您的位置: 旅游网 > 明星

分析激战2经济系统的设计问题及解决方法

发布时间:2019-07-09 16:40:10

分析《激战2》经济系统的设计问题及解决方法

分析《激战2》经济系统的设计问题及解决方法 |爪游控 首页多彩生活娱乐八卦汽车世界科技产业数码新品游戏动漫体坛风云军情解码社会万象健康养生 首页 / 游戏动漫 / 分析《激战2》经济系统的设计问题及解决方法 分析《激战2》经济系统的设计问题及解决方法 Posted on 2014年2月22日 by eva in 游戏动漫 作者:Psychochild我已经讨论过许多关于《激战2》的经济系统,以及我为何不认为它是一个有趣系统的话题。鉴于人们针对这一话题的关注,以及我是个MMO设计师的身份,我想是时候讨论如何设计MMO经济系统了。经济系统的设计目标是什么?其中的重要因素是什么?应该避免什么情况?事先声明,以下这些都是建立在我玩游戏和设计游戏经验之上的看法。我有一些商务领域的背景,但并不是科班出身的经济学家。Guild Wars 2(from )设计目标游戏经济系统绝不仅仅局限于为玩家提供一个赚钱和花钱的途径。一个典型的水龙头/排水管式经济系统,应该拥有无限刷新的怪物,确保玩家可以积累财物,如果玩家想获得钱财,就可以仅通过玩游戏并且节省开支来达到目的。多数游戏的经济系统倾向于让玩家轻易积累到比自己实际所需的财富,换句话说,就是水龙头流得比排水管更快。对许多人而言,尤其是此类游戏所迎合的“成就者”玩家,拥有快速积累的财富本身就是一种乐趣,所以这种设计可能会引发通货膨胀的结果。但许多游戏之后又会添加一个机制,在“不断上涨的数字”无法引起玩家兴趣时鼓励他们消费。在一个系统中太有钱也会吓退新玩家,因为其中的道具涨价会超过新玩家的实际消费能力,而已经有足够积蓄的玩家却可以轻易购得最心仪的道具。我们还知道有些人就是因为有趣所以才玩带有经济系统的游戏。从《络创世纪》中的crafters,到《无尽的任务1》中East Commonlads的玩家,再到《魔兽世界》玩家花大量时间升级插件,以便跟进拍卖行道具价格等一系列现象,几乎每款主流游戏都可证实这种情况。即使是在《Meridian 59》也有许多玩家向他人出售农场道具,但这种情况较为鲜见,因为大家一般都会把好东西留给自己或公会。我们通过这种游戏可以看到经济系统的变迁,现代游戏更专注于锻造系统,而早期游戏则更为重视稀有道具掉落。所以,我们的设计目标是什么?有些人可能会认为游戏经济系统的设计目标应该是模拟现实世界的经济系统。但这是一个错误观点。游戏经济系统的目标是传递趣味。让经济系统具有趣味好,这是一个模糊的目标。经济系统具有“趣味”是什么意思?我想这个答案要分为两个部分:短期目标与长期目标。短期目标很容易解释。它所提出的问题是“玩家能否得到自己所需要的东西?”例如,新手能否获得他们所需要的培训费用?决定锻造物品的玩家能否找到购买材料和销售产品的市场?玩家是否清楚自己需要多少钱才够把游戏玩下去?对一些人来说,简单地积累财富可以成为一种基于成就感的乐趣,但与其他增长数字一样,这还需要结合一定的情境或游戏元素才好让他们向人炫耀自己的财富。而长期目标就不那么好解释了,但我还是可以将其总结为“玩家能否得到自己想要的东西?”玩家是否拥有存钱的目标?玩家能否找到既有趣,又符合自己玩法风格的聚财门路?玩家能否赚到让自己觉得“很富有”的钱财(或者至少是保持财政稳定),即使他们并非游戏中最富有的人?很显然,这些细节里面大有文章。所以,让我们来分析一下经济系统究竟是由那些元素组成。经济元素很显然你的游戏中必须有两个主要元素:货币和道具。如果你的游戏使用的是典型的水龙头/排水管系统,那么游戏就要创造道具和货币供玩家使用(极少有游戏使用封闭式的经济系统,因此在此不赘述这类设计)。正如我之前所言,经济学实际上是对稀缺性的研究。这是游戏设计师创造有趣经济系统可以运用的工具之一。注意这里的稀缺性并不仅指道具在整个游戏中有多普遍。你可以将某款道具放置于一个特定地点,假设运输这个道具需要一些成本。在《EVE Online》中可以看到,运输是一项很有风险的任务,在一个区域便宜买进道具,并在另一个地区以更高价卖出道具来赚取利润,是一个可行的游戏玩法。另一个衡量方法就是实用性。对货币来说,其实用性要看在与NPC互动过程,或者其他需要花钱的系统中它究竟有多管用。例如,《激战2》中的货币总有些实用性衡量方法,只要你能将黄金转变为宝石购买商店中的道具。对道具来说,其实用性则与玩法相关:例如一把+4的宝剑总比+3的宝剑更实用。这里的问题在于,实用性可能因为环境的变化而变化,例如你在基于等级的游戏中,如果现在是较低等级,+1就是一个重大飞跃,而在中级阶段,这可能就不是什么大不了的变化,而在较高等级的公会突袭或PvP战场中,有些人甚至会为了+1而对自己的战友反目,即管这实在是微不足道的加成;但与其他人相比较,再小的优势也是优势。因此,玩家行为实际上正是决定物品实用性的关键因素。设计师的职责记住,设计师在此是这个游戏世界的主宰。稀缺性和实用性都要取决于设计师的意志。在MMO这种即时游戏中,游戏的变化可能极大影响这些要素的变化。要考虑游戏变化,以及其他设计要素对这些因素的影响。例如,你的设计原则就是让玩家在地图上自由行动,那就很难设置基于地理位置的稀缺性。此外,要谨慎考虑游戏发布之后的调整,不顶让新玩家因为改进后的游戏系统而受挫。优秀的游戏系统设计应该能够摆太多和太少这两个极端。例如获取经验值(XP):升级太慢会让很多人失去耐心,但让他们太容易获得XP又反而会让游戏掉价,大家最后还是会觉得无聊。经济系统也同此理:如果赚钱太难,玩家就会很受挫;如果来钱太快,经济系统也会变得无足轻重,并引发通货膨胀的问题。当然,正如我之前所言,玩家行为在经济系统中发挥着重大作用。一个典型例子就是,当 开发者所定义的货币(比如黄金)由于供过于求而失去价值时,玩家就会选择一种新的货币形式,通常会将游戏中具有实用性的另一种道具(可以积攒的道具)作为替代性货币。不幸的是,游戏经济系统的设计确实要取决于游戏本身。所以,除非锁定特定游戏,我们很难细究其中问题。那么我们不妨举例说明吧。如何纠正《激战2》经济系统的问题这里我得再补充一个声明:我并非《激战2》设计师,只是该游戏的一名玩家。我并不了解其幕后详情,游戏开发过程通常远比外人看起来的更为复杂,所以这里的修改建议可能未必适用于他们的情况。此外,在游戏上线后修改经济系统也是一项困难的任务,因为你得兼顾玩家的预期。即使是最烂最糟糕的系统也会有一些支持分子。更改经济系统可能会间离一些已经掌握当前设置的玩家。并且《激战2》的商业模式也决定其关注重心是留存现有玩家而非吸引新玩家。正像我在之前的博文所说的那样,如果你购买东西,经济系统就很棒。我们很容易只花一些银子购买完整的升级版武器,这比倾注大量时间和游戏货币进行锻造要实惠得多。另一方面,我认为更良好的经济系统会让玩家(尤其是新手)更容易地赢取金子。我曾提到《激战2》主城中有大量黄金农民,所以我猜测一定有不少人认为通过一些灰色站购买金子,远比在游戏中赚取金子或者使用游戏货币购买金更合算。我还注意到《激战2》设计师也在试图解决这个问题。伴随Lost Shores更新而引进的Mystic Forge“捐赠”系统似乎就是打算让道具摆脱这种循环的一种操作。但这些步骤看起来只是缓解了一些症状,并没有优化系统。据称他们正密切监视游戏中的经济系统。分析和潜在解决方案 Trading-Post(from nkiesnation)我认为《激战2》的主要问题在于缺乏有意义的稀缺性。这是专注于为玩家提供易用性和便捷性设计所产生的一个自然结果。松散的服务器情况,全球经济系统,总是可行的交易站等元素意味着每件可出售的道具都会被卖掉。这意味着道具供应量很庞大。不幸的是,其市场需求却并没有跟上,所以道具就会面临不利的价格压力。这里的商机被发掘殆尽,总有玩家立马就发现有利可图的交易机会。人们都在相互竞价,迫于竞争压力的道具价格也只能一路走低。如果你将某个道具标价为99个铜板,马上就会有人以便宜一个铜板的价格出售同款道具(注:或者出价与你相同)。如果你想与其他5个使用同种策略的人竞争,那就得把价格压低5个铜板。以此类推,如果还有20个人在竞争,你就得降价20个铜板。所以,如果你与成百上千人竞争呢,情况可想而知了。没错,你的价格就得降到最少才可能招徕生意。我在《激战2》见多了这种情况。这会产生两大问题:首先,它让新玩家生怯,不敢使用交易站。如果我找到的95%的道具都无法在交易站获得利润,那么还需要再花时间去找剩下的5%吗?另一个问题在于它不利于锻造机制的发展,因为你投入锻造道具的大把时间和金钱很可能血本无归。正如一名开发者在采访中所言,“我们确保游戏中的东西不会太贱价,以免剥夺玩家的成就感,同时也要确保它们不会太昂贵,以免让新玩家不敢买东西。”你该如何解决这个问题?*减少供应。这实际上意味着减少道具掉落率。问题在于这会惩罚那些想得到物品,但却没有足够运气积满所需钱财的新玩家。另一个选择可能就是重新修改锻造系统,推出成本更低的配方,以便玩家制造大量物品,减少市场中出现的玩家刷任务所得的道具。*增加需求。我之前说过,捐赠系统似乎是为了帮助玩家获得/解决系统中的某些道具。但是,玩家已经想出了获得道具的“最有效”方法,在交易站买东西并不是最经济的手段。与简单地减少道具掉落相比,这更难“迫使”玩家购买并合理消费商品。*更改道具销售方式。这意味着更改交易站运作方式,例如减少供应。一个简单的方法就是推出限时有效的销售通告。这样,由非活跃帐号出售的道具就会在时间结束后自动下架。这也会产生促销道具的风险,因为如果不能及时售出商品,你的挂牌费就白交了。*创造本地市场。如果你创造了不均衡的供应量,这就会给玩家留下钻空子的机会。这也会创造一种迷你经济系统,在此你并非与正在看交易通告的其他玩家竞争。但已经有了快速传送设置,创造像《EVE Online》一样基于地理位置的市场也并不可行。Guild Wars 2(from guildwars2tradingpost)设计本地服务器经济系统服务器分部的主要用意就是创造World vs World群组功能。让某个服务器的玩家与来自其他服务器的用户相抗衡,允许玩家据此组建社区并相互了解。所以,我建议使用这种分部设计来调整经济系统。实际上,每个服务器都有自己的经济系统。现在,我意识到这需要大量调整,并需要一系列测试,以下是其初始概念:*将其余未绑定的道具与服务器“绑定”。你获得的道具都会与其出现区域的特定服务器绑定。这并非严格的绑定,它可以有更好的命名方式。例如,你在溢出服务器中获得的道具会与你的本地服务器绑定。你路过其他服务器时获得的道具则与该服务器绑定。而与角色或帐号绑定的道具则并不一定需要与服务器绑定。*你一直与道具同在。无论你身处何地,任何与某个服务器绑定的道具都会与你同在。如果你拾取了一个超级稀有的道具,然后切换到了一个新服务器,你还是可以保留这个稀有道具。*交易站只显示存在于你所在服务器的道具。如果你在某个服务器的交易站贴出了一个道具,它只会在你搜索该服务器时出现。这可以创造各个服务器的本地市场。*在其他服务器交易与某个服务器绑定的道具,需花费一定成本。例如你来自服务器A,并且要出售一个与其绑定的道具,并切换到了服务器B。你在服务器B的交易发布了公告,那就需要花一定费用使其与该服务器绑定。*道具绑定会在UI显示特定指示,鼠标移至该处会显示其服务器绑定状态。你可以使用不同颜色的指示器显示灵魂绑定或服务器绑定道具。*金钱和宝石不受限制。你可以自由在任何服务器上花钱和赚钱。实际上,如果你在单个服务器上玩游戏,交易站的使用方式不会有太大改变。当然,商品售价会有变化,但那正是这个系统的目标。最好不要在交易站列出所有道具,并退还挂牌价以便每个服务器都能重新开始创建自己的经济系统。还有两个想法:第一,你可以根据每个服务器的情况调整道具掉落率。比如在某个月,让这个服务器掉落更多A道具,让另一个服务器掉落更多B道具。在该月中,想交易的玩家可能就会发现这种趋势,并携带道具到另一个服务器出售以赚取利润。或者,如果你担心有人投机倒把和垄断市场,那就让交易站列出所有出售道具,但要让系统自动显示其跨服务器标志,让买家支付跨服务器费用。这正是《无尽的任务2》在一个服务器中解决“善/恶”划分的销售思路。正如我所言,这需要大量的编码和测试工作,但我认为这会优化经济系统,在以最不影响游戏其他层面以及玩家行为的前提下,让更多玩家获得乐趣。注:原文发表于2012年12月9日,所涉事件及数据以当时为准。((转自游戏邦))How to design a game economy— PsychochildOkay, I made a big deal about the economy of Guild Wars 2 and how I did not view it as a fun system supporting to the game. Given that there was a lot of discussion about this, and that I m an MMO designer, I figured I should post something detailing what should go into the design of an MMO at are the goals of economic design? What are the important factors? What should be avoided?As usual, these are my opinions based on my experiences playing and designing games. I have a background in business, but I m not a formally trained economist; this is probably a good thing as I d likely not have much soul left over if I als of the designA game economy should be more than just a way for players to make and spend money. A typical faucet/drain economic system with endlessly respawning monsters ensures that players can accumulate money, so if a player wants to gain money, he or she can just by playing the game and being as frugal as st games tend to have economies where players will easily accumulate more money than they can use; in other words, the faucets run faster than the drains. For many people, particularly the Achievers that these games cater to, having an increasing amount of money is its own sort of fun; so you expect a bit of inflation as a result. But, man games later add gold sinks to the game in order to give players something to spend their money on once the make the numbers go up goal has become less interesting for people. Too much money in the system also tends to alienate newer players, as prices for items will increase significantly beyond the spending power of a new player if the established elder players have significant cash on hand and can simply splash it around on the most desirable ve also seen people who like to play with the economy for the fun of it. We ve seen this in pretty much every major game, from the crafters in UO, to the people in the tunnel of East Commonlands in EQ1, to the people who spent way too much time updating plugins to keep track of prices on the Auction House in WoW. Even Meridian 59 had people who would farm items to sell to others, but this was rarer as people would usually keep the good stuff for themselves or their guild for fights. We ve seen a change in the focus of the economy through these games, where more modern games have a shared focus on crafting as well as the rare drops that were important in earlier , what should be our design goals? Some people might be tempted to say that the goal of the economic design should be to simulate the real-world economy. This is the wrong goal. The goal of a game economy is to be king the economy funOkay, that s a fuzzy goal. What does it mean when the economy is fun ? I think there are two parts to this answer: the short term and the long e short term is pretty easy to figure out. It answers the question: Can a player get the stuff he or she needs? For example, can a newbie get enough money to pay for training he or she needs? Can a new player who decides to go into crafting find a market for buying materials and selling products? Does a player have a pretty good idea of how much money they need to keep going? Also simply accumulating money will be a sort of Achiever-focused fun for some people, but like any increasing number there needs to be some context or game element associated with it so that they can show e longer term starts to get a bit less precise, but I would sum it up as Can a player get the stuff he or she wants? Does the player have goals to work toward for saving money? Can the player identify ways to accumulate money that he or she finds fun and that matches his or her playstyle? Can the player earn enough money to feel rich (or at least financially stable and secure), even if he or she isn t the wealthiest person in the game?Obviously, there are a lot of devils in those details. So, let s analyze what elements make up an onomic elementsObviously you have two primary elements in a game: currency and items. If your game uses a typical faucet/sink system, then the game will create a supply of items and currency for the players to use. (So few games use closed economic systems that I m not going to go into much detail here. Needless to say you should read up on the original resource design for Ulima Online and how it evolved if you want to consider closed systems.)As I said in the last post, economics is really the study of scarcity. This is one of the tools in a game designer s toolbox for creating a fun economy. Note that scarcity doesn t only relate to how common an item is in the entire game. You can have scarcity of an item in a particular location, assuming there s some cost to transport items; we see this in EVE Online, where shipping is a risky task, and buying items cheap in one area and selling them for a profit in another area of higher demand is a valid other measure is usefulness. For currency, the usefulness is measured in how useful the currency is for interacting with NPCs, or any other system that effectively takes money out of the economy. For example, money will always have some measure of usefulness in Guild Wars 2 as long as you can convert gold to gems to buy stuff in the cash shop. For items, the usefulness tend to relate to gameplay aspects: a +4 sword is going to be more useful to an a +3 sword. A snag here is that usefulness can change based on other circumstances, such as your level in a level-based game. At low levels a +1 to a stat might be a big increase, at mid levels, it might be an insignificant change, but at high levels in competitive areas like raiding or PvP some people would knife their own mothers for another +1 even though that bonus is probably vanishingly small; but any advantage is an advantage compared to other people. Therefore, player behavior is a vital factor in determining at a designer must doSo, remember, the designer is in charge of everything in the world. Scarcity and usefulness are up to the designer. And, in a live game like an MMO, these aspects can change significantly based on changes to the s important to consider the effect of any changes to the game, as well as other design considerations. For example, if one of your design philosophies is that players should be able to move around the map fairly freely, it s going to hard to have geographically-defined rarity. Also, changes after launch need to be considered carefully, a you don t want to frustrate new people coming to your game by making the economy feel stacked against them.A good economic design needs to straddle the extremes between too much and not enough. Think of it like gaining xp: going up levels too slowly will bore many people, but give them a push button, get infinite xp button that trivializes the game and everyone will get bored. Same thing with the economy: if money is too hard to get, it feels frustrating to play with the economy. If money comes too fast, then it feels trivial and leads to problems with course, as I said above, player behavior plays a huge role in the economy as well. A classic example is when players choose a new form of currency when the developer-define currency (gold) becomes worthless through oversupply (such as from a dupe bug). Players will often take another item in the game (probably stackable) with some usefulness and use it as a substitute currency. As I ve mentioned before, players used some spell reagents as a medium of exchange when dupe bugs made the in-game currency nearly fortunately, the specific design of a game s economy really depends on the game. So, it s hard to get into details unless we focus on a specific game. So, let s do w to fix GW2 s economyLet me add in the usual caveats at this point: I m not a GW2 designer, merely a player. I have no special access behind the scenes. Usually a game s development is much more complicated than it will seem from the outside, so these recommendations might be worse than useless given some specific quirk to the so, fixing an economy after launch is extra difficult because you have to manage player expectations. Even the most buggy and broken system will have some supporters out there. Changing the economy might alienate some people who have worked to master the current setup. It s also entirely possible that GW2 needs to focus more on retaining players rather than attracting new ones given their business I said in my previous post, the economy is great if you re buying. It s easy to buy a full upgrade of gear for only a few silver, much cheaper than pouring time and game money into crafting. On the other hand, I think a better economy would help players, especially new ones, earn gold easier. I ve noticed a flood of gold farmers in GW2 s main city. So I guess there must be some people who find it preferable to buy gold from shady websites than to earn it in game or even use in-game systems to buy the gold.I ll also note that it seems that the GW2 designers have been trying to address the problem. The new donations system with the Mystic Forge that was introduced with the Lost Shores update seems like it was intended to take items out of circulation. But, it seems those steps have only slowed things, not improved them. And, according to an interview, they are monitoring the economy closely. (Although I have to admit that they seem to not quite share my design goals.)Analysis and potential solutionsI think the main problem with Guild Wars 2 is that there s no meaningful scarcity. This is a natural consequence of a lot of the design decisions focusing on ease and convenience for the player. The loose server situation, the global economy, the always-available trading post means that every item that can be sold will be sold. This means that supply will be huge. Unfortunately, it seems demand has not kept up, so there s a downward pressure on prices. Any opportunities to turn a profit on supplying the undersupplied will be spotted by one of the millions of other ving a lot of competition also forces prices downward as people try to undercut each other. If you post up an item for 99 copper pieces, the next person likely try to undercut your price by 1 copper (or match you, but let s keep this simple for illustrative purposes). If you re competing against 5 other people who use the same tactic, the going price drops by 5 copper. 20 other people = 20 copper. So, what happens when you re competing with a few hundred thousand other people? Yeah, the price drops to the minimum and stays there; this is pretty much what I ve seen in is is problematic for two main reasons. First, it trains new players away from using the trading post. If 95% of the items I find won t turn a profit on the trading post, is it really worth checking for the 5% of the time it is? The other problem is that it discourages crafting as an economic activity, as the amount of time and money you pour into the activity will be unlikely to be worthwhile. As the dev from the interview linked above wrote, We make sure things don’t get too cheap, which robs players of a feeling of accomplishment, just as we makes sure things don’t get too expensive, which makes it difficult for new players to buy things. How can you address this issue?Decrease supply. Basically means reducing the drop rate. The problem is that will punish new players who will want goods but not have the good fortune to have been around to collect as much money as the established players have. Another option would be to revamp crafting to have cheaper recipes that are easy to create in mass quantities to lower the flooding of the market with items people grind crease demand. As I said, the donation system seems intended to help take some items out of the system. However, players have figured out the most efficient way to get the items, and buying stuff of the trading post isn t it. It s also harder to force players to buy and consume more stuff elegantly, compared to simply reducing drop ange how items are sold. This means changing how the Trading Post works, likely to reduce supply. An easy change would be to make sales postings only good for a limited time. This would cause items to be taken off the marketplace as items listed by inactive accounts disappear. It also creates some risk of listing items for sale, as your posting fee might be wasted, as it is in other eate local markets. If you create inequalities in supply, this creates opportunities for people to exploit. It also creates mini-economies where you re not competing against every other player who has looked at the trading post that day. But, given quick teleportation, creating geographic markets as in games like EVE Online is not really possible. But, there are divisions that are already created and exploited for gameplay effect Designing localized server economiesThe main purpose for the server divisions is to create World vs. World (WvW) groupings. One server is pitted against others in a fight and allowing players to form communities and get to know each other. So, let me propose a design that uses these divisions to help the essence, each server has its own economy. Now, I realize this would require a lot of changes and would require a load of testing, but here s an initial herwise unbound items are bound to a server. Any items you get are bound to a specific server where you acquired the item. This isn t a strict binding, and it might be better to come up with a better name, but let s go with it for now. Items you get in overflow servers are bound to your home server. Items you get while guesting on another server are bound to that server. Any item that is bound to character or account does not necessarily need to be bound to a u keep your items at all times. Any items bound to a server travel with you when you do. If you ve picked up a super-awesome rare item and then transfer to a new server, you keep that super-awesome rare ading Posts only show items listed on your server. If you post an item on the trading post on a server, it only shows up when you search on that server. This creates the local economies on each ading server-bound items on another server costs in-game money. Let s say you are from server A and have an item bound to server A, then transfer to server B. While on server B, if you want to trade the item or list it on the trading post then it costs a bit of money to rebind it. This price would be a function of the vendor price of the ems bound have an indicator on the UI, mouseover shows the server it s locked to. You could use a different color indicator to show soulbound vs. server-bound items as ney and gems are unrestricted. You can earn and spend money freely on any server without essence, if you re playing on a single server the experience of using the trading post will remain largely unchanged. Prices will change, of course, but that s an intended goal of the system. It would probably be good to unlist all items on the trading post and refund any listing prices to give each server a fresh start to create their own o other thoughts: First, you could adjust drop rates on a per-server basis. Make scales drop a bit more on one server, but totems drop more on another for a month. During that month, people who want to play the market could identify trends and carry the items to other servers to sell if there s a profit to be made. Or, if you were worried about speculators and monopolists, have the trading post list all items for sale, but include the cross-server markup automatically, paid by the buyer; this is how EQ2 handles sales across the good/evil divide within a I said, this would require a fair amount of coding and testing, but I think it would improve the economy and make it more fun for more people with a minimal amount of disruption to other aspects of the game or to player , what do you think? Would this make the economy more interesting? Or do you see some fatal flaw I didn t?( psychochild) 文章导航Previous Previous post: 手游和主机游戏研发应互相学习什么?下一条 Next post: 张柏芝、谢霆锋和王菲,怎么都能在一起! 本站CDN由UPYUN又拍云强力驱动. 关于我们 | 加入我们 | 联系我们 | 版权声明 © 爪游控 版权所有. 陕ICP备号-1 Top

分销系统是什么
B2B推广
电脑打开微信小程序
猜你会喜欢的
猜你会喜欢的