|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
posted October 15, 2014 10:24 AM |
 bonus applied by alcibiades on 15 Nov 2014. |
Edited by Maurice at 10:35, 15 Oct 2014.
|
Stevie said:
The majority of what you said has been said before. I don't think we have a problem with ATB in theory, but in numbers and values. What I tried to do a page back is construct a system that applies the theory and sets some values to what represents a turn, creatures' initiative, heroes' initiative, skills and their values, modifiers changing initiative, etc.
Yes and no. What I distilled from the previous pages was that the "timeline" was moving up from zero. At certain treshold values, the creature (I will call it creature for now, but it could also be a hero or warmachine) would get to act and then get reset to zero. I did the reverse: each creature gets assigned a certain value and each time the bar moves to the next creature, the time taken gets subtracted from all creatures on the bar. A creature gets to act once its timestep value reaches zero.
But the largest difference is that I explicitely let go of the turn boundaries. Without turns, the concept of a turn boundary becomes essentially pointless - which is right what I want to get rid of in the first place. In my opinion, clinging to an unneeded and artificial turn boundary is exactly the reason why an ATB fails. Note that a turn boundary is something different than setting a certain default value for a specific action (be they spells, activated abilities, normal attacks, moves, etc...) and basing all other actions of off that. The most logical choice would either be a standard attack or a standard move.
Letting go of the artificial turn boundary also means you can assign varying values to those various actions. And heck, even between spells you can assign different values. To illustrate:
On the ATB we have the following: CreatureA has a timevalue of 0 (it's the creature's time to act), CreatureB at timevalue 32, HeroA at timevalue 82 and HeroB at timevalue 95. In short:
CreatureA: 0
CreatureB: 32
HeroA: 82
HeroB: 95
These values are also displayed with the portraits on the ATB in one way or another.
CreatureA has three options: a standard attack costing 100 timevalue, a special ability which costs 80 timevalue and a defense action which costs 125 timevalue. The player decides for the standard attack, after which the ATB changes. Two things happen: the timevalue of CreatureA is increased by 100 and the ATB then moves to the next in line, which in this case is CreatureB. Its timevalue is 32, so 32 is subtracted from all creatures on the ATB. The ATB changes to:
CreatureB: 0
HeroA: 50
HeroB: 63
CreatureA: 68 (which is 100 - 32)
If the player instead had chosen to perform the special ability, which only costs 80, the ATB would have changed to:
CreatureB: 0
HeroA: 50
CreatureA: 48 (which is 80 - 32)
HeroB: 63
At this point, CreatureB gets to act. Once it has acted, the ATB is moved forward to HeroA at 50 timevalue, which gets subtracted from all present on the ATB (unless, of course, the action from CreatureB cost less than 50 timevalue, because that would place it before HeroA on the ATB).
The case of multiple creatures at the same timevalue can be sorted by using the first-in-first-out principle: creatures that are added to that timevalue slot are placed at the back of the line behind the creatures already in that slot and dealt with in order. Let's suppose the following ATB:
CreatureA: 0
HeroA: 50
HeroB: 50
CreatureB: 80
CreatureA acts with something costing 80 timevalue. The ATB changes and moves forward by 50:
HeroA: 0
HeroB: 0
CreatureB: 30
CreatureA: 30
HeroA and HeroB have the same timevalue, both have dropped to 0 so both get to act. The previous actions placed HeroA before HeroB, so HeroA now gets to go first. He casts slow on CreatureB, which causes it to shift backwards. Let's say casting slow costs 100 timevalue and the effect of Slow is to increase the creatures timevalue to 120 (in specific: Slow increases the timevalue of all actions by 50%; regardless of the previous action of creatureB, 30 timevalue remained, so it's increased to 45 - more on this a bit further down). The ATB then changes to:
HeroB: 0
CreatureA: 30
CreatureB: 45
HeroA: 100
HeroB doesn't like the Slow on CreatureB and immediately casts Dispell on it. Let's say that Dispell costs 110 timevalue. The creature's original timevalue is restored and set back to 30. However, since CreatureA is already in that slot, it moves back in line, behind it. The ATB then moves forward by 30 and will then be as follows:
CreatureA: 0
CreatureB: 0
HeroA: 70
HeroB: 80
The actual costs for each action and the spread in them is of course subject to testing. It depends on the length of a battle as well and since we don't know the average time that a battle will take, it's also hard to assign hard values to it. If the spread is too small with respect to the absolute values, you won't see much difference at all in quick battles as it becomes most apparent in longer, drawn-out battles. However, if the spread is too large (and in Heroes5, it was too large), the interference pattern of slower versus faster creatures on the ATB becomes too skewed for longer battles. There was a graph on a previous page that illustrated this.
As can clearly be seen from these examples, there's no turn boundary anywhere and the flow of subsequent actions is natural. It's also predictable, since any action costs a certain amount of timevalue. This leads to being able to predict the values of creatures on the ATB after an action has been made. This can be done by displaying a shadow on the ATB (with timevalue) of where the affected creature(s) will end up, if said action is taken. This is of course the creature whose action it is at that moment, but also possible targets of that action. For instance, casting "Blind" on a target will likely move it to the far end of the ATB; subsequently casting a FireBall that also hits the blinded target will move it back to a proper spot on the ATB. Casting Mass Slow or Mass Haste will consequently show the shadow of all affected creatures to their new ATB slots.
Since many creatures can perform multiple actions, this leads to unpredictability on where it's going to end up on the ATB further down the road, beyond the action it's about to take. Therefore, I think that each creature should only be shown once on the ATB, either as itself or as its shadow. Perhaps the shadow can also show the exact number of positions being shifted (i.e. +2, -4, etc ...) on the ATB relative to its current position, besides the new timevalue it would get.
The effect of Morale would be that the action taken only costs half of the timevalue that would otherwise be needed. A Morale bonus is applied only when the action is performed, not when the creatures' time to act comes up, of course  . So suppose it performs an action that would cost 100 timevalue, which is also predicted by its shadow on the ATB, but then as the action is performed, Morale hits and the creature gets only half of the timevalue for it and moves to the 50 timevalue slot on the ATB.
And this then leads to the issue of clutter on the ATB. You're forgetting the presence of Gated creatures (once Inferno is added to the game) and Summoned creatures. Having some 30 icons on the bar at maximum is insane, but may be required in some cases in order to carefully plan your battles. The best way to handle this, I think, is to let the player decide. Provide a GUI where the player can set the number of icons shown on the ATB as a configurable value, with a certain minimum and maximum. Scale icons automatically, allow for multiple rows, which can be expanded or hidden with a hotkey or a mouseclick on a certain button, or shown by default, as the player desires. This way, everyone can set up the ATB in the way he or she likes.
With regards to spells: in my previous post I said that each spell with a duration should have its own expiration timevalue. Once a spell is cast, it will run until its expiration timevalue on the ATB is reached. To avoid spell clutter on the ATB as well, this shouldn't be shown in the ATB itself, but rather on a mouse over on the creature on the ATB. Taking the example of the Slow spell that I used above, let's say that it has an expiration timevalue of 200 * Spell Power of the Hero who cast it. HeroA happens to have a Spell Power of 2, so the expiration timevalue is 400. The timevalue of any action taken by the affected creature, as well as its current timevalue on the ATB are increased; let's say Slow increases it by 50%. With a creature that had a timevalue of 80 at the moment of casting, the new value becomes 120. Once the creature moment to act has come, Slow is going to expire in 280 timevalue. Let's say it takes an action that normally costs 100, due to Slow it will now cost 150. Once its next action comes up, Slow is going to expire after 130 timevalue.
Now suppose the next action also costs 100; Slow is still active, but the new timevalue of 150 would put it beyond the expiration timevalue of Slow. Hence, Slow is not going to fully affect that creatures' action anymore. The breakpoint lies at 86,67 timevalue (which is 130 timevalue when Slow is considered - 86,67 * 1,5 = 130). The remaining 13,33 timevalue of the 100 timevalue action cost is un-Slow-ed, so the actual new timevalue for the creature's (partially) Slow'ed action becomes 143,33. Let's round it off and say that it's 143 - the creature will then move to the 143 timevalue slot on the ATB.
Mouseover on the creature, while it's affected by a Spell, will show that Spell on it (just like it did in Heroes6), along with the timevalue at which that spell will expire. Not all spells may be assigned an expiration timer; for instance, a Morale buff might last for 3 actions taken and will therefore expire once the third action has been performed. Some spells may have a combination and expire whichever comes first: the number of actions or the expiration timevalue.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 10:44 AM |
|
|
Too complicated. Way too.
Creatures will always come under the spell of this or that effect(s) and you need a simple system to determine duration. So you need the "standard action" which should be the measure for duration.
For the rest, you are just making a minus out of plus and then drop the minus. 
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 11:16 AM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 11:18, 15 Oct 2014.
|
JollyJoker said:
Too complicated. Way too.
Creatures will always come under the spell of this or that effect(s) and you need a simple system to determine duration. So you need the "standard action" which should be the measure for duration.
I don't fully understand what you mean here. With the idea that I wrote above, you mouseover on the creature on the ATB and it will show the spells affecting it as well as how long they will still last. So on the creature's icon on the ATB you will see the timevalue (for instance, "130") and when you mouseover the creature, you will see the spells affecting it and how long they will last, where applicable (for instance: "Slow (remaining time: 100)". So you know Slow is going to expire before the creature's next turn, if nothing changes. You could even color-code the spell expiration timer to indicate whether or not it's going to last the next action (for buffs: green if it does, red if it doesn't; for debuffs the reverse).
Quote:
For the rest, you are just making a minus out of plus and then drop the minus.
Well, it's slightly more than that  , but in general, yes. The difference is that in the way you wrote it, the conveyor belt is standing still and the game is walking along it from the start till the end, stopping at every box. The way I wrote it is that the conveyor belt is moving and the game is standing still, waiting for each box to move by. I'm sure Einstein has a few theories about relative movement  .
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 11:27 AM |
|
|
I think the values decreasing to give your creature its turn is counterintuitive. You will need to show the player that visually and it will be hard for him to understand why the values go down rather than go up to make an action.
Also, the Standard turn is a necessity. You need to have a comparison point to judge all the values. And you need a system on which all modifiers work. Incidentally you used the same 100 value for your system like I did, that alone makes it the standard. Standard creature action is 100, spellpower transfers into 100 timesteps. It doesn't matter if it can be further modified, as long as you define a basic stat by a set value then that's the standard.
One merit your system has is that it allows actions to cost more than the standard value. But, if my system is allowed to have negative values, then that problem is solved there too. For example if my creature takes an action at 100 that costs 120, it will deplete the Gauge at -20.
I must disagree that you have to show a creature's portrait only once. That rule alone makes it so that, depending on the maximum initiative and minimum initiative of a creature, you can well have multiple portraits of some creatures by the time you show the slowest. And now imagine this, an example: there are 15 creatures on the map, one is the slowest and the other creatures go at least double than it. When is that creature's turn, you'll have 15 portraits on the bar. When it expends its turn, its portrait goes to the far back, and another 15 portraits appear in betweenn because the other creatures come two times before it. So the ATB doubles in size with just one action, that is bad design and should never happen.
Another problem with it is that some creatures cannot see when their turns come if they take an action. It's a problem that even I couldn't solve without a compromise, which was showing all creatures that come in between the 100 Standard turn value. So slower creatures with 75-100 won't be able to see themselves twice on the bar.
One thing that I like very much about your idea is that the player can configure his ATB bar. I played WoW a lot and I know what it means to be able to configure your interface. It changes your game, it provides more options for you to use so that anyone can find his comfort zone. It might be a compromise to have it but it surely adds functionality.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 12:24 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 12:29, 15 Oct 2014.
|
Stevie said:
Incidentally you used the same 100 value for your system like I did, that alone makes it the standard. Standard creature action is 100, spellpower transfers into 100 timesteps. It doesn't matter if it can be further modified, as long as you define a basic stat by a set value then that's the standard.
Yes, I even stated as such - except I didn't call it the standard turn. Also, you don't see this boundary appear anywhere while playing, hence it's semantics to call it a "turn", when no actual turn is visible during gameplay. But the concept is the same.
As an alternative to counting down, you could have all values shown as negatives and simply count up. Or, as you already wrote before, as a gauge that fills until its turn is coming up. But I assume the gauge will have the same absolute size for each creature, which means that the relative amount in each gauge would differ, depending on initiative. That makes it hard to compare the gauges of the various creatures.
Quote:
I must disagree that you have to show a creature's portrait only once. That rule alone makes it so that, depending on the maximum initiative and minimum initiative of a creature, you can well have multiple portraits of some creatures by the time you show the slowest. And now imagine this, an example: there are 15 creatures on the map, one is the slowest and the other creatures go at least double than it. When is that creature's turn, you'll have 15 portraits on the bar. When it expends its turn, its portrait goes to the far back, and another 15 portraits appear in betweenn because the other creatures come two times before it. So the ATB doubles in size with just one action, that is bad design and should never happen.
I thought about this issue and compared it to chess. Basically, when a fast creature shows up multiple times before a slow creature has its next action, you are thinking several "turns" ahead (I use the term "turns" to make the comparison to chess). While chess is simpler in that both sides can move one piece per turn, the game board can be radically different several turns down the road. While it's easy to make a mental image of how the board will look on the next move, doing so for the next three moves is getting more complex due to all the permutations. And I'm pretty sure your opponent won't allow you to change the board to get a visual of each of those permutations .
Because of this interference - and especially with different actions costing different timesteps - I dropped the concept of extending the ATB all the way, with all possibilities, down to the slowest creature. Suppose you have a creature with abilities at 80, 100 and 120, while there's another (very slow) creature at a value of 200. How would you visualise the ATB then, when that first creature can act? Depending on the chosen action, it can end up at 80, 100 or 120 down the road. The next can put it at 160, 180, 200, 220 or 240. That's 5 possibilities before that slow creature, 1 at the same spot and 2 beyond it. Do you wish to show them all? And that's just one creature. Imagine a full party on both sides of the battlefield. That's madness. If you really want to show all shadows up until the slowest one on the ATB, then you have to drop the option of assigning different values to different actions. Personally I like the flexibility such different values for different actions provides.
The main point is that each of the future positions on the ATB are abstract, based on possibilities closer to its current action. Would it be bad to only show the shadow of the creature on the ATB at position 80, 100 or 120 while mousing over the corresponding abilities, and foregoing the ones that come beyond it?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 02:24 PM |
|
|
I don't think, too much diversification makes sense. I can just see a difference initiative use for "over-qualification" in spellcasting for heroes, making their movement rather unpredictable, but other than Morale-trigger-based reductions or RARE special creature abilities I don't see creatures using a different amount of Init for a standard action.
It should be a special advantage for just a very few chosen units to have abilities allowing them to basically change their place in the ATB-bar out of their own accord.
An example for this would be the afore-mentioned "Skirmish" ability. A typical unit with that ability might be the Sylvan Blade Dancer (or a comparable unit:
Ability SKIRMISH:
Activated ability; costs only halve the standard initiative; unit gains speed X; unit does only 1/3 of its regular damage; unit gets the "Agile" ability (defense Bonus for each square moved).
So that would be a unit excelling in blocking ranged units.
Since the unit had a MODERATELY high initiative anyway, the second turn - contact established - would come pretty fast.
Another would be RAPID FIRE:
Activated ability; the unit targets a 3x3 area, does only 1/3 of its regular damage, but the action costs only half the initiative. Really good, when you have a crowded BF. Also useful to OVERTAKE an opponent - you Rapid fire for low damage, but your next turn begins before it's opponent's turn, so you actually "stole" that area shot.
Or ... which Marvel superhero could create a shockwave by simply CLAPPING? Thing? Anyway:
THUNDERCLAP: For half Initiative the, err, Titan/Colossus/Cyclops/ creates a shockwave that does 10 damage per creature to all creatures "in front" of it and bashes them 1 square back. No enemy retaliation.
While the damage is low, it might give a double turn with regard to the most dangerous opponent, and if it was the ability of a Titan, the Bash would allow to shoot afterwards.
So that should be a RARE occasion. You don't want people to brood over which action to take, the one for 80% init that does 75% damage or the one for 125% for 150% damage or standard - makes no sense.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 03:24 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 15:25, 15 Oct 2014.
|
I agree that not every creature should have three different special action abilities, that would be too much. But just about all creatures should have at least the following actions available to them:
- Wait
- Defend
- Attack (perhaps with movevement)
These three could have a specific timevalue across the board.
On top of that come the specific abilities of each creature. For instance, the leap attack of Silverbacks says that it leaves them vulnerable. This might mean that the cooldown is pretty long, so they're open to attack for a while before they can act again.
The main issue is that we don't know what the special abilities (and spells) will be that they will implement, to be able to categorize them properly for this particular purpose.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 03:48 PM |
|
|
Wait doesn't count because the units actually don't do anything. They don't act, so they more or less DELAY their turn which changes the bar, but has no consequences insofar that the unit had a turn already (but decided to delay it) - so while the picture changes, it also gives a respite.
Defend should definitely NOT use up less initiative than a regular action. This action should be balanced via the bonus the unit gets - in essence it forgoes its action in order to strengthen the defense: It should gain an additional retaliation, and no flanking should be possible, as long as the unit got a retaliation left. Also, Defense should be raised.
Attack is the standard action that costs standard initiative.
That leaves special abilities - but in no way are we required to tamper with Initiative for each. In the Silverback example - Feral Charge - wouldn't that be an ability that gives increased attack power for decreased defense? (I seem to remember there once was a spell, adding defense to offense, reducing defense to 0.) So it would be a STANDARD attack with increased power, that would leave the unit with reduced defense up to its next turn - no need to tamper with turn length.
In other words, you wouldn't use different action durations not for the heck of it, but only when you really wanted to give the unit a specific advantage or disadvantage. In case of the Silverbacks, if you wanted something else, you would just increase the damage, but also increase the amount of Init used, without tampering with defense, but I don't think that would make sense or be even necessary.
Instead I would concentrate on having ONE other duration, and that would be half, probably. And generally, these were "quick actions", that is, actions where the unit WOULD BE ABLE TO sacrifice something (damage, defense, even Health), in order to make the next turn come faster.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:12 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 16:16, 15 Oct 2014.
|
I don't think I was clear enough with what I meant with the Wait, Attack and Defend examples. I mentioned them in the light of the concept I detailed above. So, when a creature's action is coming up (timevalue 0), it can choose to Wait, Attack, or Defend. Now let's say for example that Wait has a timevalue of 50 and Attack and Defend each have a timevalue of 100. In that case, when the creature Waits, it gets moved to the 50 timevalue slot on the ATB, after which the ATB advances to the next creature. If it attacks or defends, it gets moved to the 100 timevalue slot.
But of course attacking and defending don't necessarily have to be the same timevalues. A unit that benefits more from a Defend action for instance may have a somewhat longer timevalue or shorter timevalue, depending on the benefit in question. If we take the Sentinel for example, it could have a Defend action of only 80 timevalue, whereby it shields allies as well as itself. This makes it more beneficial to use the Defend action for that particular unit than to attack with it (which, of course, is also still possible).
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 15, 2014 04:42 PM |
|
|
Maurice said:
But of course attacking and defending don't necessarily have to be the same timevalues. A unit that benefits more from a Defend action for instance may have a somewhat longer timevalue or shorter timevalue, depending on the benefit in question. If we take the Sentinel for example, it could have a Defend action of only 80 timevalue, whereby it shields allies as well as itself. This makes it more beneficial to use the Defend action for that particular unit than to attack with it (which, of course, is also still possible).
No, that makes no sense. You don't start balancing via turn duration. Sentinels have a passive ability that shield ADJACENT friendly units, so in oder to be shielded - they must be adjacent. If you defend, you also need the shielded units to not move, which makes sense for shooters only. Since the action DEFEND doesn't change anything either in terms of defense bonus or prerequisites, there is no reason whatsoever to do what you would have to do in order to give Sentinel's Defend a different length: define a special ability SENTINEL DEFEND, that would work just as the normal defend, but would last shorter or longer - and that CERTAINLY makes no sense at all.
|
|
cliff_nest
Hired Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 09:14 AM |
|
|
It's seem that the debate has been closed in this video at 01:34:50
[url=http://www.twitch.tv/ubisoft/b/578728829]Twitch demo video[/url]
Some other question where answered but i don't want to get off topic
|
|
NACHOOOO
Known Hero
Pessimistically optimistic
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 11:23 AM |
|
|
cliff_nest said:
It's seem that the debate has been closed in this video at 01:34:50
Twitch demo video
Some other question where answered but i don't want to get off topic
Yeah I just watched it. Pity, they missed a great opportunity. I think after how much of a disaster H6 was they see it as too much of a risk. At least it shouldn't be terrible by going this route, I still think that it has it's flaws but we'll see how they tweak it.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 12:02 PM |
|
Edited by Maurice at 12:02, 17 Oct 2014.
|
|
They have to leave something to be desired for Heroes8 .
|
|
NamelessOrder
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 12:21 PM |
|
|
NACHOOOO said:
At least it shouldn't be terrible by going this route, I still think that it has it's flaws but we'll see how they tweak it.
what are the flaws of standard system?
____________
Uplay: ZergRusher | H6: Thoughts on duels | DoC: Cassa
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 02:17 PM |
|
|
I'm not surprised. As I've said before, classic turns system (with initiative and movement) has been proven several times in the past, works and it's very easy to understand.
I still hope we get another iteration of the ATB system in the future tho, but I'm not mad at all.
____________
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 02:51 PM |
|
|
I just wonder why the insiders joined and promoted the discussion when they already knew that the turn system was chosen for implementation. 
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 02:56 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
I just wonder why the insiders joined and promoted the discussion when they already knew that the turn system was chosen for implementation.
Well, I don't know what the insiders already knew, but I think they weren't allowed to speak about it? Regardless, the discussion about it doesn't necessarily have to deal strictly with Heroes7; the fruits of this discussion could be used to implement it in a future Heroes title.
|
|
Storm-Giant
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 02:56 PM |
|
|
Because they want to know the community opinion, maybe?
____________
|
|
NamelessOrder
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 03:07 PM |
|
|
but can't you see that budget for H7 wont be huge. They've already decided to scrap out of 3D town screen because they are expensive and the game wont have an AAA title budget. So i think it's good that they settled for a tested system instead of ATB that would require probably hundreds of work-hours to balance properly
____________
Uplay: ZergRusher | H6: Thoughts on duels | DoC: Cassa
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted October 17, 2014 04:07 PM |
|
|
I hate to quote myself, but on page 6 of this thread I said:
Quote:
GENERALLY spoken, a revised and improved HoMM 5 system would - or COULD - introduce a new dimension: acvtions could be diversified, with different actions allowing different "reentry" into the "action bar".
In HoMM 5 this was only sketched...
... Which means, it would need a crapload of work. Which needs time and money, and ultimately I doubt that there will be enough for Ubic to really do what would be necessary.
IMO, it might be something to base HoMM VIII upon: IF HoMM VII would be good, most things could be left as they were, the big change being a different Initiative system, because the changes that would come with that would be so massive that it was indeed a completely different game.
Also, some serious advice:
Do not assume superior knowledge with the "Insiders". Keep in mind that Ubisoft has created a tool allowing them to ask a lot of people about their opinion when they really want a different opinion.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
