Author |
Topic: Arimaa.com titles (Read 5839 times) |
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender: 
Posts: 1003
|
 |
Arimaa.com titles
« on: Mar 11th, 2010, 2:12pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
For awhile I've been thinking of awarding titles to players who achieve various levels of skill in Arimaa. The database even has a column for titles, but hasn't been used yet 
Just as the bot ladder provides an incentive for new players to play against the bots, I think the title system will provide an incentive for established players to participate in HH and event games.
Some things that are needed before we can have titles are:
1. need players to get good at Arimaa
2. need a good rating system to measure skill
3. need an official body to award the titles
4. need well defined rules for awarding titles
I think we've definitely crossed #1. I have no doubt that we now have players who should be awarded titles. Even in the WHR rating system the top players now have incredible ratings.
http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whrh.htm
Item #2 has been a hang up for a long time. The gameroom ratings are great for giving players instant feedback on how they are doing, but we know that players can easily inflate or deflate them by playing against bots. Herve (woh) has setup the WHR rating system which uses only HH games and give a much better estimate of the players skills. However, these can still be manipulated since the players get to choose their opponents. Herve also made another WHR list but using only event games:
http://home.scarlet.be/~woh/whr/whre.htm
This seems even better and also includes the bots, but the problem is a lot of players don't have enough event games to have accurate ratings on this system. But still I think the WHRE system is good if a player builds up enough event games and could be used for awarding titles. I also like that the developer bots are included in this system; I think bots should also be eligible for titles. So I think if we use the WHRE to measure player skill and require say 100 games before the rating is considered valid I think it could serve well as a basis for awarding titles. The key thing about event games is that since they are arranged, the players do not have a choice in who the opponent is, so one cannot boost the rating by repeatedly playing opponents they know they can defeat. This means we definitely should have more events during the off season to allow players to build their WHRE ratings (more about this in another post).
It would be nice if we had an organization like the International Arimaa Association (IAA) in place already that could define the rules for the titles and award them, but we're not quite there yet. So in the mean time I can define the rules and award the titles
So, that only leaves the rules for how to award the titles as the only remaining bottle neck. I am going to start writing up the rules for this soon, but there are things that I am undecided on and other things that I have an opinion about but would like to double check. So this is basically a request for comments.
1. What should the titles be? Should we use word titles (like "master") or number titles (like dan 3).
I am undecided on this. I kind of like word titles, but it will have an English basis to it. So number titles would work better, but they don't sound as cool.
2. Should developer bots also be eligible to receive titles?
I think they should be allowed. Anyone see a reason why maybe they shouldn't. I know other game organizations intensionally exclude bots; is there a good reason why they do that and I'm missing something.
3. Should women have different titles than men?
I know they do this in chess, but not sure why. I would prefer not to have gender based titles.
4. Are the titles life long once granted, or does one need to maintain their skill to keep the title?
I tend to like having the titles be granted for life and not requiring any maintenance.
5. What should be the achievement for the titles?
I am quite undecided on this, but I'll propose something just to get the ball rolling. I am going to use generic title names since I haven't decided on those yet.
Title A - maintain a rating of 1800 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 100 WHRE games
Title B - maintain a rating of 2000 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 150 WHRE games
Title C - 2200+ rating; 200+ games and so on.
Keep in mind that whatever I chose to go with, these are just Arimaa.com titles and not IAA titles. The IAA titles would probably require games to be played physically and in the presence of a tournament director. These titles are for games played on Arimaa.com.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
The_Jeh
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #634
Gender:
Posts: 460
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #1 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 2:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
This is an interesting idea. I hope you make sure the highest title means something. In chess, there are so many grandmasters that the term has become diluted, and the spectator community has adopted the inelegant term "super-GM" to refer to the truly world-class players. In Xiangqi, the title "grandmaster" is apparently restricted to "fewer than one hundred people," according to Wikipedia. I kind of wish FIDE would adopt this.
I don't think you need special titles for women.
Should the title be life-long or maintained? Well, there is a certain distinction between a "title" and a classification. For example, in the USCF you are in the "expert" class if you are rated 2000-2199, but "expert" is a classification, not a title, and can be lost if you fall below 2000 again. I do agree that true titles should be for life, but they should be given out sparingly.
I tend to disagree with giving bots titles. I would not address one as "Mister" or "Doctor," and to me a title such as "Grandmaster" should be in the same vein.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #2 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 3:56pm » |
Quote Modify
|
1. I like word titles rather than numerical titles. The ratings are sufficiently numerical already. Titles are intended to serve a different purpose than ratings. A title should be an honorific indicating lifetime achievement, whereas a rating should be an accurate measure of current playing strength.
2. I would not feel slighted if a machine could earn the same title that I could, but a lot of people would. Most folks would not feel the same pride or respect to be a "super-expert poobah" if bot_clueless could be one too. To me titles are all about feelings anyway, so there is no point in arguing that it is irrational to feel a title is cheapened by giving it to machine. How people feel is how they feel.
3. Having separate women's titles is demeaning, as if we don't expect women to be able to achieve the same intellectual heights that men can. That's my feeling, anyway.
4. Definitely titles should be lifelong. Past achievements should be honored regardless of current playing strength.
5. I would prefer not to base titles entirely on ratings. If they must be based only on ratings, then the emphasis should be far less on the peak rating and much more on the length of time and number of games for which the rating is maintained. A player with true skill of 1600 would find it more difficult to maintain a rating of 1600+ for 100 games than to maintain a rating of 1700+ for 20 games.
But I would rather titles include a component of winning or placing well in specific events, including the World Championship, Postal Mixer, Arimaa Challenge, and future events that we create. This would have the effect of limiting the number of people who could achieve the highest titles. The effect is intentional.
The_Jeh points out that the chess title of GM has been cheapened over time. I believe that most of the explanation is that there are now more excellent chess players in the world than there ever were before. That is to say, the bar for becoming a GM has lowered only slightly; mostly there are just more people passing the same bar.
For Arimaa that problem will be ten times as severe. If the top players of chess are getting better at a pace of (say) 5 Elo points per year, we can expect top Arimaa players to be getting better by 50 Elo points per year. Right now we could say that someone consistently rated over 2500 is a grandmaster of Arimaa, and have that feel about right since only chessandgo and myself would qualify. Twenty years from now, however, so many people will be "grandmasters" that the title will appear ridiculous.
I see several possible solutions:
A) Set up a system of ratings-based titles at such high ratings that nobody can possibly achieve them for many years to come. For example have chessandgo be the only "expert" now, with idea that "master", "senior master", and "grandmaster" are reserved for future generations.
B) Plan in advance to invent new titles (e.g. supergrandmaster, superdupergrandmaster, superduperpoopergrandmaster) once achieving current titles becomes commonplace
C) Make the supply of the top titles finite by making them event-based, tied to specific achievements that can only occur once per year.
D) Make the supply of the top titles finite by stripping people of their titles if they can't keep their rating at a specified percentile of all active players.
I don't like (A) because it implies that nobody's present achievement is worthwhile, and I don't like (B) because the names start to get ridiculous when you try to top "best" with "better-than-best". If we choose (D) then a title is nothing more than a glorified rating which you can lose at any time. Therefore I advocate (C).
Some will argue that winning a World Championship in 2005 isn't worth as much as winning a World Championship in 2010 or 2025 when the field is larger and the level of play is much higher. I would respond that I had to figure out Arimaa strategy on my own that everyone else got to read in the Wikibook.
Of course the level of play (and also our ratings) will be on a continual upward trend, but that doesn't mean our creativity, ingenuity, and effort is on an upward trend too. Maybe Nevermind plays just as well now as Belbo did when he won the 2004 World Championship, but giving them both the same title belies the different difficulty of their respective achievements. If titles are based only achieving certain rating levels, then a given title will get easier and easier to achieve over time, period.
If people want titles to be based on ratings only and not on placement in events at all, then I would suggest (D) with the caveat of making the titles permanent. You could take all the event games of the past two years, rate them as having occurred simultaneously, and then give the top title to the top one percent, second title to the next three percent, and third title to the next ten percent. You must play forty event games over the two years to qualify. Over the next two years you can try to get an even better title, but you can never go backwards from the highest title you achieved.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 11th, 2010, 4:00pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Eltripas
Forum Guru
Meh-he-kah-naw
Gender:
Posts: 225
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #3 on: Mar 11th, 2010, 6:13pm » |
Quote Modify
|
1. What should the titles be? Should we use word titles (like "master") or number titles (like dan 3).
I like word titles better.
2. Should developer bots also be eligible to receive titles?
See number five
3. Should women have different titles than men?
No
4. Are the titles life long once granted, or does one need to maintain their skill to keep the title?
Life long.
5. What should be the achievement for the titles?
After reading previous post I would like to suggest that the titles be a combination of rating and World Championship achievements something like this:
Title A - maintain a rating of 1800 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 100 WHRE games and be finalist on a WC.
Title B - maintain a rating of 2000 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 150 WHRE games be in the top 3 of a WC.
Title C - 2200+ rating; 200+ games and be the champion of a WC.
Since the requirements need to be in the WC bots wouldn't have titles.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #4 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 5:25am » |
Quote Modify
|
1. Word titles.
2. I suggest giving bots a different title than humans as a compromise to appease either side of the argument. While some may see this as unfair to bots, we can give them really cool titles to make up for it. 
3. No separate titles based on gender.
4. Lifelong.
5. I like Eltripas' idea of combining World Championship final standings with quality play over time. Separate titles should also be awarded for the defenders of humanity in the Arimaa Challenge. As for the bots, they can combine their final standings in the Computer Championship with the same requirements of quality of play over time. If a bot wins the Challenge, it can have a special title like "Crusher of Puny Earthlings." 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Hippo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4450
Gender:
Posts: 883
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #5 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 6:32am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Mar 11th, 2010, 6:13pm, Eltripas wrote:
Title A - maintain a rating of 1800 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 100 WHRE games and be finalist on a WC.
Title B - maintain a rating of 2000 or more for 20 consecutive WHRE games and have played at least 150 WHRE games be in the top 3 of a WC.
Title C - 2200+ rating; 200+ games and be the champion of a WC.
Since the requirements need to be in the WC bots wouldn't have titles.
|
|
Seems to me the rating part of the proposal would be much easier compared to the WC part. Meaning ... who would be able to achieve the WC part would probably have no problems to fullfill the rating part (if intended), especially when inflation in the rating of the best players could be expected.
I thing the limits should be somehow dynamically dependent on WHRE distribution (of course it depends on what is counted for WHRE).
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2010, 6:34am by Hippo » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #6 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 11:02am » |
Quote Modify
|
For titles we have two options really, choose generic master/grandmaster type titles or have themed rankings.
"Master" etc. might seem a bit plain. It could make us sound a lot like chess. Not that we have anything against chess, but we want to have a more independent image I think (not "just another chess variant"). So we would have to come up with something unique. I haven't been able to come up with much. Expert - Master - Sage?
As for themed, all I can think of is abstract (like shape names, "dodecahedron" etc) which could be too geeky, or feudal/magic type rankings, which could end up sounding like Star Wars or Harry Potter
I think we could perhaps maintain the Arimaa "animal" theme in choosing the titles. This would be consistent, would the game international, and make Arimaa unique-yet-serious.
Perhaps something like the system in Chinese wushu?
Eagle - Tiger - Dragon?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #7 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 11:41am » |
Quote Modify
|
Using rough estimates for ease of calculation, let’s assume there are 100,000,000 chess players in the world of various skills, though of course only a small percentage of those would be active tournament players. There are roughly 1000 Grandmasters (GM) and 3000 International Masters (IM) so perhaps 1 out of 100,000 chess players are GMs (and this is considered a watered down title !!) and 3 out of 100,000 are IMs. If we keep those ratios constant for Arimaa then we’ll need 100,000 players before we should award our first GM title. Keeping that in mind, if 8 different titles are eventually going to be awarded then perhaps we should only establish half of them right now and gradually phase in the 4 highest titles when the player pool grows 100 times larger or 10,000 times larger, or whatever is decided upon. Yes, some of our current players will eventually obtain those higher titles but we'll need a much larger player pool to lend them greater legitimacy. Remember, only 16 people worldwide signed up for the World Championship. We're still a tiny community.
Also, I’d prefer to wait until a few Chess Grandmasters or any dan professional Go players takes up Arimaa so that we can get a better sense of what type of rating an Arimaa Grandmaster should have. If Magnus Carlsen, or any other young super-genius, should ever decide to study Arimaa I’m sure he would attain a 3000+ rating within a year or two (based upon how quickly & easily he surpassed 99.999% of the rest of the chess world while still in his pre-teens). But if we’ve already handed out lifetime Master Titles to players that are a thousand points lower-rated then we’d have a huge chasm in our Master categories, and we’ll have a lot of people holding meaningless titles. I strongly believe that it’s best to be cautious about handing out lifetime titles and the Arimaa community will need to be many, many, many times larger before we get a good sense of what rating a “Master” player is (or “Sage”, “Dragon”, or “Guru” or whatever it will be).
PS. I really like Megajester's suggested Eagle - Tiger - Dragon titles because they fit the Arimaa theme  But for the highest possible title, I still like the idea of Master or Grandmaster because it will be a familiar term for the rest of the world.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 12th, 2010, 3:21pm by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #8 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 2:15pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Well, there are only 7,000,000 FIDE members, so fully 1 out of 7000 members is a GM. I'm not sure what is comparable to "membership" for us, maybe being on the WHR active list, in which case we have 100 members. So we only need to grow 70x before having a grandmaster.
OK, Adanac, I take your point about being very sparing with titles at present. If we consider the chess GM title to be watered down, then giving our highest title to 1% of the players would make it seem wacky. This increases the attractiveness of my option (A) in my mind, i.e. starting with lower titles we can give out now and reserving higher titles for the future.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Nombril
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #4509
Gender:
Posts: 292
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #9 on: Mar 12th, 2010, 8:30pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I don't have any familiarity with other titles, so I'm not sure what the normal procedure is. A couple of things that puzzle me:
Why would the titles be contingent on the WC - you can just state the fact that they won, or their record, etc.
Why use raw scores when we expect the scale to slide? Why not percentile?
Why shouldn't bots be given titles? They are allowed to entered tournaments, and seem to be fairly well personified in our discussions.
(Hmm, I think you were looking for answers to your questions, not more questions! )
Instead of titles that will be used "forever", why not have a set of titles that are given out just for the next 5-10 years as Arimaa continues to grow? This would recognize the difficulty in developing strategy from the ground up. You could even consider including a community involvement aspect for the requirements, indicating that the person has supported the growth of the Arimaa community as well. (Of course, this is very subjective...but I think we all trust Omar's judgment.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #10 on: Mar 13th, 2010, 2:01am » |
Quote Modify
|
I think there could be two aims to awarding titles:
1) Giving an incentive to players to play more HH games / enter more official events, and make the guys who get titles proud.
2) Set up milestones marking important and time lasting achievement in playing level.
We are way too small a community to go for 2). I am (for a couple more days) Arimaa World Champion, but I could as well say I am champion of 18, a third of which was Omar's family. I am actually very proud to be, so I'll smile happily whenever someone sneers when I say I am arimaa World Champ, but such has nothing in common with being a Chess Grandmaster or a go professional. I read in wikipedia that official GM titles were first awarded in 1950, and I think that Botvinnik, Smyslov or Bronstein would still hold their own well in nowadays chess tournaments, and honor their GM title. I am not sure when go pro dan ranks were officially created, but for example Honinbo Shusaku, 7dan, who lived in the middle of the 19th century and belongs to a line of "Honinbo", which is now a major title awarded through a yearly tournament in Japan, is still considered a great go player. His games are still studied, and he would very likely not be ridiculous if he was playing against some current pros.
We do not have the legitimacy in my opinion to award "GM"-like titles which are supposed to prove a certain level of mastery. I would say that achieving such a title should mean being somewhere far along the road to perfect play. Like meaning that spectators would enjoy watching a game between a chess GM or a go pro and a perfect player, that it wouldn't be a meaningless slaughter. Also, you need to single out players within a large pool of players to be have some legitimacy in the sense of 2). In arimaa we don't.
So I'd support the idea of titles if they are intended as 1). We wouldn't need to worry about what titles would be awarded when the community has grown by a factor 1000, because those titles would have a different purpose anyway. I'd be even more in favour of an official Postal Tournament awarding a Postal Champion title, and if we continue to have WC prelims and finals we could have a WC Finalist title.
Btw, I like Eagle, Tiger and Dragon
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2010, 2:14am by chessandgo » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #11 on: Mar 13th, 2010, 5:55am » |
Quote Modify
|
As I understand it we're trying to reward commitment to the game and contribution to the community as much as achievement. Basically if I'm an Arimaa Eagle, Tiger or Dragon this should tell you I'm a card-carrying member, one of the experts around here, a battle-hardened veteran. Maybe the game will move forward, and a 2030 Dragon will thrash a 2010 Dragon hollow. But we don't think less of Newton just because Einstein came along and found something better. He was the king of his time and history will always remember him as a king...
So I think basing the titles on HvH games is a good idea. Basing "lifelong" titles on absolute ratings will devalue the title over time, so we could base them on relative ratings, ie relative to the world's highest rated player (WHRP).
You can play around with number of games, length of period and relative ratings, but you get the general idea:
Eagle: 20 HvH wins/games over a 6 month period, against players within 1500 points of WHRP.
Tiger: 30 HvH wins/games over a 9 month period, against players within 1000 points of WHRP.
Dragon: 35 HvH wins/games over an 12 month period, against players within 500 points of WHRP.
(These titles would be independent of one another. So someone who already meets the criteria for Tiger becomes an instant Tiger. The same games used to win one title can be used for another, so if I'm a fresh Eagle and I work hard I should be able to make Tiger in 3 months. But if I take a break from arimaa, the games from the beginning of the 6 months when I won Eagle won't count towards my Tiger.)
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
omar
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2
Gender:
Posts: 1003
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #12 on: Mar 13th, 2010, 9:52am » |
Quote Modify
|
Wow, thanks for all the all the comments. I definitely sense some concern about giving out titles when the size of the player pool is not big enough. I definitely agree that we cannot compare these titles to be nearly as rigorous or meaningful as the titles given in more established games like Chess or Go. The most fundamental reason being that our titles are based on games played online as opposed to games played over-the-board (OTB). It does seem a bit premature to give lifetime titles when the source of the moves can't even be verified. So perhaps we should be careful not to use too grand of title names to avoid confusion with similar titles used in other games and also to reserve such titles for use later when an official organization to oversee offline games is in place.
After reading The_Jeh's comment noting the distinction between titles and classifications, I think we might be safer to just use classifications right now. The key difference being that a classification is not granted for life and can be lost if not maintained. Also with classifications I don't think there would be any objection to letting bots be classified along with humans or any need to distinguish between genders.
Classifications typically have very boring names like "class A", "class B", and so forth, but I like megajester suggestion about using themed names and using a theme related to Arimaa.
So here what I am considering:
To be eligible for a classification one must play a minimum of 100 event games (event games are always rated games) over a period of 3 years. To maintain the eligibility one must play a minimum of 100 event games over a period of 4 years. I am open to adjusting these parameters.
The levels of classifications would be:
1400 - silver rabbit
1500 - silver cat
1600 - silver dog
1700 - silver horse
1800 - silver camel
1900 - silver elephant
2000 - gold rabbit
2200 - gold cat
2400 - gold dog
2600 - gold horse
2800 - gold camel
3000 - gold elephant
3200 - platinum rabbit
so on
Must have a WHRE rating in or above the class rating level for 10 consecutive event games to enter the class. A player is removed from the class if for 10 consecutive event games the WHRE rating is below the class rating level. I wanted the classifications to have some stability so that one is not jumping in an out of a class too easily.
I wanted the gold level to start at 2000 and used 200 points separation between the classes since that is what is generally considered a class difference (a winning probability of 76%). I would be willing to consider using a class separation of about 167 points (a winning probability of 72%) to make the platinum classes start at 3000. I purposely choose the silver levels to be only 100 points apart since 200 points would put the lower classes at levels that would not be very useful. Also it allows faster movement through the beginning classes.
If this system achieves the goal of getting more muggles (human players) and pokemons (developer bots) to join in events games than I would consider it a big success
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2010, 9:58am by omar » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #13 on: Mar 13th, 2010, 10:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Hmmm, if you asked me which was a higher title, gold rabbit or silver cat, I would have thought that being a cat was better, because the silver cat can push the gold rabbit around.
Also it seems weird to me to keep with only Arimaa animals but introduce a non-Arimaa color (platinum). Couldn't we make do with twelve classifications corresponding to the twelve animals?
No achievement yet - silver rabbit
1400 - gold rabbit
1600 - silver cat
1800 - gold cat
2000 - silver dog
2200 - gold dog
2400 - silver horse
2600 - gold horse
2800 - silver camel
3000 - gold camel
3200 - silver elephant
3400 - gold elephant
I don't think we need 100-point baby steps at the start of the scale. That's another form of watering down titles; make each step easier to achieve so that players have more chance to feel good, but in the mean time you have made the differences between classifications less meaningful, so who cares? Fewer steps means that each step is a genuine achievement. Also the notion of class-interval at 200 rating points is well established from chess, so sticking with their intervals will correspond to existing intuition.
This scale uses only the twelve animals, and it won't wear out until someone gets to 3600 and needs a new classification; if that ever happens it will be far enough in the future that we might want to reassess everything anyway.
It would be great to display the miniature piece icon by the player names in the game room listing. Everyone gets to be at least silver rabbit, but I'll bet people would start participating in events just to get a higher animal.
|
| « Last Edit: Mar 13th, 2010, 10:16am by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
zhanrnl
Forum Full Member
Arimaa player #4971
Gender:
Posts: 12
|
|
Re: Arimaa.com titles
« Reply #14 on: Mar 13th, 2010, 3:38pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I think Fritz's ranking system would make more sense; I also think Silver Cat should be higher than Gold Rabbit. But Omar's ranking qualifications sound reasonable to me.
I also like miniature piece icons, and I agree that would be greater motivation to play more HH games, at least for me.
Omar: plural of "Pokemon" is "Pokemon"
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print