|
Let's interchange "coinflippiness" with the word volatility, with the meaning of high variance outcomes independent of player skill. This is typically undesirable.
Deathballs promote volatility because each single fight is more likely to be decisive. Time compression (macro and micro) does the same because you lose the ability to respond to your opponent's actions, therefore the outcome becomes more based on luck, not skill. Basetrades are volatile because they depend too much on random factors and they often decide the outcome of the game (even if imo most players are just bad at understanding basetrades)*.
The supply cap and map-negating abilities have only an indirect effect on volatility though and it's not worth arguing about it.
* for instance, I thought it would be worthwhile to try out the following change: geysers, turrets, supply depots, pylons and buildings which are under construction will no longer not count for the "destroy all buildings" win condition.
|
On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote: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.
That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass.
|
On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote: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. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time. Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass.
I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game
|
On June 14 2015 01:07 JCoto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote: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. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass. I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game
And the exact same thing was the case in BW. But that's why we need a solid defenders advantage, so you can afford to come behind if your temporarily behind in army size and/or economy.
But the whole high damage thing is also mostly a problem for protoss since its "strong units" move so slowly and thus the punishment for being far away is much higher than is the case for zerg.
|
On June 14 2015 01:22 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 14 2015 01:07 JCoto wrote:On June 14 2015 00:53 Hider wrote:On June 14 2015 00:31 Charoisaur wrote:On June 14 2015 00:22 Hider wrote: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. That's assuming that being at the right place at the right time is luckbased and not skillbased. While defending allins is also skillbased, it doesn't give you multiple chances, harass is more about the better player gaining small advantages over time.
once and then lose the game. It already happens sometimes in tvt
Doomdrops isn't really as much a harass as it is an allin. If something has a high probability of winning (or losing you the game) directly its not harass. I think that the big problem is how relatively fast and easy is to snipe a base because of a drop that is not that costly to Terran and quite comfortable to pull off, and the big impact it has in-game And the exact same thing was the case in BW. But that's why we need a solid defenders advantage, so you can afford to come behind if your temporarily behind in army size and/or economy. But the whole high damage thing is also mostly a problem for protoss since its "strong units" move so slowly and thus the punishment for being far away is much higher than is the case for zerg.
Mmm... I don't think that dropping was that strong in BW. No marauders, No medivacs, weaker marines. no escape button for Dropship (even if speed was higher).
Having Dropship and Medic split into two units made drops obviously weaker, since it would mean dropping 8 marines (weaker) without healing or dropping less marines.
Marauders are also strong vs buildings.
|
I don't think that dropping was that strong in BW.
Speedlings and stimmed Marines in a dropship could kill stuff a lot faster in BW than in Sc2. Thus, the high DPS values cannot be the "big problem" in it self.
At the end of the day, it's about two things:
(a) is there counterplay?
(b) is the punishment for the "mistake" fair or is the gameplay too unforgiving?
If you can't leave your base for a second due to the threat of a dropplay being too strong, that's obviously flawed design. But this is why I suggest to get rid of the idea that core units should have 2.25 movement speed. That's way way too slow. No core units should have between 2.75 and 3.5 movement speed, and each race should on top of that have positional abilities or units that can control certain areas very effectively. These units/abilities can/should obviously be slower than 2.75.
Having Dropship and Medic split into two units made drops obviously weaker, since it would mean dropping 8 marines (weaker) without healing or dropping less marines.
You are going off on another tanget now that is more related to balance and not to either coinflippiness or high damage.
|
LotV is really small scale and small ideas when you compare what other developeprs are doing.
The DotA 2 reborn thing is gonna bury SC2 custom map system so easily its ridiculous.
|
On June 13 2015 19:53 AxiomBlurr wrote:
Blizz have not put in any changes suggested by the Korean or Foreigner pros into LotV. It is my understanding that they have never put any suggestion by any pro into the game ever. Not even to be tested. (Am I wrong here?)
You're wrong here, the Phase Shield oracle ability from the Heart of the Swarm beta was based on a Grubby suggestion apparently.
|
On June 14 2015 01:46 Noocta wrote:
LotV is really small scale and small ideas when you compare what other developeprs are doing.
The DotA 2 reborn thing is gonna bury SC2 custom map system so easily its ridiculous.
We all know an amazing RTS on Source 2 will soon come out.
At this point, SC2 is nothing more than a way to practice your mechanics for the better RTS that is coming up.
|
They should really make a much better change for the ghost ability. I dont believe it will be of much use but i like the ghost movement speed increase idea, never really thought of it as a big issue but i guess micro'ing the ghost will be slightly easier to snipe certain units a little faster ie HT.
I still feel that the overall abilities of the ghost though really make the unit not as useful as it potentially could be for all matchups. EMP nerf that happened way back in WoL i feel really made late game tvp a huge issue, and then the snipe nerf really made the unit unusable for tvz. Im not sure a speed buff and a new ability that doesnt give much use/damage will make much of a difference at all for the ghost, but i will re-iterate that i atleast like the fact that they are looking at the ghost and are considering changes for it. Its been a very very long time coming.
Medivac change i think is a good idea to allow for faster paced harassment etc for late game. This being said i can only see this making it an even bigger issue for protoss players dealing with drop play which already is very strong as it is. But i like the idea for the later game scenarios as it will make it more entertaining to not only play but watch. You will have to consider a change to allow protoss to defend easier in the mid-late game if this change was to go through though otherwise i can just see terran winning with mass drop usage.
|
On June 14 2015 03:11 Finnz wrote:
They should really make a much better change for the ghost ability. I dont believe it will be of much use but i like the ghost movement speed increase idea, never really thought of it as a big issue but i guess micro'ing the ghost will be slightly easier to snipe certain units a little faster ie HT.
I still feel that the overall abilities of the ghost though really make the unit not as useful as it potentially could be for all matchups. EMP nerf that happened way back in WoL i feel really made late game tvp a huge issue, and then the snipe nerf really made the unit unusable for tvz. Im not sure a speed buff and a new ability that doesnt give much use/damage will make much of a difference at all for the ghost, but i will re-iterate that i atleast like the fact that they are looking at the ghost and are considering changes for it. Its been a very very long time coming.
Medivac change i think is a good idea to allow for faster paced harassment etc for late game. This being said i can only see this making it an even bigger issue for protoss players dealing with drop play which already is very strong as it is. But i like the idea for the later game scenarios as it will make it more entertaining to not only play but watch. You will have to consider a change to allow protoss to defend easier in the mid-late game if this change was to go through though otherwise i can just see terran winning with mass drop usage.
so if you buff medivac drops and also buff protoss abilities to deal with drops, what difference will it make? Why not just keep it as it is when a buff to it will also force buffs to deal with them?
|
On June 14 2015 00:42 Grumbels wrote:
Let's interchange "coinflippiness" with the word volatility, with the meaning of high variance outcomes independent of player skill. This is typically undesirable.
But it isn't undesirable to Blizzard. Think about the Widow Mine replacing the Siege Tank. People target fired with multiple Siege Tanks against a target, but with Mines, just burrow and cross your fingers.
I think that is what people need to realize here: that Blizzard is making the game they want, where strategic positioning and thinking are replaced by ability micro and fast fingers.
You wanted LoL micro in SC2, right?
On June 13 2015 23:59 HallofPain4444 wrote:
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.
And that is a real problem. Taken to an extreme it becomes so obviously clear: If the 6 pool was unstoppable versus everyone but the top pros, casual players would hate the game.
And sadly, we had that for a time in PvP, it was called the 4 Gate.
Games can be designed better than that, and have been. Blizzard simply hasn't been able to do it. The 4 Gate dominated PvP for way too long, and now SC2 has much more complex problems. But Blizzard will do what it does best at this point, make seemingly random changes and hope they work out. Their game development strategy is not unlike the way a Widow Mine works.
Does anyone really think Blizzard can solve these complex problems when they weren't able to solve much more simple problems in the past?
Where does such faith come from?
|
Why add a new ability to ghosts to deal with ultras when that's what Snipe was originally made for?
|
On June 13 2015 19:53 AxiomBlurr wrote:
Blizz have not put in any changes suggested by the Korean or Foreigner pros into LotV. It is my understanding that they have never put any suggestion by any pro into the game ever. Not even to be tested. (Am I wrong here?)
MSC vision reduction.
While the MSC should never really have had that much vision in the first place, it was also heralded (by a lot of pro protoss players, hm) as the solution to detectionless blink. It wasn't even close.
|
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Also I really hope they keep 8 armor ultras, its one of the most exciting changes to lategame Zerg. Finally Ultras are something to be feared.
|
On June 13 2015 21:49 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2015 20:55 Teoita wrote: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?
Do you think it's dishonest to argue a point so fundamentally stupid that you cannot possibly agree with it, simply because there isn't a peer reviewed article on it? The point of view that more responsive, microable units would not make a better rts over one with sluggish, buggy units seems completely retarded.
On a second read through of this quote I just realised you completely missed the point of the article, well done. Here's a hint by the way, more microable and responsive does not equal "copy broodwar". The fact you even think it does means you've either not watched the video, or are living proof of the failure of the sc2 design team.
|
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.
Actually, if you think about it every single fighting game that was successful had characters that are at the very least, responsive, microable etc. As for another comparison between games, look no further then smash brothers brawl and melee.
|
They should hire Starbow developers or just make starbow the beta. Atleast they know what Starcraft is all about.
Giving up on Blizzard QQ w/e
|
On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
This suggestion is brilliant and simple. +1
|
On June 14 2015 05:46 ElMeanYo wrote:
Stim on Ghosts and Snipe reduces armor by 1-2. Why make it more complicated than this?
Also I really hope they keep 8 armor ultras, its one of the most exciting changes to lategame Zerg. Finally Ultras are something to be feared.
THANK YOU, yes. This for sure. Even if they go through with the drone idea, ghosts need stim of you can't use them in your bio army in any effective way, at least not vs swarming zerg where you are splitting all the time.
EDIT: If ghosts are too strong with stim, than just have it do movement speed ONLY for the ghosts, it's not about the damage, it's about how when you select your group with ghosts, you can't hit T to stim, and they get left behind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
