|
On June 13 2015 20:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Sure, but this isn't about implementing anything 1:1. But rather take a concept from a community suggestion (like 0 damage point) and find a way to put it into the game. Or at least they could give responses to those who spend a lot of time trying to make indepth/wellthoughtout feedback in order to constructive behavior (and thereby deincentivize rants). Show nested quote +Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. Honestly, those things barely matter.
I think they do matter, a lot.
The unit scan range fix takes out a random element, making the gameplay mechanic more accountable.
The clock change is a big plus for new or inexperienced players. Blizzard has to cater to all players.
On June 13 2015 20:52 Hider wrote:
Instead the below are some more relevant issues they should be expanding on:
[...]
I guess that there are answers for most of those questions, which we are either not aware of, or would not like (and therefore find it hard to accept as valid answer.)
I also agree that some mechanics like the force field is a source of constant frustration.
As this is an expansion though, the developers probably want to stick with most of the existing artwork and gameplay. LotV tries to be an improvement upon HotS, it is not Starcraft re-invented.
In my daily work experience I see what it means to have limited resources. Our team leaders always make decision what we do next. That means, other things have to wait, many of them indefinitely. There is too much feedback, even internally in the company.
|
On June 13 2015 20:55 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:47 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 20:11 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. Most of them, sure, but something like this http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/433944-depth-of-micro ? That's just not justifiable. The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period. Also, there's more to it than just "they dont listen to our suggestions". It is actually impossible to have anything remotely resembling a dialogue with them. "The game would be better with that kind of unit control, period." Do you know that (in a provable sense) or do you just feel so? If I read Lalush's article, I would agree with you; but I am no game developer nor have I years of experience in developing SC2. On June 13 2015 20:14 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 20:01 [F_]aths wrote:On June 13 2015 18:40 Teoita wrote:On June 13 2015 17:52 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:Everyone here who's unsatisfied with how this beta is going should listen to Nathanias go ham on Blizzard. It's amazing to hear this coming from a WCS caster. http://www.twitch.tv/nathanias/v/6108995?t=4h23m27sAlthough I disagree with him when he says the TL economy model is "complete trash", I still think it hasn't been tested enough. Yea he brings up some good points, the most important of which being it's absolutely impossible for any community suggestion to have a chance at being implemented. It's incredibly frustrating. I am with a company which develops a software application. I am no developer, but part of the technical support team and have a front-row seat to see that we get a lot of suggestions from our community. Most of them are not too useful. As a general theme which applies to almost any suggestion we get, is the scope of the suggestion. It would benefit this user and possibly a very small percentage of other users as well. But we have to focus on the general goal. In this sense, I understand Blizzard's hesitation to implement community suggestions. There is a huge difference here in the relevancy of community suggestions since consumers spend hours and hours on the product and has access to the same level of information and should have the same goals (better gameplay/design) as the developers. That's not to say that 99% of suggestions aren't bad, but what about the 1%? Our users also spend endless hours on your application. We also get valuable feedback, pointing out the weaknesses of our user interface, allowing us to fix things in future releases. We also implement features based on demand. But we almost never take a suggestion and implement it 1:1. Instead we very carefully consider how to serve our >100.000 users best. Every line code written for one feature is missing on another one. But back to the topic. Blizzard did change things after community feedback, take the unit scan range and the real-time clock. "Better design" is empty without providing a concrete design. That is also what Nathanias' rant was missing. "Just" better design? How to do that without recreating the entire game from the ground-up? The only comparison we have (to my knowledge) is BW, which just so happens to be the best game of all time in no small part because of that kind of unit control. It's a really small sample size but yes, i'd say confidently that if basic units were more microable without adding a ton of extra buttons to click for the sake of micro, the game would feel and play better.
... for you.
If you would be tasked with the job of creating SC2, and if you know that your future as well as of your colleagues depend on the game being a commercial success, would you actually try to copy BW which had wide-spread success in one country only?
|
I wonder if it would be possible to implement the armor reduction drone as a stationary ward with an aura rather than as a single-target unit.
|
Italy12248 Posts
On June 13 2015 21:49 [F_]aths wrote:
BW had wide-spread success in one country only
wat
|
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
|
I guess that there are answers for most of those questions, which we are either not aware of, or would not like (and therefore find it hard to accept as valid answer.)
This is exactly why they should communicate more.
As this is an expansion though, the developers probably want to stick with most of the existing artwork and gameplay. LotV tries to be an improvement upon HotS, it is not Starcraft re-invented.
Artwork? Noone is talking about that. Redesigns of units can also easily be done without any programmers.
But redesigning units and gameplay is exactly what you should do in an expansion. Especially since the gameplay had to be reworked anyway due to new econ changes. The same thing with the Sentry which already is getting less relevant in LOTV. If they just at least could say that they within the next 1-2 months will begin a rework of the Sentry to make it fit into LOTV (or something like that) it would do wonders. But saying nothing is just frustrating.
In my daily work experience I see what it means to have limited resources. Our team leaders always make decision what we do next. That means, other things have to wait, many of them indefinitely. There is too much feedback, even internally in the company.
Honestly its not as timeconsuming as you may think to redesign units if you have a strong theoretical understanding of what creates fun micro interactions and gameplay. Alot of the abilities can be created and "decently" balanced in less than an hour if you have good editor-knowledge.
Giving well-reasoned responses to highquality community feedback shouldn't take more than 10-20 minutes a day either since you as a developer already should know all of the answers in advance.
The question (which noone knows the answer) to is why it seems to take forever for Blizzard to do anything and once they finally add new stuff into the beta its frequently poorly balanced and doesn't have a fun impact on the game.
The unit scan range fix takes out a random element, making the gameplay mechanic more accountable.
The clock change is a big plus for new or inexperienced players. Blizzard has to cater to all players.
Both these changes should be considered as bugfixes, and you will have a difficult time finding a casual player buying LOTV mainly because of these changes. In my opinion there are much better ways improve the casual experience. Mainly by reducing the importance of buildorderwins, improving the defenders advantage and giving protoss a solid core army. Exactly the opposite of what Blizzard actuallly has done!
|
i dont think i should be following development of lotv, just getting disappointed. I will just wait for the finished product.
|
On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
not really, there were not that many who actually played BW 1v1 but followed the esport scene.
that being said, BW enjoyed a good period of no competition and had a lot of time to grow.
even then AFAIK a lot of chinese followed WC3 after it is released and BW is quickly "abandoned" in net cafe, especially when dota gets big.
|
On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either.
There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses.
Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite.
Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2.
|
On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2.
#1. 200/200 limitations
#2. Deathbally gameplay
#3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, stalker, sentry, nydus, and now overlords)
#4. Superfast battles
#5. Superfast economy and time compression
The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid.
+ You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4.
+ Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3
+ Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself.
+ So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy
+ Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy
This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
|
On June 13 2015 23:53 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2. #1. 200/200 limitations #2. Deathbally gameplay #3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords) #4. Superfast battles #5. Superfast economy and time compression The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid. + You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4. + Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3 + Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself. + So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy + Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
If it's the worst game ever. Don't play it and ignore all forums and streams with it.
|
200/200 limitations
This doesn't add more or less action in itself and is also uncorrelated to coinflippiness.
Deathbally gameplay
Reduces action, and has nothing to with coinlippiness.
Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords)
Increases action, but with the exception of when they are used as early game allins, their efficiency is related to the mechanical skill of the user and his opponent, and thus doens't increase coinflippiness.
Superfast battles
Battles are superfast because movement/retreating typically isn't properly rewarded as it is in BW, so you can't live to fight "another day". Damage values in Sc2 are generally lower than in BW. But superfast battles also doesn't make the game more coinflippy. Rather it can make the game less forgiving as one small mistakes gets punished harder.
Superfast economy and time compression
Only a problem if it makes early game cheese/timing attacks stronger without an reliable scouting counters.
You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4.
No you can't split up your army as the defenders advantage isn't high enough for units in low numbers. But this also has nothing to with action and coinflippines.
Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3
The main reasons why units can't be out on the map is either due to them not being able of escaping/too slow or because the game is too reliant on critical mass so you need your whole army to defend a location. (also related to defenders advantage). As a counterexample, tvz is very harassheavy in hots, but both players can easily have their armies out on the map.
So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy
Basetrade scenarios aren't related to harass but rather counterattacks with your whole army. This is typically a consequence of a lack of defenders advantage (once again) and too low mobility. Harass on the other hand is more related to small armies being "annoying".
|
On June 13 2015 23:53 jotmang-nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 23:29 Hider wrote:On June 13 2015 22:38 Charoisaur wrote:
I think the fundamental problem with their approach to LotV is as TheDwf has pointed out ( I don't agree with everything he says but imo he is 100% spot on in this specific case) that their priority is to please the spectators instead of the players.
All of their changes look like they just want to have more ACTION ACTION ACTION and more HARASS HARASS HARASS but they are forgetting that a game with so much aggression isn't very fun to the players because it will lead to very coinflippy games that instantly end because of one succesful attack.
A game which isn't played by players won't be watched either. There are signiciantly flaws with that logic; mainly that the game doesn't become more coinflippy with more aggression and harass. In fact, its frequently the opposite as it gives room for more micro interactions and mutittasking which increases the skillcap. Instead the game becomes more coinflippy when you have no reliable way of dealing with all the types of strategies the enemy can throw at you, and instead have to "guess" which specific strategy the enemy chooses. Harass on the other hand is some of the least coinflippy type of aggression you can have since a "single harass" cannot win you the game, but you need to do it over a longer period/frequently to win the game. When something needs to be done multiple times it reduces the variance and therefore the efficiency of harass becomes more related to raw mechanics than luck. All-ins on the other hand are the opposite. Strong timing attacks can also function well into Sc2, but only if it is combined with a defenders advantage that allows you to "fall-back" and live to fight another day, Unfortunately it seems that Blizzard either isn't aware that this option exists or isn't capable of implementing such a design into Sc2. #1. 200/200 limitations #2. Deathbally gameplay #3. Terrain/Map negating units (medivac, warp prism, warp pylons, nydus, and now overlords) #4. Superfast battles #5. Superfast economy and time compression The above are all huge problems. The above are what the user you quoted and I mean when we point out why ACTION ACTION ACTION HARASS HARASS HARASS is stupid. + You end up with games where you can't split up your units or you die because the ACTION ACTION ACTION of #2 and #4. + Your units can't be out on the map because HARASS HARASS HARASS by #3 + Your units aren't out on the map executing I don't know... STRATEGY in an RTS game. Instead you're holed up in your base with the majority of your units trying to hold against #3 while sending out small forces to execute #3 yourself. + So you endup with yet another basetrade situation we've seen 1million times b4 if your units are out on the map, which is coinflippy + Or wait for #1 and #5 to kick in. Doesn't matter how many expansions you have, once it's #1 and #5, it's coinflippy This is the worst designed RTS i've ever seen, and I've seen many.
I don't think you have seen enough.
afterall you somehow think blizzard is "living off past glory nowadays"
some of the points are even contradicting.
Harass = not a deathball
Harass = out on the map
|
As for Death Ball, 99% of the players in Platinum league will either go for a cheese or death ball. It's part of the game and neccessary evil to casual gaming. Only pro gamers have enough APM to handle most the new stuff introduced in LoTV.
|
I hate Blizzard. They are actually the worst company of all time. How could they do this to ME? How can they not fulfill MY every request along with every other individual's wishes!? Just give ME what I want! ME ME ME!!! I just don't understand why the game can't be tailored exactly to ME. It just doesn't make sense...boycott Blizzard, the worst company on the planet.
|
If you don't like my post how bout not reading it. Was nice to see you.
|
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!!
|
On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!!
Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle.
Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must.
|
The question (which no one knows the answer) to is why it seems to take forever for Blizzard to do anything and once they finally add new stuff into the beta its frequently poorly balanced and doesn't have a fun impact on the game.
I think a company like Blizzard will grow to a size where it's very clumsy and unable to deal with legacy products very well. First of all, probably most SCII developers are also working on the campaign, play testing Overwatch and developing Heroes of the Storm. The SCII team is most likely overworked, understaffed and not fully focused on the multiplayer. Second of all, all changes are logged and if you make any sort of significant change as a developer you have to be able to defend this to the higher-ups, who will ask you questions such as: is this an unequivocal improvement with no chance to backfire with only low implementation (coding, testing) costs and could this have been conceived of in a less expensive way?
This slows down any sort of natural development process for a team which is likely already overworked and understaffed. When they finally do implement something they haven't had the time to fully iterate on it and test it, and they figure that they might as well throw it to the community who can give better feedback than their internal play testers anyway. And it encourages small changes that can fly under the radar of the higher-ups, like the consecutive speed increases to units.
And the reason that they don't mess with stuff like the damage point is that David Kim wants to keep his job and he realizes that if he reworks the game to have mostly lower damage points, someone is going to point out that he messed up all the attack-animation timings for unclear gameplay purposes. That he has "gone rogue", and so on. And besides, DK is not a person with fresh ideas, he's still carrying out his now years-old agenda of "more harassment, more action".
These sorts of reasons are why changes to SC2 had to have been made anywhere around 2009-2011, when the developers still had some sort of mandate to more independently try to improve the game. It's natural for the executives to withdraw this mandate some point down the line. I mostly blame Dustin Browder and David Kim who should have fought harder to allow this to happen, instead of letting it wither until 2012-2013 arrived and it was too late.
|
On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:13 jotmang-nojem wrote:
So let me get this straight. You people don't see anything wrong with how terrans play? I emphasize terran because the way it's played typifies what's wrong, but other races have problems too.
So all you do all game is put things in your medivac and drop things left and right. No strategic holding of map areas, no interesting unit comps, just MMM all the time. Your opponent is forced to his base so he can't hold strategic map areas either. The only map areas of interest is your base and the opponent's base.
DK thinks it's so good he wants to increase the medivac unload speed and increase nydus and overlord effectiveness. In effect, he's doubling down on the harassment aspect. WTF!!! Perhaps if you used the terminology correct instead of confusing harass and action with coinflippyness you would set your self up for a better debate. I would also like to argue that a positional defensive playstyle isn't more strategic or doesn't require more brainpower than an aggressive playstyle. Anyway, my opinion is that terran lacks diversity in playstyles (as does zerg and toss). There should definitely be a more positional element to the race. But I definitely don't want bio play w/ Medivacs to be removed either. It's an incredibly fun and highly microbased playstyle, but it should be an option instead of a must.
If there is to much harass and action on the map it can lead to coinflippy situations where you weren't in position once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt; one player moves out of his base and then suddenly his main gets doom dropped and he loses the game. Does that mean the better player won the game? no. If there is to much action in the game it increases the randomness.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
