Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


What do you think about Turn based combat?


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
38 replies to this topic

#21 Acharis   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3186

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:29 AM

Sure, It might be fun/relaxing way of playing.. but if you want combat as skillful as it gets then real time is where the game should be at.
I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I've said really.

The purpose of computer games is not to measure skill but to provide fun.

Europe1300.eu - Historical Realistic Medieval Sim (BETA)


Sponsor:

#22 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 10:49 AM


Sure, It might be fun/relaxing way of playing.. but if you want combat as skillful as it gets then real time is where the game should be at.
I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I've said really.

The purpose of computer games is not to measure skill but to provide fun.


Depends what you find fun.. I find competition and challenges against other players fun.

#23 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 17262

Like
3Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 12:42 PM

I just disagree with pretty much everything you've said.

That's fine, you're perfectly welcome to disagree with opinions and preferences.

WoW is not turn based at all.. That's just laughable.

Well, I hadn't played WoW and had just asked someone else about it (so I had a questionmark on my graph next to WoW). I guess they mistook the WoW 'global cooldown' as turn-based, with is fully understandable considering other MMOs that I have played (Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot mainly), are turn-based internally though they hide it with actiony glossing.

And chess is turn based but you still have a timer that stresses you to make quick decisions because if the timer runs out before you win then you lose.
So if the only reason you're making better and smarter moves than your opponent is because you think 10 times longer each turn than him then you're going to lose.

If I have 'x' amount of time, I use that time to make my decision. If I have 'y' amount of time, I use that amount of time to make my decision, allowing me to think clearer. Whether I have two seconds or two minutes to make a decision, I will still make a decision within the time frame, but the two minute decision will be more deeply thought out. Hence, turn based games = more of a thinking game, because you spend more time thinking. Granted, you can have more time thinking in action-based games if the game is set up that way (showing you a challenge before you actually engage it, for example), but the game has to be specifically designed for that whereas turn based games have that by default.

Point is that you can make very deeply thought out moves even in real time if you have a lot of experience.

Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Because personally, while under fire I only think of the current challenge and how I can use the surrounding environment to overcome the current challenge. Even if I'm thinking far enough in the future for that challenge (I'm going to smoke grenade that area, flashbang that window, flank behind that building, and jump them from behind...), I'm still only thinking of that one challenge, until I get to a place where I have shelter behind a wall and my adrenaline for that challenge stops forcing my mind to focus on it (a mental 'tunnel vision' if you will).

But in a pure turn based game, I'm always at a 'shelter behind a wall' even if in the midst of combat, I can think of the entire series of challenges I'm facing, my desired overall goal, and how to reach it.

To simplify what I'm saying: In the midst of danger, I think tactically. When not in danger, I can think both strategically and tactically.

So saying that turn based makes it more of a thinking game is wrong.. because you think just as much in real time.

I'm not sure what your definition of 'just as much' is... but according to english, saying, "You think just as much if you think for 5 minutes as you do if you think for 5 seconds" doesn't make sense. Maybe you mean, "You think just as deeply, or just as accurately, or just as tactically, regardless of how much time you have"? But again, however much time and information is handed to me, I'll scale up my decision to meet it, and the quality of my decision increases.

Real time = reaction + thinking + thinking fast (more skillful thinking)
Turn based = only thinking.

Real time is primarily reaction, with some limited thinking ahead.
Turn-based allows thinking deeply ahead.

======================================================



My desired games are somewhere between the 'Final Fantasy' and 'KOTOR'.

Its a bit funny, since FF and KOTOR have exactly the same system, time-wise. You act, then you get a delay during which you cannot act, then you can act again. Same as in almost every D&D game on PC. I call it "round-based", because its fairly specific, and is neither turn-based, nor real-time.


That's kinda was what I was trying to say: that there is a gradient between pure turn-based, and pure-action based. KOTOR is about dead center between them, and Final Fantasy is closer to the 'turn based' side of the spectrum. They involve both the passage of time (like action games, the speed you act has some affect) and the usage of turns (or action points, or whatever terminology the game uses).
My personal preference would be something more actiony then Final Fantasy 7, but less actiony then what I remember from KOTOR (though admittingly I haven't played KOTOR in awhile).

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.                                                                                                                                                       [Need free cloud storage? I personally like DropBox]

Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal


#24 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
-2Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:13 PM

Point is that you can make very deeply thought out moves even in real time if you have a lot of experience.

Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Because personally, while under fire I only think of the current challenge and how I can use the surrounding environment to overcome the current challenge. Even if I'm thinking far enough in the future for that challenge (I'm going to smoke grenade that area, flashbang that window, flank behind that building, and jump them from behind...), I'm still only thinking of that one challenge, until I get to a place where I have shelter behind a wall and my adrenaline for that challenge stops forcing my mind to focus on it (a mental 'tunnel vision' if you will).

But in a pure turn based game, I'm always at a 'shelter behind a wall' even if in the midst of combat, I can think of the entire series of challenges I'm facing, my desired overall goal, and how to reach it.

To simplify what I'm saying: In the midst of danger, I think tactically. When not in danger, I can think both strategically and tactically.


Yes, I can do that.

You're example is very vague too.. since you are just talking about any kind of FPS shooter.
I would need sooo much more details of the scenario if you want a better answer.

Imagine if chess wasn't turn based.
Just a global cooldown or else in theory the game is over within 0.01 sec if he can move his hands/pieces fast enough.

The faster and more intelligent thinker would win.
If you take too much time on you to think a move when it's not turn based then he's going to win before you can say GG.
So both would have to try and make a move each global cooldown, not every global cooldown but most of them is pretty important.
And the one who is the better thinker will win.

#25 Servant of the Lord   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 17262

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:31 PM


Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Yes, I can do that.


You can, but while thinking about the next room, wasting your mental cycles on it, one of the people around you would shoot you down.

I can think of the information ahead of time, and have it in my head while engaging the enemies, but I can't focus on strategic planning in the midst of action-packed tactical situations where I only have less than a second to decide.
If you actually can, good for you. But for those of us who aren't savants, we need time to consider and think things through.

You mentioned timed chess matches... Wikipedia says they last up to 7 hours long, unless deliberately playing a 'fast' chess game of 30 minutes to an hour...

Wikipedia [Time control] The World Chess Federation FIDE sets a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.

That's apparently how the professionals play the game. Up to 30 minutes for one chess move is given them. Ofcourse, they wont use it all on every move, but they have it available because it changes the way they think if they have less time.

You're example is very vague too.. since you are just talking about any kind of FPS shooter.
I would need sooo much more details of the scenario if you want a better answer.


My point is not "What would you do in situation 'x'", but I'm saying that I personally, when I have to think tactically about a challenge I am facing in a urgent situation, automatically tune out the large scale picture to focus on the immediateness challenge. But you apparently are able to plan what you're going to eat three weeks from now, while getting shot at from an enemy two feet away, without compromising in the least how you are going to overcome the challenge in the next half-second, good for you!

Imagine if chess wasn't turn based.
Just a global cooldown or else in theory the game is over within 0.01 sec if he can move his hands/pieces fast enough.

The faster and more intelligent thinker would win.

No, the faster thinking would win. Not the more intelligent one... The more intelligent one could be either of the two.
Maybe people, myself including, can make very very rapid decisions. Those decisions aren't always better than the decisions of someone taking more time to think the issue out. They are often 'acceptable' decisions, and fine for day-to-day situations, but they are rarely the best and most intelligent decision.

If you take too much time on you to think a move when it's not turn based then he's going to win before you can say GG.
So both would have to try and make a move each global cooldown, not every global cooldown but most of them is pretty important.

Like I said, I can scale my decisions to meet the time requirement... but if I have more time, the decisions will be better decisions. Thus, one type of game is more reactionary thinking, and one is more strategic thinking.

And the one who is the better thinker will win.

No, the one who is the faster thinker will win, not the better thinker (if by 'better' you mean 'more intelligent').

I can think very rapidly, because I'm very impatient, and make perfectly acceptable and workable decisions while much more intelligent people I know, invest an extra 20 seconds, and come up with decisions that are better.

It's perfectly fine to abbreviate my username to 'Servant' rather than copy+pasting it all the time.

[Fly with me on Twitter] [Google+] [My broken website]

All glory be to the Man at the right hand... On David's throne the King will reign, and the Government will rest upon His shoulders. All the earth will see the salvation of God.                                                                                                                                                       [Need free cloud storage? I personally like DropBox]

Of Stranger Flames - [indie turn-based rpg set in a para-historical French colony] | Indie RPG development journal


#26 AltarofScience   Members   -  Reputation: 926

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:51 PM



And about all the different things you can do in a turn... I can easily do all that within 6 seconds.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you --


What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.
I've been playing games for more than 15 years.

Just because you can't do it doesn't mean other people can't do it.
So if you don't believe me then I guess the discussion between us ends at that.

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation.. that means you would have to have over a thousand skills in the game.

When I played WoW for example I probably had around 50 abilities hotkeyed/keybinded. I used up every single hotbar slot available.
Doesn't mean I had to decide between them all for each situation.. All skills are used for different situations.


I dare you to complete a 600 province dominions 3 game turn in 6 seconds. Go on. Do it. Although that is a tbs/rts debate as opposed to what you see in rpgs. Also try doing that using spell casting which is extra time with up to 100 spell casters per province.

Diplomacy is another example but only has like 70 territories.

I suppose you might argue that in a single character rpg turn based isn't that important.

#27 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 02:04 PM




And about all the different things you can do in a turn... I can easily do all that within 6 seconds.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you --


What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.
I've been playing games for more than 15 years.

Just because you can't do it doesn't mean other people can't do it.
So if you don't believe me then I guess the discussion between us ends at that.

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation.. that means you would have to have over a thousand skills in the game.

When I played WoW for example I probably had around 50 abilities hotkeyed/keybinded. I used up every single hotbar slot available.
Doesn't mean I had to decide between them all for each situation.. All skills are used for different situations.


I dare you to complete a 600 province dominions 3 game turn in 6 seconds. Go on. Do it. Although that is a tbs/rts debate as opposed to what you see in rpgs. Also try doing that using spell casting which is extra time with up to 100 spell casters per province.

Diplomacy is another example but only has like 70 territories.

I suppose you might argue that in a single character rpg turn based isn't that important.


Not sure what you're talking about provinces etc.
But 6 seconds isn't set in stone.. It's just a number someone earlier in the thread created.

You would have to judge what is a good seconds per turn ratio when transforming a turn based game into a real time game.
But if I'm imagining it correct you're talking about something like Civ.. Then the easiest way to remove turn based is just to remove it.
Let the player take as much time as he needs to do the 600 province things you're talking about.. and the player who does it faster and thinks faster and better will win.

#28 Yrjö P.   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 1412

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 05:52 PM

Chess masters seem to think that playing really fast makes for an inferior game with less strategy.

"Blitz chess kills your ideas." - Bobby Fischer
"Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapidplay in favour of serious chess." - Vladimir Kramnik
"He who analyses blitz is stupid." - Rashid Nezhmetdinov
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fast_chess

What games are you a master in, glhf?

#29 Sir Demon   Members   -  Reputation: 104

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 07:08 PM

But 6 seconds isn't set in stone.. It's just a number someone earlier in the thread created.

it comes from D&D.

But if I'm imagining it correct you're talking about something like Civ.. Then the easiest way to remove turn based is just to remove it.
Let the player take as much time as he needs to do the 600 province things you're talking about.. and the player who does it faster and thinks faster and better will win.

Then it would turn into a different game that requires different skills. Not necessarily more or less skill, but different kind of skill. As it has been stated several times by now, reflexes and speed are not the only set of skills a game can require. Turn basedness removes the requirement for fast reflexes and reactions - a player without those can still excel at the game - placing emphasis on a different set of skills.

#30 jbadams   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 17307

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 08 April 2012 - 08:16 PM

What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.

Sorry, "don't believe you" was perhaps a poor choice of wording; I'm not calling you a liar. I am however suggesting that you simply do not understand what I've been saying, as evidenced by the following:

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation..

In a game of D&D*, you can (and often do) choose from almost any of the actions available in the game. Thanks to the extra time available to carefully select an action, you actually can choose from any of the hundreds of spells and abilities available in the game, and I've seen people use spells or abilities in very unexpected ways to solve a problem or beat an opponent. In a game of D&D (and some other turn-based games) you really can have hundreds of options available in any given situation.

It's absolutely fine if that isn't the type of game you want -- but that is an advantage of a turn-based system -- and you simply can not possibly make a choice as detailed in real time as you could have in a turn-based system.


In any case, I won't be bothering to continue responding to you, as you're pretty obviously incapable of handling any disagreement with your opinion. You asked what the advantages of a turn-based system are, and you've been given several examples -- and it's perfectly fine if you don't want to use them or don't consider them appropriate for your game -- but that doesn't make them invalid as you seem to think. Having responded to another of your topics recently, it's pretty obvious that you just want people to agree with you, and that just isn't what discussion is about. If you continue this way, you'll end up with no one bothering to respond to you.


Good luck with your game, and I hope that you're eventually able to learn to accept that differing opinions can still be valid, even if you don't want to use them in your game.

*I'm using D&D as an example repeatedly because you chose it yourself as an example, and because I know the game reasonably well.

#31 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
-5Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 05:16 AM


What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.

Sorry, "don't believe you" was perhaps a poor choice of wording; I'm not calling you a liar. I am however suggesting that you simply do not understand what I've been saying, as evidenced by the following:

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation..

In a game of D&D*, you can (and often do) choose from almost any of the actions available in the game. Thanks to the extra time available to carefully select an action, you actually can choose from any of the hundreds of spells and abilities available in the game, and I've seen people use spells or abilities in very unexpected ways to solve a problem or beat an opponent. In a game of D&D (and some other turn-based games) you really can have hundreds of options available in any given situation.

It's absolutely fine if that isn't the type of game you want -- but that is an advantage of a turn-based system -- and you simply can not possibly make a choice as detailed in real time as you could have in a turn-based system.


In any case, I won't be bothering to continue responding to you, as you're pretty obviously incapable of handling any disagreement with your opinion. You asked what the advantages of a turn-based system are, and you've been given several examples -- and it's perfectly fine if you don't want to use them or don't consider them appropriate for your game -- but that doesn't make them invalid as you seem to think. Having responded to another of your topics recently, it's pretty obvious that you just want people to agree with you, and that just isn't what discussion is about. If you continue this way, you'll end up with no one bothering to respond to you.


Good luck with your game, and I hope that you're eventually able to learn to accept that differing opinions can still be valid, even if you don't want to use them in your game.

*I'm using D&D as an example repeatedly because you chose it yourself as an example, and because I know the game reasonably well.


Actually this is all turned around and I am not sure how it got like this.
But it's you all that can't handle any disagreements with your opinions.

Of course I won't be convinced of your opinion when it's a false opinion.

As soon as I started making replies saying I disagree you all start lynching me for not converting to your opinion.

#32 jbadams   Senior Staff   -  Reputation: 17307

Like
2Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:02 AM

Of course I won't be convinced of your opinion when it's a false opinion.

Ok. Let's look at this carefully.

My opinion was that you can do more in an unlimited amount of time (turn-base system) than you can do in a limited amount of time (real-time system). Are you really suggesting that's incorrect? You're saying you can do just as much within 2 seconds as you could do within 2 hours? That you can do just as much within 2 seconds as you could do within 2 days? Seriously?!? Look back at the topic and you'll see that's exactly the point I was making, and that you were arguing against.

As soon as I started making replies saying I disagree you all start lynching me for not converting to your opinion.

Actually, if we again look back over the topic, you might notice that rather than "lynching you", various people made sure to specifically allow for your opinion over and over again. No one has said that all games should be turn based, or that you shouldn't make a real-time game. A few examples in the following spoiler tag if you're interested:
Spoiler


The only thing we won't agree with is your quite-obviously-100%-incorrect-and-in-fact-entirely-impossible suggestion that a time-based system doesn't allow for more detailed decision making or more actions to be taken. Again, as we've said repeatedly, it's fine if that isn't what you want for your game, but your insistent disagreement with it is simply ridiculous. It's not our opinion that more stuff can be done in more time -- it's a simple fact of reality.

#33 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
-3Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:16 AM


Of course I won't be convinced of your opinion when it's a false opinion.

Ok. Let's look at this carefully.

My opinion was that you can do more in an unlimited amount of time (turn-base system) than you can do in a limited amount of time (real-time system). Are you really suggesting that's incorrect? You're saying you can do just as much within 2 seconds as you could do within 2 hours? That you can do just as much within 2 seconds as you could do within 2 days? Seriously?!? Look back at the topic and you'll see that's exactly the point I was making, and that you were arguing against.


This is just as crazy example you're giving now of the 100 skills for specific situation.
And if you read my previous posts you'll see I've already given an answer to why real time is better in that situation.
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/623105-what-do-you-think-about-turn-based-combat/page__st__20__p__4929385#entry4929385

And while you could theoretically use all the 100 skills for the situation.. it would be extremely bad and might lead you to your loss.
What I mean with that all skills are for specific situations is that if you're a ranged "class" and a melee "class" is next to you.. then you should think about using one of your skills that get's you out of his range or stops him from damaging you.. Sure you could use the 78th skill to change yourself into the female gender.. but that ain't gonna stop him. You could also keep casting damaging spells and trading hits with him. But if you can win toe to toe as a ranged class against a melee class then the melee player is ultra bad or the game is imbalanced.

#34 ImmoralAtheist   Members   -  Reputation: 118

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:17 AM

Turn based combat is unrealistic (in most cases). A problem with many rts games is that they rely to much on fast management (button input). In Warcraft, when encountering another army, I want my units to cast different types of spells on different units. Thinking through what to do is not the major challenge. Casting specific spells from 5 different units on specific targets as fast as possible is what's challenging, and they have a major impact on the outcome of the battle.
Sins of a solar empire is realtime, but I find that fast management is significantly less important here.

If you have to quickly micromanage every little aspect to be succesful, then this will be more important than the actual strategy. A big advantage from dodging catapult shots in Age of Empires (which the AI does) does simply not belong in a Strategy game. Possible ways to avoid this, is to make the advantage minor or nonexistent (like faster projectile and semirandom hit location which a unit is to slow to move out of). Another is to give player units similar AI.

#35 glhf   Banned   -  Reputation: -585

Like
-5Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:29 AM

Just going to pretend to be one of you once so you can hear what you're actually saying..

The longer time you have to think in a turn the smarter you must be!
If you make a turn duration to 1 week instead of just 5 hours then it will take a lot more intelligent person to play it.
Now I can go and ask my physics teacher what he thinks about a few calculations I've done while in class about moving the x unit into the Y pos.
And I've also actually written a book about this entire round... It's coming out on cinemas soon.

#36 Heaven   Members   -  Reputation: 447

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:47 AM

Actually this is all turned around and I am not sure how it got like this.
But it's you all that can't handle any disagreements with your opinions.

Of course I won't be convinced of your opinion when it's a false opinion.

As soon as I started making replies saying I disagree you all start lynching me for not converting to your opinion.

/facepalm

No offense, glhf, but I think it would be safe to say that you're what, 13-17 years old? A teenager, definitely. Or at least you're acting like one. Perhaps more to the point, you're acting like someone very young and immature.

I'll add something to this later because I've got to go, but consider: do you really think your performance would so overwhelmingly outshine others in say, a game of arena in WoW if that game was turn based? If the game was broken down into time slices equal to a gcd? The answer is no. I want you to tell me why, or if you disagree then please elaborate.

Take care and talk to you later.
Florida, USA
Current Project
Jesus is LORD!

#37 Telastyn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3724

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 07:32 AM

I could totally see the DnD combat system in real time.


Then you've never played DnD. Actual, pen and paper DnD where players may do anything they want provided the DM allows it. The limited, computerized DnD could be done at real time. DDO is real time-ish and works fairly well. Personally, I like the old turn based gold box DnD games' combat over some of the more modern variants. I turned the 'auto-pause' option for the infinity engine games on.

Having the time to view the situation allows you the game designer to allow more detail and nuance to situations. Having time to consider and execute a strategy puts more value on the strategy as opposed to how well you work with the user interface. If I'm playing a strategy game (which I personally prefer for my RPGs) then I want the emphasis on the strategy. When I'm playing a FPS, then I don't want that.

Personally, I want many more turn based games. Too many games have shifted away from it and (imo) cover up their lack of depth by forcing you to make decisions quickly so you don't have time to see that there's only one or two decent choices.

#38 Legendre   Members   -  Reputation: 963

Like
1Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 10:21 AM

Just going to pretend to be one of you once so you can hear what you're actually saying..

The longer time you have to think in a turn the smarter you must be!
If you make a turn duration to 1 week instead of just 5 hours then it will take a lot more intelligent person to play it.
Now I can go and ask my physics teacher what he thinks about a few calculations I've done while in class about moving the x unit into the Y pos.
And I've also actually written a book about this entire round... It's coming out on cinemas soon.


erm...i just read through the entire thread, and that is totally not what they were saying...

#39 swiftcoder   Senior Moderators   -  Reputation: 9639

Like
0Likes
Like

Posted 09 April 2012 - 06:38 PM

And we are done here.

Tristam MacDonald - Software Engineer @Amazon - [swiftcoding]





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS