique, I thought it was an interesting break in the story, but each to their own.

As for the 3rd level, the only time I struggled with this level was at the end of the level, as on my first play through I was not expecting the dinosaur to be released, so I had nothing ready to counter it, which is the only reason I needed to replay.

I am not sure what you did, but I straight away moved everything across the casam (except for one engineer (to claim the mass and build energy), defended with everything else (air units alone should took out a few waves). Got a couple of turrents down, used overcharge on my commander to take down the experimentals.

After you have beat off a few waves, the ai retreats, which then gives you ample time to build up your base and wipe him out big style. (had I known about the lizard popping up I would have pulled some units back from the enemy commander explosion to kill it and would not have needed to play again.)

However while I appreciate you are ranting to let off steam, I do feel I have to defend the developers a little as obviously not all of us had the same experiance as you, so it cannot be down to game a design flaw, otherwise everyone would be stuck, its just whatever tatics you chose to use, did not work, where mine did, I am sure there are plenty of games you would get further than me etc.

My only gripe with the cybran missions are the lack of missions involving their navy, which is my favorite navy,

[Hawk]

For all the Cybran missions other then the first it took massive amounts of base defense turrets and shields in order to get some kind of front, only then was I able to build up and concentrate on research and unit construction. The bug mission indeed was very annoying, I had to build a absolute Maginot Line of defenses until again I could research and build up that and make mass which seemed to be scarce for a couple of the missions. The 3rd, once I again was able to rush in and build WALLS of turrets and shields I was able to build up, the dino part didn’t matter since by then I had amassed a large experimental army with support, that and the wall of turrets would have probably stopped it considering by then my structures were fully upgraded. The rest of the missions were pretty straight forward like all the others, I just can’t figure out why the sudden drop.

My problem is even though this version is supposed to be very slimmed down and simplified in order to reduce mico-managing. Now with forcing the player to research upgrades that adds a whole new and costly factor that wasn’t in any of the past iterations of the TA series. You either slog it out with basic units with low stats or you are forced to build costly research buildings (and a lot of them) in order to make your build and unit investments worth the time and mass.

[Ceejay]

We obvioulsy just play in different ways, the things you point out as negatives, I do not see as negatives. I do not mind the research at all.

To be fair when I first started playing I also built loads of shield and turets, but that is not really the best way for the campaign, your commander is far more useful than previous games, especially in the earlier missions, after playing it for so long, I really do not rely too much on turrent and shields and use units. (though I do still use them, just not walls of them as they are not really needed, and not that good, 1 experimental is far better and cheaper than a wall of turrets)

For instance you can finish the 2nd and 3rd levels with just your upgraded commander with no other attacking forces needed, and on the 2nd you only need a line of turrets 6 long at a certain point, that on even hard difficulty will hold back all the engineers. (oh and 3 at the bottom, to stop them coming that way) (though you do need to upgrade them).

There are loads of threads on stratergies etc, and there are videos on you tube, have a look you may find ways of doing things in this game you had not thought about and will help you annihilate the ai in the campaigns :)

[Hawk]

Yeah I tired or was rather pushed into, using the commander unit 100% as my defender for a few levels and it never ended up going well. The commander is not actually more useful then they were, TA to me had a much better commander unit, the gauss cannon would ripple across a straight path and only use energy, he also became more durable as your assets grew and he produced a far greater amount of your over all income. In the past few versions they fire slowly, their main weapon does minimal damage and the supposed overcharge is only useful for attacking one enemy at a time, mean while the other 15 are still shooting at you. Granted even the TA commanders could be useless and the weak main weapon seems to be carried over (in this you can at least upgrade it) but the secondary attack is what made it better, it could take out other commanders in one hit, and the Core's experimental K-Bot.

[Hawk]

To add to my review of the game, the Skirmish AI defiantly cheats HARD, even on easy and normal seems legit, everyone is doing it right? Nah too much work to make an actual artificial intelligent enemy, nah let's just give him added resources and insane multitasking abilities and call it a day. I’m honestly glad I got this game so I could see how the original TA group is “advancing” in their abilities as game programmers, and therefore will defiantly avoid Planetary Annihilation, no point playing a game where the AI will probably be able to drop a moon onto your head within the first 5 minutes of the match starting. This is all honestly a shame since I rather enjoy AI skirmishes in most of the game that I own

[OSS | | sPiFF]

Originally posted by Hawk:

To add to my review of the game, the Skirmish AI defiantly cheats HARD, even on easy and normal seems legit, everyone is doing it right? Nah too much work to make an actual artificial intelligent enemy, nah let's just give him added resources and insane multitasking abilities and call it a day. I’m honestly glad I got this game so I could see how the original TA group is “advancing” in their abilities as game programmers, and therefore will defiantly avoid Planetary Annihilation, no point playing a game where the AI will probably be able to drop a moon onto your head within the first 5 minutes of the match starting. This is all honestly a shame since I rather enjoy AI skirmishes in most of the game that I own

The game is balanced for multiplayer, not single player.

Good luck finding an AI that measures up to "actual intelligence." Coding an AI for a strategy game is very difficult, and almost every RTS will have AI that cheats because most players can easily overcome a non-cheating AI. Starcraft 2 even has several levels of cheating AI. Giving AI income/build time bonuses is really the only way to add a challenge. And FYI, the AI gets no bonuses on easy or normal modes. If you are not able to beat a normal AI, then you need to seriously examine your gameplay and figure out what you are doing wrong.

As for multitasking, remember that the AI is a computer that can analyze the battlefield situation much faster than you can. Even still, this is not chess, where the computer has a much more limited number of options for each move, and can easily play out thousands of scenarios a second and calculate win-loss percentages for each potential move. The AI's decision-making can easily be exploited and abused if you learn how it responds to your own actions.

Supcom 2 AI really only has about 5 different builds, and if you scout them and figure out which it is then you can easily beat it 100% of the time once you figure out a build that works.

If you really want to get the most out of this game, or any RTS for that matter, play against human opponents.

Originally posted by Hawk:

It’s no wonder why people gave Sup Com 2 a pass, stating 1 and FA being the superior game and I’m starting to agree with them.

Pretty sure that had nothing to do with campaign and everything to do with a fundamentally different economy system, tech system, and scale of the game. There are some very good Supcom2 players out there who haven't even touched campaign.

The cybran missions can be a little tougher than UEF and Aeon campaigns because they require some different strategies and a little creative thinking, but they are really not that hard. Just try and come at them in a different way. The message is clear: UEF and Aeon play pretty similarly, but Cybran is a different animal. I can tell you that my build order for multiplayer 1v1 is TOTALLY different when I play as Cybran, whereas UEF and Aeon build orders match are very close.

Originally posted by Hawk:

Now with forcing the player to research upgrades that adds a whole new and costly factor that wasn’t in any of the past iterations of the TA series. You either slog it out with basic units with low stats or you are forced to build costly research buildings (and a lot of them) in order to make your build and unit investments worth the time and mass.

You do realize that killing stuff gives your research points, right? Plus, research buildings are actually very cost-effective, considering that they don't use resources once built like Factories do, and they give an ever-increasing benefit over the term of the game.

Originally posted by Hawk:

... and the supposed overcharge is only useful for attacking one enemy at a time, mean while the other 15 are still shooting at you.

Have you never seen a well-timed overcharge destroy an entire army of units in 3-4 blasts? It's a deadly weapon against clumps of units, and requires careful scouting and snap judgment to counter in a multiplayer game. Less useful vs AI because AI tends to spread units out across the map.




Really, it sounds to me like you just don't like playing vs AI. Maybe you should play multiplayer more? Feel free to add me, I'm happy to train players who are newer to multiplayer.

[Ceejay]

I just thought I would try a hunch. You have only played this game for 22 hours....that is absolutoly no time at all to actually work out how to play the game, or know which stratergies work. I am on over 700 hours and that is not alot compared to some, who have over 1500 hours in the game. (Edit. funnily enough just like spiff above...and I thought I played this alot.......)

Originally posted by Hawk:

To add to my review of the game, the Skirmish AI defiantly cheats HARD, even on easy and normal seems legit, everyone is doing it right? Nah too much work to make an actual artificial intelligent enemy, nah let's just give him added resources and insane multitasking abilities and call it a day

Okay seriously it does not cheat, they do not get added resources as standard. Yes it multitasks, its a computer, all stratergy games basically suffer from this, from Command & Conquer to Starcraft, total annihinlation also does this, however at least with the supcom games you can kind of multitask yourself, you can set your engineers a predefinded building route to build multiple things and go off and do something else while they are doing that.

As for difficulty, even multiple Easy and normal are just not a challange for me and many others, we have to play against multiple hard ai all the time or humans. (trust me I am certainly not the best player amongst my friends, I often get taken out first).

All your negatives are down to 1 thing, your inexperiance at playing this game. If your favorite stratergy is not working, sorry but your simply going to have to try something else, this maybe your actual issue, you may not like having to change the way you play, to beat the game.

[Hawk]

Originally posted by OSS | | Spiff:

Really, it sounds to me like you just don't like playing vs AI. Maybe you should play multiplayer more? Feel free to add me, I'm happy to train players who are newer to multiplayer.

I have been playing against AI since it was available in almost every game that I have owned and is mostly how I play any RTS, I have attempted in the past and it did not end well so I simply avoid it, as I am not some instant seasoned StarCraft player. Playing against people I can not imagine being a Better experience other then helping you get beat quicker and I have no need for that at all. So you're ability to "read me" is well poor at best. Also by train most mean beat you until you learn or until you just get fed up which again, not interested in at all.

As far as any of this information, the fact of the matter is that the game is forcing the player to build research buildings which take time, mass, and energy that COULD be better spent on defensive builds or combat units. Adding to that the fact that unless, according to you, you are in direct combat and destroying enemy units you are required to build at LEAST 10 or more research buildings in order for any progress to be made. Again in previous iterations all you needed to do was either build upper tier factories or upgrade said factories for improved units.

Now as far as the "variation" or "difference" between the Aone/UEF and the Cybran in terms of their campaign why was it such a tremendous drop, did the developers just outright think that every single player would immediately understand the variation and be able to adapt within a second of realizing it? In every other mission they are least attempt to keep the player INFORMED rather then in the dark, the devs truly through the player under the bus with these missions for no actual reason.

[OSS | | sPiFF]

Apparently my last reply was just a bit too sarcastic for the moderators...

the tl;dr of it is that:
1. AI set to normal or easy does not cheat
2. You should try to enjoy learning a new game instead of expecting it to be exactly like its predecessors,
3. If you want to train with me it will not just be you losing game after game, but you have to actually want to get better, and pretending you're good enough won't make you a better player.

[Hawk]

Well it was far more then that little 3 point abbreviated version to be quite honest, I actually had a very long reply but once I went to post I noticed your post was gone so I retracted it though the points I made still stand.

1. Again I say yes it does in some form or another, I actually tried another game right after I finished writing my reply before, attempting to not build ANY research buildings and have a normal difficulty ally with 2 easy opponents not on the same team. Your one point of not even needing research buildings was proven to be false, as even though I was having very small and short fights with whatever land units I could build which gave me a small amount of research bar, throughout the 33 minute match I was not able to get much done in terms of unit upgrades. All the while my Normal ally managed to build several factories and just 1 or 2 research buildings yet was able to upgrade many of its units, sea, air and I saw some land upgrades all within the same time span that it took me, at 22 minutes in to build 5 research structures and finally started getting some research upgrades. Again my AI ally somehow gained more mass while starting with LESS mass points at its initial spawning point and also managed to build up more units and buildings in less time then I did, attempting to balance defense construction, mass extractors, factories and offensive units. So based on that and with the others that I’ve seen, clearly the AI gets some sort of stat boost; be it mass or something else but clearly it’s there. I even saved the demo just incase the need ever arose where I needed to show the obvious variation in economy.

2. I expected this game to more closely resemble the games that share the same name, rather then be a quicker, faster paced, semi-simplified yet more complex design that it currently is. I bought this game, after enjoying the same games in the past, hoping that it would not be too far from the proven formula, which has been proven not to be the case and much of the core gameplay was changed which I do not like. How to get you to understand since you clearly have no ability to see it from someone else’s perspective; Say you bought a product that was promised or had a history of a particular type of game play, say Doom and instead of using the tried and true method of gameplay mechanics that the series is known for you get an RPG Doom type game, and while it is still an FPS it is changed dramatically to include many RPG elements, stat leveling class and so on. Would you not be disappointed and angry that you just spent you money on something that clearly was not what was promised or what you were used to? I am one who enjoyed Total Annihilation and all the add-ons (I still have the collectors 4 CD case), TA: Kingdoms + The Iron Plague (Kingdoms wasn’t really great but it was alright), then WAY later again because of what I had heard Sup Com + FA, and now again late to Sup Com 2. This is where I am, looking back at what I played and how much enjoyment I got out of many of the titles to hit an apparent stopping point where the devs have decided to change their formula for the sake of the console players and “simplifying gameplay” which has greatly changed my ability to enjoy this latest iteration of the franchise. I continue to play this game in which has just outright failed to impress me or bring any joy after playing it. I do it with almost every title that I buy and fail to enjoy, I try to search for something, ANYTHING in the game that I can lock onto and say “yes I enjoy THAT part of the game” and I am continuing the search with this because I feel saddened that after all these titles in the series their latest is just not even close to as enjoyable as their last.

3. Training with you, on a game in which I consider the least enjoyable version of the franchise is pointless and your mindset which constantly insists I said that I was just like every other player who’s been playing this game since its release just frustrates me immensely. The idea that everyone needs to be MLG or in some form of competition mindset in order to ENJOY a game is ridiculous and it is constantly spouted and hinted at by all “skilled” players. There is no “pretending” here, I don’t think I ever said that anyone who has responded has not played the game for as long as they say they did or that they can not simply roll over someone who is either not very interested in again COMPETITIVE PLAY or not as familiar with the game in general, I said that it did not matter to me since I have a low opinion of this title. I find it very odd that so much of the game insides are left unknown to players and it takes 1,000s of hours to find out what the developers really meant this or that to be used for, again, past iterations of the game did not have this problem. It’s a very simple issue for me really, as much as I do not want to, if I can not find anything enjoyable which will cause me to continue to play this game, I will simply uninstall it and go back to playing SC:FA. I don’t like spending money on games that I find bad or not enjoyable but it happens, unfortunately more recently then in the past it seems.

[Hawk]

I figured I'd add this people like this game trust me I understand that, there will always be a fan of something or another and that's good. As for myself it's not looking really good, there's some nice stuff every once in a while, the engine runs better (optimized for Consoles), sounds are pretty good.

[OSS | | sPiFF]

Originally posted by Hawk:

1. Again I say yes it does in some form or another, I actually tried another game right after I finished writing my reply before, attempting to not build ANY research buildings and have a normal difficulty ally with 2 easy opponents not on the same team. Your one point of not even needing research buildings was proven to be false, as even though I was having very small and short fights with whatever land units I could build which gave me a small amount of research bar, throughout the 33 minute match I was not able to get much done in terms of unit upgrades. All the while my Normal ally managed to build several factories and just 1 or 2 research buildings yet was able to upgrade many of its units, sea, air and I saw some land upgrades all within the same time span that it took me, at 22 minutes in to build 5 research structures and finally started getting some research upgrades. Again my AI ally somehow gained more mass while starting with LESS mass points at its initial spawning point and also managed to build up more units and buildings in less time then I did, attempting to balance defense construction, mass extractors, factories and offensive units. So based on that and with the others that I’ve seen, clearly the AI gets some sort of stat boost; be it mass or something else but clearly it’s there. I even saved the demo just incase the need ever arose where I needed to show the obvious variation in economy.

I will say it one more time, the easy and normal AIs get NO BONUSES to income or production speed. If the AI is building more than you, it's because your build order is inefficient. You CAN confirm this by using the custom AI setting: first, set an AI to easy or medium, then switch it to Custom. It will retain the resource/build speed/vision bonuses of the easy or medium setting until you change the settings yourself. You can see exactly what bonuses the AI gets, or doesn't get, at various levels.

Keep in mind that RS generate more RP than killing stuff does. The key is to build them at the right time and in the right quantity. Because they are a significant investment, they can be risky to build, especially in the early game, but because their effect is cumulative, they consume no resources once built, and they continue generating RP until they are destroyed or the game ends, they add up to a bigger and bigger advantage as the game goes on.

I think part of the reason the AI gets more stuff than you is because you build defenses. Generally speaking, defenses serve two purposes: first, to create area denial for small (<7) groups of regular units; second, to provide an edge in otherwise equal or unfavorable engagements. Relying on defenses is generally a bad idea, since each defense tower costs about as much as one factory, and units are more effective and mobile. I always recommend to my trainees not to build ANY defense towers until you are competent at playing an agressive, unit-oriented style.

Originally posted by Hawk:

2. I expected this game to more closely resemble the games that share the same name, rather then be a quicker, faster paced, semi-simplified yet more complex design that it currently is. I bought this game, after enjoying the same games in the past, hoping that it would not be too far from the proven formula, which has been proven not to be the case and much of the core gameplay was changed which I do not like.

Your expectations were wrong. Many people feel the same way you do about this. But many do not. I can understand that makes you upset, but that's life.

Also, if that is how you feel, take another look at PA. It returns to the flow economy of prior Supcom/TA titles and the tech1/tech2 factory mechanics, while streamlining these mechanics to reduce micro and keep things interesting.

Originally posted by Hawk:

How to get you to understand since you clearly have no ability to see it from someone else’s perspective; Say you bought a product that was promised or had a history of a particular type of game play, say Doom and instead of using the tried and true method of gameplay mechanics that the series is known for you get an RPG Doom type game, and while it is still an FPS it is changed dramatically to include many RPG elements, stat leveling class and so on. Would you not be disappointed and angry that you just spent you money on something that clearly was not what was promised or what you were used to? I am one who enjoyed Total Annihilation and all the add-ons (I still have the collectors 4 CD case), TA: Kingdoms + The Iron Plague (Kingdoms wasn’t really great but it was alright), then WAY later again because of what I had heard Sup Com + FA, and now again late to Sup Com 2. This is where I am, looking back at what I played and how much enjoyment I got out of many of the titles to hit an apparent stopping point where the devs have decided to change their formula for the sake of the console players and “simplifying gameplay” which has greatly changed my ability to enjoy this latest iteration of the franchise. I continue to play this game in which has just outright failed to impress me or bring any joy after playing it. I do it with almost every title that I buy and fail to enjoy, I try to search for something, ANYTHING in the game that I can lock onto and say “yes I enjoy THAT part of the game” and I am continuing the search with this because I feel saddened that after all these titles in the series their latest is just not even close to as enjoyable as their last.

While it MIGHT be disappointing to find the fundamental mechanics of a game changed in a sequel, it would also be disappointing to find a game that simply had more the same without improving on the formula whatsoever. GPG took a bit of a gamble by changing the way Supcom 2 did things. For you at least, the gamble didn't pay off. But you haven't really given the game a fair chance to show what what it does BETTER than prior entries in the series.

If it's not fun, you have two choices: one, you can learn the new mechanics and maybe increase your enjoyment through building your skill, or two, you can play FA instead. If you are seriously interested in finding something to enjoy about this game, then you must play it differently from its predecessors. Give it 300 hours of game time and about half that time of study, and I'm confident you can find much about this game that is enjoyable and fun. If that is not an investment you are willing to make, then go back to FA and have fun playing that.

If you put some honest effort into learning the builds, counters, and maps, you can reach a very high level in a relatively short time. Many of the players who beat me on a regular basis have fewer hours than I do. I'm not a prodigy, I don't have a natural aptitude for RTS, but I managed to improve my skill a great deal through effort and simply playing a lot.

Believe it or not, I CAN see it from your point of view, because it's a perspective shared by much of the player base of FA. But you seem to be basing at least a portion of that perspective on erroneous assumptions about the game mechanics, i.e., that 10+ RS are required to do some good teching, and that the AI cheats on easy and normal settings.

Originally posted by Hawk:

3. Training with you, on a game in which I consider the least enjoyable version of the franchise is pointless and your mindset which constantly insists I said that I was just like every other player who’s been playing this game since its release just frustrates me immensely. The idea that everyone needs to be MLG or in some form of competition mindset in order to ENJOY a game is ridiculous and it is constantly spouted and hinted at by all “skilled” players. There is no “pretending” here, I don’t think I ever said that anyone who has responded has not played the game for as long as they say they did or that they can not simply roll over someone who is either not very interested in again COMPETITIVE PLAY or not as familiar with the game in general, I said that it did not matter to me since I have a low opinion of this title. I find it very odd that so much of the game insides are left unknown to players and it takes 1,000s of hours to find out what the developers really meant this or that to be used for, again, past iterations of the game did not have this problem. It’s a very simple issue for me really, as much as I do not want to, if I can not find anything enjoyable which will cause me to continue to play this game, I will simply uninstall it and go back to playing SC:FA. I don’t like spending money on games that I find bad or not enjoyable but it happens, unfortunately more recently then in the past it seems.

I am only a "pro" at this game because it has a small player base. I'm not an MLG-level player, I'm only gold in Starcraft (and sometimes it feels like I shouldn't even be that), and there are a lot of better Supcom2 players than me.

If you look around the internet, you can find a wealth of resources illustrating the "game insides." There is a wiki with complete (albeit slightly outdated) stats on every unit. Gamereplays.org has an extensive supcom2 section with strategy forums, a replay library, and VODs of the best players in the world duking it out.

You don't need to set out to be the best in the world, but in my humble opinion, there is no point in playing a game without at least some effort to improve at it. When I started to learn this game, i spend probably about 3-400 hours playing mostly vs AI, reading the wiki, and watching VODs of past tournaments. My goal was not to be the best, just to be decent. I think I've achieved that, and then some. There will always be players with a more cutthroat attitude, but you don't need that to have fun.

So ask yourself: are you going to put the effort in, learn something about the game, and enjoy getting better at it, or are you going to go play something you enjoy more?

[ser.e.fim]

i miss sup com so much, now im going to cry myself to sleep with whats left of its community
:(

[OSS | | sPiFF]

Originally posted by DGT King Chameleon:

i miss sup com so much, now im going to cry myself to sleep with whats left of its community
:(

Quality over quantity, my friend.

[Sir Chirpival]

YUUUUP. That's Commander Gauge for you.