Wish to contribute to the project by donating? Heads up to our Patreon -> https://www.patreon.com/skylordsreborn

Jump to content
BEWARE: Multiaccounting May Cause Permabans! Read more... ×
Eirias

Starting Cards

Which cards should every account start with?  

239 members have voted

  1. 1. Which cards should every account start with?

    • Original F2P starter cards
    • All commons (at once or spread out)
    • Limited cards, but different from the F2P starter package (comment below on which cards would be best)


Recommended Posts

So a couple points here have been made in various other threads, but I'd like to condense them here (I don't think that's been done yet?).

What do you guys think the starting cards should be? I personally think everyone should get x4 of every common card for various reasons. Y'all can look here to see that discussion: http://bfreborn.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=43&page=4

The biggest downside I see with that is the possibility of overwhelming new players, so my current suggestion is to make every common card available, but not all at once (like you get 10 predetermined cards each pvp or pve level so that you'd have all of them by the time you're level 10 or so).

Now I'm done promoting my own  ideas:
The way I see it, there are 3 options.

Start with every common card (x4 to prevent multiaccounting)
Start with the cards we started with in the original game (which had lots of problems--I believe I also laid those out in the above-referenced thread)
Start with different (common) cards that we decide.

I'd start a poll but I don't know how to do that.

At any rate, I'd like to know what you guys think is the best solution. Barring giving everyone all commons, this is the list of starter cards I'd recommend. Thoughts?

t1: wrecker, sunstrider; MA, northguards, werebeasts, windweavers; forsaken, skeleton warriors; eruption, surge of light, nasty surprise, glacier shell
This way any t1 is possible.

t2: rageclaws, firestalker; defenders, phalanx; ghostspears, spirit hunters (green); ripper, nightcrawler; lava field, oink, kobold trick, unholy power
t3: magma hurler, sun reaver; tremor, silverwind lancers; drones, swamp drake; mutating frenzy, shadow insect
t4: giant wyrm, rifle cultist, emberstrike, tempest; fire sphere, regrowth, unholy hero, shatter ice
Buildings: primeval defender, defense tower, lifestealer, fire bomb

Hopefully my reasoning on the above was fairly obvious. Now a few extra cards to round it out:
Misc: frost barrier, spirit hunters (purple), Twilight abomination, Lost dancer (orange), Lord Cyrian

The goal was to give players essential cards to play any deck with, while also providing new players with the spectrum of available cards (so they're not later confused about affinites and such).

What do you think of this list?

 

EDIT AS OF 2018, AFTER OPEN STRESS TEST BEGAN

 

We have new starter cards! Yay! 

Just for documentation, I'll list them here:

t1: thugs, sunstrider, banner of glory, blaster cannon, eruption | Master Archers, Imperials, Warden's sigil, Northern Keep, Frostbite (red) | Spearmen, Windweavers, Primeval Defenders, Surge of Light, Mumbo Jumbo (red) | Forsaken, Witchclaws, Snapjaws, Offering, Lifestealer

t2: Fire stalker, ravage morklay trap | bandit spearmen (blue), commandoes | unholy power | oink, ray of light, breeding grounds, spirit hunters (purple) | stone shards | cannon tower, kobold trick

t3: magma hurler, unity | waystation (red) | shadow insect, necroblaster | silverwind lancers | stone shell (purple), hammerfall | swamp drake, equilibrium

t4: emberstrike, fire sphere | rifle cultist, unholy hero | TempestGiant Wyrm, Equilibrium

 

Some of my thoughts: 

This seems very geared for PvE. There are lots of buildings. Some very essential PvP cards (like nasty surprise) are not included. The t1 is super large, but without having a lot of useful cards.

While this is an improvement over the previous cards, I don't think it's good enough. You could not make a PvP deck from this and even hope to survive against someone who has been collecting and trading cards for some time.

I think this is especially important because a lot of new players may feel intimidated about "wasting" their meager resources on the AH (and it would definitely be a waste to buy a common card for 3 BFP) and they might be intimidated to try a direct trade. 

That's why I think having sufficient starting cards for someone to succeed is critical. They should be able to win a few matches even against someone with more cards. That gives them a feeling that they're not so bad at this game, and that they might want to invest the time to get better cards.

If anyone wants a summary of the huge amount of brainstorming that went in to our community-proposed list of starting cards, I can try to get to that eventually. Or if someone else writes it, I'll edit it in under this.

Edited by Eirias
update
Kantus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one on that forum discussed changes to the F2P deck. So let's do that here. As you can see, my proposal contains most of the cards in the F2P deck, but with an emphasis on rounding out the representation of factions. I'm really not a fan of the original F2P deck--pvp is almost impossible with it.

I also forgot to include a t2 pure card. What do you think would be a good one? I don't recall if any were commons, but white rangers seems like a cheap example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though I believe your list is a slight improvement over current f2p starter deck, I don't think you should provide shatter ice without any ability to freeze. I am also super iffy about firebomb in its current worthless state.(would LOVE it buffed) Maybe instead banner of glory?

As much as I think lifstealer is a fun card, I think stone of torment has a little bit more utility. Having fire and shadow t1 cards is the best part of the suggestion and I think is a must.

As far as players starting with all commons I am against this and instead suggestion ability to buy any common with 1 bfp.
Kantus likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alright, the ability to buy any (specific) common with 1 bfp would be basically just as good. That's a good idea. (Maybe it could even be done with gold?). I'm just super worried that common cards will become WORTH something, especially because the average common card is probably more useful than the average uncommon card.

I chose firebomb, shatter ice, and lifestealer just for symmetry. I guess that's not that important though. Banner of glory is a good suggestion to replace fire bomb. Can you think of a better t4 ice spell or t1 shadow tower (phase tower was uncommon, right?) or should we just ditch symmetry?

Also, there's something to be said for including worthless (as in not useful) cards in the starter pack. That way players get to realize that some cards are MUCH better than others.

Maybe the buildings could be primeval defender, defense tower, morklay trap, and stone of torment? So they're a mix of t1 and t2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='3953' dateline='1436589074']
Also, there's something to be said for including worthless (as in not useful) cards in the starter pack. That way players get to realize that some cards are MUCH better than others.
[/quote]

I absolutely cringe when anyone mentions a need for useless cards. Yes there will always be cards slightly weaker or more situational. However, there is no excuse other than laziness in an electronic cards game to not have a use for every single card.

[quote='Eirias' pid='3953' dateline='1436589074']
Maybe the buildings could be primeval defender, defense tower, morklay trap, and stone of torment? So they're a mix of t1 and t2?
[/quote]

Bingo. I might suggest frostbite instead of shatter ice. Honestly I feel like unsymmetrical will be the better option as long as each color has same number of cards.

I also wonder if fire should have red nomad and shadow have witchclaws so each has a swift option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we go with your suggested cards i think either you need to change glacier shell / kobold trick out or at least give frost cannon tower instead of defense tower.

Also im not really good at t4 cards but maybe give nature a slightly worse t4 card than Giant Wyrm if that makes sense, as far as i can tell its the only XL unit and the only other flying unit is nature as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as I remember Master Archers, Northguards, Eruption, Cannon Tower, Fire stalker, Magma Hurler and Tremor are cards from tutorial deck and they were always unlocked on fresh account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='beijingguy' pid='4006' dateline='1436623711']
If we go with your suggested cards i think either you need to change glacier shell / kobold trick out or at least give frost cannon tower instead of defense tower.

Also im not really good at t4 cards but maybe give nature a slightly worse t4 card than Giant Wyrm if that makes sense, as far as i can tell its the only XL unit and the only other flying unit is nature as well.
[/quote]

I don't think you should remove Giant Wyrm. But i have to agree, giant wyrm is a really good card. Perhaps you could add a t4 unit to the other colors instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='beijingguy' pid='4006' dateline='1436623711']
If we go with your suggested cards i think either you need to change glacier shell / kobold trick out or at least give frost cannon tower instead of defense tower.

Also im not really good at t4 cards but maybe give nature a slightly worse t4 card than Giant Wyrm if that makes sense, as far as i can tell its the only XL unit and the only other flying unit is nature as well.
[/quote]

I think the problem with removing defense tower is that some pve maps need t1 tower? I don't actually know, but I think it would be bad if people thought of nature as the faction to choose if you want a t1 attack tower.

I'm not good at t4 cards either. I think giant wyrm should stay for sure though. I like the idea of giving other factions good t4 cards, but I don't really know what they are. To be honest, emberstrike and giant wyrm are the only t4 cards I'd use from here (and abomination) which are all fire/nat. So maybe we should include a lost souls t4 instead of abomination? No idea what that would be though. Actually, I don't even know any t4 commons besides what I originally listed.

[quote='Aazrl' pid='4014' dateline='1436624251']
As far as I remember Master Archers, Northguards, Eruption, Cannon Tower, Fire stalker, Magma Hurler and Tremor are cards from tutorial deck and they were always unlocked on fresh account.
[/quote]

Nope. They were on tutorial deck, but you could only use them there (which I don't think is a bad idea). You could not upgrade those cards, use them in another deck, or test them in the forge (unless you actually selected tutorial deck and played cards from your deck). If I wanted to add an eruption to my deck, there were exactly 2 ways to do it: play the tutorial deck (so no) or buy the eruption.
Again, I don't think that's a bad idea, to make it very obvious to new players that more cards exist than they can actually use. Although it was bit confusing to me at first because I remembered playing it in the tutorial but I couldn't find it.

@ndclub
Yeah I can see your point about useless cards. Nonetheless, I doubt fire bomb will ever be a great card, even if it's buffed. So it would be good to include cards that most players would never touch. (Or rather, touch once and never again.)

The problem with frostbite instead of shatter ice is that give frost more t1 cards than the other factions-which could be a crucial advantage in beginner pvp where charges become very important.

Also, nomad can be very OP vs beginners. Especially frost w/o ice guardians or homesoil. And weren't witchclaws uncommon?

But what do the rest of you think about adding nomad, witchclaws, frost bite, and . . . spearmen?


On an unrelated note, it may be a good idea to have root nexus and thornbark (it was uncommon though) to give players an idea of what the root network was? Or do you think that's to specific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='4045' dateline='1436639824']
I think the problem with removing defense tower is that some pve maps need t1 tower? I don't actually know, but I think it would be bad if people thought of nature as the faction to choose if you want a t1 attack tower.

I'm not good at t4 cards either. I think giant wyrm should stay for sure though. I like the idea of giving other factions good t4 cards, but I don't really know what they are. To be honest, emberstrike and giant wyrm are the only t4 cards I'd use from here (and abomination) which are all fire/nat. So maybe we should include a lost souls t4 instead of abomination? No idea what that would be though. Actually, I don't even know any t4 commons besides what I originally listed.

[/quote]
Does it have to be common cards ? Because if we went with uncommon we could add Necrofury as shadow t4 card. It was a pretty nice card to be honest. For frost we could do construct? I'm not sure... But then fire would have only emberstrike wich isn't a XL unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='ladadoos' pid='4055' dateline='1436642297']
[quote='Eirias' pid='4045' dateline='1436639824']
I think the problem with removing defense tower is that some pve maps need t1 tower? I don't actually know, but I think it would be bad if people thought of nature as the faction to choose if you want a t1 attack tower.

I'm not good at t4 cards either. I think giant wyrm should stay for sure though. I like the idea of giving other factions good t4 cards, but I don't really know what they are. To be honest, emberstrike and giant wyrm are the only t4 cards I'd use from here (and abomination) which are all fire/nat. So maybe we should include a lost souls t4 instead of abomination? No idea what that would be though. Actually, I don't even know any t4 commons besides what I originally listed.

[/quote]
Does it have to be common cards ? Because if we went with uncommon we could add Necrofury as shadow t4 card. It was a pretty nice card to be honest. For frost we could do construct? I'm not sure... But then fire would have only emberstrike wich isn't a XL unit.
[/quote]

just give fire fire dragon then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have put the cards that @Eirias suggested in his thread as starter cards by their color.

[b]Fire:[/b]
T1: Sunstriders, wrecker, eruption and fire bomb (4 cards).
T2: Rageclaws, firestalker and lava field (3 cards).
T3: Magma Hurler and sun reaver (2 cards).
T4: Emberstrike and fire sphere (2 cards).
Fire = 11 cards.

[b]Frost:[/b]
T1: Master archers, northguards, glacier shell and defense tower (4 cards).
T2: Defenders, phalanx and kobold trick (3 cards).
T3: Tremor and silverwind lancers (2 cards).
T4: Tempest and shatter ice (2 cards).
Frost= 11 cards.

[b]Shadow:[/b]
T1: Forsaken, skeletonw arriors, nasty surprise and lifestealer (4 cards).
T2: Ripper, nightcrawler and unholy power (3 cards).
T3: Mutating frenzy and shadow insect (2 cards).
T4: Rifle cultist and unholy hero (2 cards).
Shadow= 11 cards.

[b]Nature:[/b]
T1: Werebeasts, windweavers, surge of light and primeval watcher (4 cards).
T2: Ghostspears, spirit hunters(green) and (purple) and curse of oink (4 cards).
T3: Drones and swamp drake (2 cards).
T4: Giant wyrm and regrowth (2 cards).
Nature= 12 cards.

Cards with multiple orbs (These cards are a way to introduce new players to cards with multiple orbs): stone shards, commandos, twilight brute and lost dancer

Nature has 1 more card than the rest of the fractions because we have come to a conclusion that spirit hunters is the best card to introduce new players to affinities. By having both affinities of spirit huters the player is able to understand what affinities are.

As we can see with @Eirias' suggestion, almost all colors would have the same amount of cards. Although, we can clearly see that all colors, beside nature, have weak T4 units. So thats why I suggest add necrofury to shadow, construct to frost and fire dragon to fire. Perhaps turn these cards to uncommon too.
[hr]
[quote='Treim' pid='4056' dateline='1436642399']
just give fire fire dragon then?
[/quote]

That could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed
frost barrier, spirit hunters (purple), Twilight abomination, Lost dancer (orange), Lord Cyrian

If we used necrofury and construct, their classification should probably be changed to common. They would be worthless anyway, and it would be super disappointing to have one of them take an uncommon spot on the booster.

The only other other problem I can see with your suggestion (a problem which is exacerbated by fire dragon) is that these cards would make PvE completely playable with nothing but the starter deck. I think it should BE playable, but you should be wanting to ditch about half the starter cards in favor of better ones. With these cards, you wouldn't need to buy more cards for really any reason at all (pve). Unless someone more experienced at PvE thinks otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='4059' dateline='1436643705']
You missed
frost barrier, spirit hunters (purple), Twilight abomination, Lost dancer (orange), Lord Cyrian

If we used necrofury and construct, their classification should probably be changed to common. They would be worthless anyway, and it would be super disappointing to have one of them take an uncommon spot on the booster.

The only other other problem I can see with your suggestion (a problem which is exacerbated by fire dragon) is that these cards would make PvE completely playable with nothing but the starter deck. I think it should BE playable, but you should be wanting to ditch about half the starter cards in favor of better ones. With these cards, you wouldn't need to buy more cards for really any reason at all (pve). Unless someone more experienced at PvE thinks otherwise?
[/quote]

You can play PVE with all that cards, but some maps at expert lvl wont be easy witht that ones, and its far away from fast as you need specific cards that are necassery for good times.
And i think every map has been beaten already with only the F2P-cards of battleforge so yeah playabale but mostlikely to be slow.
Its not really an argument for or against it,  adding some cards to the F2P-section just makes it a little easier from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='4059' dateline='1436643705']
You missed
frost barrier, spirit hunters (purple), Twilight abomination, Lost dancer (orange), Lord Cyrian

If we used necrofury and construct, their classification should probably be changed to common. They would be worthless anyway, and it would be super disappointing to have one of them take an uncommon spot on the booster.

The only other other problem I can see with your suggestion (a problem which is exacerbated by fire dragon) is that these cards would make PvE completely playable with nothing but the starter deck. I think it should BE playable, but you should be wanting to ditch about half the starter cards in favor of better ones. With these cards, you wouldn't need to buy more cards for really any reason at all (pve). Unless someone more experienced at PvE thinks otherwise?
[/quote]

Why have both affinities of spirit hunter? I feel like those cards I missed aren't really necessary. But thanks for pointing it out. 

I agree, they should probably be changed into commons because of boosters. By worthless, do you mean that the card isn't good or that it's a very cheap card?

And yes, with this deck you could finish a lot of maps. But alot of maps have specific strategies with specific cards that (have) to be used to be able to beat it in Expert difficulty with a much faster time than normal. These strategies use a key card that isn't in the starter deck. What I am really trying to say is, you can complete alot of maps in Hard mode, some even in expert mode, by following the normal strategies using the starter cards. But if you wanna finish expert maps faster, perhaps even solo them, you would need other cards. The started cards offer a nice base to complete the maps but alot of other cards can greatly help the player.  * I hope what I said made any sense *
[hr]
[quote='Treim' pid='4061' dateline='1436644882']
You can play PVE with all that cards, but some maps at expert lvl wont be easy witht that ones, and its far away from fast as you need specific cards that are necassery for good times.
And i think every map has been beaten already with only the F2P-cards of battleforge so yeah playabale but mostlikely to be slow.
Its not really an argument for or against it,  adding some cards to the F2P-section just makes it a little easier from the start.
[/quote]

Exactly what @Treim said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that the suggested list is allready rather good, at least better than the original free to play deck. However, i have a few suggestions to make:

1. Include at least one splashed/multi colour orb card in the deck to introduce this concept to new players. they can at least find out how the orb requirements work before they get confused seeing other players use those cards.

2. All t1 cards should have u1 charge 1; getting wiped in t1 was utterly frustrating with the original free to play deck and it would also introcude new players to upgraded cards.
[hr]
[quote='ladadoos' pid='4062' dateline='1436644888']

Why have both affinities of spirit hunter? I feel like those cards I missed aren't really necessary. But thanks for pointing it out. 

[/quote]

Including both affinitys would make new players realise that there is an actual difference between them (they are listed as seperate cards in the forge) and introduce affinitys directly. I support having at least one card with both affinitys in the deck just to introduce the concept to new players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='LagOps' pid='4064' dateline='1436645116']
1. Include at least one splashed/multi colour orb card in the deck to introduce this concept to new players. they can at least find out how the orb requirements work before they get confused seeing other players use those cards.

Including both affinitys would make new players realise that there is an actual difference between them (they are listed as seperate cards in the forge) and introduce affinitys directly. I support having at least one card with both affinitys in the deck just to introduce the concept to new players.
[/quote]

I agree with adding multi color orb cards. Do we add ONE multi color orb cards to each possible combination? And what T card? T1, T2, T3 or T4?

 I believe thats a nice way to introduce yeah. How do we decide what color to have 2 cards with different affinitys on? Or just each color will have 2 cards with different affinitys ?

** I would like to point out that my mind has changed since answering this threads pool, and that I now believe that the 2nd option is better. (Limited cards, but different from the F2P starter package (comment below on which cards would be best) **

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='ladadoos' pid='4065' dateline='1436645621']
[quote='LagOps' pid='4064' dateline='1436645116']
1. Include at least one splashed/multi colour orb card in the deck to introduce this concept to new players. they can at least find out how the orb requirements work before they get confused seeing other players use those cards.

Including both affinitys would make new players realise that there is an actual difference between them (they are listed as seperate cards in the forge) and introduce affinitys directly. I support having at least one card with both affinitys in the deck just to introduce the concept to new players.
[/quote]

I agree with adding multi color orb cards. Do we add ONE multi color orb cards to each possible combination? And what T card? T1, T2, T3 or T4?

 I believe thats a nice way to introduce yeah. How do we decide what color to have 2 cards with different affinitys on? Or just each color will have 2 cards with different affinitys ?

** I would like to point out that my mind has changed since answering this threads pool, and that I now believe that the 2nd option is better. (Limited cards, but different from the F2P starter package (comment below on which cards would be best) **
[/quote]
I'd say we should add one multi color orb for each fraction, except prolly amii-phantom, as thats not really a own fraction.
Not sure if its really relevant if those cards are t2 t3 or t4.  Probably it should be tier 2 though, not sure which of those are even common or uncommon, i think that limitation is much more important instead of the tier limitations.

I think one double affinity is enough, it might be just a bit unfair as one fraction has pretty much 2 more starter cards. I think no solution is prefect here, as you either add a bunch of cards(8) to the starter pack or you just add 2 for one fraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Treim' pid='4067' dateline='1436646510']

I think one double affinity is enough, it might be just a bit unfair as one fraction has pretty much 2 more starter cards. I think no solution is prefect here, as you either add a bunch of cards(8) to the starter pack or you just add 2 for one fraction.
[/quote]
I would say that adding one double affinity to each fraction would be the best. Like this you are sure that w/e the player chooses, he will see these 2 cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I am also of the opinion that the starter cards should be limited and be some derivative of what we're discussing.

**As long as you can still buy any specific common card from the marketplace**

The idea was to introduce the idea of affinities. I picked spirit hunter because it just seemed like a good pick. Witchclaws, nomad, and lost dancer also have affinites. (although having two of the same t1 card would be OP in the beginning, so I ruled that out. Also I'm not sure if they should go in the starter deck).

I did include some splash cards (abomination, lost dancer), should we use different ones? If we have one for every splash, I'd propose:

stone shards, commandos, twilight brute, lost dancer (If twiilght brute is uncommon then replace with twilight minions)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='4069' dateline='1436646964']
I did include some splash cards (abomination, lost dancer), should we use different ones? If we have one for every splash, I'd propose:

stone shards, commandos, twilight brute, lost dancer (If twiilght brute is uncommon then replace with twilight minions)
[/quote]

Yes, all are uncommon. I believe that your suggestion is fine. As for affinitys, i believe it's the best if we give a T2 card with 2 affinitys. The problem is not every fraction has cards with both affinitys at T2.
My suggestion to what card with 2 affinitys we should add is:

Nature: spirit hunters (T2)
Frost: glaciation or warden's sigil (T1) (frost has no common or uncommon T2 card with 2 affinitys)
Shadow: Knight of chaos (T2) ( I'm not sure about this either since it's 2 shadow orbs, but there is no other uncommon shadow card with 2 affinitys)
Fire: sun reaver (T3) ( like this it has a alot of t3 (magma hurler+sun reaver x2+ emberstrike) units wich maybe helps the fact that fire doesn't have very good T4?)

This is just a random suggestion wich I though could work, I didn't put alot of thinking into it. So your thoughts are appreciated :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure we need more than a few cards with affinity. We should include 1 card with both affinities, and a few random cards (like sun reaver) with just 1 affinity.

I'd also really like to stay away from using uncommons as much as possible.

I'm pretty sure twilight minions, stone shards, lost dancer, and commandos were all common.
And we could add frostbite for the frost card with affinity (if you really want one of each color). The only thing with frostbite is that I doubt many beginners will understand its usefulness, and the starter deck should be compiled with beginners in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote='Eirias' pid='4080' dateline='1436648685']
I'm not sure we need more than a few cards with affinity. We should include 1 card with both affinities, and a few random cards (like sun reaver) with just 1 affinity.

I'd also really like to stay away from using uncommons as much as possible.

I'm pretty sure twilight minions, stone shards, lost dancer, and commandos were all common.
And we could add frostbite for the frost card with affinity (if you really want one of each color). The only thing with frostbite is that I doubt many beginners will understand its usefulness, and the starter deck should be compiled with beginners in mind.
[/quote]

All those cards were common. So, will nature be the chosen one to have 2 cards with affinitys ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what I'd recommend. I think spirit hunters is a good example of how affinities affect cards. Anyone have a better example?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.