Lost trust

In 2018 Ashes of Creation was the most anticipated MMORPG. Things really went down hill with the whole BR thing, delays and 0 MMORPG footage. The trust of community in the project is gone. When someone asks for MMORPG release date, noone even remembers that the official statement is "delay is in months, not years" everyone expects the MMORPG to come out at least in 2021.

In what ways do you think Intrepid could start winning back the trust of the community?

I guess a way to do that would be to show more of MMORPG, but the fact that they are not willing to do that says a lot too.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Atama

Dygz wrote: »

Can't please all of the people all of the time, but...
Apoc is not the MMORPG, so you should not be feeling like you won't be among the first to test the MMORPG just because a different game shares assets.

That would be true if they hadn’t made an Alpha 0 that people did get to play.

Intrepid has lied multiple times.

Lifetime subscriptions are exclusive to Kickstarter, buy them now because this will be your last chance!

Oh, here’s the follow-up summer crowdfunding, you can buy a lifetime sub again.

Fund at this tier and you will get earliest access to Alpha and be among the first to experience the MMORPG!

Oh, well, here’s an “Alpha 0” and we’re going to hand-pick some people we like to play it, but everyone else we promised can get into the MMORPG first, sorry you can’t.

I give Intrepid the benefit of the doubt that not self-publishing in Europe (they swore they’d self-publish everywhere) and instead going with an infamously bad publisher is due to ignorance and not knowing they can’t do it. I give them the benefit of the doubt that their release estimates were also ignorance and being overly optimistic, and also not a lie. I’m being extremely generous because they’ve otherwise been documented as liars, breaking promises to their backers.

Honestly I’m still here because they got my money already and I can’t get a refund. I hope against hope that they’ll someday actually make a game and this isn’t some Star Citizen bullcrap that is never going to happen. Because if it is there’s nothing I can do about it. I try to be hopeful still.

Wandering Mist

I'm not willing to condemn Intrepid until we get into testing phases for the mmorpg. Yes I bought into the hype like so many others but then you look at the timeframe and the initial expectations were completely unreasonable.

ashone

Now i take everything that is stated by the studio with a grain of salt.(hah! I am getting salty! Couldn t resist) Do I still trust Intrepid?.. nowheres near as much as I used to,I am hoping that the upcoming move includes the hiring of a project manager.

atroxus

Wololo wrote: »

well yeah before 2020 was clearly marketing. they never promised it though. and since we are backers/funders and NOT investors all we can do is wait and accept a MMO takes long to make.

as long follower of AoC i putted money in to be part of the first group to experience AoC.... to look back in a few years and talk about how i seen the game being build up from the ground.... it is totally normal that there was a alpha0/friendsandfamily before alpha 1 starts. ofcource you cant blindly throw hunders of ppl that backed in a alpha 1 world and hope for the best. i was jelours for not winning a alpha0 key but was excited af to go into alpha 1 and run around in any sort of world.
i am satisfied with the things they showed us so far. they got a amazing team i mean just look at the extra life livestream they did! full of energy. amazing vision on how a mmo should be and projected solutions for problems like gold sellers/server layering/optimization. great art work! they seem to work in a structured way and found a balance in what to share and not to share with the cummunity in terms of info.
i am still 100% behind them on this!!

but here is the problem iam having since over a year now that feels like a backstab:
2017 'Invite to Closed Alpha - Phase 1 (Earliest Access to Ashes!)'
2018 'we are going to divide alpha 1 into 2 phases'
2019 'Ashes of Creation Apocalypse is the standalone prequel to the upcoming epic MMORPG Ashes of Creation'

now correct me if iam wrong but if ashes=AoC=apocalypse=alpha1phase1=all assets in apoc are for the mmo
then where is my eariest access to ashes ? i think that is why alot of backers lost trust

In my opinion this all amounts to a bait and switch against the original kickstarter backers. We were hyped about an epic MMORPG, with the afore-mentioned levels of early access but instead, the money we provided has been used to build a pubg/fortnite clone. Meanwhile we are told "But the MMO will be using the same assets, so it's technically still development of the MMO.", but it isn't! Apoc is a completely separate game and play style, yet us original kickstarter backers are expected to to meekly accept that development of the project we actually backed, appears to be stalled in favor of the pubg/fortnite clone.

And it also seems I didn't even get my "Founder" forum badge either. O.o

mcstackerson

atroxus wrote: »

Wololo wrote: »

well yeah before 2020 was clearly marketing. they never promised it though. and since we are backers/funders and NOT investors all we can do is wait and accept a MMO takes long to make.

as long follower of AoC i putted money in to be part of the first group to experience AoC.... to look back in a few years and talk about how i seen the game being build up from the ground.... it is totally normal that there was a alpha0/friendsandfamily before alpha 1 starts. ofcource you cant blindly throw hunders of ppl that backed in a alpha 1 world and hope for the best. i was jelours for not winning a alpha0 key but was excited af to go into alpha 1 and run around in any sort of world.
i am satisfied with the things they showed us so far. they got a amazing team i mean just look at the extra life livestream they did! full of energy. amazing vision on how a mmo should be and projected solutions for problems like gold sellers/server layering/optimization. great art work! they seem to work in a structured way and found a balance in what to share and not to share with the cummunity in terms of info.
i am still 100% behind them on this!!

but here is the problem iam having since over a year now that feels like a backstab:
2017 'Invite to Closed Alpha - Phase 1 (Earliest Access to Ashes!)'
2018 'we are going to divide alpha 1 into 2 phases'
2019 'Ashes of Creation Apocalypse is the standalone prequel to the upcoming epic MMORPG Ashes of Creation'

now correct me if iam wrong but if ashes=AoC=apocalypse=alpha1phase1=all assets in apoc are for the mmo
then where is my eariest access to ashes ? i think that is why alot of backers lost trust

In my opinion this all amounts to a bait and switch against the original kickstarter backers. We were hyped about an epic MMORPG, with the afore-mentioned levels of early access but instead, the money we provided has been used to build a pubg/fortnite clone. Meanwhile we are told "But the MMO will be using the same assets, so it's technically still development of the MMO.", but it isn't! Apoc is a completely separate game and play style, yet us original kickstarter backers are expected to to meekly accept that development of the project we actually backed, appears to be stalled in favor of the pubg/fortnite clone.

That is false, it isn't a completely separate game. Yes, from a game design stand point it plays differently but the systems the BR was designed to test will be the same. I'd understand this argument if they added a bunch of unique BR features that wont transfer over but they haven't. As far as BRs go, they have implemented the bare minimum they could to have a free for all game with a proper game loop.

Design isn't everything that creates a game. Saying APOC and MMO are completely separate games shows a lack of understanding you have for how games work.

atroxus

mcstackerson wrote: »

That is false, it isn't a completely separate game. Yes, from a game design stand point it plays differently but the systems the BR was designed to test will be the same. I'd understand this argument if they added a bunch of unique BR features that wont transfer over but they haven't. As far as BRs go, they have implemented the bare minimum they could to have a free for all game with a proper game loop.

Design isn't everything that creates a game. Saying APOC and MMO are completely separate games shows a lack of understanding you have for how games work.

The intrepid AoC web site indicates I am correct.

"Apocalypse is the standalone prequel to the upcoming epic MMORPG Ashes of Creation."
https://ashesofcreation.com/apocalypse

Please note the word "standalone" and the following definition.

stand-alone[ stand-uh-lohn ]
adjective
1 self-contained and able to operate without other hardware or software.
noun
2 a device or program with these characteristics.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/standalone

mcstackerson

atroxus wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

That is false, it isn't a completely separate game. Yes, from a game design stand point it plays differently but the systems the BR was designed to test will be the same. I'd understand this argument if they added a bunch of unique BR features that wont transfer over but they haven't. As far as BRs go, they have implemented the bare minimum they could to have a free for all game with a proper game loop.

Design isn't everything that creates a game. Saying APOC and MMO are completely separate games shows a lack of understanding you have for how games work.

The intrepid AoC web site indicates I am correct.

"Apocalypse is the standalone prequel to the upcoming epic MMORPG Ashes of Creation."
https://ashesofcreation.com/apocalypse

Please note the word "standalone" and the following definition.

stand-alone[ stand-uh-lohn ]
adjective
1 self-contained and able to operate without other hardware or software.
noun
2 a device or program with these characteristics.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/standalone

Just because it's a stand alone doesn't mean most of what's created for it will be used for the MMO or that it's a "completely separate game". I don't think it's hard to imagine that you can take a simple game and layor features on top of it to get two games.

If wow created their arena system first and made it stand alone, would that mean it's a completely separate game and not a component of the final product?

Damokles

atroxus wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

That is false, it isn't a completely separate game. Yes, from a game design stand point it plays differently but the systems the BR was designed to test will be the same. I'd understand this argument if they added a bunch of unique BR features that wont transfer over but they haven't. As far as BRs go, they have implemented the bare minimum they could to have a free for all game with a proper game loop.

Design isn't everything that creates a game. Saying APOC and MMO are completely separate games shows a lack of understanding you have for how games work.

The intrepid AoC web site indicates I am correct.

"Apocalypse is the standalone prequel to the upcoming epic MMORPG Ashes of Creation."
https://ashesofcreation.com/apocalypse

Please note the word "standalone" and the following definition.

stand-alone[ stand-uh-lohn ]
adjective
1 self-contained and able to operate without other hardware or software.
noun
2 a device or program with these characteristics.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/standalone

Yes it is standlone, but it uses solely mmorpg assets, animations and server technology.

atroxus

If it makes you feel better to look at it that way cool. Personally though I don't believe it is any different than to receive a hamburger when I order meatloaf at a restaurant on the basis that both are made from ground beef, bread and ketchup.

Atama

atroxus wrote: »

If it makes you feel better to look at it that way cool. Personally though I don't believe it is any different than to receive a hamburger when I order meatloaf at a restaurant on the basis that both are made from ground beef, bread and ketchup.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy.

Say you funded a meatloaf restaurant. They open in limited fashion (maybe only for the lunch hour) and serve burgers. You could say that the hamburger and ketchup are being worked on and improved until they are ready to serve meatloaf. And the chefs are claiming that this is why they’re serving burgers; they use the same ingredients (mostly) and they’re also able to determine how good their wait staff is, how well their POS system is, if the seating and decor are to people’s liking, and so on.

You can also say that they are wasting time because while some of the core components are the same, the way they are being used isn’t and is taking time away from developing the product they’re supposed to be making. They’re perfecting a grill that won’t be used with meatloaf. The fillers, binders, and spices for a meatloaf aren’t there in a burger. The bun and most of the toppings aren’t the same.

They will keep the burgers on the menu once they fully open the restaurant. Despite the bad reviews they are getting and the lost faith that their investors are expressing. You have to wonder if they are even capable of serving meatloaf and how much longer it will take them because they are spending time, money, and people in burger development.

atroxus

Atama wrote: »

atroxus wrote: »

If it makes you feel better to look at it that way cool. Personally though I don't believe it is any different than to receive a hamburger when I order meatloaf at a restaurant on the basis that both are made from ground beef, bread and ketchup.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy.

Say you funded a meatloaf restaurant. They open in limited fashion (maybe only for the lunch hour) and serve burgers. You could say that the hamburger and ketchup are being worked on and improved until they are ready to serve meatloaf. And the chefs are claiming that this is why they’re serving burgers; they use the same ingredients (mostly) and they’re also able to determine how good their wait staff is, how well their POS system is, if the seating and decor are to people’s liking, and so on.

You can also say that they are wasting time because while some of the core components are the same, the way they are being used isn’t and is taking time away from developing the product they’re supposed to be making. They’re perfecting a grill that won’t be used with meatloaf. The fillers, binders, and spices for a meatloaf aren’t there in a burger. The bun and most of the toppings aren’t the same.

They will keep the burgers on the menu once they fully open the restaurant. Despite the bad reviews they are getting and the lost faith that their investors are expressing. You have to wonder if they are even capable of serving meatloaf and how much longer it will take them because they are spending time, money, and people in burger development.

The key difference being that investors in a meatloaf restaurant who found their money was spent to build a burger shack would be suing to get their money back. In our case though, we are just expected to suck it up because some of the customers are happy to eat the burgers instead.

flameh0t

I shouldn't have backed this game, I will be dead before it's even released.

mcstackerson

atroxus wrote: »

Atama wrote: »

atroxus wrote: »

If it makes you feel better to look at it that way cool. Personally though I don't believe it is any different than to receive a hamburger when I order meatloaf at a restaurant on the basis that both are made from ground beef, bread and ketchup.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy.

Say you funded a meatloaf restaurant. They open in limited fashion (maybe only for the lunch hour) and serve burgers. You could say that the hamburger and ketchup are being worked on and improved until they are ready to serve meatloaf. And the chefs are claiming that this is why they’re serving burgers; they use the same ingredients (mostly) and they’re also able to determine how good their wait staff is, how well their POS system is, if the seating and decor are to people’s liking, and so on.

You can also say that they are wasting time because while some of the core components are the same, the way they are being used isn’t and is taking time away from developing the product they’re supposed to be making. They’re perfecting a grill that won’t be used with meatloaf. The fillers, binders, and spices for a meatloaf aren’t there in a burger. The bun and most of the toppings aren’t the same.

They will keep the burgers on the menu once they fully open the restaurant. Despite the bad reviews they are getting and the lost faith that their investors are expressing. You have to wonder if they are even capable of serving meatloaf and how much longer it will take them because they are spending time, money, and people in burger development.

The key difference being that investors in a meatloaf restaurant who found their money was spent to build a burger shack would be suing to get their money back. In our case though, we are just expected to suck it up because some of the customers are happy to eat the burgers instead.

I'd think any investor would be happy to see a component of what they invested in released early so testing could start sooner. Why wait until the whole restaurant is made to start testing the meat? Making a quick, cheap stand to start testing the meat makes a lot of sense as you are getting feedback early and have time to make improvements. All of this can be done while the restaurant is being made as the chefs that would be improving the meat aren't the ones building the restaurant.

Noaani

ashone wrote: »

That’s actually a pretty good analogy.

It is, but not for the reason you outlined.

A friend of mine opened up a Greek restaurant about 10 years ago. He had a few investors, mostly family.

The restaurant was going in to a new building, but the building itself was running more than 6 months behind schedule. The business had paid for the space in the building, had paid the company they were going to use to fit out the restaurant itself, and had paid for the equipment. All up, they had put about 1.5 million in to the place, and had at least 6 months longer than expected before making anything on their investment.

So they decided to invest a little bit more. They bought a trailer, filled it with suitable equipment and started selling just their souvlaki from this trailer.

It meant they were able to make a small amount of money and were able to fine tune the recipes used. As a bonus, when the restaurant was able to open, they then had a second outlet that they could take to events and such, and made some really good money out of it in the end.

I never really looked at Apoc in that manner, but it actually is a fairly good analogy.

Magic Man

It is a good analogy indeed. Personally I love what APOC is bringing to the MMORPG; a skill-based combat system that will integrate with tab target in order to find a perfect balance between skill and tactic based gameplay. Not just that but it also allows them to test so many features in a specific manner. It is a very smart move that gives them invaluable data.

However,

It is also a terrible mistake marketing/PR-wise that makes me feel disgusted to my core. As I've said before, they should have never named it 'Apocalypse' in order to alleviate the confusion - it should have stayed as 'Alpha 1 Phase 1' therefore not a separate game. Now, officially, the first game of Intrepid Studios (a company which used Kickstarter for marketing purposes - a gamble on its own due to the high risk of the game not releasing on time which did happen but not gonna get into that

) is a BR. You may tell people ''It is used for testing features for the MMORPG''...Right, so you made a stand-alone product also monetized it..why would anyone trust you? Only people like me would..and trust me when I say aren't many:

I almost have complete trust in Intrepid Studios but it gets harder and harder to defend them. To be honest, until I see things working in MMORPG Client and therefore proving that things can move from APOC to the MMO, I am siding with you guys (that is assuming you are not haters or/and unnecessarily salty people)

Noaani

Magic Man wrote: »

However

I'm still not a fan of Apoc, but only because I don't like BR's.

However.

The only reason I'd be upset with Apoc to the level you suggest you are is if Intrepid say they aren't going to make an MMO any more. That is also the only way this situation could ever be called a bait and switch.

As far as I am concerned, the rest is just business.

The people that invested in the restaurant I talked about above didn't put 1.5 million dollars in to a food trailer, but for what turned out to be almost a year, that is all they had.

Then they had their restaurant, and still had that trailer - which indecently allowed them to take their brand to an audience that wouldn't have come across it otherwise.

The parallels are astonishing, and I'm surprised I didn't make the connection myself.

In a few years when (if) we have the MMO, and the BR still exists as a stand alone product bringing in additional revenue and also putting Ashes of Creation out to an audience that would otherwise not be aware of it, people complaining about it now will look back and feel foolish.

Dygz

Atama wrote: »

Say you funded a meatloaf restaurant. They open in limited fashion (maybe only for the lunch hour) and serve burgers. You could say that the hamburger and ketchup are being worked on and improved until they are ready to serve meatloaf. And the chefs are claiming that this is why they’re serving burgers; they use the same ingredients (mostly) and they’re also able to determine how good their wait staff is, how well their POS system is, if the seating and decor are to people’s liking, and so on.

It's actually more like a burger restaurant opening by just serving meatloaf before they start making buns and fries and all the other accessories associated with a burger joint because they have cows, so it's easiest for them to start having people evaluate the meat, but it's going to take longer for them to provide buns and tomatoes and lettuce and potatoes, etc.

Dygz

Magic Man wrote: »

It is also a terrible mistake marketing/PR-wise that makes me feel disgusted to my core. As I've said before, they should have never named it 'Apocalypse' in order to alleviate the confusion - it should have stayed as 'Alpha 1 Phase 1' therefore not a separate game. Now, officially, the first game of Intrepid Studios (a company which used Kickstarter for marketing purposes - a gamble on its own due to the high risk of the game not releasing on time which did happen but not gonna get into that ) is a BR. You may tell people ''It is used for testing features for the MMORPG''...Right, so you made a stand-alone product also monetized it..why would anyone trust you?

Apoc is in a different setting, has its own monetization and is marketed as a standalone precisely in order to demonstrate that IS is not using the funds from the MMORPG to support Apoc.

Also, Apoc BR is very, very different from Fortnite. Fortnite was marketed with a very in-depth skill and "class" system for constructing buildings. And has an in-depth quest system and combat system that revolves around attempting to construct buildings while mobs attempt to kill you and demolish what you've constructed.
The Apoc BR is about as simple as an MMORPG game component can be: player v player combat with object destruction... and a moving storm which pushes carebear players, like me, to combat others. In fact, IS has simplified the BR with a smaller map, rather than add increasingly complex features to the BR.
Even the Castle Siege isn't considerably more complex - it's simply another game component that is a key component of the MMORPG.
Apoc Castle Siege focuses more on building destruction and adds minimal class "kits". We get early access to castle sieges without waiting for the devs to ensure that mob AI is robust.
Apoc Horde should also be quite simplistic - we will get early access to rudimentary mob AI without robust questing and without Nodes.

I don't really like BRs. I think that is true for most of this playerbase, though we have different reasons for disliking BRs. There is a contingent that clamors for an arena instead of a BR, but, the BR is better than an arena for those of us who are PvE-focused players. The Apoc quest system supports both PvE play as well as PvP play. Easy for me to get in the top 5 just by hiding instead of fighting and, if I can't complete kill quests, at least I can complete destroy object quests and open chest quests. And those PvE quests provide the same rewards as the PvP quests. So, we really do have early access to the minimum gameplay for a PvX MMORPG, rather than being stuck with the minimum PvP gameplay for a PvX MMORPG that an arena would provide. (Plus, again, that storm forces me to move into combat range rather than just hiding the entire time.)

By comparison, CoE has been on my radar about as long as Ashes.
Even though CoE has been in develepmont several years longer than Ashes, we have no access to CoE gameplay at all. We were supposed to get early access to minimal gameplay last year and then we were told that this year we would get early access to a different form of minimal gameplay... neither has come to fruition. We can't even run a character model through rudimentary environments.

Typically, gamers are not able to jump into upper management game development roles without learning the ropes of game production. In the case of Ashes, Steven was able to do so because he had tons of money.
Gamers who work their up the ladder learn the roadblocks on the roadmap and adjust their expectations accordingly.
Steven, on the other hand, jumped on board trying to manage and market like a gamer rather than like a game dev. He was hoping to be highly transparent because he empathized strongly with the player mindset rather than a game dev mindset. And, he set dates for Kickstarter rewards with a very naive expectation for when those rewards could be delivered. Steven was expecting to have launched the game before 2020 but, we will barely have Alpha 1 before 2020...if the devs are even able to skate Alpha 1 in before January.
Steven has been trying to give us some semblance of reaching KS goals and original expectations by giving us bits of early access to gameplay - rather than none.

I'm not really sure what kind of faith people think they could be having.
I suppose we could still be playing A0 with action combat rather than tab-target combat.
But, we still wouldn't have any more info about the MMORPG than we have right now.
We can't even get an article about Divine nodes because Steven as changed something so significantly about the designs for Divine nodes and Military nodes that he's not ready to share that info with us yet - let alone demo how those nodes might work.
People would still be complaining that we don't have enough info about the MMORPG.
The lost faith should truly be about the dev team not being able to be meet Steven's original timeline - but no one should ever have had faith in that original timeline.

One of the key factors mentioned in today's livestream is that the devs had been waiting on Unreal’s Chaos system to handle siege destruction, but recently decided to go with their on code. That's significant. And a major reason why Castle Siege is a year late. The devs gave us a bunch of info regarding how they have developed building destruction for sieges.
Apparently, people are perceiving that to be non-MMORPG info, but building destruction for sieges is one of the primary pillars of what makes Ashes gameplay unique. The appeal of Ashes is guild v guild player warfare, nor is the appeal the class or crafting systems.
The appeal of Ashes is how sieges work with Node progression to dynamically change the world. But, they've been waiting for almost a year on Unreal's Chaos system and, again, designs for Divine and Military nodes are changing so drastically that they can't even share articles about those nodes.

Notice how, in Friday's livestream they bent over backwards to avoid mentioning the BR.
Also, notice that when they did mention the BR, it was generally in the past tense!!! bwahaha!!
Friday's livestream was 90% about sieges and the MMMORPG.
So, what info would the devs be able to provide now, that they haven't already, to support faith that the MMORPG is going to meet the hype once it's released?

The real concern should be whether IS will have the funds for a continuing development cycle that will easily take twice as long as for the MMORPG than Steven originally expected... maybe even 3x to 4x longer than his original expectations.
The devs appear to be moving along at a comparatively snails pace... but still steadily moving along.

Wandering Mist

Atama wrote: »

atroxus wrote: »

If it makes you feel better to look at it that way cool. Personally though I don't believe it is any different than to receive a hamburger when I order meatloaf at a restaurant on the basis that both are made from ground beef, bread and ketchup.

That’s actually a pretty good analogy.

Say you funded a meatloaf restaurant. They open in limited fashion (maybe only for the lunch hour) and serve burgers. You could say that the hamburger and ketchup are being worked on and improved until they are ready to serve meatloaf. And the chefs are claiming that this is why they’re serving burgers; they use the same ingredients (mostly) and they’re also able to determine how good their wait staff is, how well their POS system is, if the seating and decor are to people’s liking, and so on.

You can also say that they are wasting time because while some of the core components are the same, the way they are being used isn’t and is taking time away from developing the product they’re supposed to be making. They’re perfecting a grill that won’t be used with meatloaf. The fillers, binders, and spices for a meatloaf aren’t there in a burger. The bun and most of the toppings aren’t the same.

They will keep the burgers on the menu once they fully open the restaurant. Despite the bad reviews they are getting and the lost faith that their investors are expressing. You have to wonder if they are even capable of serving meatloaf and how much longer it will take them because they are spending time, money, and people in burger development.

It is a good analogy.... Until you realise that there is a huge difference in scope between making a meatloaf and making an mmorpg.

I get it that a lot of people here dislike BR games, but there is sense to what Intrepid are doing. I've seen a lot of online games fail purely because they didn't fully test their server performance and combat before release. This usually results in a very bad experience for the player.

Whether you like it or not the BR format is perfect for testing the performance of your hardware and basic systems before adding more complex things later on.

Black Sword

AFAIK it's still going. The BR was for a specific purpose - to test back-end payload ((how much UR4 can handle concerning #of players / server, magical weapon / armor algorithms, stability of servers, etc.)). The livestream yesterday was successful, no? So in essence, don't read into the BR as something that detracts from MMORPG. Better to have something polished than something released first quarter of 2020 and it's the BR map except with group mechanics. I haven't lost my trust in Intrepid. Far from it, as a matter of fact.

Child Item