Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)

Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison  (Read 5705 times)

pairedeciseaux

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« on: May 15, 2021, 04:23:51 AM »

Last year I ran a few tests, such as medium gun on Wolf and missile launchers on Shrike. After those I wanted to do a “wolf pack” test, using different fleet compositions of small hunter-killer-like ships. But since 0.95 was coming I waited. I have now done such a test, and I want to share the results. Also, this is kind of a followup to the recent thread Tempest Nerf Options.



The intent here is to have a look at attack performance of the various tested ships, using just one specific loadout. So the scope is fairly limited. Ability to defend and distract is not considered. In order to measure attack performance, I ran 24 repetitions of each matchups, and wrote down the battle outcome and the time to win.

Before moving to the interesting bits, it is important to keep in mind:
  • this post is not meant to be a guide teaching how to play
  • this is AI vs AI, player is not involved during battle
  • this is about base attack performance, so no SO hullmod, no built-in hullmod, no officer, no skill
  • Starsector 0.95-RC15 with a customised Fleet Tester mod: I removed the 5 capture objectives, and kept the 10000x10000 arena
  • all ships had aggressive personality
  • ship performance will change depending on its loadout, allied fleet composition, enemy fleet composition and enemy ship loadout
  • obviously I did not simulate all possible battle situations

I ran 9 series of tests: 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2. Details further below.

Above I wrote “using just one specific loadout”, but it is not exactly true. I started with vanilla variants for all tested ships (1.1), then switched to custom variants. Doing so, performance of all ships improved except Centurion, so for that ship I kept results obtained with the vanilla variant and thus did all the following series this way: custom variants for all except vanilla “Assault” Centurion (1.2 to 4.2).

Also worth noting, I changed some of the “rules” at one point. From 1.1 to 2.2, the win condition was perfect win, that is without any retreat (allied/enemy) and without any allied ship disabled. Time to win was only measured when this condition was met. Then, from 3.1 to 4.2, I relaxed the condition to what the game considered a victory, and measured time to win in all those situations.

In any cases, further below in the time distribution charts, I used either a continuous line when win condition was met for all 24 runs, or a dashed line otherwise.

Tested ships

Spoiler
vanilla Lasher, “Strike” variant: 8 capacitors, 10 vents, armoredweapons, targetingunit, blast_doors, 2 lightag, 2 reaper, 2 lightmg, 1 lightdualac

custom Lasher: 9 capacitors, 10 vents, fluxcoil, fluxdistributor, reinforcedhull, 2 lightag, 2 sabot_single, 2 lightmg, 1 lightdualac

vanilla Centurion, “Assault” variant: 9 capacitors, 10 vents, blast_doors, 1 annihilator, 2 lightac, 1 lightag, 1 ioncannon, 2 vulcan

custom Centurion: 7 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxcoil, fluxdistributor, 1 sabot_single, 2 lightac, 2 lightag, 2 lightmg

vanilla Vigilance, “Standard” variant: 0 capacitors, 8 vents, fluxdistributor, missleracks, eccm, 1 pulselaser, 1 harpoonpod

custom Vigilance: 10 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, 1 pulselaser, 1 sabotpod

vanilla Wolf, “Assault” variant: 7 capacitors, 10 vents, fluxdistributor, 1 heavyblaster, 2 harpoon, 1 ioncannon, 2 pdlaser

custom Wolf: 10 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxcoil, fluxdistributor, 1 heavyblaster, 2 sabot_single, 2 pdlaser

vanilla Brawler, “Starting” variant: 7 capacitors, 10 vents, fluxbreakers, 2 heavymortar, 2 railgun

custom Brawler: 8 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxdistributor, 1 heavymortar, 1 arbalest, 2 sabot

vanilla Tempest, “Attack” variant: 6 capacitors, 10 vents, targetingunit, fluxdistributor, stabilizedshieldemitter, 1 pulselaser, 1 gravitonbeam, 1 harpoon

custom Tempest: 10 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxdistributor, 1 heavyblaster, 1 sabot, 1 pdlaser

vanilla Scarab, “Starting” variant: 9 capacitors, 10 vents, blast_doors, fluxdistributor, 2 atropos_single, 1 amblaster, 1 ioncannon, 1 irpulse, 2 pdlaser

custom Scarab: 8 capacitors, 10 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxdistributor, fluxcoil, 2 sabot_single, 1 amblaster, 2 irpulse, 2 pdlaser

vanilla Shrike, “Attack” variant: 9 capacitors, 20 vents, unstable_injector, 1 heavyblaster, 1 sabotpod, 2 irpluse, 1 ioncannon, 2 pdlaser

custom Shrike: 15 capacitors, 20 vents, reinforcedhull, 1 heavyblaster, 1 sabotpod, 2 irpulse, 2 pdlaser

vanilla Medusa, “Attack” variant: 0 capacitors, 19 vents, hardenedshieldemitter, fluxbreakers, 2 railgun, 2 heavyblaster, 2 irpulse, 2 pdlaser

custom Medusa: 14 capacitors, 20 vents, reinforcedhull, fluxdistributor, 2 railgun, 1 heavyblaster, 2 pdlaser, 1 pdburst

vanilla Hyperion, “Attack” variant: 5 capacitors, 10 vents, fluxdistributor, hardenedshieldemitter, hardened_subsystems, 1 pulselaser, 1 phasebeam, 1 heavyneedler

custom Hyperion: 10 capacitors, 10 vents, extendedshieldemitter, unstable_injector, reinforcedhull, 1 ionpulser, 1 miningblaster, 1 heavymg
[close]

Tested ships were either used as single ship fleets (1.1 to 2.2), or used as part of 16 DP (3.1 and 3.2) and 25 DP fleets (4.1 and 4.2).

Enemy ships

Spoiler
vanilla Kite (A), “Starting” variant: 9 capacitors, 10 vents, 1 heatseeker, 1 swarmer, 1 lightdualac

vanilla Cerberus, “Starting” variant: 9 capacitors, 10 vents, blast_doors, reinforcedhull, 1 lightac, 1 lightag, 1 vulcan, 1 flak

vanilla Lasher, “Strike” variant: 8 capacitors, 10 vents, armoredweapons, targetingunit, blast_doors, 2 lightag, 2 reaper, 2 lightmg, 1 lightdualac

vanilla Condor, “Support” variant: 8 capacitors, 15 vents, 1 salamanderpod, 2 lightac, 2 talon_wing

vanilla Enforcer, “Assault” variant: 19 capacitors, 20 vents, targetingunit, fluxdistributor, 2 sabot, 2 reaper, 2 heavyac, 1 heavymortar, 2 flak

vanilla Falcon, “Attack” variant: 10 capacitors, 20 vents, autorepair, heavyarmor, 2 heavymg, 2 heatseeker, 2 pulselaser, 4 pdlaser

vanilla Dominator, “Support” variant: 21 capacitors, 30 vents, dedicated_targeting_core, fluxdistributor, 2 mark9, 3 pilum, 3 lightag, 6 vulcan, 2 flak
[close]

Enemy ships  were used in various fleet compositions, detailed below.

Test series with performance ranking and data visualisation

(1.1) Single ship test fleet (vanilla variants) vs 1 Kite (A): Scarab > Tempest > Shrike > Hyperion > Centurion=Lasher > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(1.2) Single ship test fleet vs 1 Kite (A): Tempest=Scarab > Lasher=Shrike=Hyperion > Centurion > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(1.3) Single ship test fleet vs 2 Kite (A): Tempest > Shrike > Scarab > Medusa=Hyperion > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(2.1) Single ship test fleet vs 1 Cerberus: Tempest > Shrike > Scarab > Medusa > Hyperion=Lasher > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(2.2) Single ship test fleet vs 2 Cerberus: Tempest > Shrike > Scarab > Medusa > Hyperion > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(3.1) 16 DP test fleet vs 1 Kite (A) + 1 Lasher + 1 Condor: Tempest > Scarab > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(3.2) 16 DP test fleet vs 1 Falcon: Tempest > Centurion > Scarab > Wolf > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(4.1) 25 DP test fleet vs 1 Kite (A) + 1 Lasher + 1 Condor + 1 Enforcer: Tempest > Scarab > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

(4.2) 25 DP test fleet vs 1 Dominator: Tempest > Scarab > Shrike=Lasher=Wolf > Centurion > the rest
Spoiler



[close]

Comments

I’d like to remind you: basically only one loadout per ship was tested.

Lasher did OK when in 1v1 situations against weaker ships (Kite and Cerberus) and when outnumbering a strong slow ship (6v1 against Dominator). Lasher was weak when outnumbered.

Centurion did OK in similar situations as Lasher, and had good performance doing 4v1 against Falcon.

Vigilance was not meant to perform well in such tests, so no surprise about its bad performance. Still… maybe it should perform a bit better?

Wolf only performed well when outnumbering opponent, 3v1 against Falcon, and 5v1 against Dominator. A Pulse Laser would probably have increased performance against fighters, frigates and Condor, while lowering performance against cruisers (and Enforcer).

Brawler was at best an OK performer in a few tests, and otherwise pretty weak. Admittedly I don’t really know the ship, also it is entirely possible it wasn’t meant to perform well in such tests. Maybe long range ballistic guns with Harpoons would have worked better?

Tempest was of course the star of the show, no surprise. Best tested ship, results speak for themselves.

Scarab performed really well in all tests. Overall second position, behind Tempest.

Shrike performed well against Kite, Cerberus and Dominator. Shrike was weak in all 16 DP fleet tests and in the first 25 DP fleet test. It should be noted, one Shrike had more Sabots than all single ship fleets except Vigilance which had the same amount.

Medusa performance was disappointing as single ship and in 25 DP fleet tests. It was not part of the 16 DP fleet tests. I do not have a lot of experience with AI-controlled Medusa, so I'm not sure how to interpret those results. I guess a few factors should be considered: it was one of slowest tested ship, it had no missile, and because of its high DP there was less ships on the field in the 25 DP fleet tests.

Hyperion performance was also disappointing. Admittedly I have zero experience with AI-controlled Hyperion, and I gave it my last player-controlled loadout, which may be a cause for the bad performance. That said, such a ship is probably meant to be used either by player or by skilled officer, together with built-in hullmods. With a player-controlled Hyperion using the same loadout I am confident I would win 100% encounters against a lone Falcon, but in the related test above AI Hyperion lost 100% battles. Also, as with Medusa: it had no missile, and because of its high DP there was less ships on the field in the 16 DP and 25 DP fleet tests. So all in all I'm not sure whether those results are relevant or not... except I guess we can see here AI Hyperion may have clear downsides/weaknesses, and that cannot be said about AI Tempest or AI Scarab.
Logged

Phenir

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 620
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2021, 05:17:39 AM »

I think it would have been a good idea to get advice on building these ships before running the tests. Seems like a couple of the ships performed poorly because, as you admit, you didn't have much experience with building them.
I'd guess that the poor performance of the Hyperion is likely due to the way its ship system works. No SO and no officer means it can't easily get 0-flux boost. High DP ships also benefit a lot from officer density. If you ran more tests with an arbitrary number of officers, say 3 or 4 which is around how many I would be willing to put on frigates, I think it would perform better. Total officer levels might be another option if you wanted to make it fair for the low dp ships. That might show more how powerful officers are though and not the ship. Although, I think hyperion benefits greatly, probably more than any other ship, from even a level 1 officer (with elite helmsmanship).
This does show which ships might be good to fill out your fleet if you want some frigates to avoid skill dp caps.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #2 on: May 15, 2021, 07:13:21 AM »

Yeah, you really should have asked about the loadouts. Mining Blaster on the Hyperion? Really? Wolf prolly would have been better of with an ion pulser, AMB, 2 sabot racks and 2 PD lasers. On Medusa it would be nice to have an ion pulser, too. No ion cannons on Centurions, Shrikes, Tempests? I build my Brawlers to be long range harassers with 2 HVDs and some missiles, but this probably wouldn't work well in those tests.

Don't get discouraged, those tests are useful (to me, to point out that Wolves are shite), but some loadouts are better than others and it probably impacts... Actually, would those better loadouts change much? Besides Hyperion, probably not.

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #3 on: May 15, 2021, 09:25:55 AM »

IMO, AI hyperion is only worth the cost with safety overrides, but that would be a very unfair comparison to non-SO ships.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7372
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #4 on: May 15, 2021, 09:38:07 AM »

Fantastic testing, and thank you for laying out your methodology so clearly. It really lets us all nitpick/know how to interpret the data.

Chiming in on loadouts I'll share my personal pet peeve: heavy blaster on Shrikes! I think it actively makes the ship worse to use them. I also think that Sabots are only an "ok" choice, and I'd rather see Harpoons or Reapers.
Logged

Sarissofoi

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 405
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2021, 01:16:07 AM »

vigilance suck donkey balls
hard

Talkie Toaster

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2021, 01:56:35 AM »

IMO, AI hyperion is only worth the cost with safety overrides, but that would be a very unfair comparison to non-SO ships.
Huh, I've found an AI Hyperion with 2 phase lances and 1 heavy needler is super effective in cruiser-scale fleet battles. Regularly see them pop up behind ships and destroy them. I think if the field is full of capitals/heavy cruisers, they struggle as they don't have safe spaces to teleport to, but they seem to do well against things like [REDACTED] fleets which often spread out.
Logged

pairedeciseaux

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2021, 01:14:02 PM »

I'd guess that the poor performance of the Hyperion is likely due to the way its ship system works. No SO and no officer means it can't easily get 0-flux boost.
(...)
Although, I think hyperion benefits greatly, probably more than any other ship, from even a level 1 officer (with elite helmsmanship).

Good point.

As a player-controlled ship I have had decent success without SO and without elite Helmsmanship. But I need Unstable Injector. I wonder if, in this case, Unstable Injector is a trap for AI.

IMO, AI hyperion is only worth the cost with safety overrides, but that would be a very unfair comparison to non-SO ships.

That's the thing, the goal here is to have a "clean" comparison. Also I almost never use SO, it doesn't really makes sense to me.

Huh, I've found an AI Hyperion with 2 phase lances and 1 heavy needler is super effective in cruiser-scale fleet battles. Regularly see them pop up behind ships and destroy them. I think if the field is full of capitals/heavy cruisers, they struggle as they don't have safe spaces to teleport to, but they seem to do well against things like [REDACTED] fleets which often spread out.

Hmm, I'll give the 600-800 range weapons a try. Maybe Phase Lance with Advanced Optics.

Mining Blaster on the Hyperion? Really?

Don't you dare saying bad things about one of the best strike weapon in the game!  :P

I had a lot a fun with 2x Mining Blaster. It is much more satisfying than the SO + 2 Ion Pulser + ExpMag + Assault Chain Gun build I used during my first 0.95 campaign. After that I replaced 1 Mining Blaster with an Ion Pulser, in order to have a bit more versatility. It now seems obvious to me that AI do not handle this loadout very well.

Wolf prolly would have been better of with an ion pulser, AMB, 2 sabot racks and 2 PD lasers. On Medusa it would be nice to have an ion pulser, too. No ion cannons on Centurions, Shrikes, Tempests? I build my Brawlers to be long range harassers with 2 HVDs and some missiles, but this probably wouldn't work well in those tests.

I do not have high hopes for your suggested Wolf gun combo, but I'll try.

I ended-up using the vanilla variant for Centurion, which has an Ion Cannon.

Indeed, long range Brawler sounds interesting and, I imagine, works in certain fleet battle situations to complement larger ships. Other than SO + HMG + ACG build I can't see now how Brawler would fit in a "wolfpack"-type fleet.

Chiming in on loadouts I'll share my personal pet peeve: heavy blaster on Shrikes! I think it actively makes the ship worse to use them. I also think that Sabots are only an "ok" choice, and I'd rather see Harpoons or Reapers.

My regular Shrikes usually have either Heavy Blaster + 2x/3x IR Pulse Lasers, or Pulse Laser + 2x AMB. Sometimes I don't put missiles.

Alright, here is what I am going to do, re-run the test series for a few ships:
  • Wolf with Ion Pulser + AMB (SCC's suggestion)
  • Tempest with Ion Pulser + AMB (seemingly strange idea of mine)
  • Shrike with Ion Pulser + AMB + IR Pulse Laser (Thaago's complain about HB)
  • ...while keeping Sabots on all (*)

Before committing I'll need to test Medusa and Hyperion builds, but IMO it's not a good sign when one has to test/optimise builds in order to perform a simple comparison. Maybe I'll add Pirate Shrike.

(*) I chose ship loadouts for the test series using a few criteria: makes sense to me, uses Sabot for all in order to avoid skewing the results because of choice of missiles, one heavy hitting energy gun on all high tech ships, consistent hullmod selection, some point defence guns for all.
Logged

WeiTuLo

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 312
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2021, 01:20:23 PM »

I tend to use Phase Lance, 2 Sabots, 1 IR Pulse, and 2 mining lasers on my Wolves. They do pretty well, and generally better than a 10 DP Condor.
Logged

intrinsic_parity

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3080
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2021, 01:49:48 PM »

IMO, AI hyperion is only worth the cost with safety overrides, but that would be a very unfair comparison to non-SO ships.

That's the thing, the goal here is to have a "clean" comparison. Also I almost never use SO, it doesn't really makes sense to me.
I'm more commenting that SO hyperion is extremely strong and the reason that I use the ship, so the thing you are comparing here is not the best use of the ship IMO.

In general SO is very strong because 2x dissipation is pretty much double firepower, and speed is also very good. For the hyperion in particular though SO enables zero flux speed boost at all times, which notably enables teleporting at all times. It should be obvious why that is much much stronger. You do need to stack as many PPT boosts as possible to make it viable though.
Logged

AcaMetis

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2021, 02:34:00 PM »

Can anyone suggest a decent build for the Hyperion? I wanted to test for myself how good it really is (or, as the case seems to be right now, isn't >:() but so far it's failing to kill a Sim Venture 1v1. My build wasn't optimal, but it couldn't have been that bad either...

EDIT: Would probably help if I actually mentioned said build: Double Phase Lance, Heavy Needler, 10 caps/vents, Accelerated/Extended/Stabilized Shield mods. Seemed fine for a first test, but, well...
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 02:36:44 PM by AcaMetis »
Logged

pairedeciseaux

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2021, 02:44:54 PM »

I'm more commenting that SO hyperion is extremely strong and the reason that I use the ship, so the thing you are comparing here is not the best use of the ship IMO.

In general SO is very strong because 2x dissipation is pretty much double firepower, and speed is also very good. For the hyperion in particular though SO enables zero flux speed boost at all times, which notably enables teleporting at all times. It should be obvious why that is much much stronger. You do need to stack as many PPT boosts as possible to make it viable though.

True, true.  :)

The question I did not dare to ask so far: is all of this by design? I mean, there are contradicting signals, unless I missed something. On one hand Hyperion supposedly has this weakness that it can easily get in by jumping but then it can only get out as a snail, relatively speaking. On the other hand with SO or elite Helmsmanship the weakness disappears: jump in, jump out! Feels almost like an exploit to me. Having said that, I kind of remember Alex did unveil the ship using an SO build. So... I don't know.

Even if this is by design, I would prefer AI Hyperion to perform reasonably well without SO hullmod and without elite Helmsmanship skill. That's what I am curious to find out, even if it definitely is not the main goal here.

Can anyone suggest a decent build for the Hyperion? I wanted to test for myself how good it really is (or, as the case seems to be right now, isn't >:() but so far it's failing to kill a Sim Venture 1v1. My build wasn't optimal, but it couldn't have been that bad either...

Do you mean player-controlled or AI-controlled Hyperion?

I am not qualified to give AI-controlled Hyperion build advices, as shown in the first post and ensuing discussion  ;D , I'll let others speak about that. In any cases, Venture having an omni shield and strong armor is not the easiest prey for a lone Hyperion... but it's still a prey.
Logged

AcaMetis

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 485
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2021, 03:02:05 PM »

Quote
Do you mean player-controlled or AI-controlled Hyperion?

I am not qualified to give AI-controlled Hyperion build advices, as shown in the first post and ensuing discussion  ;D , I'll let others speak about that. In any cases, Venture having an omni shield and strong armor is not the easiest prey for a lone Hyperion... but it's still a prey.
AI controlled. Not that I would ever use Hyperions in a fleet seeing that their logistic profile is the biggest war crime Tri-Tachyon has ever committed, but I was curious to see how the hanger queen does in actual combat. Needless to say that dying to a glorified Pirate ship with equal DP and half the supplies/month made me...not impressed ::).

I use the Sim Venture as one of my go-to measuring sticks, since the combination of heavy armor, drones and missiles gives me a good look at a ship's PD and extended fighting capabilities, although it's non-missile based offence leaves something to be desired. Good enough for a sim test, though.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4186
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #13 on: May 17, 2021, 09:46:07 PM »

For AI, you probably want a Fury instead, but if you took some combat skills, you can do amazing things in Hyperion.

SapphireSage

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
    • View Profile
Re: 0.95 Small ships performance comparison
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2021, 11:10:22 PM »

Phase Lances won't be as great against a Venture 1v1 as they have Omni shields rather than front and Phase Lances do bursty soft flux over a period of time while a H. Needler on its own isn't enough hard flux to be a concern for it. Instead, you want to take advantage of the Hyperion's ability to teleport where ever and give it strong close range weaponry like the Heavy Machine gun if you want Kinetic (most Kinetic DPS among medium Ballistics and for the cheapest flux.) and weaponry like Heavy or Antimatter Blasters for strong burst damage against armor and hull. Mining Blasters if you're feeling risky, but those really need skills to make up for their flux inefficiency. Likewise, being a high tech ship that loves bursty hit and runs, and a frigate at that, Hyperions love flux capacity rather than dissipation to dump more rounds at a target before backing off to vent.

SO and to a lesser extent Helmsmanship elite do a really good job of letting it teleport on demand. If its an AI Hyperion though, it will really need SO in order for the AI to better abuse teleporter since AI do a really bad job with letting down shields or holding fire to get Elite Helms bonus for easy getaways.
« Last Edit: May 17, 2021, 11:16:16 PM by SapphireSage »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2