• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 22:38
CEST 04:38
KST 11:38
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Season 1 - Final Week6[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall12HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension0Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation17$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced7Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles7[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China11
StarCraft 2
General
Team TLMC #5 - Submission extension TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles
Tourneys
$5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) WardiTV Mondays RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome
Brood War
General
A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL [Guide] MyStarcraft BW General Discussion [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [Megathread] Daily Proleagues 2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier Small VOD Thread 2.0
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile CCLP - Command & Conquer League Project The PlayStation 5 Nintendo Switch Thread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Men Take Risks, Women Win Ga…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 488 users

3 Important Topics You Should Know For LotV - Page 4

Blogs > Superiorwolf
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 All
Deleted User 97295
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
1137 Posts
November 17 2014 15:03 GMT
#61
--- Nuked ---
BreAKerTV
Profile Blog Joined November 2011
Taiwan1658 Posts
November 17 2014 15:16 GMT
#62
5/5 suppy. I had the same thoughts going all the way...
Retired caster / streamer "BingeHD". Digital Nomad.
NEEDZMOAR
Profile Blog Joined December 2011
Sweden1277 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-17 15:41:11
November 17 2014 15:23 GMT
#63
Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!
Jazzman88
Profile Joined January 2012
Canada2228 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-17 16:55:27
November 17 2014 16:54 GMT
#64
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!


Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.

Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.
Superiorwolf
Profile Blog Joined March 2007
United States5509 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-17 19:43:30
November 17 2014 19:30 GMT
#65
On November 17 2014 20:09 ledarsi wrote:
An absolutely critical sub-point to the economy and micro issues is the problem of inflation of supply costs.

Starcraft 2 supply costs are much higher than Brood War supply costs across the board. The result is far fewer actual units, and a much higher ratio of workers to military units, and less total investment in military on the same amount of supply.

One of the simplest and most direct ways to create more micro opportunities is to simply put more units on the board, allowing more units to be spread across more locations. Most of the interesting types of micro also involve multiple units working in concert, such as rotating which units are taking damage, positioning, splitting, and so on. Adding more military units will very organically create more micro opportunities as there are more units that can accept commands for advantage.

Also, this will result in a slower hard max, which will mean there will be a lot more fighting when armies aren't both at the supply limit, which is very good. Trading at less than the supply maximum usually involves continuous reinforcements, skirmishing and maneuvering in the field. Maxed armies tend to just ball up to engage an enemy army doing the same, since it is not possible for the enemy to show up with more supply.


This is an absolutely great point and I will add it to the OP. Thanks!

On November 17 2014 22:59 Boonbag wrote:
it's hard to believe how naive people are after beeing through all this stuff

the announced changes and the fact lotv will be standalone is pure marketing towards "esports" customers

"oh hey we made mistakes cuz making a competitive RTS is so difficult we couldn't even make it right twice in a row, now the third time around, everything's going to be fine, come, buy again" lol
esports is only targeting of the hardcore gamers demographic, hardcore was pejorative, marketing changed hardcore into esports -

this has nothing to do with competitive gaming at all


You may be absolutely correct especially if we go off what's happened in the past, but I would very much rather be optimistic about the possibilities than completely lose all hope of improving Starcraft back to what it once was!

On November 17 2014 22:27 Startyr wrote:
There seems to be some contradictions here. In depth of micro saying there are small things your eyes miss but you can still recognise a great play. Then for prolonging battles, slowing battles down would be the equivalent of limiting the basketball players to a certain speed. The 3 guys Kobe spins past can then easily stop him, removing the chance for that amazing play.

A general reduction in unit damage and increasing splash would mean there is less need to gain the economy necessary to make a lot of units. Even just thinking of many of the recent homestory cup games that would never have been as great as they were.

Hit and run makes for interesting game play and micro, with blanket damage reduction all the units that are not good in straight up fights or dont have strong aoe will be unable to get anything done before they have to 'run'.
Altering the numbers on units defines what can be done with them, it is more interesting if they are flexible and can be used for more than a single function.

A blanket damage reduction defines certain units that can not get anything done in small numbers. Every unit interaction, say +1 zealots killing zerglings in 2 hits instead of 3, drastically changing their efficiency.
Upgrades mean far less if they dont line up with certain breakpoints. changing the numbers on units needs far more thought put into them than a blanket damage reduction.


I can see where you are coming from. I think a better analogy though is that yes, Kobe spinning past three guys is slowed down, giving the three guys an opportunity to stop him, but Kobe also has more time to make even sicker plays to get past them regardless. As it currently stands, it's almost as if Kobe isn't spinning at all, it's moving so quickly that he simply can't spin - he is just running past the three guys in a straight line and neither side has any opportunity to do anything flashy.

I do agree with you that if we do reduce unit damage / increase health across the board, we want to preserve those unique unit interactions such as the zealot +1 upgrade interaction. Although to be honest I don't think we have many problems with too high of DPS at the lower end of the spectrum, it's really once we start getting to Tier 2 and Tier 3 units that we begin seeing huge damage increases that are contributing to the 5 second battles. So I guess I'm mostly referring to those units that we need to reduce damage for, down to things a bit more reasonable.

On November 18 2014 01:54 Jazzman88 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!


Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.

Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.


Of course! Thanks for contributing to the discussion! ^^
Check out my stream at www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=315053 and follow me on Twitter @EGSuppy! :)
ShiroKaisen
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States1082 Posts
November 17 2014 21:48 GMT
#66
On November 17 2014 17:47 Grumbels wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 17 2014 15:45 ShiroKaisen wrote:
Yeah, in a game like Street Fighter or Marvel, it looks like using your super or a specific combo attack is as easy as pressing a button, but reliably executing the stick movements to use your correct technique under pressure with a 100% success rate is actually not as easy as it sounds. I'd call that "invisible" skill.

Don't all fighting games suffer from that? The differences in skill can be vast but when you watch a game you just see someone jumping and kicking. With BW you always can see the effort put in.


And I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. I'm saying that even if you don't know exactly how hard it is to do what a fighting game player does, you can appreciate the overall effect of the gameplay.

The same applies to BW, moving shot included.
Dame da na, zenzen dame da ze!
NEEDZMOAR
Profile Blog Joined December 2011
Sweden1277 Posts
November 18 2014 10:48 GMT
#67
On November 18 2014 01:54 Jazzman88 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 18 2014 00:23 NEEDZMOAR wrote:
Nice read! I for one would love blizzard to just remove forcefields and the need for them in the game, they destroy so much micro potential, they make it very easy for protoss to deflect hatch/lair ground unit armies and I honestly think they are one of the big troublemakers when it comes to the need of Swarmhosts and passive games. Perhaps with a different unit movement (and of course stronger gateway units and weaker warpin mechanic and nerfed support units) that would be possible!


Aren't they already trying to do that via unit skills with the Ravager? Let's be honest, Sentries are not a unit you generally make en masse versus Terran in nearly all game situations. Frankly, if you're getting ranged upgrades, you can afford to build some Roaches, then morph Ravagers and just run the Protoss over with Hydra-ling after their first Forcefield line gets shattered.

Edit: @Suppy, Thanks for the response, your reasoning makes more sense to me now.



While everything you said is true, it will stick to the "x unit hardcounter y unit" design that ZvP/PvZ is right now, which I heavily dislike. While ravagers nullify forcefields I feel it would be a better game if both races had more options.
Xiphias
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Norway2223 Posts
November 19 2014 00:12 GMT
#68
On November 18 2014 00:03 Laertes wrote:
Speaking of Starbow, perhaps we should convince them to make a version for the LoTV economy to see how it works back to back with BW economy.


Poll: Should Starbow Make a "LotV Economy" Version?

Yes! (6)
 
46%

No! (5)
 
38%

Yes, but I wouldn't play it. (1)
 
8%

Why? (1)
 
8%

Yes, and I would play it a lot (0)
 
0%

13 total votes

Your vote: Should Starbow Make a "LotV Economy" Version?

(Vote): Yes!
(Vote): No!
(Vote): Yes, but I wouldn't play it.
(Vote): Yes, and I would play it a lot
(Vote): Why?




We had this eco in Starbow (except 12 starting workers) and it worked much worse than our current eco. Players were forced to expand instead on encouraged and you'd end up never having many mining bases at all since they ran out so fast. BW eco is far superior, especially for Starbow.
aka KanBan85. Working on Starbow.
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-20 01:34:44
November 20 2014 01:32 GMT
#69
I think the economy part has the best chances of going though. The other parts have about zero chance.

And I'm not so sure an isolated economy change makes much of a difference anyway when supplies get inflated to max so rapidly. Without time to build a bank before supplies even out, the entire point of rewarding more bases sort of gets lost. When you play PvT in BW for example, as a Protoss the reason you expand aggressively is to build a remax bank by the time the turtling terran moves out with 2-2 upgraded 200 supply mech. If you play a game where that 200 timing hits 7 minutes earlier, I'm not sure you get the same effect.

Though in the case of compositions like swarmhosts, you could argue that there doesn't exist a timing to begin with. There is just endless turtling. So it could work out anyway.

Sigh. Nice post.
salle
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Sweden5554 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-20 01:50:30
November 20 2014 01:48 GMT
#70
Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.
Administrator"Ambitious but rubbish!" - Jeremy Clarkson
KDot2
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
United States1213 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-20 04:18:50
November 20 2014 04:18 GMT
#71
Im not sure if this has been discussed Ill read the whole thread tommorow but how can we realistically get Blizzard to see this if they already haven't? Does it need posted on Blizz forums ? Its extremely well written and Suppy is a pretty notable member of the community. I really wish they would take some of his advice.
NEEDZMOAR
Profile Blog Joined December 2011
Sweden1277 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-20 17:43:58
November 20 2014 17:42 GMT
#72
On November 20 2014 10:48 salle wrote:
Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.



thats actually a good way to break the 3 base cap on eco without making worker ai worse or fiddle with the actual mining. Maybe expand on it and separate the further and the closer nodes even more to increase the impact?
Superiorwolf
Profile Blog Joined March 2007
United States5509 Posts
November 20 2014 19:38 GMT
#73
I also think that's a good idea because if there isn't sufficient change, map makers themselves can do it. However it has been proposed before (to have like 1 or 2 gold patches per base to encourage expanding) but not really implemented. Because of the ladder system with fixed maps I think it would probably be hard to get everyone to adopt a map makers change unless all tournaments agreed to try it
Check out my stream at www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=315053 and follow me on Twitter @EGSuppy! :)
jume76
Profile Joined November 2014
Germany5 Posts
November 23 2014 01:45 GMT
#74
Well written. Hopefully Blizzard takes this into consideration.
LaLuSh
Profile Blog Joined April 2003
Sweden2358 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-11-24 23:35:51
November 24 2014 23:33 GMT
#75
On November 20 2014 10:48 salle wrote:
Isn't one way to kinda fix the income to be a bit less cut and dry to not place so many minerals at the shortest distance but spread them out more (like it was on a lot of BW maps with some close some intermediate and a some far, rather than as many as possibly close and a few intermediate)? the effect wont be as big since the pathing is better but it will still mean that people would start by harvesting the closest patches and then eventually get to the furthest ones, but also the closest patches would be mined out first (especially for terrans with mules) making the bases less efficient the older it gets without reverting to 0 as drastically as it would with sc2 style mineral placement.


I've seen this suggestion and experimented with it 2-3 years ago.

What I think happens:

You have to spread out the mineral nodes substantially to get an effect with this (the kind of effect where players ignore saturating farther patches for nearer ones). In fact you have to put the farther patches like 3 grids back to change the saturation of the patch to require 3 workers per patch.

For starters that looks really ugly. Base layouts would be hideous. I wouldn't put it past Blizzard to care about aesthetics.

But then there is a secondary problem to it as well: Workers don't arrive with perfect timing to relieve each other on the nearer patches in SC2. And as long as you have one mineral patch in the vicinity which has 0 assigned harvesters on it, the worker AI works exactly like BW. That is: they always and immediately bounce towards the patch with 0 assigned harvester when reaching an occupied node.

You can't maintain 2 workers/patch on the nearer patches without heavily babysitting them or having at least 1 worker on each farther patch. So having 8 workers on a base and only utilizing the nearer patches was not possible, because they would self-regulate and bounce to the farther patches with 0 assigned harvesters on them.

So in order for this to work you needed at least 12 workers on a base (and it's true, then, that the nearer patches mined out faster than the farther ones). Another forced solution would be to move back the nearer patches one grid so the workers on nearer patches wouldn't disrupt each other.

But the question is whether players would use the bases as we think they would, or if they'd just saturate the farther patches anyway while staying on a lower base amount. 20 workers would be near optimal instead of the current 16. It's a difference from what we have now. But I'm not 100% sure it's enough of a difference to where players are incentivized to ignore the farthest patches.

It might just have proved to have the reverse effect in competitive play. Delayed expansions further. Especially because of the AI annoyance where you need to have 12 workers on a base in order to make full use of the nearer patches.
salle
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
Sweden5554 Posts
November 25 2014 04:06 GMT
#76
I do think this would have a lot of unforeseen consequences (which is part of the charm I think) since it widens the grey area of when to expand.
I like the idea of widening the node placement since that also increases the area that the workers occupy which can lead to better harassment opportunities or at least bigger costs associated with protecting from harassment.
But there are other ways of giving these diminishing returns based on workers at a base, everything from slowing down the movement speed of workers carrying resources* to straight up mathematical % "fee" per active worker to having a longer mining times for certain minerals (Sort of like reversing the gold or actually simply if you want to do it the other way, introduce two gold nodes per base, which increases the worth of those two nodes.)

I don't think increasing the speed with which people expand will make the game more exciting per se, but I think increasing the consequences and opportunities when to do so is the interesting choice. And also increasing the cost of turtleing.

(*this would maybe also solve the issue of 2 workers spreading out from a node)
Administrator"Ambitious but rubbish!" - Jeremy Clarkson
purakushi
Profile Joined August 2012
United States3300 Posts
November 26 2014 21:48 GMT
#77
Hoping Blizzard has seen/sees this post.

Last chance, Blizzard.
T P Z sagi
Prev 1 2 3 4 All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 8h 22m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 231
RuFF_SC2 176
NeuroSwarm 147
StarCraft: Brood War
Artosis 833
NaDa 87
LuMiX 7
Icarus 5
Dota 2
monkeys_forever627
League of Legends
febbydoto15
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K588
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox756
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor163
Other Games
summit1g16545
JimRising 929
shahzam731
WinterStarcraft360
Maynarde205
ViBE185
Livibee78
ROOTCatZ14
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick5344
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 16 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH346
• davetesta48
• gosughost_ 27
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift7069
• Rush1404
Other Games
• Scarra1973
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
8h 22m
Replay Cast
1d 7h
WardiTV European League
1d 13h
PiGosaur Monday
1d 21h
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
The PondCast
3 days
Replay Cast
3 days
Epic.LAN
4 days
CranKy Ducklings
5 days
[ Show More ]
Epic.LAN
5 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
5 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Sparkling Tuna Cup
6 days
Online Event
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Liquipedia Results

Completed

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
Championship of Russia 2025
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters

Upcoming

CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
K-Championship
RSL Revival: Season 2
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.