HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Geek Emporium
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Geek Emporium Discuss computers, hardware, software, electronics, video games, internet, etc.

Battlefield 4 (10/29/13)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-24-2013, 07:10 AM
  #26
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
IT would be awesome if we could have some snow and forest maps in the game this time.

Also, country maps like the ones in BC 1. I know CB is like that but i was thinking more like.. enviorments like here in Sweden/Europe, not exotic.


Last edited by Everlasting: 03-24-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Everlasting is offline  
Old
03-25-2013, 02:59 PM
  #27
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX
4 will be pure iteration. No innovation. Maybe that's your cup of tea, but it's a slow death for what was once a PC bastion.
I think that you may be overselling how "innovative" earlier Battlefield games were between releases. 1942 was innovative, since it was the first, but successive games differentiated themselves more in setting and period than in gameplay. Vietnam was simply 1942 in the jungle. BF2 was largely the same game, too, just in modern times. 2142 (though they did innovate a little, such as with mechs and titans) was largely the same as the earlier games, just in the future. The gameplay was nearly identical in all four of those games -- only the locations, vehicles and weapons changed. In a way, that's been one of the series' greatest strengths, though... that each game has had the same great gameplay.

Now, that said, if DICE cranks out only modern shooters from now on, that's cause for concern, I agree. They've been able to get away with the same core gameplay for over 10 years because they've kept it fresh by changing settings between releases. BF4 likely being similar to BF3 is disappointing, but I still have some faith in DICE. I'd like to think that they're doing BF4 as is and so soon more to make EA happy, and, after that, they'll do something that makes them happy, which I'm hoping is a long-awaited return to WWII to bring the franchise back to its roots. I think that what would be ideal would be for them to have two major teams, one of which produces safe, modern shooters every even cycle to make EA happy and another team which produces slightly more experimental ones (i.e. different time periods, settings, experimental features, etc.) every odd cycle. I think that that would make everyone happy.

Osprey is offline  
Old
03-25-2013, 03:47 PM
  #28
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
XX, It's a shame your bitter hate towards EA has eroded any interest you had in the series. Battlefield 3 is not that bad a game. Battlefield 4 hasn't even come out yet and already there are cries about how EA is a monster. We know EA is a monster. However, their products eventually get fixed to the point that the game is playable.

Every iteration, they make a few improvements which make the game better. They allowed you to spawn on more team members, so you wouldn't have to run across the map as often. They included spawn beacons, SOFLAMM, Javelin, reduced the classes to 4 instead of 5, et cetera.

I'm not a EA homer and I don't like the lack of VoIP. EA also majorly messed up Battlelog, and there are a bunch of connection issues every now and then which plague the game. But for the most part, if you're able to get into a game and play, it's actually pretty damn fun, as long as teams are balanced.

BF4 should really implement or encourage team balance. Not enough servers use it aggressively. Teams are often stacked and go on streaks of dominance, you can go an hour or two without winning a game, it's that bad. I can't carry the team on my back, especially when the game is largely focused on how your team does.

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-25-2013, 05:39 PM
  #29
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I think that you may be overselling how "innovative" earlier Battlefield games were between releases.
With shooters, you have to use the word innovation pretty lightly. I consider changing the time period a form of innovation. Maybe effort is a better word?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
Now, that said, if DICE cranks out only modern shooters from now on, that's cause for concern, I agree.
This is my biggest worry, and I agree. Changing the factions and the maps doesn't require much effort. A mod team of volunteers can easily do that in the time they've been allotted. I'm getting tired of $60 base games + deluxe edition + DLC for what amounts to mod work. Is capture the flag supposed to be so revolutionary that it's okay to charge $15 for it? Before the consoles and DLC, this type of **** was free. That's why games had such long legs after release. The community sustained them. The 'community' for Battlefield 3 is degenerate trash compared to Battlefield 2. I have to think that some of that is due to how it was designed and marketed from the start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I think that what would be ideal would be for them to have two major teams, one of which produces safe, modern shooters every even cycle to make EA happy and another team which produces slightly more experimental ones (i.e. different time periods, settings, experimental features, etc.) every odd cycle. I think that that would make everyone happy.
I don't agree with a new game every year. Less is more. I think it cheapens the brand, and turns it into something it is not. It's entirely contrived and an obvious attempt by EA to clone the success of CoD, just as SWTOR was an attempt to capture the same lucrative revenue stream WoW was. You can't market your game as being different and better than CoD, only to follow up by mimicking its release pattern. I prefer quality over quantity, so put me in the Blizzard/Valve camp.

Maybe I'm old and crotchety, or old school, but I see a lot of resentment in the shooter community over the yearly CoD cycles. It's entirely justified, if you look at what that series has turned into. At least EA invested into a new engine. I'll give them credit for that, even if it was only to get more revenue, and even if they did release a game where players were falling through the map. I don't want to feel the same way about Battlefield. I played the **** out of every release. I played CoD4 and MW2, but never had the same level of attachment. Really, if you want vehicles and competent gunplay, Battlefield is the only show in town.

If you build a great game, a great community will follow. That can sustain you for years, until you attempt to put real effort into the next big release. Look at Counter-Strike, for example. Yearly releases gets you momentary attention and a little extra revenue, but is it worth it?

XX is online now  
Old
03-25-2013, 08:59 PM
  #30
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
With shooters, you have to use the word innovation pretty lightly. I consider changing the time period a form of innovation. Maybe effort is a better word?



This is my biggest worry, and I agree. Changing the factions and the maps doesn't require much effort. A mod team of volunteers can easily do that in the time they've been allotted. I'm getting tired of $60 base games + deluxe edition + DLC for what amounts to mod work. Is capture the flag supposed to be so revolutionary that it's okay to charge $15 for it? Before the consoles and DLC, this type of **** was free. That's why games had such long legs after release. The community sustained them. The 'community' for Battlefield 3 is degenerate trash compared to Battlefield 2. I have to think that some of that is due to how it was designed and marketed from the start.



I don't agree with a new game every year. Less is more. I think it cheapens the brand, and turns it into something it is not. It's entirely contrived and an obvious attempt by EA to clone the success of CoD, just as SWTOR was an attempt to capture the same lucrative revenue stream WoW was. You can't market your game as being different and better than CoD, only to follow up by mimicking its release pattern. I prefer quality over quantity, so put me in the Blizzard/Valve camp.

Maybe I'm old and crotchety, or old school, but I see a lot of resentment in the shooter community over the yearly CoD cycles. It's entirely justified, if you look at what that series has turned into. At least EA invested into a new engine. I'll give them credit for that, even if it was only to get more revenue, and even if they did release a game where players were falling through the map. I don't want to feel the same way about Battlefield. I played the **** out of every release. I played CoD4 and MW2, but never had the same level of attachment. Really, if you want vehicles and competent gunplay, Battlefield is the only show in town.

If you build a great game, a great community will follow. That can sustain you for years, until you attempt to put real effort into the next big release. Look at Counter-Strike, for example. Yearly releases gets you momentary attention and a little extra revenue, but is it worth it?
I didn't pay anything but I got it as Premium

Premium really is worth it

And I do get what you're saying about Battlefield, as they kept Battlefield 2 around since 2006 while making 2142, Battlefield: Bad Company, et cetera. However, the game hasn't even come out yet and you're already judging the content. Let's wait until we know what's coming. All we know at this point is a brief trailer.

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-25-2013, 09:28 PM
  #31
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
I don't agree with a new game every year.
I wasn't necessarily advocating a game every year. By "cycle," I meant 2-4yr cycles. If each team produced a game every two years, there would, indeed, be a game every year, but I think that a game every 18 months (3-year development per game) would be about ideal. Even if it were every year, though, the difference between the two lines would create separation (like how the Bad Company games were considered apart) and some people would stick to one or the other.

Osprey is offline  
Old
03-25-2013, 10:28 PM
  #32
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
I wasn't necessarily advocating a game every year. By "cycle," I meant 2-4yr cycles. If each team produced a game every two years, there would, indeed, be a game every year, but I think that a game every 18 months (3-year development per game) would be about ideal. Even if it were every year, though, the difference between the two lines would create separation (like how the Bad Company games were considered apart) and some people would stick to one or the other.
It flies in the face of current development models, but I feel like BF3 being a PS3 title primarily is what hurt it. A lot of features, like the commander system and spectator mode, were jettisoned in the name of console play. The Bad Company games seemed to do a good job of appealing to console players. I'd like to see the two separated off to their respective platforms, but that won't happen with a company focused on volume.

XX is online now  
Old
03-26-2013, 12:19 AM
  #33
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
This is my biggest worry, and I agree. Changing the factions and the maps doesn't require much effort. A mod team of volunteers can easily do that in the time they've been allotted. I'm getting tired of $60 base games + deluxe edition + DLC for what amounts to mod work. Is capture the flag supposed to be so revolutionary that it's okay to charge $15 for it? Before the consoles and DLC, this type of **** was free. That's why games had such long legs after release. The community sustained them. The 'community' for Battlefield 3 is degenerate trash compared to Battlefield 2. I have to think that some of that is due to how it was designed and marketed from the start.
Thats my biggest worry too. It is not okay on any level to deliberately realese a game with little content so you can later on start services, realese extra editions and extra content for money. Content that should have been there, or even worse, should have been given us to free.

I like to point out what i wrote in #19 again. Dice said that they were going to give us free maps becuse they never want to charge customers for that, EA made sure that did not happend becuse they wanted more money.

And it is action like these which not just brings down the quality of the game, it brings down the quality of the brand and in the end just makes us consumers suffer.

Unfourntanlet there exist a LARGE amount of people who for some ****ing reason thinks that EA strategies like this one is okay. They think its supergood that EA strip the game on content and charge money for content which should be free. Becuse they like to give away there money for no reason at all to EA. Just look at the huge amount of people with Premium and all the DLC in BF3
Everyone of you who bought those are the reason EA are doing this.

Shame on you.

Everlasting is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 05:15 AM
  #34
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by XX View Post
It flies in the face of current development models, but I feel like BF3 being a PS3 title primarily is what hurt it. A lot of features, like the commander system and spectator mode, were jettisoned in the name of console play. The Bad Company games seemed to do a good job of appealing to console players. I'd like to see the two separated off to their respective platforms, but that won't happen with a company focused on volume.
The lack of commander system was considered an upgrade by many. They got rid of stupid artillery too.

Of course, by getting rid of artillery, they had to add mortars.

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 02:16 PM
  #35
Leaf Rocket
Leaf Fan Till I Die
 
Leaf Rocket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: India
Posts: 72,012
vCash: 500
I was thinking trading in my BF3 but I think i'll bank and see if they put on a premium package or osmehting.

__________________
Leaf Rocket is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 02:33 PM
  #36
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Rumor: Commander mode makes return


Quote:
Battlefield 4 Gets Frosbite 2.5 Engine – Destruction 4.0, Tessellation, Dynamic Weather Affects
In our previous article, we mentioned how the next generation Battlefield 4 would utilize 80% of the Frostbite engine’s power compared to 30% utilization in Battlefield 3. The new Frostbite 2.5 engine would feature much more enhanced visuals with PC being the lead platform for the game. According to the details, Battlefield 4 would maintain a steady 60 FPS on 720P resolution on both next generation consoles which include the PS4 and Xbox 720 which is a slight bit of a disappointment since earlier rumors suggested 1080P/60 FPS target for the next-gen consoles. However, the next generation consoles including the PC would get 64 players while the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 would stick to the default 24 player setup which is currently seen on Battlefield 4.

Frostbite 2.5 would be a complete overhaul of the current Frostbite 2.0 engine with DirectX 11 compatibility only on PC. Furthermore, the game would feature Dynamic weather effects such as rain, sandstorms, fog, haze and would be totally random. Each map would get these dynamic weather effects and would change depending on the variable conditions. As you may have noted, the cover image shows a glimpse of these weather effects such as rain. Battlefield 4 would also bring back the much renowned and upgraded Destruction 4.0 system to the game which would offer destructible environments and buildings which we saw back in Bad Company 2. PC versions would benefit from compute power which would render these dynamic destructible effects much more realistically. Furthermore, all of the environment including water, terrain and characters/NPC would make use of the new tessellation technology implemented inside Frostbite 2.5.


Battlefield 4 – Set in China During 2020, Maps, Weapons Confirmed
The game would be set in 2020 but maintains a modern day setting featuring China and USA as the main infantry factions. The single player section of the game would be around 5-6 hours long in which there would be 2 campaigns of the PLA factions and would bring back the renowned animation effects of Bad Company series. Just like Battlefield 3′s Capsian border where the main tower collapses at the end of the game, a map would be based in Shanghai China at the end of which the Orient Pearl tower would collapse. Not much single player details were given but there are a ton of Multiplayer details such as the maps which include:


Diaoyu Island
Tiananmen
Shanghai Bund
Xizhimen
Xizhimen Rush
These are only a few of the total maps featured in Battlefield 4. Weapons such as the famouse Chinese J20, Y20, Xianglong would appear in the game along with those from other factions. Two of the confirmed tanks include M1A2 TUSK and PLA Type 99 each featuring their own set of customization options such as laser guidance and armor piercing rounds. Best thing that’s mentioned in the leak is that Air Combat zone would be further increased giving much more room for dog fights with jets.

Commander system as expected is definately making a return to the game with the leading commander Providing fire, recharges and UAV detection support to their team. Skill system has also been overhauled. According to the leak, Micro-transactions would be available in the game but they won’t affect the balance of the game at all and are entirely optional which is great to hear. As for DLC’s, the game would get after a while a map pack which would bring four further maps to the game which include:


Power station in Dalian
Daqing oil field
The great wall of China
Wake Island (Classic Battlefield Map)
In my Battlefield 4 teaser video post i mentioned that if even half of these features came true, Battlefield 4 would be an absolute beast of an FPS. With today’s leak, things are hyped up on my end and im really looking forward to GDC 2013′s announcement of DICE’s upcoming gem aka Battlefield 4.

As you may note, the footage shows a tank gearing up and moving forward. It also shows a reveal on 27th March

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 02:38 PM
  #37
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Hilarious how Diaoyu is in the game as those following events in the Asian theater know of their relevance in Sino-Japanese relations

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 03:17 PM
  #38
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
IT would be awesome if we could have some snow and forest maps in the game this time.

Also, country maps like the ones in BC 1. I know CB is like that but i was thinking more like.. enviorments like here in Sweden/Europe, not exotic.
They were underrepresented in the BF3 core maps, but the expansions focused a bit more on those kinds of maps.
Snow: Alborz Mountains, Sabalan Pipeline
Forest: Caspian Border, Death Valley, Kiasar Railroad, Operation Riverside

I'm still hoping they re-use Harvest Day from BC and BC2. Favourite Battlefield map.

__________________
CanadianHockey________ __ __________Sens, Oilers, and Team Canada
CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 03:18 PM
  #39
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
Hilarious how Diaoyu is in the game as those following events in the Asian theater know of their relevance in Sino-Japanese relations
Not really hilarious. They're going with a China-US war, using Diaoyu as a flashpoint for the conflict makes sense.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 03:55 PM
  #40
Everlasting
Registered User
 
Everlasting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Somwhere in time
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
They were underrepresented in the BF3 core maps, but the expansions focused a bit more on those kinds of maps.
Snow: Alborz Mountains, Sabalan Pipeline
Forest: Caspian Border, Death Valley, Kiasar Railroad, Operation Riverside

I'm still hoping they re-use Harvest Day from BC and BC2. Favourite Battlefield map.
But they were EXTRA, as in additional maps. They are not a part of the _full_ game.
I am NOT supporting EA and their "few maps at launch, tons of map dlc and premium" model. So i will most likely not get those maps and i dont want to be stuck with 13 (i got the Limited ED for BF3) maps for several years. It would have been 9 if did not get limited edition.

As for the info, it all sounds great, but i want more maps in the full game. Judging from it tho, the game only has 4 maps... = i will not buy it. And i hope there is some sense in everyone else (if there is only 4 maps in the game) and that you all will not buy the game, even you really want to play it. That is the only way of saying no to EA.


Last edited by Everlasting: 03-26-2013 at 04:00 PM.
Everlasting is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:08 PM
  #41
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanadianHockey View Post
Not really hilarious. They're going with a China-US war, using Diaoyu as a flashpoint for the conflict makes sense.
Yes. Just interesting to see Diaoyu in the game as it is again a recent point of contention in Asian relations

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:13 PM
  #42
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 500
Thanks for the link, ix.

BF4 sounds really promising when it comes to the PC version, almost like they're trying to make up to PC gamers for BF3... ex. PC as lead platform, 64-player multiplayer, commander mode, etc.. I skipped BF3, but now I'm intrigued by BF4 and will be looking forward to hearing more.

I'm not exactly thrilled about it being set in China, but eh. At least it's not the Middle East and, one might assume, not so much urban combat. The lush countrysides would make for some beautiful open maps and help the series get back to what it was pre-BF3.


Last edited by Osprey: 03-26-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Osprey is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:16 PM
  #43
CanadianHockey
Smith - Alfie
 
CanadianHockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Petawawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,914
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everlasting View Post
But they were EXTRA, as in additional maps. They are not a part of the _full_ game.
I am NOT supporting EA and their "few maps at launch, tons of map dlc and premium" model. So i will most likely not get those maps and i dont want to be stuck with 13 (i got the Limited ED for BF3) maps for several years. It would have been 9 if did not get limited edition.

As for the info, it all sounds great, but i want more maps in the full game. Judging from it tho, the game only has 4 maps... = i will not buy it. And i hope there is some sense in everyone else (if there is only 4 maps in the game) and that you all will not buy the game, even you really want to play it. That is the only way of saying no to EA.
The game has literally just been announced. There will be more than four maps, unless EA is suicidal.

CanadianHockey is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:19 PM
  #44
SniperHF
Global Moderator
 
SniperHF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Country: United States
Posts: 16,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey View Post
Thanks for the link, ix.

BF4 sounds really promising when it comes to the PC version, almost like they're trying to make up to PC gamers for BF3... ex. PC as lead platform
You mean exactly what they said about BF3

SniperHF is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:28 PM
  #45
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
In fact the alleged "leak" announces 5 maps

The game is worth it just for Diaoyu alone. I'll take you all on over oil resources

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:28 PM
  #46
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SniperHF View Post
You mean exactly what they said about BF3
I thought that they did, too, then read XX say that they primarily made it for PS3 and suddenly second-guessed myself. Still, when BF3 was announced, I and other PC gamers were disappointed at the lack of 64-player maps and commander mode, both of which suit PC gameplay, among other things, so even if they said that the PC was the lead platform, the game's features seemed to contradict it. They don't seem to be contradicting themselves this time (so far), so maybe they mean it this time. Here's hoping, at least.

Osprey is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 04:36 PM
  #47
Mike Emrick
Moderator
 
Mike Emrick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 200,226
vCash: 500
Every map on BF3 is suited for 64 players.

Commander mode was neutrally received, it wasn't in Bad Company either and no one complained. I didn't miss it. I don't miss being barraged by artillery at all. With the new modes, there's also less need for mortars, which are almost as odd a way of meeting your fate in-game.

Mike Emrick is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 08:01 PM
  #48
XX
Lots of Try
 
XX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Executionville
Country: United States
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ixcuincle View Post
Every map on BF3 is suited for 64 players.
No, they aren't. Some of them are very, very poorly designed for certain modes.




XX is online now  
Old
03-26-2013, 08:35 PM
  #49
Kitten Mittons
Registered User
 
Kitten Mittons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: San Francisco
Country: Armenia
Posts: 47,733
vCash: 500
BF is following the CoD model almost fully now. I guess that was expected but it sucks. Or maybe they wanted BF on the next-gen consoles.

Kitten Mittons is offline  
Old
03-26-2013, 09:05 PM
  #50
Oxide
Registered User
 
Oxide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Pittsburgh
Country: United States
Posts: 713
vCash: 50
Look how innovative they are with all those birds.

Oxide is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.