• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 16:14
CEST 22:14
KST 05:14
  • 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 Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0
Community News
Firefly 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 China10Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL72
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Server Blocker RSL Revival patreon money discussion thread RSL Season 1 - Final Week TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners
Tourneys
RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo) $25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BW General Discussion A cwal.gg Extension - Easily keep track of anyone Script to open stream directly using middle click ASL20 Preliminary Maps
Tourneys
2025 ACS Season 2 Qualifier [Megathread] Daily Proleagues Small VOD Thread 2.0 Last Minute Live-Report Thread Resource!
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Path of Exile Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread 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
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine The Accidental Video Game Porn Archive Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
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: 692 users

A Nod to the Construction Yard

Blogs > waywardstrategy
Post a Reply
waywardstrategy
Profile Blog Joined October 2015
United States62 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-07-06 23:10:58
July 06 2020 23:10 GMT
#1
Read the blog post at its original location here: waywardstrategy.com

Writing about conventions specific to a particular strategy game franchise sometimes fills me with a little bit of dread. Longtime fans of the particular franchise of my focus possibly or probably have a fine degree of specialized knowledge about it that I might lack, and the topic is unlikely to interest the broader population of strategy game fans or gamers who don't share a major interest in the specific mechanics of whatever game or franchise I'm concerned with at the time.

And regardless, that's not going to stop me. At the very least, I am happy to learn from players and designers who know more than I do, and at the very least I enjoy getting people talking about RTS design.

In this case, I've been playing and watching more than my fair share (what my wife might call an 'unhealthy amount' whatever that's supposed to mean) of Command and Conquer games. There's the remaster, of course, which has actually captivated me in a way that I confess I wasn't expecting of a 25 year old game. But also I've made my way back to Command and Conquer 3 and Red Alert 3 (only skirmish at this point: I'm nowhere near skilled enough to engage with those games' current competitive communities) and it's made me fall in love with the franchise all over again.

The Command and Conquer is built around a number of systems that I absolutely love, from its resource harvesting system to how it handles base building. And it's that I want to talk about right now: base building. In particular, the Construction Yard/MCV.

The Humble ConYard
[image loading]

It's quite common in RTS games to have a generic worker unit responsible for gathering resources and producing structures. Age of Empires games do this, as of course to Blizzard games and even Command and Conquer: Generals. Total Annihilation style games utilize 'engineer' units that are specialized builders, et cetera. You get it. The vast preponderance of RTS games use builder units anyway.

But not, of course, Command and Conquer style games. They are relatively rare in the genre in that they have a structure that produces other structures.

Let's get this out of the way up front: in terms of a visual metaphor for construction and production, a building that can magically construct another building at long range is... a little strange, a little ridiculous. But in all honesty, a guy in a robot suit building a giant vehicle factory all by himself is a similarly unrealistic truncation of how buildings are constructed in reality. So, I'll call that a wash.

[image loading]
SCVs aren't substantially more 'realistic' than ConYards, in my humble opinion. Not that 'realism' tends to be a good indication of quality in RTS by itself anyway. We'll get to the mechanics in a bit.

I'm not going to go too much further down that particular rabbit hole though. Suffice to say, the method by which structures are produced in what I call, loosely, the "Command & Conquer model" differs from worker-based construction seen in a variety of other gameplay systems, like the ones mentioned above.

What's more interesting to me personally is all of the various implications that come from such a system.

We're going to look at a number of those implications in depth, including: how the ConYard production model changes how players are able to harass each others' economy, how the ConYard impacts economic and tech tree progression, what 'build radius' means for RTS games, and how base expansion works in Command and Conquer games thanks to the (mostly) single point of failure that is the ConYard.

Single Threading
[image loading]

C&C games restrict you, at least in the beginning, to building one structure at a time. Is that a bad thing?

RTS games demand a lot of their player: you're constantly producing new units and structures and trying to get information on what your opponent is up to, trying to expand and ensure the safety of your infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera, until the game is over.

Additionally, the beginning of a match in any game tends to be kind of fraught with tough decisions that are made even tougher by the fact that whatever you choose to do might not adequately prepare you for, or otherwise appropriately address, whatever it is that your opponent is up to.

Command and Conquer games have an interesting take on this. First off, they provide the player with a lot of resources right out of the gate, something again that a lot of strategy games don't do (for various reasons). Another thing they do is to restrict the player to building one structure at a time.

And that's a bad thing? Right?

Many players might think so, and it definitely is a trade-off. Most RTS allow the player to build as many structures at once as they have the money to support. It's not uncommon in StarCraft or Age of Empires, for example, to have 3 or more buildings in production at any one time, and obviously this is the case in Total Annihilation or Supreme Commander as well.

Command and Conquer though tends to favor a somewhat smaller number of structures, for one thing. Comparing C&C games to something like StarCraft: players, even in the newer games, seldom have more than 1 or 2 production structures at a time and no more than a handful of refineries. Compare this to the dozen or so Barracks a Terran players needs in StarCraft 2 by the end game, to say nothing of all of the Supply Depots or Pylons you're going to be building.

But with ConYards in Command and Conquer games, you don't have to worry about being supply blocked or having a 9th production structure (this might be less true for Tiberian Sun or Red Alert 2). The nature of that single thread design is that each structure is a major building block of your strategy. It provides a remarkable amount of choice and clarity that might be lacking from a game with a lot more production going on. Deciding when to put out your first Refinery versus your first Barracks is a significant decision.

This also allows for any building kill to be effective harass: with a limited opportunity to rebuild lost structures, a single Power Plant that needs to be re-made is a major impact to a player's strategy. Or a single Refinery, or any other single structure for that matter.

[image loading]

In a game of the scale of Supreme Commander, a small army being lost, or a single firebase consisting of a series of defensive structures, isn't necessarily enough to put you on the back foot. But because of the economy scaling in Command and Conquer, things are very different. Add to this how quickly some buildings can die or change hands (being captured by an Engineer, for instance) and, on either side of the equation, you have a lot of room to punish your opponent or to make a comeback.

Again, that's a bit of a trade-off. Single-threading can lead to situations that force a player to pump out structures as fast as possible or fall behind: a couple of seconds gap between one building being finished and another one starting up can put one player behind in ways that can leave them vulnerable to being attacked or falling behind economically or militarily. This is something that can happen in a game with more stuff to build but with the C&C model there's a lot less room to mess up which means each mistake or delay is felt more keenly.

For this reason, newer Command and Conquer games have opened up the 'single threading' restriction: adding a unique build queue for each production structure (you still almost never need more than 1 or 2, of each, but it can help and does allow for a wide variety of strategies based on mass production), unique build queues for each ConYard, and in C&C3 and Red Alert 3, cranes which have their own limited build queue. But, unlike in most other RTS, whether or not the player wants or needs the extra production potential is a strategic choice and not mandated by mechanics.

Additionally, and importantly, moving defensive structures into a separate build queue from other structures allows players to react defensively while still focusing on their economy.

The ability to have defensive options in their own build queue does offset the downside of single threading I mention above (regarding falling behind) by allowing players to protect themselves from early game harassment with the tactical deployment of a turret or wall, which creates a harassment system that I feel is both more obvious and has more counter-play since it doesn't rely on vulnerable workers to move to and place the reactive defensive options.

To summarize this section before moving on:
• Single threading makes each building placement meaningful and allows for any structure kill to disrupt build order and therefore be a meaningful harassment
• The placement of each structure is significant, which makes it easier to define a strategy based on the placement of only a handful of buildings
• Defensive structures getting their own build queue helps offset some of the downsides of single-threading

Build Radius
[image loading]

Some RTS restrict where you can place structures. The Zerg in StarCraft 2, for instance, can only build on Creep (with the exception of the Hatchery and their Extractor structures of course). And of course, if you know anything about Command and Conquer, you know about build radius.

It changes function based on which title you're playing, but basically you're restricted to build structures in a certain proximity either to the ConYard itself or to other structures. The newer generation of C&C titles: Red Alert 3 and Command and Conquer 3 in particular, have specific units which can deploy to produce their own build radius, as a way to expand to another area of the map.

As I said above, this is kind of a tradeoff from how some other other RTS handle base design. Proxies aren't really possible in Command and Conquer games the way they're thought of in other RTS, and hiding tech is difficult too.

This also makes 'expanding' to a new area of the map non-trivial, requiring the player to produce an expensive build-radius producing unit, or to physically move their MCV somewhere else and slow down their tech progression, since they can't build anything while the MCV is moving and re-deploying (this is mostly true in Red Alert 3 and Command and Conquer 3).

In older C&C games, players often 'chain' their structures across the map to move build radius toward new resource patches, sometimes selling off unneeded buildings after they've got their Refinery into optimal harvesting positions in order to recoup resources and limit the vulnerable surface area of their base.

To me, though, this is an endlessly interesting series of tradeoffs and decisions. And, to boot, it's a lot easier to understand the implications of packing up your production potential and walking it across the map than it is to allocate some percentage of your early income to a different worker ratio or to produce a new town center or command center instead of a some more barracks. It's a clear and dramatic decision to pack up your building into a unit, pausing all of your production potential, and move it across the map somewhere else.

[image loading]

I have come to really love the dynamic of players moving their MCV around the map, particularly in Red Alert 3 and Command and Conquer 3, in order to support their strategy. It's one of the easiest ways to acquire new resources, expand production to a new area, and there's even a precedent in Red Alert 3 for using the MCV offensively since it can crush smaller vehicles.

I want to keep going on about how much I love the ability to move an MCV around the map, with all its attendant complications and limitations and tactical and strategic uses, but I find it difficult. It's really easier to see and do than it is to describe in an effective way.
I love systems that provide both clarity and depth, and the MCV is one of my favorites (especially as in the later Command and Conquer titles).

Single point of failure?
[image loading]

Hands down, the most fascinating part of the design of Command and Conquer games is how players are able to continue to compete, and even to succeed, with almost nothing. C&C Remastered games often come down to one player selling off almost all of their structures in an attempt to kill or capture the enemy base. I've seen Tiberium Wars matches won by a single ranked-up air unit. Routinely, players compete and win after their ConYard is killed off.

Partially, this is due to the limited number of structures required in order to play. A single vehicle factory, a couple of functional Harvesters and Refineries, you might have a chance. This is, of course, not guaranteed, and is not totally dependent on the design of the MCV or Construction Yard. A lot of it has to do with how the economy scales in C&C games.

Worker-Based Construction

[image loading]

In games with worker-based construction, killing a player's workers is one of the baseline considerations. Killing and protecting workers is a huge part of the game, and is a granular one. Meaning, the player will typically have a large number of workers proportional to the number of their total assets, so the loss of each worker is relatively minor.

The trouble with this, in my mind, is due to 2 main factors. First, when a player loses a worker, they seldom lose only one at a time. This has a cascading impact on player economy because the workers themselves require resources to purchase, which delays economic growth due to the lost workers and also puts an additional economic burden on the player due to the cost of the new workers. Secondly, the replacement of these workers takes time, which further hampers the player's ability to catch up to their opponent.

In this way, what seems to be a granular and binary way to gain a slight advantage has a tendency to snowball into a larger problem. With Command and Conquer's approach, losing a power plant or production structure is a single choice from being in a competitive place again.

Also, with the ability to sell off assets, the player can refine their strategy by getting rid of other buildings (or units in some cases) in order to shore up their economy.

Conclusion

[image loading]

Thanks for coming on this ride with me. I know every RTS system has a lot of tradeoffs, and that there's a lot more that could be said about the MCV and Construction Yard. I hope this little look into my favorite bits of its design has been interesting. Please share your thoughts with me on the topic of C&C, worker-based RTS design, or any other strategy game topic that comes to mind when reading.

Thanks, and see you on the battlefield!

Read the blog post at its original location here: waywardstrategy.com

****
SlammerIV
Profile Joined December 2013
United States526 Posts
July 07 2020 16:40 GMT
#2
Honestly I do think CnC 3 and Generals are both severely underrated as fun competitive games.
Archeon
Profile Joined May 2011
3253 Posts
Last Edited: 2020-07-07 19:57:07
July 07 2020 19:48 GMT
#3
I always thought that zone of control was less intuitive than just building stuff with workers in terms of limitations and spreading mechanics.

Imo CnC's system is perfectly fine for a casual environment where expanding doesn't play a role, but it mainly replaces the worker spam and I don't get the impression that limiting building cycles changes the dynamic that much. You are still limited by your resource output and you still do buildorders to fit your economic output to your attack timings. Eco wise I think comparing workers to loosing a power plant is the wrong comparison, it's imo more comparable to loosing a refinery, which is a pretty huge deal especially early on.

I prefer more fluid systems like DoW or BfME where you often play for mapcontrol rather than for doom-pushes. Imo that leaves more room for harassment and comebacks especially on the larger maps.
Tbf CnC's system is less snowball heavy since your production is still limited no matter how strong your eco is. So if one side greeds and the other misses the attack timing it isn't over that quickly.

Tbf I haven't played CnC mp on a competitive level, it might be much deeper than my impression of it. What little I've seen mostly seemed like having a bit better macro game or a bit cleaner execution would still win the game.
low gravity, yes-yes!
imBLIND
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States2626 Posts
July 08 2020 09:22 GMT
#4
There's a lot of random thoughts and issues that I have with CnC's finite queue system, but one of my main gripes is that you can't really scout + react in most CnC games because you can't see the structure until after it has been placed. This means that you would need to anticipate your opponent's build order instead of reacting on information that you scout with. Because of this, I feel that CnC is much more one-dimensional than it could be.
im deaf
waywardstrategy
Profile Blog Joined October 2015
United States62 Posts
July 08 2020 15:11 GMT
#5
On July 08 2020 18:22 imBLIND wrote:
There's a lot of random thoughts and issues that I have with CnC's finite queue system, but one of my main gripes is that you can't really scout + react in most CnC games because you can't see the structure until after it has been placed. This means that you would need to anticipate your opponent's build order instead of reacting on information that you scout with. Because of this, I feel that CnC is much more one-dimensional than it could be.


This is something I had considered but I hadn't thought was a major issue. However, you're right: scouting is a major issue in C&C games especially since players start out with a lot of cash. There's a lot of nasty rush strategies that can be employed (including the Engineer/APC rush) and VERY small windows for players to scout them. I don't know that the 'can't see the structure until it's placed' is the core of that though. A bigger part of the issue is that by the time infantry have crossed the map to scout, bombers or Shadow Teams or Cryocopters or what have you might already be in your base wrecking your infrastructure.

I think dismissing C&C as one-dimensional is a bit off though
imBLIND
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States2626 Posts
July 11 2020 20:10 GMT
#6
On July 09 2020 00:11 waywardstrategy wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 08 2020 18:22 imBLIND wrote:
There's a lot of random thoughts and issues that I have with CnC's finite queue system, but one of my main gripes is that you can't really scout + react in most CnC games because you can't see the structure until after it has been placed. This means that you would need to anticipate your opponent's build order instead of reacting on information that you scout with. Because of this, I feel that CnC is much more one-dimensional than it could be.


This is something I had considered but I hadn't thought was a major issue. However, you're right: scouting is a major issue in C&C games especially since players start out with a lot of cash. There's a lot of nasty rush strategies that can be employed (including the Engineer/APC rush) and VERY small windows for players to scout them. I don't know that the 'can't see the structure until it's placed' is the core of that though. A bigger part of the issue is that by the time infantry have crossed the map to scout, bombers or Shadow Teams or Cryocopters or what have you might already be in your base wrecking your infrastructure.

I think dismissing C&C as one-dimensional is a bit off though


When I said one-dimensional, I mean that the game is going towards that direction. All RTS games are multi-dimensional, much more so than any other genre out there. But if we were to count the number of mechanisms, build orders, strategies, and interactions between the factions in CnC, it feels much more one-dimensional than SC. Maybe I'm just being biased due to being spoiled from playing SC for so long.

To elaborate on what I mean, there are 2 forms of scout -> react cycle in CnC, both of which involve scouting units. One of these cycles is "he builds X unit, I build Y unit", and the other is "his army/base is at X part of the map, lets go attack there." There is no scout-react cycle involving "he is constructing X building, so I need to adjust my build order to compensate for that" because all buildings are hidden from the opposing player until the building is placed down...at that point, you'd be reacting to what unit he makes, not the building itself. If scouting buildings is not as useful or practical in CnC than the other scouting , that's one less thing you have to do or worry about.

Another point you bring up is the pace of the game. I think the finite queue structure + the MCV forces the game develop at a fixed pace. The good thing about this is that you'll see most of the tech tree options being used at least occasionally, whereas in a game like BW you never see ghosts, scouts, or infested terrans due to other options being better and the game progressing too quickly. The bad thing about this is that CNC games tend to be longer, slower, and more likely to be focused on a single front stalemate. Slow RTS games doesn't necessarily mean that the game is more one-dimensional, but it certainly makes the game feel less strategical as you're waiting for your superweapon or critical mass to build up...
im deaf
farhanasif
Profile Joined February 2025
1 Post
Last Edited: 2025-02-21 13:05:42
February 21 2025 10:30 GMT
#7
Bot edit.

User was banned for this post.
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
DaveTesta Events
18:00
Kirktown Ready Room #3
davetesta150
Liquipedia
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
18:00
RO8 Round Robin Group - Day 1
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
ZZZero.O297
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
BRAT_OK 116
StarCraft: Brood War
ZZZero.O 297
HiyA 107
LaStScan 105
Dota 2
syndereN319
monkeys_forever254
LuMiX1
League of Legends
Grubby4897
Dendi1175
Counter-Strike
fl0m1780
Stewie2K692
flusha454
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor502
Other Games
B2W.Neo1327
mouzStarbuck140
ToD130
Hui .109
Pyrionflax91
Sick78
Trikslyr64
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick52434
StarCraft 2
angryscii 48
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 22 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• kabyraGe 197
• printf 72
• StrangeGG 59
• tFFMrPink 25
• Legendk 9
• OhrlRock 1
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
StarCraft: Brood War
• Michael_bg 2
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• masondota21224
League of Legends
• Doublelift2818
• Jankos2453
Other Games
• imaqtpie1999
• Shiphtur343
Upcoming Events
Sparkling Tuna Cup
13h 46m
RSL Revival
13h 46m
Classic vs Clem
FEL
18h 46m
Elazer vs Spirit
Gerald vs MaNa
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
21h 46m
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Wardi Open
1d 14h
Replay Cast
2 days
WardiTV European League
2 days
PiGosaur Monday
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Epic.LAN
5 days
CranKy Ducklings
6 days
Epic.LAN
6 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
6 days
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
Liquipedia Results

Completed

KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
HSC XXVII
NC Random Cup

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
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 Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
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.