If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-17 23:43:13

Tarr says that fences are hopeless, because someone else can just block you in to grief you.

While I have my doubts that this is entirely true, and I haven't seen this happening in the game incessantly, it raises an important question:

Fences are just a special case of buildings.

Are buildings, in general, doomed for this same reason?

If so, what does this mean? That structures in the game will never be viable? That any kind of security in the game is hopeless?

And how could that really be true? There are other mutiplayer games where structures are viable, right?

And if it is true in this game, for some weird reason specific to this game, how can it be fixed? Tarr?

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-17 23:46:06

(As an example, the last time I played Rust, there was a magic tool chest that prevented non-owners from building in a radius of about 50 squares around it. You'd build your building well inside this radius, making your front door impossible to block. If someone really wanted to fence you in, the would have to build a huge circle of walls around that outer perimeter. Walls are really expensive, so you're just not going to do that.)

futurebird · 2019-05-17 23:49:26

I think fences would be more useful if you could batch-add everyone with your last name. I don't know if it'd do much for village defense, but they are great for making a town more organized. It's clear that trash and bones go outside the fence and that the areas inside should be tidy. It makes organizing a town much more enjoyable. Were it not for the risk of someone using the gates for mischief I might even build them for that purpose if I ever get up the nerve to start playing again.

futurebird · 2019-05-17 23:52:58

OK I just had and idea.. what if you tie who the sword works on to fences? The people who own an area can use a sword on people in that area. (determining what's inside vs. out might be hard)

I'd only like this change if you could batch add people, and then you could add strangers if you liked them. And if you didn't want to get stabbed just stay out of fenced zones.

In fact you could make it so the sword is the enforcement mechanic not the gate, so gates don't lock people out, but if you are inside a place you don't own you are vulnerable to deadly attacks. That seems more realistic to me. A kind of home turf advantage.

Last edited by futurebird (2019-05-17 23:53:39)

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-17 23:54:15

Futurebird.... can I ask you to take another look at my question above?

It was really about the possibility of people blocking you in....

I guess it's the same "good guys/bad guys" problem that every mechanic has. Why don't I add body armor to stop griefers? Because then griefers would wear body armor too.

So if you have the power to build a wall to keep bad guys from coming in, then bad guys have the power to build a wall to trap you in as well.

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-17 23:57:41

But yeah, your second post is a good and interesting idea...

Would unfortunately take quite a bit of time/work to implement, and also bug-prone, with the server trying to reason about what's inside incomplete fences, etc.

Also, that would make swords entirely defensive... and then you're defending from what, exactly? I mean, the outsiders can't come in with swords...

futurebird · 2019-05-17 23:59:20

It's just really easy to poke holes in fences. So, like walls I think their main value is organization. I'm saying that feces *are* useful. Just not to defend a village. In this image everyone thought the fence was doing fine, but it was full of this and many other holes.

Last edited by futurebird (2019-05-17 23:59:35)

A_person_1234 · 2019-05-17 23:59:50

Can you make fences exitable from inside to outside? Like somehow get the game to recognize the inside part of a fence and allow players to jump over it to get out, but not to get in? I don't know if that's even possible, but it would prevent people from getting trapped inside fences.

Astelon · 2019-05-18 00:02:29

Buildings to protect against players, you can see in real life how that went. After all, wars existed because people could conquer others even if they were defended by castles. Even Constantinople fell, with its mighty Theodosian Walls. So pretty much yes, any kind of security is hopeless because it is so in real life too. Every lock can be opened or broken, every building can be demolished. As for castles, I guess you heard of sieges. They weren't always won by breaking the castle walls and storming it. Sometimes, the besiegers would simply wait for the defenders to starve. Farms normally are outside city walls, but ingame you get that by the fact that you need to get out for iron and other things. What's the difference between people not getting out because they'll be killed by the attacking army and people not getting out because they were sealed inside, in terms of result?

Unlike real life though, there'll always be a mole inside the settlement that will simply want to ruin it. And if someone from outside could lock down a fenced settlement, you can bet someone from inside could do the same.

I did mention before making use of nature to require buildings. I don't think you'll have as many people complain to you if you make buildings and fences required to protect against wild animal attacks. Or against weather even, since getting wet makes you lose temperature, and fires don't go along too well with water. After all, people didn't build shelters to protect themselves from other people initially, that came much later when settlements grew, but to protect themselves and their belongings from nature's wrath.

Greep · 2019-05-18 00:04:05

Well, lack of FoV to determine if you're being walled in is a big issue. This is the same with swords: you look at all the swords killing spree youtube videos and it's always some guy with awbz killing a bunch of people without awbz, thinking they're clever or something. It's less imbalanced gameplay and more just overt cheating really.

futurebird · 2019-05-18 00:08:37

Astelon wrote:

Or against weather even, since getting wet makes you lose temperature, and fires don't go along too well with water.

What if fires lasted longer inside? And I do think Spoonwood and others are right about buildings not really giving the kind of temp bonus that makes them essential. A house with a fire in it should be perfect temp on every tile... not too hot near the fire and too cold away from it.

Fires outside work in a really logical way, you get too hot if you stand on it too cold if you move away ... it makes sense, but this keeps happening inside as well so buildings end up existing mostly for organization. Which is more important than I think you and some others are recognizing. The more I think about how *clean* I was able to make fenced towns-- the more I like the idea of using fences in that way. I just wish I wasn't putting people at risk of being trapped...

Buggy · 2019-05-18 00:10:14

In rust you build to protect your stuff and yourself from other players. (And because buildings can look cool) In real life I don't live indoors solely for those reasons.
The primary reason for living indoors (especially in Canada) is the weather, the second is that it protects my things ... not from other people but from nature. Clothes and food don't last to long on the lawn.

In one hour one life I don't care about protecting my things from other people so the rust approach of locking up everything is really heavy handed. Why should I care about protecting my stuff from other players if we are supposed to be working together?

The main problem with buildings in this game is the space they take up, one whole tile per block. This is the same as minecraft and people obviously love building in that game right? However building in minecraft protects you against mobs and is very easy to do. Where in this game it only blocks movement takes up space and provides little benefit. People still build in this game though once they have enough food and feel safe.

Like someone said we are stuck on level one or two of Maslow's hierarchy of needs if you want to move past this to build for creativity we need to not constantly feel the threat of dying, or you will need to make buildings have a meaningful impact on survival.

Last edited by Buggy (2019-05-18 00:13:20)

Spoonwood · 2019-05-18 00:16:42

jasonrohrer wrote:

Tarr says that fences are hopeless, because someone else can just block you in to grief you.
While I have my doubts that this is entirely true, and I haven't seen this happening in the game incessantly, it raises an important question:

Fences are just a special case of buildings.
Are buildings, in general, doomed for this same reason?

Let's look at stone wall buildings first. Here's one example:

Someone built a garage for his car on the old server 12 made out of ancient stone walls with a door. Someone came when the person wasn't there and made stone walls around that door and they turned ancient, so the car ended up a museum piece. Stone walls take a long time to stabilize so sure someone probably breaks a mining pick to fix the wall on bs2 (ugh... who wants to break a mining pick on a stone wall?), but here's another example:

Consider a city surrounded by walls with doors as exists, and let's say that they are plaster walls. Now, yes, those can get destroyed, but it's kind of complex and more to the point I doubt it's common knowledge. Someone puts full bell tower bases blocking the doors and now you'd better hope that someone around knows how to remove those things, and likewise, I doubt that's common knowledge. The town would just really need to not have any iron around also (which for, example, might have gotten moved first), and the people inside would have to rely on outside help.

If the walls were ancient stone walls, and the full belltower bases stabilize the town could easily be doomed. Also, aren't newcomen towers with a pump beam kit immovable?

Even adobe oven bases blocking the doors of a building or city wall structure would be bad news. For town buildings, such as a nursery, and the doors getting blocked by adobe oven bases and that leading to the starvation of some children.

jasonrohrer wrote:

If so, what does this mean? That structures in the game will never be viable? That any kind of security in the game is hopeless?
And how could that really be true? There are other mutiplayer games where structures are viable, right?
And if it is true in this game, for some weird reason specific to this game, how can it be fixed? Tarr?

I think Tarr is saying that buildings in neutral biomes (he HAS tried to get people to live in jungle and desert buildings... though maybe he thinks those doomed) are currently doomed. Walls around the smithy are disastorous due to the lack of space issue, and other buildings aren't all that hard to grief. Your example of Rust specifically has a mechanism to block building in a certain area. There IS no way to do that in OHOL. I use IS, because it has the present tense. I didn't say 'will'. Also, 'are doomed' has present tense.

Edit: None of this addresses buildings as having any use, which they do not given that they aren't meant to protect from other people (people are supposed to be playing for their lineages... not going on crusades). Even if buildings were not griefiable that would not make them useful to town development or for the sake of a lineage. Babies or women wanting to increase their fertility probability can just dance around a large slow fire, and parents (including myself as I have seen on stream) often pick up their children prematurely when planning to stand near the baby, absolute perfect temperature really isn't that much of an issue to begin with. Buildings are not useful, and in that respect, to speak redundantly, as they stand at present, they are doomed as uselees. Tarr argues that hot temperature buildings might be useful enough. He is correct about their temperature benefits (first noticed by yaira... if I spelled that correctly). But he's also said that you don't really want to impede on the original structures, so though they might be useful in bs2 OHOL, they only end up as a late game project. Notice his doubts about those buildings, and that's from after trying to make them work for a while.

Last edited by Spoonwood (2019-05-18 00:30:52)

Tarr · 2019-05-18 00:22:09

Buildings are doomed not because they can be blocked but because in their current form they offer no real advantage over just putting your stuff outside. I've spent tens of hours trying to design and figure out how to make buildings be useful and trying to get the players to use them but at the end of the day I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink.

Cold biome buildings are basically just self limiting areas of town that are less efficient than tossing a random outdoors oven next to the sheep pen instead of hauling your meat over to a specific building in the town dedicated solely to baking/butchery/whatever. A building in the grasslands serves the same purpose as putting down early flooring around an oven: "This is our bakery." which is only a cosmetic upgrade over having grass/swamp/prairie floors. So if a building doesn't have a fire in the first place it's essentially just screwing up your work area for no net gain what so ever. Since buildings were basically designed to require clothing, proper size, and fire to do anything it made it so clothing is the main priority. Why would I spend an hour designing a bakery when I can just get dressed? The people who benefit most from a fire are babies and nurses; babies can just dance if they want to moderate and nurses can stay close or dance too.

Hot biome buildings (jungle/desert buildings) make up for this fact by having an ambient heat regardless of what you wear when inside them. The problem these buildings face are that you either have to make funny hallways to skip over the need for a door or that building in such a biome is both counter intuitive to players in the sense that the building is too hot to use until completely finished, and why would players think you want to build in the hellish environment of the desert or jungle. Hot buildings sort of suffer the same problem that railtracks suffer in game. You can't start in a hot biome and survive so after the town has basically settled in stone you can't get players to move towards the useful buildings.

Basically, cold buildings can be put everywhere but are useless while hot buildings can only go into specific areas but are much more useful overall than their counterparts. Buildings fail because you hurt yourself building them in the wrong spot not because they can be griefed.

Fences suffer from all sorts of problems. We have issues with hammer the corner pieces which means every corner either needs to be made out of a material that can't be removed or you'll have to go outside and fix it or suffer the fact that someone can sneak in as soon as it falls. We have of course the issue that doors have always suffered from and that's someone being able to block them from one side or the other. This means you either need to make sure every item can be disassembled in one for or fashion, or make it so there's a flooring type that cannot be built on but can be removed. Towns would essentially put down some sort of doormat or whatever fancy floor you want to call it that prevents impassible objects being built OR prevent other families from building on. You wouldn't let your neighbor start a bakery on your front porch would you Jason?

So if we make cold biome buildings better we suddenly start seeing more buildings pop up in the game without forcing people to use them as fallout shelters. We add something that disables other families or others in general from building on a tile (just like you can't grow berry bushes on a road) to deter people from trying to block all the tiles in front of doors/fences/gates.

The other thing I can think off the top of my head is that fences are so cheap that Eves can basically barricade other Eves inside their spring zones (I've tried since the update but I don't think I caught anyone) or attempt to barricade cities within their own cells. What if you only got five or ten property fence kits per straight branch? This cuts back on the shenanigans factor of Eve spring blocking, makes it so a town has to either plan around building a fenced area or risk running out of straight branches if done so early, and cuts back on players just building random fenced areas that other players are forced to clean up. This would even make it where if you find a bunch of knocked over fences you would think "Oh cool, I can design my own fenced area with all these fence kits" instead of thinking "Oh great, now I have to clean up all this crap."

So if you want to fix fences there should be some sort of player made tile that you plop down on the ground that restricts building (eliminating the ability to block doors and gates alike) and maybe go so far to actually give fences a cost to prevent stuff like Eves walling off other Eves or towns for that matter. To fix buildings we need to make cold biome buildings useful by doing something such as giving them a basic ambient temperature (like hot biome buildings) that are improved by clothing and further by fire. As much as I love hot biome buildings I don't think there's a reason to really mess with them too much since they've pretty much been solved at this point.

FeignedSanity · 2019-05-18 00:29:24

Yeah, I think that the field of vision might be the biggest problem in play (followed, of course very closely, by being able to block off doors). A lot of people playing the way you want people to experience the game (with very close camera that cannot be changed) a lot of time will not see something happening. Maybe this is where audio queues could useful (like it is for murders). Maybe change how far away some sounds can be heard (like walls breaking/building) and make them directional? There is a possible downside that it might get annoying, but at least you could tell where it was coming from and ask them to try to keep the noise down (dang noisy neighbors lol).

As far as the second problem, couldn't you set it up to where objects that block movement couldn't be placed a certain number of units in front of a door. I think the new eve spawning (correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not terribly familiar with it) demonstrated something similar to this. You couldn't have something within a certain number of units in front of the spring. Now to get around this, you'd just build fences to the max distance you'd have to build; but you had plenty of advance time to set that up. Anyway, I'm getting off point. Couldn't you make doors (and gates) it's own subclass of item that couldn't have items that block movement placed a certain number of units in front of them?

Also, maybe not have stone walls eat up an entire pick ax to remove? I feel like that's a bit overtuned. It's not like stone walls are that hard to put up, it doesn't need to be that costly to take down. Maybe make it similar to clay walls where you'd need two people (or just someone like myself) to remove them. Maybe you have to hit it with a rock (or maybe somehow incorporate the chisel) and make it "shakey" before you can ax it?

Last edited by FeignedSanity (2019-05-18 00:43:16)

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-18 01:17:15

What about if fences can't cross floors and roads? What if they can only be built on bare ground, like how you can't plant carrot rows on floors and roads?

That would solve that problem.

As for them being too cheap, I do plan on adding a cost at some point, but I don't want to burden them with a cost just yet.

Not sure how to implement "ambient temperature" for buildings. What's happening with the desert building is that they're keeping the heat out, I think. It's been a long time since I looked into it, but I will take another look next week.

Tarr · 2019-05-18 01:59:24

jasonrohrer wrote:

What about if fences can't cross floors and roads? What if they can only be built on bare ground, like how you can't plant carrot rows on floors and roads?
That would solve that problem.
As for them being too cheap, I do plan on adding a cost at some point, but I don't want to burden them with a cost just yet.

Not sure how to implement "ambient temperature" for buildings. What's happening with the desert building is that they're keeping the heat out, I think. It's been a long time since I looked into it, but I will take another look next week.

I mean that's a good starting place as it means you can put road or wood flooring in front/around your gates to prevent easy fence blocking. Are there any other things you can think of that shouldn't be built on floors? The only think off right off the top of my head are structures like walls since it's a net loss to do so (no reason to build walls on top of flooring.)

The hot buildings I believe are being cooled by the insulation value of the flooring + walls which is why they make for great buildings overall. They've got a passive bonus that doesn't rely on you being dressed or naked as the inner temperature of the room isn't effected by you having or not having clothing. Since too hot and too cold are basically the same a building which is just a bit too hot (hot biome buildings) are much better than a building which is mostly cold.

What if standing on a floor gave a tiny temperature bonus? Add in a bunch of floors + the walls blocking off the cold tiles outside and wouldn't that increase the temperature of a room? This would automatically make cold biome buildings have a slight advantage over just putting your bakery outside as you're actually gaining something from now having a building in the first place.

Basically as stated by Blue over in that other thread if you give players a reason to want to build something they'll do it over trying to force a need for it. Doing something as little as making paint more reasonable would likely see an increase in adobe buildings because wouldn't it be cool to have a blue house? Sure I don't ever need my house to be blue but reducing the cost of painting a 5x5 building from something like 18 buckets of paint to say something like five would encourage people to paint buildings.

For example is a heated building that's only purpose is to basically run around in circles. The whole hot biome building thing got me playing around with ideas of toys and I decided to basically make a heated race track. Did I need to do this? No. But did I want to try it out? I sure did and the thing was fun to let babies race around on. Players will always be able to figure out if X is better than Y in the end but having faucets for creativity helps get players to do what you want over just forcing.

And I want to thank you Jason for opening up to the conversation of this and the balance of swords. I'd much rather talk about why X or Y isn't working for the community rather than go around having to block Eve spawns or murdering a bunch of players just trying to play the game.

DestinyCall · 2019-05-18 02:02:18

In my mind, buildings need to provide constant, reliable weather protection. Which right now is represented by temperature. So being inside a building (even a partially constructed building) should bring you closer to "perfect", just like wearing a pair of shoes and a hat is better than running around nude. Fire should not be required for buildings to provide weather protection, it should be a bonus. A fully enclosed interior space should provide a naked person with similar protection as being fully clothed. And this protection should be consistant - not too cold in some places and too hot in others, like right now when you try to heat a room with one fire.

If buildings helped people stay comfortable temp (without fires) it would be great. There are still some issues related to storage and door-pathfinding. But it would make buildings genuinely useful in a large village.

Last edited by DestinyCall (2019-05-18 02:13:28)

Grim_Arbiter · 2019-05-18 02:14:34

Tarr wrote:

Basically as stated by Blue over in that other thread if you give players a reason to want to build something they'll do it over trying to force a need for it. Doing something as little as making paint more reasonable would likely see an increase in adobe buildings because wouldn't it be cool to have a blue house? Sure I don't ever need my house to be blue but reducing the cost of painting a 5x5 building from something like 18 buckets of paint to say something like five would encourage people to paint buildings.

Agreed here too.

If you gave the bucket of paint the same amount of uses as a bucket of milk, then you would see it a lottttt more.

Also if you add another stone color (add charcoal to make black stones) you would see more building and varieties.

Certain people in game feel like the stone is ugly, and adobe is great. Or vice versa. Give more options so its not one or the other. Also rip pine stuff once and for all

Spoonwood · 2019-05-18 02:18:57

Destiny makes another good point. Doors aren't so easy to move through. It would be better if you didn't need to click on the door to open it.

lychee · 2019-05-18 02:27:28

I'm written extensively on this topic in my mega suggestion thread, but to summarize the major points:

There needs to be more incentives for players to build buildings. Currently, they are typically built for cosmetic reasons. Most people consider the temperature benefit to be negligible (in comparison to the opportunity cost of being outside), doors are a hassle to click on, and there's a fear that we'll be blocked inside (it's currently recommended to have at least two doors to every building).

Here are some ways that buildings could be incentivized:

- Add food decay, which can be prevented if food is stored indoors
- Add wild animals that eat food that is left outdoors, which can be prevented if it is stored indoors
- Nerf outdoor fires so that indoor fires are the only way to get a perfect temperature
- Fire burns for longer indoors
- Add certain objects that can only be built inside buildings

These issues must be resolved before buildings become more widespread:

- Players should not be able to get locked/blocked inside by a malicious player
- Doors are a hassle (the clicking), so fixing automatic pathing and auto-door opening/closing would be highly appreciated. In many towns I've been in, people like to remove the doors entirely because they're too much of a trouble.

Suggestions regarding property:

- It would be nice if direct family (e.g. mother, sister, brother, children) have automatic access to property.
- A default inheritance scheme to property (e.g. oldest child > oldest sibling?)
- An easy way to mass-grant ownership/access, particularly by last name.

Last edited by lychee (2019-05-18 02:50:33)

lychee · 2019-05-18 02:44:53

This is a silly suggestion by lychee (so you can ignore it), but I've always thought it would be cool for players had a greater incentive to build their own little private huts or tents or teepees.

It would reflect civilization better because the three essentials of survival are food, water, and shelter (shelter against the elements, such as frigid night temperatures); consequently, all humans have need to build/use some form of shelter through all of history. In this sense, I recognize and support Jason's desire for there to be buildings and houses in the game.

The major reasons why houses don't exist in OHOL is because (1) there's no weather or cold nights, (2) no need for sleep/privacy, and (3) no dangers like wild animals that might come when a person sleeps.

Consequently, we can either give up on individual tents/huts/homes entirely and settle for communal kitchens/nurseries/bakeries, or some artificial incentive needs to exist to promote private residences.

Here are a series of major suggestions that could promote private residences:

- A low-tech residence (e.g. a hut or lean-to shelter) needs to be very cheap, but restricted in its size
- Immediate family (e.g. mother, siblings, children) should have automatic access to a personal residence
- Allow the placement of special indoor objects that would be considered private property
- A residence could have a better temperature even in the absence of a fire
- A bed, for instance, could delay hunger or delay injuries
- A hearth, for instance, could allow for a longer-lasting fire
- S T O R A G E (haha xD)
- Fertility could increase in a private residence
- Allow the inheriting of a house to one's children -- to promote the continued upgrades to a house.
- Include a leaderboard on the website for the most lavish houses and potentially include pictures.

Some nerfs that could be done to favor private residences:

- Limit the maximum size of buildings based on the material type. IRL there are structural limitations.
- Early tech = cheap small huts

Last edited by lychee (2019-05-18 02:49:25)

jasonrohrer · 2019-05-18 02:45:42

Will read this thread on Monday.

I could stop walls from being built on floors pretty easily by blocking stakes from being pounded, and it makes sense. Problem is tracks not being able to cross floors/roads. Also doors not being buildable on floors....

Not sure what to do there.

Anyway, there are still oven bases, which obviously should be buildable on floors. Probably some other blocking things... freestanding newc tower, etc.

FeignedSanity · 2019-05-18 02:50:00

jasonrohrer wrote:

Will read this thread on Monday.
I could stop walls from being built on floors pretty easily by blocking stakes from being pounded, and it makes sense. Problem is tracks not being able to cross floors/roads. Also doors not being buildable on floors....
Not sure what to do there.
Anyway, there are still oven bases, which obviously should be buildable on floors. Probably some other blocking things... freestanding newc tower, etc.

So I'm guessing my idea is out? Dang, thought it was a good one

Tarr · 2019-05-18 03:32:20

I mean you technically don't need flooring under a door and if I remember correctly it makes the door look silly with the flooring sticking out anyways. So unless you absolutely need flooring under a door that's easy enough to overlook. In regards to tracks what if they were set with a different tool or were just right click applied to tiles railway approved? You could use something like a mallet to change the track set or whatever tool you want honestly. "East-West track kit, North-West track kit, etc" and then just right click to apply the track to whatever surface you find fit.

This leaves us with something like newcomen tech being blocked from being placed on floor which is probably an issue if you want an inside workshop. Maybe you hit a regular block with a mallet or some other tool? (Yeah yeah mallet getting a lot of love tonight but that's because they're already related to both things.) These two ideas solve both the issues with putting stakes on floors and if anyone else can think of something you would want to stake and put inside please chime in.

Newcomen Engine towers do need to be able to be dismantled. They're one of the only objects that can permanently block a tile and the only reason it wasn't done sooner was because they enable baby prisons. Since I don't know when we're getting a prison like update these do need fixed to prevent door griefing.

As I think we've heard a million times already something like shelf storage (Can only go on walls) would increase the usability of walls but then you get into a weird situation where if they're better than boxes we get a bunch of walls in the middle of nowhere to replace boxes and that's not exactly what we're looking for (trying to buff buildings not walls.) Maybe other aesthetic options for buildings? Maybe a new building material that is rare? New paint options for stone walls and adobe? Hell, maybe you add actual bricks.

One Hour One Life Forums

#1 2019-05-17 23:43:13

If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#2 2019-05-17 23:46:06

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#3 2019-05-17 23:49:26

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#4 2019-05-17 23:52:58

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#5 2019-05-17 23:54:15

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#6 2019-05-17 23:57:41

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#7 2019-05-17 23:59:20

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#8 2019-05-17 23:59:50

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#9 2019-05-18 00:02:29

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#10 2019-05-18 00:04:05

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#11 2019-05-18 00:08:37

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#12 2019-05-18 00:10:14

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#13 2019-05-18 00:16:42

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#14 2019-05-18 00:22:09

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#15 2019-05-18 00:29:24

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#16 2019-05-18 01:17:15

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#17 2019-05-18 01:59:24

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#18 2019-05-18 02:02:18

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#19 2019-05-18 02:14:34

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#20 2019-05-18 02:18:57

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#21 2019-05-18 02:27:28

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#22 2019-05-18 02:44:53

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#23 2019-05-18 02:45:42

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#24 2019-05-18 02:50:00

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

#25 2019-05-18 03:32:20

Re: If fences are not viable, what does that mean?

Board footer