• Fallout 4 - Dogmeat must die
    111 replies, posted
I agree with the devs. I NEVER took Dogmeat with me in Fallout 3. In effect, he had no purpose in the game for me. And that's because I knew he could be killed, I hate dead dogs, and with no limit on saves, it'd just become an annoyance of quickloading to involve him. It sucked, because I felt like I was getting cut out of something that could be a cool part of the game, but it's so inconvenient I never use it. That, and I'm HUGELY stealth focused in games when I CAN be, and having a companion at LEAST doubles my risk of getting caught. But yeah, mod shit and be done with it. For most of us, let us have our neat companion, and be able to fully utilize him too.
When I played Fallout 3, I played the base game and then later on I installed the DLCs. That had the side effect of somehow giving Dogmeat over ten thousand base HP. While yes, that was cheaty, but it gave me the leeway of playing with Dogmeat, since I could be confident that his combat AI of "run in and bite things until either it or he dies" would end in a way that I could be happy about. I agree that companions being able to die is a good thing, but "being able to" and "being likely to" are different things entirely.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48734685]the thing is, I actually don't mod fallout 3 / nv until my 2nd or 3rd play through because the games [I]don't[/I] need mods. And idk why everyone holds morrowind to such a high standard, I couldn't possibly play that game without mods considering how massively shit the combat is for anyone that doesn't have special knowledge. if they considered making fallout 3 not need mods it would, again, have 50 check boxes to change every single little niggle people "Could have a problem with and mod away", or they could just not think about mods and do what comes natural. If they considered making Fallout 4 "Not need mods" they would spend half of the games funds on tedious and insane tweaks that do almost nothing. Modding and bethesda games only go so hand in hand because the games are so openly moddable. It has nothing to do with bethesda making bad games. It has nothing to do with a game being great either. People mod bethesda games because they played the game for 150 hours already and want to give the experience spice. and the reason dark souls doesn't have mods is because that game isn't even close to a bethesda game when it comes to moddablity. [URL="http://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls/"]Doesn't stop people though.[/URL] It has nothing to do with how "great dark souls is". The game simply does not have a dedicated modding engine like bethesda's games do, and it's a multiplayer game on top of that, making it a bit iffy. if dark souls had the same modding tools as bethesdas games I guarantee you we'd see a 10v10 player arena map by now. It's not really practical however.[/QUOTE] To me it seems like a huge amount of people these days find it impossible to enjoy the games without them. Also to be frank, Morrowind is not [I]that[/I] hard to understand the combat. Every attack has a chance to hit that is increased by having better skill. Pick at least one weapon type you want to use and make it a major skill. Use the armor you've chosen as a major skill. Train. If something's too hard, come back to it later or lower the difficulty. Boom, there's Morrowind's combat explained for the most part, as I understand it. I say as an almost complete outsider to Morrowind it's really not [I]that[/I] hard to get, especially since you can just look this shit up on the wiki. And considering it sold 4 million copies, won 60 awards, and was a critically acclaimed success, unless we all just got dumb as fuck or babied on games since 2002, there's no excuse not to be able to learn it. Sure, it's not a [I]good[/I] combat system, but it's one you can learn. It's not 'special knowledge', it's knowledge one could obtain by reading the fucking manual or doing a simple google search. My point is that nobody puts out games like Bethesda, but nobody puts out games that are in such shambles as Bethesda. So many things about them are broken. There are mods for fun, and then there are mods like SkyUI that are there to fix their fuck-ups. They make excessive amounts of fuck-ups where they don't need to. And not having a proper PC UI because it can be modded in is a complete bullshit excuse. It shouldn't need to be modded in in the first place. Faults and bad game design are not excused because it will [I]maybe[/I] get fixed by some amateur, non-game designer who might give up on it. Does Skyrim need mods? Does Oblivion or Fallout 3? I feel like a large portion of the fanbase would say [I]yes.[/I] That's a problem, even if it's just the unofficial patches. What's the first thing most people will tell you when you say you want to get a Bethesda game? Get it on PC, for mods. But hey, if mods aren't necessary, surely it must be inconsequential right? All I'm saying is that Fellout, SkyUI, DarnUI, iHUD, these things shouldn't need to exist. It should be a part of the game already. And the option to have characters die isn't excused for not being in the game when it [I]was [/I] before in hardcore mode, which will effect the experience for people (from a gameplay perspective you're now carting around Terminators), because 'oh it can be modded in'.
I don't see why it couldn't be an option in game? Amazing Follower Tweaks for Skyrim let you toggle if followers could die. It can be set globally or per-follower. Bethesda should also not make it's AI nearly brain-dead, which seems to be a big reason people want unkillable followers.
Good AI is pretty damn hard to make so I don't blame them for that one.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48735137] All I'm saying is that Fellout, SkyUI, DarnUI, iHUD, these things shouldn't need to exist. It should be a part of the game already. And the option to have characters die isn't excused for not being in the game when it [I]was [/I] before in hardcore mode, which will effect the experience for people (from a gameplay perspective you're now carting around Terminators), because 'oh it can be modded in'.[/QUOTE] I don't know about you but playing those games without those are actually possible. they don't actually "NEED" to exist you know. Bethesda can't simply do what modders do, modders will always be able to improve upon the original game. There are hundreds of mods that add useful features to the game, and Bethesda is more busy making the game to try and compensate for everything that "Will be modded in anyways". Even a huge studio has a limited power. and menu improvements are a way different thing than something like this, dogmeats mortality is a subjective change, a menu change is an objective one. There are going to be tons of mods that improve upon any game objectively. No matter what, every single game that exists has something that could be improved with the help of a mod. It's impossible to make a game that has NO NEED for any fixes, that's completely impossible. Subjective changes, there are so many different things that subjectively should be changed, depending on every single person playing it. Some people want this that way, some people want that this way. There are so many different things that people could like or dislike, that if bethesda tried making a setting for [B]every little thing[/B] they wouldn't have a game. It's better if Bethesda actually just made a decision and then stuck with it, instead of having a checkbox for something as minor, as, god for fucking bid, a stupid dog. They need to stop tweaking each feature at SOME point, and no matter how good the feature is, it's up to modders to decide what to improve, otherwise the game would become a Frankenstein of unneeded features and tweaks. In addition to all of this, if you spend too much time working on something that's already acceptable or better, and keep trying to improve what works, you're going to detract time away from everything else you could be working. Also, I thought sky UI was pretty over rated, even if it did have "Improved features". It absolutely doesn't improve the game as good as people make it out to be. Saying it "Should just be a part of a game" doesn't really make sense. If they were to tweak menu's too much while making the game they would make everything WORSE, which is [I]exactly the point of modders[/I].
I just woke up nap to this dick hole talking about hows its a national travesty on how dogmeat cant die. Whats the big deal. just make a mod and quit bitching about it
[QUOTE=DeEz;48735259]Good AI is pretty damn hard to make so I don't blame them for that one.[/QUOTE] not only that but with the amount of NPC's and 'world' thats being rendered good AI would be hard to optimize to begin with.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48734428]And this is always going to be one of Bethesda's biggest faults[/QUOTE] How exactly ? Games don't have to be designed to be hard in order to be good. Just design your game to be fun and appealing to whatever audience you're targeting and you're still on the good path. Bethesda's fucking awesome for actually allowing people to tailor the game's difficulty to their liking.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48736411]How exactly ? Games don't have to be designed to be hard in order to be good. Just design your game to be fun and appealing to whatever audience you're targeting and you're still on the good path. Bethesda's fucking awesome for actually allowing people to tailor the game's difficulty to their liking.[/QUOTE] Yeah, with Beth's open armed policy towards modding, I would expect a Fallout 4 version of Skyrim Requiem sometime next year.
[QUOTE=yodafart9;48734156]they have 2 months to release this game. Are we going to get anything that doesn't look pre-rendered and prestaged as hell?[/QUOTE] Have we really come full circle now? When the game was first shown off, people were saying that it looked worse than unmodded Skyrim. Now, you're saying that everything we've seen is pre-rendered, which implies that it's too good and will be toned back on release. Can we just talk about Fallout 4 based on the gameplay we've seen of it rather than the visuals? It's not like there won't be some ENB or SweetFX presets that improve the visuals for it anyway post-release. As for the bit about Dogmeat dying or a hardcore mode, I definitely agree with the hardcore mode bit. My best memories of New Vegas are those of me overcoming some sort of struggle to survive in the wasteland that hardcore mode helped to create and amplify. Not having it in Fallout 4, even though people have been clamoring for such an option since fucking Oblivion, is just silly. Though that being said, I'm not too miffed about it, as I'm sure someone will just mod it in post-release as either a standalone mod, or a huge overhaul mod. The companions dying should just be a hardcore mode only thing though. I can definitely understand the plights of those who are against it, as Bethesda and AI have never gone well together, especially when it comes to companion AI. Losing a companion to something cheap in the game isn't so much a tragic loss, but just a stupid bit of frustration. It also isn't really tragic if your companions don't have some sort of backstory, which Bethesda's companions never have had to be honest. That's why losing a companion in Fallout 3 didn't feel as bad as losing a companion in New Vegas. But that's a whole different topic.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;48736411]How exactly ? Games don't have to be designed to be hard in order to be good. Just design your game to be fun and appealing to whatever audience you're targeting and you're still on the good path. Bethesda's fucking awesome for actually allowing people to tailor the game's difficulty to their liking.[/QUOTE] Their games are notoriously badly balanced. I'm not just talking difficulty in the form of combat either. Their games just tend to be really easy and broken. The best you've got for combat difficulty is making enemies more spongey which is not satisfying at all. The things that supplement combat and the game in general, money, stimpaks, weapons, ammo, are all extremely easy to come by. Performance enhancing drugs really aren't necessary, you can get by 99 percent of the time without having to use any and they might as well not be there. Before long, you can have dozens of stimpaks, radaway, thousands of caps and so much ammo you'll never have to worry about running dry. In Fallout 3 you can become literally perfect and have a 100 skill in every stat and 10 special across the board. And in the case of Fallout, I'd say it actually fucks with the theme a lot. The post apocalypse genre is one that is inherently survival focused. You need supplies to be rare and you need combat and shootouts to be a real threat. Radiation and food are great to have as issues (which is another thing Fallout has always lacked in, radiation has always played a role so minor it might as well not exist). If you don't have that, you don't have a post apocalypse, you have a post apocalypse theme park. A harsh wasteland is only believable if it is actually harsh. There's a reason FWE is one of the most popular Fallout 3 mods even though it's janky as fuck. People wanting challenge doesn't make them some obscure niche that should be ignored. Hell, people are very attracted to a good challenge. And 'challenge' doesn't mean it has to be Dark Souls brutal hard. There's a lot of room between 'boringly easy with no challenge' and 'bend you over and fuck you in the ass'. To let Yahtzee sum it up; [quote=Fallout 3 Review]I ended up putting lots of points into lockpicking and stealth, partly because sometimes I experience minor brain hemorrhages and I forget that the Thief series are the only games that have ever done stealth well, and partly because I was going to steal shit. Games have spent the last 20 years ingraining into me the instinct that being the stalwart hero of the land basically overrules society's petty ownership laws rather than Objectivist philosophy, on reflection, but I'll be buggered before I unlearn that for one fucking game. As long as no one's looking, you can pretty much help yourself, and most people are too busy staring at walls to worry about you. By the time I hit level 4 I was sitting on a haul worthy of a dingy, post-apocalyptic Croesus, but still had the highest karma level because of a few quests I stumbled into. So the people were showering me with praise even while they wondered where their wallets had gone. Eventually I lost interest, because I was practically wallpapering my house with money, medkits, and ammo, and all the challenge had exited the game with nary a farewell or tip of the hat.[/quote] [quote=Skyrim Review]I went out of my way not to steal, because playing a career thief in Oblivion and Fallout 3 always ended with me owning a majority stake in the entire universe and all challenge was lost. So in this case I decided I was roleplaying a man with a crippling fear of victory and success. You know what? I still ended up owning a majority stake in the entire universe, because it's been a very long time since any of the dungeon monsters had a big treasure spring clean.[/quote]
I just want Dogmeat to ragdoll across the map if I just plant c4s and mini nukes under him, I dont care if he can die or not.
[QUOTE=J!NX;48734436]post[/QUOTE] because whatever beth does, if someone disagrees with them they're gonna get salt from a shitload of fanboys
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740032]heres my issue bethesda games are supposed to be games where you are constantly getting progress and your power constantly grows, this is a staple of them in classic fallout games, you've always ended up like the player at the end of a bethesda fallout game i.e. power armor with the plasma lance and untold amounts of ammo the buildup may be different but the end result was always the same[/QUOTE] But the buildup was better, the game offered genuine challenge along the way and it was only very late game that you got to that point, whereas in Fallout 3 you can be super powerful, rich as fuck, and never have to worry about anything ever again when you've barely even cracked a fraction of the game. Fallout 2 is straight up one of the hardest fucking games I've ever played and you can still get your ass beat even with power armor and shit, although having it makes you way more powerful. Does the end result being the same nullify the journey? No. Was that super powerful status you got good in Fallout 1 and 2 either? No. There has never been a reason not to be going around in power armor, and that's always been shitty. That's why one thing I like about Fallout 4 is that it seems to have power armor be more like a vehicle than a standard armor, and something you have to power. But if Fallout 4 is balanced the same way they've balanced things previous, you're virtually never going to worry about whatever charges the power armor because you'll have shit tons of it. You can't sit here and tell me that a game where I can be rolling in more money, weapons, ammo, health supplies, and armor than I could ever need and still have like 95 percent of the game left is a good thing and well balanced. If you genuinely think that, you're bullshitting yourself and me.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740032]heres my issue bethesda games are supposed to be games where you are constantly getting progress and your power constantly grows, this is a staple of them in classic fallout games, you've always ended up like the player at the end of a bethesda fallout game i.e. power armor with the plasma lance and untold amounts of ammo the buildup may be different but the end result was always the same[/QUOTE] A shame that more or less stopped working after Morrowind. In oblivion you basically could take on anything, at anytime. Same thing with Skyrim and FO3. Then again in Morrowind you technically can be OP from the start or at least very quickly too if you know what you're doing, but that's kind of the point in case. You should be powerful if you know what you're doing, not because the game is ridiculously easy/shoddily balanced. In the classic fallouts that was the case too, and it felt really fucking good when you got OP and you knew you worked for it.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740127]But the buildup was better, the game offered genuine challenge along the way and it was only very late game that you got to that point, whereas in Fallout 3 you can be super powerful, rich as fuck, and never have to worry about anything ever again when you've barely even cracked a fraction of the game. Fallout 2 is straight up one of the hardest fucking games I've ever played and you can still get your ass beat even with power armor and shit, although having it makes you way more powerful. Does the end result being the same nullify the journey? No. Was that super powerful status you got good in Fallout 1 and 2 either? No. There has never been a reason not to be going around in power armor, and that's always been shitty. That's why one thing I like about Fallout 4 is that it seems to have power armor be more like a vehicle than a standard armor, and something you have to power. But if Fallout 4 is balanced the same way they've balanced things previous, you're virtually never going to worry about whatever charges the power armor because you'll have shit tons of it. You can't sit here and tell me that a game where I can be rolling in more money, weapons, ammo, health supplies, and armor than I could ever need and still have like 95 percent of the game left is a good thing and well balanced. If you genuinely think that, you're bullshitting yourself and me.[/QUOTE] Or someone has a different concept of fun to you [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=proch;48740136]A shame that more or less stopped working after Morrowind. In oblivion you basically could take on anything, at anytime. Same thing with Skyrim and FO3. Then again in Morrowind you technically can be OP from the start or at least very quickly too if you know what you're doing, but that's kind of the point in case. You should be powerful if you know what you're doing, not because the game is ridiculously easy/shoddily balanced.[/QUOTE] Well hopefully they listen/look at FNV more on that front.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740142] Well hopefully they listen/look at FNV more on that front.[/QUOTE] As much as I'd love that, I can't see Beth bothering with something like that. The problem is that the wider audience likes it more casually. Can't blame Beth for catering to them, business is business after all. It's just a shame we don't get many works of passion and enthusiasm anymore apart from the occasional niche game.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48740140]fallout 2 and 1 are also much more linear experiences than 3 and new vegas they are technically open world but outside of the cities and marked dungeons, there was no way to generate money/weapons/whatever outside of sparse random encounters its really difficult to balance a game trying to be both action and rpg while keeping a completely open world with all sorts of items lying around[/QUOTE] I didn't say it was easy. But if an amateur modder can make a better, more difficult and better balanced experience, I'm sure a several million dollar company that dedicates years to the product can do it too. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740142]Or someone has a different concept of fun to you[/QUOTE] Yeah, no shit. That's a completely redundant statement. Some people enjoy anything. Some people would genuinely prefer it if there were no health bar and you just had infinite health and infinite everything (which you might as well). Are we supposed to just get rid of health then? My opinion and their opinion are both valid, but I think one makes for objectively better game design and an objectively better game and I have arguments to back that up. Saying "Oh yeah well some people don't agree with that" or "stop complaining and just accept whatever they're doing" are completely meaningless. They're going to cater to one or the other, and it's not going to be me, I'll bet you any amount of money. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it.
:snip:
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;48740267]So your saying they should cater to your preferred design instead of making something that's more universally acessable?[/QUOTE] Yes. Not everything needs to be for everyone.
[QUOTE=proch;48740167]As much as I'd love that, I can't see Beth bothering with something like that. The problem is that the wider audience likes it more casually. Can't blame Beth for catering to them, business is business after all. It's just a shame we don't get many works of passion and enthusiasm anymore apart from the occasional niche game.[/QUOTE] well that's something I don't know about with FO4. FO4 started development right after FO3 apparently. That's before FNV even started development. I can't imagine Bethesda full out ignoring the things that they're subbordinate developers are doing with their own franchise especially the things fans addored. Bethesda may not be the smartest developer, but they generally speaking, look at the community and see what they can do to fill that gap even more. Like for example, layered armor. Something we've all been clamoring for for years essentially. We'll get some form of it. That's listening to us. I imagine they'll listen to us on a few other fronts about the things FNV did right. FNV didn't do everything right though, so we'll see where it goes and what we get. I'm not 100% sure they'll make the changes we want, but I have some faith left in them.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740278]Yes. Not everything needs to be for everyone.[/QUOTE] So in an era where AAA games cost more to make than ever, they should be seeking to narrow their audience in a highly moddable and customizable game just to make you happy? Nah. [editline]22nd September 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740199]I didn't say it was easy. But if an amateur modder can make a better, more difficult and better balanced experience, I'm sure a several million dollar company that dedicates years to the product can do it too. Yeah, no shit. That's a completely redundant statement. Some people enjoy anything. Some people would genuinely prefer it if there were no health bar and you just had infinite health and infinite everything (which you might as well). Are we supposed to just get rid of health then? My opinion and their opinion are both valid, but I think one makes for objectively better game design and an objectively better game and I have arguments to back that up. Saying "Oh yeah well some people don't agree with that" or "stop complaining and just accept whatever they're doing" are completely meaningless. They're going to cater to one or the other, and it's not going to be me, I'll bet you any amount of money. But that doesn't mean I have to be happy with it.[/QUOTE] Yeah pretty much what I thought you'd say. I don't get why you feel so egocentric to the development of these games that you'd really demand they be catering to you. I want them to cater to me too, I'm closer to your opinion than not anyways, but I realize the absurdity of demanding a game like this cater to a much smaller niche audience, when it will be quite easy and readily available to make the game into a different beast through small tweaks. we can always argue "you shouldn't have to do that". No shit but you can't hit every mark with every product so letting people play with the game at the heart of what that means to get the game tweaks they personally want is a very reasonable, productive, and actually useful option. Complaining the game isn't built to be "your" game, is a little ridiculous in that reality.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740289]So in an era where AAA games cost more to make than ever, they should be seeking to narrow their audience in a highly moddable and customizable game just to make you happy? Nah.[/QUOTE] So you're saying making a worse product is justified by profits?
-misread, why did you snip the quote lol-
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740320]So you're saying making a worse product is justified by profits?[/QUOTE] Worse by [I]your[/I] standards.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740199]I didn't say it was easy. But if an amateur modder can make a better, more difficult and better balanced experience, I'm sure a several million dollar company that dedicates years to the product can do it too.[/QUOTE] is this post a fucking joke "More difficult" does not make it automatically universally better. This is coming from someone who is a huge fan of dark souls, witcher, and hotline miami. it's literally impossible to make everything up to the standards of modders because no matter how much you improve something, a modder will always find something to improve. And you can't focus too much time on making every single aspect of the game as perfect as you want just because someone may 'groan' when they look at it. There are ALWAYS going to be issues, especially subjective ones. modders don't have to balance and create every single enemy from the ground up, they have the chance to look at every enemy after the fact that the game has been released and they've played it, and balance it after the fact. A company has numbers but they can't dedicate people to spend huge amounts on man hours on something that's already more than acceptable, especially when they have so much work to do that they'd spaz out. The reason dark souls, for example, has such unbelievably good combat and level design is because the game is nothing but combat and pretty levels. That's it. Dark souls has no abundant interactive NPC's at all, no heavy dialogue or heavy RPG engines. It's just a fighting game with big ass levels. That's how the game has been refined so well for combat, because if you're in it for talking to people, you aren't going to find that.
[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;48740320]So you're saying making a worse product is justified by profits?[/QUOTE] Worse on one persons subjective standards is literally something no one ever should give a shit about. Yet you demand they do. I want the same things you want. But i'm not yelling about how terrible it is I don't get my way. In a game like Fo3, FNV, I assume Fo4, modding small things and small tweaks will make large difference. Yet you're demanding that they shrink their audience for you, take a financial loss, for you, and you don't see how ego centric that is?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48740389]Worse on one persons subjective standards is literally something no one ever should give a shit about. Yet you demand they do. I want the same things you want. But i'm not yelling about how terrible it is I don't get my way. In a game like Fo3, FNV, I assume Fo4, modding small things and small tweaks will make large difference. Yet you're demanding that they shrink their audience for you, take a financial loss, for you, and you don't see how ego centric that is?[/QUOTE] Well, let's all sit around the campfire and listen to pop music and play some CoD, if it's all about mass appeal and profit. I mean, hey, those are the proven sellers, why make or do anything else? Why make a post apocalypse game? Post apocalypse is a niche audience! Do you really think people are going to put down Fallout 4 and walk away because they died, or ran out of ammo? Do you really think people are going to look at a vast world with deep lore and awesome art and character design and great music and such interesting concepts and say "Nah" because it offers a challenge? To go back to Dark Souls, Dark Souls is a 'niche' game. There are currently 4 games and a 5th on the way, it gets showcased at E3 and people lose their fucking minds, and you can bet it makes it's money back. Payday is a massively successful series that just happens to be really difficult and people love it, the second one made its money back from pre-orders alone and it's one of the most successful games on Steam. Half Life 2 is a critically acclaimed masterpiece that sold massively well and I can tell you I died a decent amount playing it, and ran out of ammo. BioShock Infinite was really hard for me, I guess partially because I just sucked shit at it since I'm not good at console shooters, I'm sure it was really hard for other people and one thing that was popular about it was the 1999 mode. Sold like hotcakes. Portal is a game that went for a genre that's completely niche and has been played by millions. But a massive RPG by fucking Bethesda can't sell because they went for quality over projected mass appeal? I can agree budgets are overinflated and there's a drive to make money back which means they need to appeal. Guess what? That's why games are getting worse, and worse, and worse. A good budget is supposed to mean your game can be bigger and better, not fucking bland, easy, and made to appeal to the widest demographic possible. Why do we criticize Konami again? Konami only did what was good for business and profits. I care about it not just because it's more enjoyable for me, but because I think it's better for the game, and better for the series, and better for people in general. I care deeply for Fallout. It's easily my favorite series of all time. I want what's best for Fallout, and more profit at the cost of quality is not it. Sitting around stagnating in mass appeal does nothing for anyone.
[QUOTE=proch;48740119]because whatever beth does, if someone disagrees with them they're gonna get salt from a shitload of fanboys[/QUOTE] Yes, we know you fucking hate Bethesda and think that Todd Howard should rot in hell.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.