Jump to content
Friesen

Dear devs, the optics vs riflemen are seriously imbalanced

Recommended Posts

Realistic no...Its just a game and the gameplay must be only the good direction !! Then if full of players want a optic for balance then DEVs don t make it cause since the beginning U MAKE ALL AGAINST GOOD FEELING...just for a little numbers. Sorry but this could be so good ...Bye i go  see u next patch again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, what's the subject of the discussion? Optics in Squad have been getting rid of PIP, tunnel effect, proper sizes - basically everything what made it more or less balanced or realistic. That's happened due to your community request, cause you wanted comfortable and easy gameplay. Now you've got what you wanted: 4X permanent screen zoom and still complaining. Now you want to balance optics with respawns, smokes with stamina, apples with pears. And sway, HELL YES, THE SWAY! Optics are too good?! Increase the sway?! Tanks can'be penetrated with pistols? Increase the sway! Fast ropes are fast? SWAY''EM ALL!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try to balance things by giving the insurgents all sorts of weapons, like artillery, mortars, tanks, rockets more tickets and it still won't change the fact that the ordinary riflemen will be severly underpowered against the optics. I don't want the game to pile up things for insurgents with more tickets, more weapons for them in order to balance things out. The optics should be properly suppressed when bullets are whizzing past your head by having the slight jumping effect on the iron sight as well as a much bigger sway for aiming. I can't describe it any other way other than just be referencing the game mod Darkest Hour 44-45 where not only the jumping effect from bullets effectively takes out of the sniper ability to return accurate fire while being on the run or not in a good cover, also the aiming is way more challanging to hit enemy soldiers due to the sway and the fact that you need to rest your weapon on objects in order to have better aiming ability which I dearly hope SQUAD will have this resting weapons on objects feature soon with an increased sway especially for the optics, the already mentioned jumping effect from whizzing bullets which would prolong the firefights and make way more interesting, increase the learning curve for aiming. And please black out the view outside the optic, I rather have it completely black like the Post Scriptum:The Bloody Seventh have done for their sniper rifle optic. It is totally exploitable to be seeing everything zoomed outside the optic.

 

Please devs I don't want for the rest of the SQUAD be purely playing optics only because of how useless the standard riflemen are and worthless to choose them.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is oranges to apples. Try to adapt to the gun play style you have, don't use iron signs in the open and expect to beat a scope. Were as don't expect a scope to beat you in a corridor. If your militia with out scope hunker down let the enemy come to  you . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can try to do whatever you want, you can also with the iron-sighted weapon sit in the corner of a building and wait 10 minutes for the enemies inside. Still won't change the fact of the disparity in a game such Darkest Hour 44-45 between the riflemen and optics is so vastly different, that it completely changes the gunplay to the point where I do not feel like a completely useless dead meat when playing with an iron-sighted weapon.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that everybody seems to understand that the optics have a significant advantage when in open terrain and at long ranges (duh), yet so many people fail to deduce that they shouldn't try to fight the optics where they have the advantage.

 

But yeah, long range shooting is currently way too easy in Squad.

Edited by MultiSquid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I agree that giving ins/mil more tools is a better solutation than tickets, I was simply speaking from a test it quickly mindset. The end goal should be more tools for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The common misunderstanding when the community requests for the game to be easy and comfortable. Yes, but that pertains to the movement to be not as clunky as Arma where you have many different stances and such so that the movement could be more simplified which Squad game has achieved. But not the aiming. It should not pertain to aiming. The aiming should stay difficult with a lot of sway. The way it is so easy to aim right now should only be possible when resting weapon over objects. When you understand that this missing feature of resting weapons over objects along with the very slight jumping effect for whizzing bullets is causing the optic to be so beyond the boundaries of being overly advantageous against the normal riflemen than what it should be.

 

If these two features were in-game already I swear I'd be happy to play insurgents with nothing but iron-sighted ak74 against all nothing but US optic riflemen. Because the slight jumping effect for whizzing bullets and resting weapons over objects (which would increase drastically sway when not resting) would basically put their effectiveness of effectively return accurate fire while under fire completely out of use. Only from well camouflaged positions these optics then would be effective if proper mechanics were implemented in-game to make that happen. But right now they're absent. Which is what is causing the aiming to be so overly easy.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to have gotten worse, the US team with optics has an even larger advantage now against Insurgents due to having much better camo in desert maps and now there is some other change that side of server could be the US team for 3 maps in a row. The game has become painful now when not on US team because people just quit and find another server.

The best games were in early Alpha when it was Russia vs Militants or Insurgents because both sides did not have any optics other than 1 or 2 marksmen and it made for good gameplay with gunfights on objectives.

Now it is every match , the US team go prone 200 metres from objective and just pick off easy targets and just keeping pushing through. 

Thanks in advance for letting me know that is realistic, but I did the Kickstarter for a game not for my real life.

Is there any word or feedback on whether they are looking at balancing or is it just a marketing ploy to attract the biggest market in US if they can win 9 out of 10 matches ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really think having one or two extra 4x scopes results in a free 200 ticket lead you have to be trolling or making excuses for terrible manoeuvring.

Ever try to hold an inner city vs a confident team with a scope? or are you camped 600 meters away on a hill?

#ironsforlife



 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old topic, but repeated every so often as new players join.

I agree, the game is unbalanced when it comes to different factions and their optics.

I still to this day try and get onto the US forces given the chance. People say to adapt and use the landscape, I do, but you simply cannot hide from optics There are some maps that are too damn open and impossible to hide, Koi Valley? I refuse to play it as US will win 90% of the time. Same goes for other maps and the uniforms. Darker clothing stands out so much on lighter maps and it's hard to see the enemy as they're more blended in with their camo.

 

Anyway, I like realism, but this is a game not real war and the balance should be in there to make it fair to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i get yelled at and sometimes kicked from squads daily for not choosing the red dot sight rifleman kit over the ironsights lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mad Ani said:

This is an old topic, but repeated every so often as new players join.

I agree, the game is unbalanced when it comes to different factions and their optics.

I still to this day try and get onto the US forces given the chance. People say to adapt and use the landscape, I do, but you simply cannot hide from optics There are some maps that are too damn open and impossible to hide, Koi Valley? I refuse to play it as US will win 90% of the time. Same goes for other maps and the uniforms. Darker clothing stands out so much on lighter maps and it's hard to see the enemy as they're more blended in with their camo.

 

Anyway, I like realism, but this is a game not real war and the balance should be in there to make it fair to all.

 

Do you mean Kohat Toi or Logar Valley?

 

Other then that i completly agree. I prefer the US vs Russian cause its the only maps that are fun every game. Half the rounds on Rus/US vs Mil/Ins maps are total bloodbaths (except Sumari). Dont really find it funny neither when you are winning and especially not when you are losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, biassFA said:

If you really think having one or two extra 4x scopes results in a free 200 ticket lead you have to be trolling or making excuses for terrible manoeuvring.
Ever try to hold an inner city vs a confident team with a scope? or are you camped 600 meters away on a hill?
#ironsforlife

 

These kind of posts are a such a big of a game-excusing baloney and hogwash that is perpetrated around the forums of the other side defending how there is completely nothing wrong with the current state of the absurd overly-advantegous use of optics and it's unrealistic mechanics with no sway penalty after getting hit or abruptable movements, no the slightest jump to the sight for whizzing bullets making suppressive fire virtually ineffective which results the game to be solely pin-point-of-a-sniping-feast that it currently is.

 

On 28/12/2016 at 2:43 PM, JD-WA said:

This seems to have gotten worse, the US team with optics has an even larger advantage now against Insurgents due to having much better camo in desert maps and now there is some other change that side of server could be the US team for 3 maps in a row. The game has become painful now when not on US team because people just quit and find another server.

The best games were in early Alpha when it was Russia vs Militants or Insurgents because both sides did not have any optics other than 1 or 2 marksmen and it made for good gameplay with gunfights on objectives.

Now it is every match , the US team go prone 200 metres from objective and just pick off easy targets and just keeping pushing through. 

Thanks in advance for letting me know that is realistic, but I did the Kickstarter for a game not for my real life.

Is there any word or feedback on whether they are looking at balancing or is it just a marketing ploy to attract the biggest market in US if they can win 9 out of 10 matches ?

 

It is just amazing that I posted this thread a month ago or so and it's not just me writes about this issue but more and more people come to the realization that something has to be done about this optic-favourable-gameplay without these crucial mechanics mentioned above that would make them less effective while being "on the run" and not being in cover.

 

I can tell you easily that even when one team has just 1 optic more than the other side that gives a huge advantage to that team. With 4-5 squads on the team that is 4-5 more optics per team than the other, not even mentioning how on some maps one team has even 2-3 more optics per squad than the INS team which as a result the round I've played ended in less than 5 minutes because of how quickly the US team having more optics swept through the map (AND THAT WAS THE SMALLES CLOSE QUARTER SUMARI BALA MAP).

 

The screenshots speak for themselves.

 

JIWPloI.jpg

fSwwVm0.jpg

yueSNAb.jpg

tagi7po.jpg

lVx5JLE.jpg

XjiEbEX.jpg

He7mliE.jpg

8IfWk6G.jpg

 

 

Those rounds were a complete walk-in-the-park, whereas as soon as I joined the team with less optics (militia/INS) the team lost miserably and that just shows so very blatantly on every game played.

 

Now in a second one of these defenders are going to show me a screenshot of some one-of-a-timer-lucky won game by the INS/militia which is super rare anyway. I can't recall seeing militia/INS winning for the past few weeks of me playing however.

Edited by Friesen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Romby said:

 

Do you mean Kohat Toi or Logar Valley?

 

Other then that i completly agree. I prefer the US vs Russian cause its the only maps that are fun every game. Half the rounds on Rus/US vs Mil/Ins maps are total bloodbaths (except Sumari). Dont really find it funny neither when you are winning and especially not when you are losing.


That's the badger! I was close with the name :-P But yes, omg you simply have a very hard fight going against scoped players.

This must be why Sumari is my favourite map. Always closed urban maps. Strike at Karkand on BF3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2016 at 6:53 AM, Friesen said:

Dear devs, I joined the game today for few rounds after months of not playing to see if it has changed much. Impressed with many visual stuff, but played a few maps and on each one was won by the team having more optics than the other. When I wrote on the server everyone agreed with me. That I have absolutely no trouble dropping off guys one by one using my scoped rifle. Whereas riflemen are completely useless to even start firing at me.

So I have been complaining about this issue and I'd like to implore you to solve this boggling problem that is seriously affecting the gunplay in this game. As there is no chance to stand against any optic rifleman.

 

I still hope that the only reason you haven't upped the sway for all the weapons (because it is so ridiculously low even when the stamina is out) is because you haven't implemented the weapon-resting-over-objects feature yet. Where the sway would be at least 3x times higher than now especially when after running, and only resting weapons over objects such as wall you would have a minimal sway like you do have now (which is totally unrealistic while standing up).

 

And the suppression system. I implore you to take a look that a tiny jump of the sight for each bullet passing by is a stellar of a feature. It essentially affects the scoped riflemen the most. Because while your sceen is zoomed in, you're bound to have the jump higher than just looking down the iron sight. And this is where the gunplay wouldn't resort to this unrealistic run'n'gun using the optic rifle but only seeking carefully hidden positions and try to stay uncovered.

 

Obviously the zoomed in view outside the optic is also adding up to the whole overpowered-optics issue... Not as much as the lack of suppression effects for whizzing bullets but still I'd be happy with the way Post Scriptum:The Bloody Seventh has done just a blacked out view outside the optic as it is way more realistic than having a zoomed view outside it.

 

I hope making this post I'm not just wasting my time writing this. And that Squad eventually on the full release WILL have a proper balanced gunplay that is largely based on the suppression where it is ACTUALLY effective, and not optic riflemen completely picking everyone off one by one so easily that is now.

 

rqzW82h.jpg

I agree the solution is in having there be screen jump when bullet goes by. That would be just awesome anyways. Even on the receiving end for immersion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally don't care that optics are a significantly better long-range option than red dots or iron sights, or even that the U.S. and Russians tend to be better gunfighters than insurgent and militia. Optics could probably use some tweaks, but that's only part of the issue. The other part is that they're not balanced by something else. By trading a rifleman for a rifleman with an optic, I'm not losing anything and I'm gaining something of significant value, so I always pick an optic if I can. As a result, certain classes (like ordinary riflemen or automatic riflemen that don't have an optic) are relegated to the junk tier, where they are only selected when all the good classes are used up.

 

If I take a class without an optic, it should have distinct, and powerful advantages over a similar class that has an optic. For example, a rifleman with a red dot could have faster ADS, faster movement while ADS, an extra grenade, and one-time use medic bag, so they can pick up a single downed friendly like a medic. That way, while the optic will probably still feel like the best choice when it comes to sights, it won't always equate to the best choice when it comes to class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why they even have insurgents on Aas to begin with it should just be Russian vs USA  with insurgents/militia only on insurgency/push maps. In PR there wasn't unless the insurgents started the round with every cap. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But the game is only fun when it's Russia vs USA . And balanced to a degree. Maybe there waiting for the other factions and just using them as placeholders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ♠DEG♠ said:

I don't understand why they even have insurgents on Aas to begin with it should just be Russian vs USA  with insurgents/militia only on insurgency/push maps. In PR there wasn't unless the insurgents started the round with every cap. Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But the game is only fun when it's Russia vs USA . And balanced to a degree. Maybe there waiting for the other factions and just using them as placeholders?

Nope, Squad is trying to focus on Asymmetrical warfare. Where each faction has its advantages and disadvantages, not every faction being the same. The main issue is, people play each faction the same in a conventional manner. They try to go toe to toe, and turn each match into a slugging match. It doesn't work unless you have a team of experienced players.

Have to think outside the box when playing factions like Insurgents and Militia - use their mobility, point cost for HAB and ticket cost for vehicles to your advantage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Dubs said:

Nope, Squad is trying to focus on Asymmetrical warfare. Where each faction has its advantages and disadvantages, not every faction being the same. The main issue is, people play each faction the same in a conventional manner. They try to go toe to toe, and turn each match into a slugging match. It doesn't work unless you have a team of experienced players.

Have to think outside the box when playing factions like Insurgents and Militia - use their mobility, point cost for HAB and ticket cost for vehicles to your advantage. 

 

 

I think you missed the point, dubs. DEG isnt advocating for the insurgent factions to not exist or to have equal equipment. In fact he is arguing for the exact opposite. Currently in Squad there are maps where insurgents are put in a symmetrical situation to the US or RU. Take Kokan AAS US vs. INS. Both sides start with equal number of flags, and they clash head on in the middle of the map. When INS win its because they attacked the american flag and controlled the majority of flags for the duration of the map. For the US to win they attack INS flag and control the majority of thr flags for the duration of the match. Do you see how this is symmetrical? Both sides have the exact same win conditions and play almost identical.

 

This works right now.in Squad because the factions arent really that different. The US have a neutered number of scopes, no body armour, and very meager selection of assets. 

 

PR on the other hand had much more pronounces assymetrical warfare. The US had body armour, heavy armour, air power, and scopes on every kit. Thats why there could never by an AAS layer in PR where ins and US started with equal flags.

 

I think DEG is right. Many of the layers are place holders. In the future ins will only ever fight US if its on insurgency or invasion where they have a map advantage and victory conditions are different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, 40mmrain said:

 

I think you missed the point, dubs. DEG isnt advocating for the insurgent factions to not exist or to have equal equipment. In fact he is arguing for the exact opposite. Currently in Squad there are maps where insurgents are put in a symmetrical situation to the US or RU. Take Kokan AAS US vs. INS. Both sides start with equal number of flags, and they clash head on in the middle of the map. When INS win its because they attacked the american flag and controlled the majority of flags for the duration of the map. For the US to win they attack INS flag and control the majority of thr flags for the duration of the match. Do you see how this is symmetrical? Both sides have the exact same win conditions and play almost identical.

 

This works right now.in Squad because the factions arent really that different. The US have a neutered number of scopes, no body armour, and very meager selection of assets. 

 

PR on the other hand had much more pronounces assymetrical warfare. The US had body armour, heavy armour, air power, and scopes on every kit. Thats why there could never by an AAS layer in PR where ins and US started with equal flags.

 

I think DEG is right. Many of the layers are place holders. In the future ins will only ever fight US if its on insurgency or invasion where they have a map advantage and victory conditions are different.

Thank you for articulating that better than I could. That is exactly what I was getting at. INS/Militia should only be on insurgency or invasion. It is nearly impossible to push points on AAS with etheir of these factions with the assets they have available.unless it is heavily wooded ie massive amount of concealment/cover to allow them to get in close. 

You put a unconventional force into a conventional battlefield (AAS) against a actual conventional force and wonder why there is balance issues

Edited by ♠DEG♠

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, 40mmrain said:

 

I think you missed the point, dubs. DEG isnt advocating for the insurgent factions to not exist or to have equal equipment. In fact he is arguing for the exact opposite. Currently in Squad there are maps where insurgents are put in a symmetrical situation to the US or RU. Take Kokan AAS US vs. INS. Both sides start with equal number of flags, and they clash head on in the middle of the map. When INS win its because they attacked the american flag and controlled the majority of flags for the duration of the map. For the US to win they attack INS flag and control the majority of thr flags for the duration of the match. Do you see how this is symmetrical? Both sides have the exact same win conditions and play almost identical.

 

This works right now.in Squad because the factions arent really that different. The US have a neutered number of scopes, no body armour, and very meager selection of assets. 

 

PR on the other hand had much more pronounces assymetrical warfare. The US had body armour, heavy armour, air power, and scopes on every kit. Thats why there could never by an AAS layer in PR where ins and US started with equal flags.

 

I think DEG is right. Many of the layers are place holders. In the future ins will only ever fight US if its on insurgency or invasion where they have a map advantage and victory conditions are different.


The win condition is symmetrical with AAS but it's up to the players not to play every faction the same, that's my point. You're going to have a bad time if you continually accept to engage in an engagement when you're at the disadvantage, pushing from the same direction/angle every time. 

As Insurgent and Militia, you should be
- Fanning out and pushing from multiple angles
- Using your techies to get you to new spots to place a rally or new FOB/HAB to push multiple angles
- Using your IEDs not as a tool to destroy vehicles, but to displace and kill enemies - By using them as a back up resort if you get pushed off an objective. No friendlies left on cap? Set the IEDs off you should have placed in the most commonly used spots people use for cover in the cap.
- Watch for enemy vehicle travel routs and place mines on that road. Or if it's a logi, track it to their FOB.

Watch any ISKT US/RU vs INS/MIL match, just watching those games will give a better picture than I can explain. Using each factions strengths to their full potential. I know Pub matches are different, and doesn't have the level of organization and communication as a competitive match, but until pub players start accepting they can't just go toe to toe with the US or RU factions unless they have the shooters to do so, then they'll continue to get out shot and killed every time.

I love PR and am a fanboy, but you have to remember PR has 10 years of development behind it, has another game as it's foundation, and has game mechanics that are limited and extremely different to Squad. Resulting in different gameplay and pace overall, despite the games being somewhat similar.

Squad currently is balanced based on its current version and what each faction has. Examples(Theres more examples than I have listed below, just keeping it short)
- OP First light, MIL start of with 50 more tickets to make up for the compact conditions of the map and camo that sticks out like a sore thumb.
- Al Basrah, Flag layout favors INS faction - The map alone forces US vehicle assets to sit outside of towns or RPG > Vehicles.

We probably wont see restrictions like US vs RU only in the future for AAS. With only having US RU MIL INS GBT and possibly 1 - 3 more factions, would give limited variety for the base game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you to some extent, the US are overpowered with their sights but I guess its like that for real, perhaps what we are seeing is the fact that you cannot take the US head-on given the weapon limitations of the opposition, so this may have a gameplay issue, certainly a lot of people don't like being on the insurgents side on larger open maps .. where on tighter city maps It evens out because its at close range.. which means insurgents and those with iron sights need to adjust their playing style to suit a) the map b) their opposition.. but rarely do... 

 

I agree looking through the sights is like doing it with both eyes open but if its easy just now , providing more focus is just ramping it up... I really don't think adding sights to every rifle is what's needed and more sway just destroys the guys using iron sights... I actually get more kills with the m4 iron site with the handle than I do with the sights... so perhaps there is something wrong with the AKs and nothing to do with the sights... or maybe just allow for a little better zoom on the iron sights as they seem to sit very far away from the eye compared to rifles I have fired in real life.

 

What I would like to see is better weapon support on structures.. to steady the rifles .. and allow for better use of cover... atm it really is very poor where your stance is either crouched no view...or fully standing with a view but exposed .. or lying down and having to be exposed because you shoot into the ground...  drives me nuts not being able to shoot out a window unless I point my rifle 45 degrees up yet the guy can shoot in at me easily.. 

 

so ultimately yes the US faction feels a little op.. but I think its more to do with the map, the way you play the faction and the cover/weapon collision BS...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, embecmom said:

...maybe just allow for a little better zoom on the iron sights as they seem to sit very far away from the eye compared to rifles I have fired in real life.

 

What I would like to see is better weapon support on structures.. to steady the rifles .. and allow for better use of cover... atm it really is very poor where your stance is either crouched no view...or fully standing with a view but exposed .. or lying down and having to be exposed because you shoot into the ground...  drives me nuts not being able to shoot out a window unless I point my rifle 45 degrees up yet the guy can shoot in at me easily.

 

 

 

I agree with this completely. Iron sights and red dots currently sit awkwardly far away from you. I think the zoom you get from holding down shift should just be a standard zoom whenever you ADS.

 

Quote

What I would like to see is better weapon support on structures.. to steady the rifles .. and allow for better use of cover... atm it really is very poor where your stance is either crouched no view...or fully standing with a view but exposed .. or lying down and having to be exposed because you shoot into the ground...  drives me nuts not being able to shoot out a window unless I point my rifle 45 degrees up yet the guy can shoot in at me easily.. 

 

I'm not sure if this is coming in a future patch, but I agree. It's realistic that your muzzle sits a bit lower than your sight, and if your sight barely clears an obstruction, the bullet will hit that obstruction. However, it's also realistic that soldiers naturally negotiate issues like this by resting their rifle on the obstruction or just by rising up or lowering themselves a little based off the height of the thing in front of them. Some sort of contextual, automatic get-your-muzzle-over-the-obstruction-when-ADS mechanic would be nice, but I also feel it may be really buggy, causing you to rise when you don't want to or not rising when you need it to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Meh. Optics and red dots are better than irons, yes. M4s are currently far better than AKMs, yes. So what? It affects the match relatively little.

The main killing weapon for INS and MIL should be the RPG, they get two frag rounds for chrissakes. And Militia get an UBGL on top of it. Even Russians get a scoped MG, even though their irons are worse.

The answer to enemy heavy vehicles as INS/MIL is to hide mines on every road. 
IEDs are an excellent tool to destroy FOBs, if a Scout gets 5 seconds at your FOB it's gone.
Raider class gets 4 grenades (2 of them instant-action) and the excellent PPSH. Etc.
Unscoped AKs are basically weapons for team leaders and medics, who shouldn't be doing the bulk of the fighting.

 

US is indeed stronger on some maps, but this is more due to heavier vehicles than anything else, and the fact that INS teams tend to be less organized (jihad roleplay FTW).

Edited by tatzhit

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

×