Jump to content
unfrail

Logistics of Personnel [OP summarized]

Recommended Posts

Due to the length of this discussion, I have summarized most of the critical talking points here in the OP, so if you are interested in contributing you dont need to read the whole thread, simply this post. I will keep it updated if it progresses further.

 

Problem:

 

At present, Radio Spawning mechanisms, and Rally Point mechanisms are pretty magical. They allow infinite access to the farthest reaches of the battlefield regardless of their logistical access to reinforcement.

 

In both Squad and in Project Reality, the existence of a FOB is a teleport for players to the battlefield.

This defies logic, and the natural flow of the front-line of battle.

 

PHtbzjF.png

I suggest that this teleportation of players is sub-optimal.

 

 

Solution:

 

If the team's tickets, which represent the attacking forces ability to reinforce its self, were treated as in-game entities tied to a location, then they can be subject to a logistical paradigm of reinforcements that is not only analogous with real life, but would become a challenging and exciting element of gameplay.

 

If, reinforcement units were tied to in-game locations, emplacements behind enemy lines would still be possible, but there would be a logical increase in the difficulty of operating from behind enemy lines, where reinforcements are hard to bring in.

 

bPgAHLX.png

 

This makes the front line of the battle more logically founded, and I argue better for gameplay, since it solves the perpetual FOB battles, allows resource and reinforcement lines to be cut off, and it makes the forward placement of structures of critical importance even in AAS-GameModes.

 

Benefits:

  • increased value of life due to local limited access.
  • increased use of medics due to time-to-return penalty of "getting more people to the field"
  • increased value of strategic fortifications providing access to things as well as re-spawns.
  • increased value of logistics as assets that can be forfeited as well as needed for operation
  • increased use of legitimate tactics due to real constraints.
  • reduced spawn-camping due to inability to infinitely reinforce without dominant occupation for logistics.
  • reduced lone-wolfing due to increased reliance on team-wide infrastructure.
  • solves perpetual FOB wars, and adds the ability to Seige a team's defenses.
  • Legitimate necessity for FOBs and emplacement structures in AAS gamemodes.

Disadvantages:

  • Increased gameplay complexity (if all complexity was bad, we'd be playing DOOM)
  • Easier to lose the round more rapidly by severe misfortune, as losing a reinforcement laden truck would hurt the team's tickets in a large portion. (Solved by Automatic Reinforcements below)
  • Easier to troll the team as a logistics member yielding reinforcements intentionally. (Solved by Automatic Reinforcements below)

These are able to be mitigated however. The complexity can be overcome via training videos, and better, learning from the existing community. The loss of logistics can be looked at as a disadvantage only because of its potential to be trolled. Limiting the number of reinforcements per vehicle to a reasonable amount limits the amount of damage done, and this person is then easily banned.
 

Variations:

 

Radios are used to call Automatic Reinforcements:

 

Under the pretense that Fully-manual Reinforcement Logistics would be an excessive burden, a suggestion for automating it while still making it a player triggered element, contingent upon the stability of disruptable supply lines, and local fortification stability.

 

 

SUn00xU.png

 

Link to post: http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/9168-personnel-logistics-mechanic/?p=142027

 

 

Complex Game Mechanics Do Not Mean Complex Interactions:

 

Like comparing chess to checkers, a more complex rule-set, does not necessarily mean an overly complex interaction, but the difference in capable strategies is very well acknowledged, providing a game that anyone can play, but that leaves headroom for excellence.

 

 

XQlXWdX.png

 

The reason we are all here is because we want something more than "Diffuse the bomb at A or B".

 

The battlefield is a complex place, and its the additional complexity that makes room for efficient, and excellent, strategy.

 



Prerequisites:

 

Some confusion has arisen due to some elements not made sufficiently clear. There are some prerequisite concepts that would need to be in-place for this thing to work;

  • 1 ticket = 1 life = 1 respawn. Until someone re-spawns, there is no ticket loss.
    This represents the activation of a limited amount of reinforcements, and it should be 1:1. People can still get points for "kill shots" even if the person is revived, but the ticket loss should be attributed to permanent loss of persons.
  • The economy of things is completely separate
    Vehicles are not persons, so losing an empty truck doesnt cost you team tickets. Its still however, a significant loss, if you needed the use of that vehicle. The cost of things is something that needs its own economy, whether its a trickle in-element that appears at main or something to be spent by the commander, thats not what this thread discusses, but it does rely on them being isolated.
Edited by unfrail
Refined Graphics in OP, reduced post length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the amount of time or tickets a map/gamemode of this have? The idea of having actual helicopters/parachute/Matv provide re-supply is neat, but turns into arma. Your diagrams look to depict pretty much what already takes place in the game. Maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same gamemode structure as existing game modes. This is not a game mode suggestion so all game modes would operate as they already do.

Right now, all you need to do is sneak 3 people past the enemy advance, and you have effectively snuck everyone on the team past.

With this mechanic, placing a radio somewhere is only the first step. Any reinforcements that come from the radio would need to be brought there, by person, by truck, by helicopter, by parachute, etc.

Right now, if you have a Radio in the center of a "SuperFOB", people can continually pour out of it, until the game ends.

With this mechanic, the defending team would only be able to respawn as many times as they have stockpiled in that location. Moving your reinforcement pool forward is making it more accessible, but is also putting it at greater risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now, all you need to do is sneak 3 people past the enemy advance, and you have effectively snuck everyone on the team past.

One of my favorite current tactics. ;)

All these new players need proper spawn options right? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite current tactics. ;)

All these new players need proper spawn options right? lol

If its there for the taking :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice. I remember someone suggesting it on the old Forgotten Hope 2 forums. Always liked the idea of AI bringing up reinforcements, personally. Would add more diversity to games. Might make a super FOB have an advantage since it will be able to store more supplies and reinforcements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If its there for the taking :)

This shouldn't be allowed to happen any more. The competence of squads has become extremely diluted among the new recruits, this leads to the creation of one "capable" squad comprised entirely of pre-alpha veterans sneaking past as a group (as in all 9 in my experience) and just going to town on the poor disoriented bastards that are on the other team. There was a distinct message in the emails they sent out to us founders and I quote:

 

"Thank you for joining us in game on the first day of Squad's Steam Release.  We'd like to ask a favor from you all.  Please join the game and spend time as Squad Leaders and mentors to new players as  possible. Lots of new players, it will take patience, just a little patience, and openness to help out new playersm, but we might just make it through this."

 

"We" have not done this very well. I try very hard when I play but it can be really hard to do when there is no real cohesion within a squad. This tactic was a temporary issue back before steam EA, and there was always a strong counter attack that overran the FOB or the flanking maneuver was quite successful rendering the FOB obsolete before it had a chance to become a slaughtering yard. The reason being is that in the current meta(as defined by players not devs) there seems to be a very "battlefield-esque" game-play style but with more realistic weapons, engagements distances, and longer re-spawn times. I think that whatever logistical system the devs decide to implement will be correct for their future plans. As of right now we need to metaphorically focus less on the foundation with cracks and more on the collapsing house. (the game is the foundation, the community is the house btw)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really think you are on to something here Unfrail! Although I'm not sure about tying resources into spawn numbers I'm sure it could be done. Personally I think if you just tie radios to the main base through a logistics train and then tie RPs onto radios you could somewhat forget about the numbers.

 

What I mean by that is, you place a radio and then it connects itself via the shortest route to the main base. If this logistics route is clear of enemies then the radio is considered in supply and provides it's basic benefits. If the enemy is able to move between the radio and the main base and disrupt this route then the radio would be out of supply and unable to perform its role or perhaps be able to by consuming supplies on site, somewhat like a lifeline or healthbar for the radio. If those supplies are depleted and the logistics route is still disrupted then consider the radio inactive.

 

Take the same principle and apply it to RPs but on a smaller scale.

 

I really love your idea and I don't mean to change it too much but this might be a fair compromise for requiring somewhat less macromanagement but at the same time making rear echelon security a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shouldn't be allowed to happen any more. The competence of squads has become extremely diluted among the new recruits, this leads to the creation of one "capable" squad comprised entirely of pre-alpha veterans sneaking past as a group (as in all 9 in my experience) and just going to town on the poor disoriented bastards that are on the other team. There was a distinct message in the emails they sent out to us founders and I quote:

 

"Thank you for joining us in game on the first day of Squad's Steam Release.  We'd like to ask a favor from you all.  Please join the game and spend time as Squad Leaders and mentors to new players as  possible. Lots of new players, it will take patience, just a little patience, and openness to help out new playersm, but we might just make it through this."

 

"We" have not done this very well. I try very hard when I play but it can be really hard to do when there is no real cohesion within a squad. This tactic was a temporary issue back before steam EA, and there was always a strong counter attack that overran the FOB or the flanking maneuver was quite successful rendering the FOB obsolete before it had a chance to become a slaughtering yard. The reason being is that in the current meta(as defined by players not devs) there seems to be a very "battlefield-esque" game-play style but with more realistic weapons, engagements distances, and longer re-spawn times. I think that whatever logistical system the devs decide to implement will be correct for their future plans. As of right now we need to metaphorically focus less on the foundation with cracks and more on the collapsing house. (the game is the foundation, the community is the house btw)

Completely agree sir. But we all know it takes time and the willingness to learn. None of us became good in a day so patience is needed. Your argument is also the main reason I object so wholeheartedly to external comms and believe it should be a kickable/bannable offense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea a lot. And it adds currency to the concept of "logistics specialists" who help out the team by providing reinforcements to forward spawns.

 

Right now, all you need to do is sneak 3 people past the enemy advance, and you have effectively snuck everyone on the team past.

Quite. And I forgot who mentioned it, but this shouldn't be allowed to happen. I do it quite often when I'm Squad Leading simply because I can. However, I think you'll find this tactic will lose efficacy as soon as it requires more than an SL and two people to place a FOB. It's pretty easy to hide three guys in a poppyfield. It's much harder to hide a truck. So whilst suggesting a complex reinforcement/supply/logistical system sounds really cool (and something like this would be really cool), perhaps all that's required is the introduction of vehicles and the requirement of a large transport vehicle to haul supply/FOB crates before a spawn can be established. I'll always maintain the following: we shouldn't look to introduce complex, integrated gameplay systems for the sake of it. Particularly those that might be detrimental to gameplay on lower population servers. I reckon once it becomes more difficult to establish FOBs you'll see magic spawns disappearing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the logistics actually hurt the tickets if they are destroyed I kind of think that would be bad gameplay wise. You could get many one sided games. If they were destroyed and did not lose tickets you would still have all those disadvantages of not being able to resupply ammo as well as respawning teammates just not the added vice of you didn't protect your light truck/helicopter. 

 

 To teach people I still think we need a welcome message with links in the game to different instructions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I have said, whatever decision is made by the devs will be the correct one, I have the utmost faith in their abilities, they will solve this problem later either with the integration of vehicles(and the logistics that are said to come with) or some future update that adds said logistical functionality. The way things are now suits the game just fine, they allow quick engagements which are necessary to balance the rifles in the game. Once additional layers of gameplay elements are added there will be too many problems in terms of stability and bugs to make the subtle refinements to the actual gunplay of the game. Let them focus on the foundation now so we have a balanced and playable game at launch. Vehicles and the various associated game mechanics are secondary concerns if the weapons are not fundamentally balanced and enjoyable. Once the developers are certain things are in order they will release said elements to us for testing. Obviously these more elaborate mechanics are not ready for us to try and patience is necessary. In all fairness unfrail they have stated plans for a system similar to that which you suggest. These plans were laid out way back in June-ish and we just need some patience.

 

As a great man once said(me actually) building the house before the foundation will always lead to a collapse.

 

I agree with your ideas but wait till they have made more progress before suggesting them, they have many things on their plate and will be more likely to hear your ideas if you present them closer to when they are prepared to implement them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-snip-

 

I think its important to acknowledge that valid tactics are defined by the mechanics that define the game. If sneak-FOBs are the most advantageous element for your team's objective play, then they will be either used by one side, or by both. I dont think that avoiding the most effective strategy for victory is a-moral, nor beneficial to new comers. What makes newcomers feel welcome and learn the game is good communications and interaction. Whether that is occurring presently I cant say, but the discussion of that problem is substance for a different thread, one that I would be interested in participating in.

What this post is about is discussing well in advance of any investment of programming hours, what mechanics might cultivate the type of gameplay that we are interested in having.

 

To be clear, the whole reason I created this post is because I think sneak-FOBs are a flawed mechanic. It is however "the game" in its present form. This post is merely vocal speculation on what we want our structure to look like, so the foundation can be built to support it.

 

-snip-

 

-snip-

 

Yeah I have considered an automatic supply movement, or as andersjg mentioned, a simulated AI one. Perhaps that would be ideal, I know the method that I'm suggesting with manual reinforcement delivery would probably not work out so well in infantry only game-modes. I have no doubt that there are many things that would need to be adjusted, significantly, if this were a mechanic found worth implementing. I also think it would add a lot of value and game-play necessity even to FOBs, thus effective structural gameplay would be more important.

 

-snip-

 

Yeah, I agree regarding that unnecessary added complexity is detrimental to gameplay. I see this as a change in current complexity, not so much additional complexity. At least not significantly.

Why?

You cant make ammo appear in the field? You need to lead your squad to Radios to re-arm, so why not add a "# of charges" to that rally point? You could almost eliminate the respawn timer if you did things this way, simply because it would be so much work running from base when you ran out of tickets that you and your squadleader would avoid burning them at all costs. Think about that...

As for bringing respawns to radios thats the same as the future logistics model, except it implys an investment in location. So hidden radios would come at a much higher cost, being if you lose it you lose some significant reinforcement numbers as well. So that would not only add weight to the placement of radios, but it provides additional value to the defense of FOBs, or it adds significant logistical value to FOBs.

However, as you stated, if they do re-instate the 2-crate to FOB mechanic from Project Reality, that in and of its self might resolve the issue. At least it will reduce the sneak FOB issue.

 

The ability to conjure Radio "portals" is a mechanic that as it stands, needs to change, and I have heard little from the developers regarding their plans (not to suggest I have any right to), so this was just my toying with a possible solution. It arises from the assumption that respawning is representative of a forces ability to receive reinforcements therefore, why not make that reinforcement subject to equivalent logistical challenges.

 

-snip-

 

A very possible interpretation on the idea. I understand the loss of tickets seems brutal, but if a vehicle is limited to carrying only a certain amount, say, 16, then that loss isnt a killing blow, but its significant enough that it creates a need to secure your supply lines. I think thats a compelling gameplay mechanic, in theory anyways.

--

Regardless, thanks for the feedback. I am under no delusion that this will make it in game. I'm just putting it out there for discussion so you guys can tell me why it wont work :)

And cause I enjoy the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you Unfrail for making me spend the last two hours wracking my brain about a badass logistics and interdiction system. To be clear I like the active part of your idea. I just think the system would be better off with two components, an active component and a passive one. The passive component would ensure that a team wouldn't be left in the dust by the opposition and the active component would allow a coordinated team to gain an advantage.

 

I think you could work your system in with a passive one to reduce the overhead. Basically have three states for a FOB:

In supply, gaining supplies from main base or closest supply depot.

Out of supply, relying on reserves stored onsite to fulfill supply requests.

Supplies exhausted, FOB is out of supply and local reserves have been used up, no supply requests can be completed.

 

When an FOB is considered to be In Supply it would gain supplies at a passive rate based on distance to the main base or supply depot, whichever it is connected to. The team would use these points to build emplacements and summon reinforcements. The team would also be able to manually deposit supply crates at the FOB to give it an instant boost in supply points. This would speed up the building process and allow the team to reinforce quickly from the FOB.

 

When an FOB is considered Out of Supply it is because an enemy squad is currently interdicting its supply route to the main base or supply depot. If a supply depot has been placed but that line is cut then the FOB will still be In Supply by connecting to the base but because the is greater is will resupply from main at a slower rate. While the FOB is Out of Supply it would consume the supply crates that have been manually deployed there to continue to perform its functions. Depending on whats being done and the strain on supplies this may require near constant manual resupply until the supply route is secured.

 

When an FOB has the Supplies Exhausted state it's supply route is being interdicted and no manual resupply has been performed and therefore the FOB is rendered ineffective.

 

Supply Depots are a special FOB that your team can place and it will perform like the main base in supplying connected FOBs and RPs. The difference being that supplies must be manually deposited here in order to be supplied to FOBs and RPs. Therefore, the Supply Depot can maintain a higher supply rate with other FOBs due to its forward location but requires large scale manual resupply in order to be effective.

 

RPs would operate as mini FOBs that would pull supplies from the connected FOB. RPs out of supply would then have a limited amount of supplies(enough for three or four respawns) to use before be exhausted completely and eliminated.

 

Of course this requires making kits cost supply points to spawn with more powerful/valuable kits costing more supplies. The cost factor allows for easy balancing of the entire system as well.

 

As far as rendering FOBs out of supply I would use a simple interdiction circle with an epicenter on every SL. The larger the squad the larger the interdiction radius. So a lone SL has a 10 meter interdiction radius but a full nine man squad might have a 150 meter interdiction radius and as long as the circle intersects a supply route then that route would be considered inactive.

 

Seriously Unfrail, thanks for coming up with a topic like this. I really do love your idea and maybe something I said can spark your own system in a certain way. 

 

By the way, I think I will seriously enjoy this discussion way too much!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-snip-

Lot of really good ideas here Polish :)

I had toyed around with the idea of some sort of "trail" that could be set down to represent supply lines, that could then be interfered with to disrupt auto-logistics. I'm not sure that I have an ideal solution to that, but what I want to avoid at all costs is automatic action, or indirect actions. For example, if supply interdiction was accomplished by "crossing the supply line" then, behind the lines tactical maneuvers could inadvertently expose the action of your force. (As it is I find the "flag capture" mechanic less than ideal, simply because the tilting of the scales is acquisition of knowledge regarding enemy presence and strength.)

 

If there were a radius that a FOB needed to exist within to remain in "auto-supply" or In-Supply as you call it, then that could work. This supply could then be cut-off by heavy enemy presence around a Radio, much like it is now. Again I dislike indirect interactions, but its a reasonable compromise.

 

I also like the idea of Logistical waypoints to extend the flow of supplies. A Supply Depot re-supplying local assets seems useful enough, assuming that the scale of vehicle warfare would create gaps significant enough. I suspect that may well be the case.

 

I think all in all there are some interesting mechanics possibilities if you make respawns act like what they simulate; another person that is able to reinforce a squad loss, and that this reinforcement would have to come from somewhere.

As it is, Rally Points and Radios are like magic "Bags of Holding" where people just pop out as indefinite as the round or their existence. I think adding a logistical burden to those reinforcements would result in many good gameplay qualities, and would solve other issues related to spawn-camping as well as perpetual SuperFOB battles.

 

Fun to think about. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicle based resupply would fix the problem off small teams flanking the enemy and putting a whole FOB behind enemy lines without any significant resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicle based resupply would fix the problem off small teams flanking the enemy and putting a whole FOB behind enemy lines without any significant resistance.

 

There can be more done to make it more strategic though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the point of this, Unfrail. The planned logistics system, which is next on the priority list after vehicles, already solves the problem you're trying to solve.

 

There can be more done to make it more strategic though. 

 

Adding more stuff often leads there actually being less stuff, though. Just like linking construction with FOB placement limits the utility of both FOBs and construction, linking tickets to FOBs limits its utility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't get what half of the idea or explanation was, but I do approve of the idea that there are supply lines that you have to keep to keep things operational, as it would be showing a often forgotten part of warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the point of this, Unfrail. The planned logistics system, which is next on the priority list after vehicles, already solves the problem you're trying to solve.

The core idea here is to overcome the magical "Bag of holding" mechanics that are respawns. That is to say "pulling reinforcements out of thin air" is detrimental to truly strategic gameplay, because the flow of reinforcements, or access to reinforcements, is a crucial element of warfare.

By putting "available spawns" as tokens in game to be cashed in, then all respawns will have originated at base, and been logistically accounted for.

Even once FOB mechanics are in, an SL with 1 person can sneak by, drop rally points indefinitely, and you have an "endless" supply of troops entering in where logistically they couldnt have been.

IF that Rally Point is a limited, quantified number of token "respawns", then not only do they make their way from base, but leaving your squad with 8 tokens to go place them on the ground behind enemy lines becomes a really risky move. It would need to be well calculated, accounting for the fact that what your actually doing is sneaking you, your squad mate, and 8 more players behind enemy lines. It makes the risk reward directly proportional.

Not only that, but it solves the indefinite FOB spawn, allowing siege mechanics, since FOB spawn-supply would be limited, and liable to be cut off.

This will increase the need for tactical game-play, and it will increase dependence on intelligent placement of field-assets (for both teams).

Spawn camping main will be short-lived, since, assuming 2-4 twits are doing it, and they can have max 2-4 respawns on their rally, its not going to last very long against a pile of soldiers (provided main spawn locations are difficult enough to predict).

Run and gun is solved, and waiting for medics is solved, since there will be a very real number on respawns at the penalty of time waiting/running, since using them all haphazardly will require time to travel to re-supply.

 

That's the idea really.

 

I don't think its any more complicated than putting a number on existing assets. (ok a bit. a bit)

 

You already have limited ammo in your pockets. Why does it make sense to have a portable resurrection portal? By quantifying it, we do a macro-strategy better, and we solve much of the run and gun, as well as adding definitive value to the awesome fortification assets, beyond the perpetual stacking and re-stacking of "bowling pins for bullets."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Spawning consuming supplies already solves the indefinite FOB spawn issue.

 

2. Your suggestion makes logistics a strenuous and convoluted process that makes it hard for any squads to take on any specialized roles.

 

3. Rally Points will not continue to exist in their current form.

 

You're basically just suggesting the Resource-Based Spawning System, with tickets instead of supply and a more convoluted and limiting distribution system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think it would be more beneficial if a squad leader couldn't establish a Fob radio past a certain phase line in respect to the gamemode objectives. Rp's on the other hand could be established behind enemy lines. Also Fob's should be damaged from frags and rockets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Spawning consuming supplies already solves the indefinite FOB spawn issue.

Spawning, as it is done in PR, does not consume the substance of logistical transport. Once you have 2 crates down, you have a teleport into the gameworld regardless of its logistical access to reinforcements. If by supplies you mean materiel, that is a different mechanic entirely. Where you suggest sandbags=players=materiel, I am suggesting that there is the equivalent of 256 players at Main Base, and if those players which represent respawns are to be accessed anywhere but main, its because they will be transported there, whether its as a "rally point" or as a logistical deposition to an established FOB.

 

 

2. Your suggestion makes logistics a strenuous and convoluted process that makes it hard for any squads to take on any specialized roles.

Assuming that someone is already bringing crates to FOBs, they might as well bring "people" as well. As for specialized roles, nothing I have suggested affects this. Logistics drivers have logistical tasks. If someone wants to be a sniper, they still need to acquire that kit the same as any. All I am suggesting is that a Squad Leader cant carry a teleporter on his back. (Only instead, he will carry x-number of additional troops on standby "waiting" at his rally point for use.)

 

 

3. Rally Points will not continue to exist in their current form.

 

You're basically just suggesting the Resource-Based Spawning System, with tickets instead of supply and a more convoluted and limiting distribution system.

Is there citable insight on to how Rally Points will work in the future? I have not read such, and even if its suggested "they wont be the same", what will be different about them? Perhaps this is a good fit?

I am not suggesting different cost per-soldier, nor convoluting persons with things. I am suggesting reinforcement only that "persons cannot be created nor destroyed" and that FTL teleportation of reinforcements is a bunk mechanic.

I feel some more pictures coming on after I sleep :P

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

×