|
On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment.
Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time.
David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high."
That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game.
If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can.
Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
|
On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break...
Didn't they fix RT vs AT btw?
|
On June 14 2011 04:23 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:14 Two_DoWn wrote:On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle. Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation. Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums?
The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
|
On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend.
I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
|
On June 14 2011 05:10 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break... Didn't they fix RT vs AT btw?
they have not yet, but i doubt they ever will
|
On June 14 2011 05:11 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:23 karpo wrote:On June 14 2011 04:14 Two_DoWn wrote:On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle. Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation. Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums? The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins."
What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc.
|
On June 14 2011 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:08 r_con wrote:On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-' I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different. What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course). What you've posited is that there exists a single trio of units that has a similar feel to them. In other words, that there is one Zerg unit that kind of feels like one Terran unit, and that both kind of feel like a Protoss unit. Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. 1. First off, I would be worried if this were the norm for the races. In other words, if pretty much every Terran unit matched each Zerg and Protoss unit. I think it's quite obvious that this isn't the case. In fact, Blizzard has said over and over again that they make sure that there isn't an equivalent of each unit for each niche or mirror unit to match. And yet the match-up statistics show that the game is relatively balanced in 1v1. I think that's rather amazing. 2. Secondly, I actually reject your claim that Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. I see a match only in cost. The differences? -Marauders counter the other two straight up. -The multiple abilities of each: burrow-move vs. stim and concussive vs. blink and air attack. Very different indeed. 3. We see a lot of variation in 1v1 games. If we only saw pure marauders out of Terran players, or all Protosses going pure stalkers, then we'd have a problem. What we see instead is a variety of builds (which does undoubtedly change as the metagame shifts), so I really don't see problems here. Some units are used more than others, true. But that doesn't imply that we need this thread to bash Blizzard in the way the OP is. It certainly doesn't mean Blizzard is *out of touch*.
variation does not necessarily lead to good strategy or exciting battles, the "marauders counter the other two straight up doesn't get my point. They all serve the same basic role, despite have different ways of doing it. The stalker and the marine accomplish doing damage and avoiding damge in different ways. The tank and roach accomplish damage in different ways. The hydra in broodwar, and the dragoon in broodwar, accomplished goals in different ways because the health differential was so high. The stalker, the marauder and the roach, are all relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps.
They are dragoons with an ability, nothing more, and all they all fill the same role.
|
On June 14 2011 05:10 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. so your subjective experience with 6 games in RT vs AT 2vs2 shows "Blizzard's absolute ineptitude", give me a break... Didn't they fix RT vs AT btw?
Point is RT vs AT is not a balanced matchup, one of the main reasons being that 2 arranged players are not going to backstab eachother, vs in RT, one player may choose to BM the other, making matching the two against one another only break both ladders.
Instead, the "expert" answer to this flaw is not that their system is broken, which it is, but instead that "I'm too good" aka "your MMR is too high", implying that I'm matching againt a highly skilled arranged team because of my own high skill, and the only way matches are therefore "fair" is to partner with a lower quality teamate.
So yes, not addressing the issue and instead deflecting it in the way they did shows only a vast ineptitude towards the way matchmaking should work.
|
On June 14 2011 05:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend. I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams.
It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out.
You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
|
The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right?
As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity.
Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams.
On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
|
On June 14 2011 05:14 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:11 Nakas wrote:On June 14 2011 04:23 karpo wrote:On June 14 2011 04:14 Two_DoWn wrote:On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle. Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation. Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums? The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc.
The final game for 15k was basically decided by two balls colliding into each other.
|
On June 14 2011 05:15 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 04:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 04:08 r_con wrote:On June 14 2011 03:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Blizzard gets feedback from multiple outlets, including the pro-gamers, their own forums, and all the statistics they collect. And they take it very seriously. And, quite frankly, they know a heck of a lot more about their game than Sen does.
Furthermore, if you've been paying any attention to the evolution of SC2 so far, you'd notice that the game has been approaching a more balanced ratio overall for 1v1.
I really couldn't disagree more with the OP. Just because Blizzard doesn't want to patch, buff, or nerf, every single idea that people come up with doesn't mean they're *out of touch* with everyone. It would destroy the game to change everything for no legitimate reason, and at least Blizzard is honest with us.
Your premises and arguments are clearly flawed, and even your random facts are just plain ridiculous. Roaches, marauders, and immortals are the SC2 versions of dragoons? Umm... not even close. None of them can attack air, none of them have famously terrible pathing, and they each have unique abilities (burrow move, concussive shells, hardened shields). So if your argument was that those three units were ranged units that happened to cost a little gas... then okay.
You're grasping at straws, and I don't see it going anywhere useful. How about we wait until the expansions come out? And if you think certain units are boring, then go make your own game with cooler versions of them -.-' I agree with you. But i think the concept of just an overall solid unit should be exclusive to one race. The marauder and the stalker and roach are just great "meat" units. The problem is that they closely overlap due to there health. a Roach feels like a marauder, and a marauder feels like a stalker. But if you compare say, hydras to dragoons, or vultures to roaches, they are way different. What i think we are essentially saying is that the units overlap in overall feel too much. In broodwar, the only good ranged high health, pretty good against everything unit was the dragoon. Now zerg and terran have that kind of unit too(not exactly the same of course). What you've posited is that there exists a single trio of units that has a similar feel to them. In other words, that there is one Zerg unit that kind of feels like one Terran unit, and that both kind of feel like a Protoss unit. Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. 1. First off, I would be worried if this were the norm for the races. In other words, if pretty much every Terran unit matched each Zerg and Protoss unit. I think it's quite obvious that this isn't the case. In fact, Blizzard has said over and over again that they make sure that there isn't an equivalent of each unit for each niche or mirror unit to match. And yet the match-up statistics show that the game is relatively balanced in 1v1. I think that's rather amazing. 2. Secondly, I actually reject your claim that Roach ~ Marauder ~ Stalker. I see a match only in cost. The differences? -Marauders counter the other two straight up. -The multiple abilities of each: burrow-move vs. stim and concussive vs. blink and air attack. Very different indeed. 3. We see a lot of variation in 1v1 games. If we only saw pure marauders out of Terran players, or all Protosses going pure stalkers, then we'd have a problem. What we see instead is a variety of builds (which does undoubtedly change as the metagame shifts), so I really don't see problems here. Some units are used more than others, true. But that doesn't imply that we need this thread to bash Blizzard in the way the OP is. It certainly doesn't mean Blizzard is *out of touch*. variation does not necessarily lead to good strategy or exciting battles, the "marauders counter the other two straight up doesn't get my point. They all serve the same basic role, despite have different ways of doing it. The stalker and the marine accomplish doing damage and avoiding damge in different ways. The tank and roach accomplish damage in different ways. The hydra in broodwar, and the dragoon in broodwar, accomplished goals in different ways because the health differential was so high. The stalker, the marauder and the roach, are all relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps. They are dragoons with an ability, nothing more, and all they all fill the same role.
I know that variation doesn't lead to good strategy or exciting battles.
The players are in charge of that.
And if your criteia for being a dragoon look-alike are "relatively mobile ranged units with lots of health and a good consistent attack with decent dps", then most units in the game are dragoons. I already explained why they weren't beforehand. Sure, you can pick out small similarities, but roaches actually aren't tanks or dragoons just because you can find a small likeness between them.
All this comparison to BW is getting really old. SC2 isn't BW. Not every SC2 unit was created to directly copy a BW one in every aspect, and not every race has the same type of unit.
Anyways, I'm out for now. Enjoy your day
|
On June 14 2011 05:20 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend. I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams. It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out. You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
Right. Because Arranged Teams are never between two people of different leagues -.-' Two friends who happen to be master and silver level will never play together, and there's never a chance that one person in an AT may have to leave.
Arranged Teams can have crappy allies too. Get over it.
Anyways, I'm out for now. Enjoy your day
|
On June 14 2011 05:23 Nakas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:14 karpo wrote:On June 14 2011 05:11 Nakas wrote:On June 14 2011 04:23 karpo wrote:On June 14 2011 04:14 Two_DoWn wrote:On June 14 2011 02:48 Seide wrote: When Browder mentions that "uncertainty" when going into battles and mentions he liked that "there are things someone can do to swing the battle", I have to disagree, that because of how strong aoe is and how units clump, it actually takes away from this uncertainty, as units simply die too quick for someone to do those things that can swing the battle. Uncertainty was how well you could psi storm, dodge emps, put clumps of tanks in stasis, and all across 2 or 3 screens of units. Now its just "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." The only uncertainty is because you cant actually tell how many units there are in a given space because all balls look the same. Uncertainty is good when it derives from micro. Its shit when it comes from visual misrepresentation. Let me slam my ball into your and see who wins might be true in regular low rank ladder matches. It's not really true in actual high end tournaments. Why to people so often resort to hyperbole and exaggerations when they want to argue a point on these forums? The TSL4 finals wasn't high-level? Many of those games in that final PvT match could be summed up with the phrase "let me slam my ball into yours and see who wins." What game did that. I remember seing two contains, one blink stalker rush and a epic hold by Thorzain. Last game was alot of positioning and had great EMP's etc. The final game for 15k was basically decided by two balls colliding into each other.
It was decided by Naniwa losing focus and getting his sentries EMP'ed time and again.
|
On June 14 2011 05:20 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend. I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams. It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out. You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored.
And you assume you are correct and that they don't know what they're doing. Maybe they match AT vs RT because queues would be horrible and they'd have to match alot less evenly matched people against eachother that way?
|
On June 14 2011 05:23 Persev wrote:The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right? As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity. Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams. Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally.
I understand you're trying to be diplomatic, and I respect that. However, I play vs the #1 teams in the world frequently. I've beaten Protech and Power two out of the last 3 times, and I believe they're at about a 85% win rate.
My point, which you bring up, is that there is no "challenge" in the way RT pairs vs AT. It comes down to one simple thing, is your random teamate a master level 1v1 player or not. If he is not, auto lose vs coordinated team. If he/she is, likely easy victory.
Sadly the meta game for RT vs AT does boil down that simply. You say it's a challenge, I say it's a ridiculously unfair system that is broken based on the fact that the system tries to make your win rate 50% even in team games where we have RT vs AT ALL THE TIME. The issue is that the AT gets a shared MMR for each player, while that's being compared to the AVERAGE of the random team.
So if my MMR is 1500, my opponent AT is 1250, the game is going to pair me with a 1000 MMR noob to balance the match out. Turns out though that the AT was recently formed of masters players and thus has not achieved their final MMR, so they're vastly superior in combined skill to my team.
I really don't know how to present it anymore simply. The fact that even the lead game balancer cannot acknowledge this broken system is once again evidence that Blizzard is out of touch with the game, IE the point of the thread.
|
As previously mentioned - win % cannot be considered a benchmark since the battle.net matchmaking system is designed to keep you at ~50%
A comment about the "uninteresting units": 1.As a Zerg player I feel that the roach has the characteristics of a non-zerg unit that has been added in an attempt to give a proper t1 defence unit. Speed & Burrow movement makes it a bit interesting but still... I feel like with a bit more defence capability to queens and some move speed/hp boost to hydras, maybe giving them the speed and burrow upgrades - roaches could be dumped. Another point I have is that you cannot have hydras without roaches in most of the cases - feels like hydras got their stats cut because you are supposed to have roaches in front (Voted 1st place)
2. Corruptor is 2nd place. That unit, that is supposed to dominate the sky for Zerg fails to serve its purpose - limited as it is.
3.Collosus 3rd place Collo + force fields kills all ground(but terran mech maybe) extremely efficiently for little micro required.
|
On June 14 2011 05:32 JustTray wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:23 Persev wrote:The reply "your mmr is to high" probably means that when you have become so good at random teams your mmr places you vs top set teams. Its a chance to test your communication skills , micro, maco, unit integration vs top teams. Its a very good sign that you can be paired up vs set teams because it means your very skilled. The fact that your paired up vs set teams doenst' mean the game is imbalanced. It means your a good player with solid team skills and you've hit a ceiling and further improvement is only vs set arranged teams. Right? As for the quitting you know this old saying is true:" Quitters can't win. Winners don't quit." You saw that over and over in the MLG games. There is no such thing as a free win. You saw MMA killing his own CC and you saw Idra leave when the game was his. Unless your faced with an A+ hacker leaving at the start of the game is just fulfilling your own negativity. Theres also something called pretense of knowledge syndrome. We are suffer from it. We think we know something but in actually its quite different from what we think we see. I will say that the match making system is a huge black box to me. I would rage hard when I used to get a Gold partner vs top teams. It was utter disaster so I have empathy with what your feeling. The flip side of the coin is you have the chance to rise to the occasion and come up with ways to improve to even exceed set teams. On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. I understand you're trying to be diplomatic, and I respect that. However, I play vs the #1 teams in the world frequently. I've beaten Protech and Power two out of the last 3 times, and I believe they're at about a 85% win rate. My point, which you bring up, is that there is no "challenge" in the way RT pairs vs AT. It comes down to one simple thing, is your random teamate a master level 1v1 player or not. If he is not, auto lose vs coordinated team. If he/she is, likely easy victory. Sadly the meta game for RT vs AT does boil down that simply. You say it's a challenge, I say it's a ridiculously unfair system that is broken based on the fact that the system tries to make your win rate 50% even in team games where we have RT vs AT ALL THE TIME. The issue is that the AT gets a shared MMR for each player, while that's being compared to the AVERAGE of the random team. So if my MMR is 1500, my opponent AT is 1250, the game is going to pair me with a 1000 MMR noob to balance the match out. Turns out though that the AT was recently formed of masters players and thus has not achieved their final MMR, so they're vastly superior in combined skill to my team. I really don't know how to present it anymore simply. The fact that even the lead game balancer cannot acknowledge this broken system is once again evidence that Blizzard is out of touch with the game, IE the point of the thread.
What should they do then? There's obviously a reason they keep RT vs AT in. Maybe it's cause the pool of players and their spread would be thin and finding good matchups would be even harder with the change? Do you know if that's the case?
|
Sure.. the ladder results in win rates of about 50% for every race
That does not mean the game is balanced, that means that the ladder is working as intended
Judging balance based on the results of ladder wins or losses is not a viable method for measuring balance because it does not take skill into consideration.
|
On June 14 2011 05:29 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2011 05:20 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 05:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 14 2011 05:02 JustTray wrote:On June 14 2011 04:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 13 2011 12:12 jsdk wrote: I think what bothers me the most is their mentality of "we'll fix balance in the expansion." I seem to remember a community manager saying that he couldn't believe that people would think that they would have an imbalanced game until an expansion was released. He wrongly thought Blizzard was still the same company.
The problem with that is that they can't know exactly what's imbalanced (or not) unless they openly communicate to the pros, instead of telling them to wait a year for some magical fix that might happen. And then guess what? Not everything is fixed because they keep shrugging people off, and then "wait until the next expansion..." Fantastic. I think what bothers me the most is that people whine about Blizzard when they don't care to pay attention to what Blizzard has actually been doing. They don't put off fixing balance. They have been fixing balance. The statistics show that the game has been getting more and more balanced. Furthermore, they've been talking to pros, looking at forums, looking at their own statistics, and playing the game themselves, ever since the beta. They've been using every possible form of input and feedback available, which is why the game is very, very close to balanced at the moment. Also slightly off topic, but relevant to your post. I've played Dayvie in 2v2 RT vs AT ladder about a dozen times in the last couple months. Every single time I've been an random team vs his arranged team. I had an ally, who I got matched with vs them 6 times in a row leave the game at the start every single time. David Kim's response to this clearly broken RT vs AT mechanic that gave him 6 free wins? I quote, "Your MMR is too high." That was the top balance designer's actual comment in game as to why the matchmaking was partnering me with a random teamate who quit the game over and over vs an incredibly highly skilled 2v2 arranged team that designs the game. If that doesn't sum up Blizzard's absolute ineptitude, I don't know what can. Edit - In case anyone thinks I'm making it up, his partner is and has always been Slayers_BekHo, they play and they play PT occasionally. It's your ally's fault for leaving the game, not David Kim's fault for having a partner. If you don't like the fact that Random Teams puts you with a Random Teammate who might leave at any moment, then don't play Random Teams -.-' Duh. Get a friend. I can't believe you'd blame Blizzard for the fact that your partner left the game because he was intimidated by the opponents. How ridiculous. That's what happens when you play on a Random Team. You run the risk of playing with a dumb ally. Or you run the risk of playing with a totally kick-ass ally. That's why it's called Random Teams. It is not a logical solution to say that RT is imbalanced therefore you have to not play it. The logical solution is not to "not play RT," but to not match RT vs AT. The risk of playing with a crappy ally is EXACTLY why AT should never match with RT, you simply don't have that risk, and there's no amount of handicapped points you can implement that will balance RT vs AT out. You guys shows Blizzard's flawed logic perfectly. Instead of addressing the actual issues, they let their pride get in the way and assume everything is correct, when in practice, you can see, (most recently represented by the RT vs AT issue I brought up, but also many, many balance/map issues) that there are significant issues that are being ignored. And you assume you are correct and that they don't know what they're doing. Maybe they match AT vs RT because queues would be horrible and they'd have to match alot less evenly matched people against eachother that way?
I don't assume anything. My information is based on fact. Read excaliber's post about MMR and matchmaking. That is exactly how it works and is supported by David Kim's message about my MMR being too high, forcing me vs Arranged Teams with subpar teamates.
If the queues were really a problem, then they would/should post that information to the community to support their reasoning. In fact, the only support they've ever given was a completely illogical post stating that because AT and RT have different ladders, the fact that they play against eachother is irrelevant, which is demonstrably false, given that if an Arranged Team played nothing but Random Teams, and another Arranged Team played nothing but Arranged Teams, you would expect the one vs the RT to do better, and appear to be more skilled based on the inherent flaws with RT vs AT I listed and others.
Again, it all comes back to community communication and addressing the issues the community presents. While many may in fact be unfounded, they do not go away until addressed. Additionally, I will add that the community does in fact call many of the nerfs that go into play. Most recently the stim nerfs, infestor minor nerfs, warp gate nerfs, etc all called for by the community. Void ray nerfs, reaper nerfs, roach nerfs, also all requested by the community in the past, and have been balanced for 1v1 and teams.
So since this is my last post - Blizzard, show ALL the data. Statistics can show anything Blizzard wants them to. Without the raw data, the community cannot be expected to assume anything Blizzard says is supported by evidence. Another example is High Templar pre warp in storm vs Infestors. Blizzard told us Storms were far too powerful, dealing too much damage. Well, infestors are more devistating now in AOE and support than storms ever were, and yet, there has been zero data about the amount of damage infestors are dealing per cost. My guess as to why is that if we saw the data, we would see that infestors have nearly identically taken the role that the OP templar previously held, and yet we've gone weeks without a significant nerf.
Show us all the data. Let the community be informed and you won't have this perception about blizzard.
|
|
|
|