EPTHere's the latest thread from the HotS forums on the topic. Note the poll at the bottom of the OP: 73% voted thumbs down on WoL/HotS movement system. People do NOT want the unrealistic clumpy fluid pathing. So appealing to majority is actually working against you here. If we want what is best for Starbow, AND what is more in demand by the greater part of SC2's audience, we should be sticking with the movement trigger change.
[A] Starbow - Page 242
| Forum Index > SC2 Maps & Custom Games |
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
Here's the latest thread from the HotS forums on the topic. Note the poll at the bottom of the OP: 73% voted thumbs down on WoL/HotS movement system. People do NOT want the unrealistic clumpy fluid pathing. So appealing to majority is actually working against you here. If we want what is best for Starbow, AND what is more in demand by the greater part of SC2's audience, we should be sticking with the movement trigger change. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On April 09 2013 11:27 SmileZerg wrote: The argument that the BW unit movement would be unpopular among players is incredibly flawed, because the clumpy movement in SC2 is historically one of the most complained about aspects of the game. There have been threads about it all over the forums since WoL Beta, with people proposing various fixes and discussing how and why it's bad for so many reasons - it contributes to deathball play, it makes battles too short and lowers the impact of micro on an engagement, and it's a huge eyesore that hurts watchability of the game from a spectator point of view. Here's the latest thread from the HotS forums on the topic. Note the poll at the bottom of the OP: 73% voted thumbs down on WoL/HotS movement system. People do NOT want the unrealistic clumpy fluid pathing. So appealing to majority is actually working against you here. If we want what is best for Starbow, AND what is more in demand by the greater part of SC2's audience, we should be sticking with the movement trigger change. That's a false dilema. Hiders main complain is the annoyance the pathing brings. There isn't just: use the BW pathing or not, there are alternatives you could bring to the table. If Blizz were to make an actual fix I'm pretty sure we would see something as drastic as units forming kongo lines and getting stuck on each other, but actual formation sorts of things. I'll work with the data editor to see if there is anything I can to make units WANT to spread while moving in formation, without compromising unit control that SC2 players are used to. This would give us the ability to hit sides of deathballs at the bare minimum, but wouldn't help with auto surround being incredibly easy. Hider is correct, it doesn't let you have as much control as you are used to. This is more prominent in units like Hellions, so a compromise could be reached by simply excluding the hellions from the pathing (absolutely required if Kabel is going to use my vulture). Another point I want to bring up is that the clumpy movement is largely just a spectator issue. We've had the formation diameter changed for quite a long time which already alleviates a lot of that frustration. The vast majority of SC2 players don't post on teamliquid, and I am pretty sure don't care about the intricacies of what makes the game better. Hell even teamliquid as a whole, despite not liking how some things are in SC2 would rather stick to the official game. I feel like our best hope to be successful is focus on making it a good game, appealing to players who actually care about how much better SC2 could be better while not having a massive barrier of entry. I think Hiders concern is a valid one. There are some masters players who won't play starbow because they have their bunkers outranged by stalkers at the near beginning (dieng to a plat player as a result). Others don't like not having control over their units, which is more of a valid concern. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
Does that increased barrier of entry pose a problem? For some players it might, but Hider is the only one I've seen complain about it so far. Xiphias, Kabel and myself have all had a very positive experience with it, from what I understand. Even so, if it is a problem, does that outway the benefits? In my personal opinion, no. That's all I can really say for now. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
I'll try to address whatever I can. 1. Nostalgia I think the biggest difference between SC2 and BW micro was the small skirmishes you could have and the 'twitch' micro that was involved. Day9 goes into a really long metaphor about this difference x.x, and why he was also fond of it as I'm pretty sure a lot of BW vets are. + Show Spoiler + His main points in the video if you are in no mood for long day9 rants: 1. BW units felt like very visceral physical objects you could control in different ways. SC2 units bassically all feel sort of the same. 2. You can make units way more effective just by your manual control of them and how good at that twitch micro you were. In SC2 its more about position pre-engagement. It is pretty much why all ex BW players are so fond of micro in their game. High Templar storm retreats just don't quite get into that layer that BW had. You just don't quite get this watching SC2. + Show Spoiler + (13:40 if you want to see a minor example of a zergling flank not possible with SC2 pathing). 2. Pathing's critical role in unit micro "Why is this a good thing? Previously Dec used the argument that it now took skill to surround. You could also argue that now it doesn't take skill to flank." Those are two very different things. Skill to surround meaning getting an optimal concave with your melee units. It is now not so automatic, but recquires some micro to make your melee units more effective. Making multiple control groups and hitting at the same time is much more effective than 1a. Microing your surrounds isn't really that effective with auto surround. Kabel was talking about hitting the sides of unit groups. Think hitting an opponents unattentive weak spot. You see it all in time in BW TvZ. Marine medic groups are moving across the map, and lings catch some marines not bunched up. This is only possible due to BW pathing. This leads me to my next point. Unit pathing is utterly critical to how micro'ing engagements work. Think about muta micro vs marines for a second. How bad is muta harrass compared to BW? Marines are able to stim and move in a tight group and utterly shred mutas. So much dps in one spot means things die extremely quickly. With BW pathing battles should last longer, smaller skirmishes should be more common place because 1a'ing your giant army vs a more carefully controlled army is stupid. Overall it should be more visceral, more manually controlled, more room for making your units fight better. It is not purely about small groups of units being able to fight against bigger groups of units, but it certainly helps. 3. Appeal On this point I don't think it matters too much. As far as I can tell, Starbow mainly played by BW vets. NA gets a little interesting because most of our players play all every mod plus HOTS, including Onegoal and SC2BW. DOTA is a terrible analogy here x.x. It was a complete branch off from WC3, it was its own game that already had a huge base of players from Starcraft UMS's. There wasn't anything official like it. Plus the UMS scene was much bigger back then before Blizz screwed SC2 UMS up. People who watch Starcraft and care about it go for the esports side. The esports side is bassically tied to Blizzard no matter what. The best goal we can ascribe to is to have fun ^,^. Which is subjective for all of us I am certain. As far as I'm concerned BW pathing would simply make the game more fun (again subjective), it would be a better SC2. This false dichotomy of 1. make a bw clone 2. make it accessible, doesn't exist. I am certain there are SC2 players who might enjoy the micro it brings, and others that would never que another SBOW game again because of it. It's this reason I ask you to try to see why BW pathing is actually quite amazing, and see if you might enjoy it. Two, lemme know what exactly about it bugs you the most. Compromise is very possible. | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
On April 09 2013 14:08 SmileZerg wrote: There may be alternatives, I do not deny this, but so far I haven't seen any that match the effectiveness of the BW movement triggers. They don't actually remove control from your units, they just make you work harder and think more about positioning, while doing the same for your opponent. Does that increased barrier of entry pose a problem? For some players it might, but Hider is the only one I've seen complain about it so far. Xiphias, Kabel and myself have all had a very positive experience with it, from what I understand. Even so, if it is a problem, does that outway the benefits? In my personal opinion, no. That's all I can really say for now. Very true ^_^. BW pathing is incredibly effective at what it does. Kabel and Xiphias are ex BW players, so it is no surprise. I think it would be interesting to see some more SC2 players thoughts on the unit control. I know from a spectator point of view it would be incredibly positive. But remember, Starbow will be played a hell of a lot more than it will get spectated. Actually playing the game should matter the most. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
On this point I don't think it matters too much. As far as I can tell, Starbow mainly played by BW vets. NA gets a little interesting because most of our players play all every mod plus HOTS, including Onegoal and SC2BW I think this is quite an important.discussion to be had. I believe that the reasoning for Starbow only being played by BW vets atm is due to a subtopimal "business strategy" and slightly too high "transition costs" (takes quite a bit of time to learn to play zerg if you come from an Sc2 background for instance) for people to consider switching from Sc2 to Starbow. One could argue that it doesn't matter whether we get these new players into Sc2 or whether we are just happy with having 20 BW old timers. I believe, however, that it is absolutely neccesary to attract more players, because part of the motivation behind playing Starbow is the competitive element, and over time players will lose interest in playing Starbow if we can only play against the same guys again and again. So appeal matters a lot IMO. Bit the question is; Is the best way to get new players to play Starbow to make it feel similar to BW? Because there is no doubt in my mind that if you believe BW'ers should be the sole target group of Starbow, then this unit movement change is a good idea. But I beleve that the best way to appeal to new players is to make Starbow feel easy to learn if you come from an Sc2 background (but hard to master obiviously), while at the same time satisify old BW nets by replicating the best part of the metagame from BW 2. Pathing's critical role in unit micro I think you and Kabel misunderstand me. I am aware of the advantages it brings into the game, but my question (once again) is; Why is it neccesary? You give players a stronger incentivice to split up their army, but isn't the incentivice already there in Starbow? At least that is my impression from playing terran, but of course I don't know about the other matchups. But that is why I ask; Which part of the other matchups are deathball'ish and why? Besides more splitting up army (less deathball'ing) you also argue that this can lead to more micro in engagements. Those are two very different things. Skill to surround meaning getting an optimal concave with your melee units. It is now not so automatic, but recquires some micro to make your melee units more effective. Making multiple control groups and hitting at the same time is much more effective than 1a. Microing your surrounds isn't really that effective with auto surround. .Kabel was talking about hitting the sides of unit groups. Think hitting an opponents unattentive weak spot. You see it all in time in BW TvZ. Marine medic groups are moving across the map, and lings catch some marines not bunched up. This is only possible due to BW pathing In Sc2 (besides protoss deathball, but that is removed in Starbow so not really relevant in this discussion) players are definitely incentivized to spread their armies out before engaging, so I don't think this AI will have any huge impact in that regard. Also, "surround" is actually a skill in Sc2 - For instance hellion vs lings requires a lot of skill from both players, just a-moving lings doesn't work very efficiently. I think it would be interesting to see some more SC2 players thoughts on the unit control. I think the one to ask is thus who are; 1) Tired of the "deathballness/1 second mistake and you lose"-part of Sc2. 2) Has only played some/no BW 3) Are not overly biased in favour of anything new (it is always possible to find Sc2 players who will favour anything new/different, but IMO those are a minority). That is IMO a huge target group (maybe it is like 20,000 atm), and I expect it to increase over time as HOTS gets more boring for them. Obiviously small changes to the gameplay to appeal to them better, won't get 20,000 new players into Starbow. A new "business strategy" is also neccesary to get even 100 of them into Starbow, but I am convinced that by implementing BW movement AI 95%+ of those people will be lost as a potential target group. It's this reason I ask you to try to see why BW pathing is actually quite amazing, and see if you might enjoy it. Two, lemme know what exactly about it bugs you the most. Compromise is very possible. But this is the question that I and every sc2 player will ask our self when playing Starbow; Why should I play this game when it is frustrating to learn and only has <20 players? At least in BW you could accomplish something (ranks) so you would be willing to go through the "pain". However, in Starbow there is really no end-goal so I believe the game needs to be really fun for to play for newcommers in order to attract more players Secondly even when you get used to the new AI, there is no gurantee you will enjoy the game more. Actually Flash stated that he liked the responsiveness (no "LAG effect") of playing Sc2. What annoys me most; - The lag effect is a definitely number 1. - Unit moves in a different way (different routes) and I think my tanks got blocked in my own base really easily (in a situation where they wouldn't have been blocked in Sc2). | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
1. The remains of SC2 deathball (not much left, but now it will be truely dead) 2. Battles being too short - This is huge as one of the biggest problems so far has been the lack of in-battle micro. By making armies less clumped and harder to control, we extend the length of battles without the arbitrary and silly +20% HP or -12% attack speed. 3. Increases the importance of army control and positioning. 4. Makes flanking easier - Also big as this makes scouting and micro have a much greater impact on the game. As for the issues of getting people to play this game. I have been saying for some time now that we really need to get some fame from popular casters or streamers playing this mod. Being just a post on a site that is more interested in ladder points and pro plays is not giving much in the way of new players. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
1. The remains of SC2 deathball (not much left, but now it will be truely dead) Where do you see this? This must be the 5th time I ask, but in which matchups, in which part of them and why do we see the deathball? Battles being too short - This is huge as one of the biggest problems so far has been the lack of in-battle micro. While we can remove the deathball-incentivice by pure unit design chances, I agree it will be slightly difficult to make battles last longer, but I still think this isn't that much of a concern. Basically the problem in Sc2 was the "1-second mistake and you lose", but by removing imba fungal growth (and hopefully Stasis) we can replicate the similar "lots of small skirmishes throughout the game" without doing something that will annoy alot of people. Starbow already does pretty good job in that regard (besides Stasis) and I don't see a huge problem in that regard. As for the issues of getting people to play this game. I have been saying for some time now that we really need to get some fame from popular casters or streamers playing this mod. Being just a post on a site that is more interested in ladder points and pro plays is not giving much in the way of new players. No famous caster has any incentivice to cast this mod 3. Increases the importance of army control and positioning. This isn't an argument in it self because it is already really important in old Starbow and old Sc2 - Just in a different way. I agree that you can say the "longer battle and less incentivice to deathall'ing" is an argument, but by using this and flanking your are double counting. The goal is to get more of the small skirmishes, and unit movement change is one way to get closer to that. However, through unit design improvements we can accomplish the same/very similar thing. | ||
|
Zaphod Beeblebrox
Denmark697 Posts
Where do you see this? This must be the 5th time I ask, but in which matchups, in which part of them and why do we see the deathball? None, I actually agree with you here. I just pointed out that this will be one more thing that disfavours deathball play. While we can remove the deathball-incentivice by pure unit design chances, I agree it will be slightly difficult to make battles last longer, but I still think this isn't that much of a concern. Basically the problem in Sc2 was the "1-second mistake and you lose", but by removing imba fungal growth (and hopefully Stasis) we can replicate the similar "lots of small skirmishes throughout the game" without doing something that will annoy alot of people. Starbow already does pretty good job in that regard (besides Stasis) and I don't see a huge problem in that regard. While the mod certainly have removed the instant lose mechanics, there have still been issues with battles putting too much emphasis on pre-battle positioning, and not enough on in-battle micro. Kabel trying to slow the game down by altering attack speeds or add health to lings and marines was an attempt to rectify this, but BW-movement might do the job a lot better. This isn't an argument in it self because it is already really important in old Starbow and old Sc2 - Just in a different way. I agree that you can say the "longer battle and less incentivice to deathall'ing" is an argument, but by using this and flanking your are double counting. The goal is to get more of the small skirmishes, and unit movement change is one way to get closer to that. However, through unit design improvements we can accomplish the same/very similar thing. What i meant with this is that without auto surround, and units no longer forming perfect concaves automatically, controlling your army during battles gives a larger payoff conpared to before. Making units move less fluid has an important effect on unit efficiency. It decreases the base efficiency of all units that moves as part of a group, but does not affect the max efficiency. Basically we nerfed unmicroed units while not touching units with perfect micro. We might have altered what perfect micro is, but not changed how strong units are with micro. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
While the mod certainly have removed the instant lose mechanics, there have still been issues with battles putting too much emphasis on pre-battle positioning, and not enough on in-battle micro. Kabel trying to slow the game down by altering attack speeds or add health to lings and marines was an attempt to rectify this, but BW-movement might do the job a lot better. Which issues? I only see Stasis as something that overemphasizes prebattle positioning? I agree that it will slow battles down a bit, but I don't think its that important. The most important thing is that we always have something going on in the game. Whether that is one long battle or multipronged harass is IMO of relatively less importance. IMO I see TvP (in Starbow) being a lot more actionpacked (in terms of small skirmishes) than BW ever was if these 3 changes go through; 1) Some utility for reaper late game (such as +damage against buidings). 2) Redesign of Stasis (which I don't think Kabel has implemented). 3) Cost increase of turrets (so you can't use turrets to preemptively deny drops). With these 3 changes TvP will become incredible awesome throughout all the stages of the game (at least that is my theory), and unit movement change isn't neccesary at all (it may actually make mech too strong which could result in unintended consequences). Why do we need to further deincentivize deathballs (if it comes at a cost of annoying a large part of the potential target group) if the deathball is already pretty much dead? What i meant with this is that without auto surround, and units no longer forming perfect concaves automatically, controlling your army during battles gives a larger payoff conpared to before. Making units move less fluid has an important effect on unit efficiency. It decreases the base efficiency of all units that moves as part of a group, but does not affect the max efficiency. Yes but you can always make stuff more difficult to execute in order to accomplish the skill cap. (we could also implement 12 unit selection and remove smartcast for instance). However, IMO we should just look for "solutions" that doesn't "frustrate" a large part of the group, but accomplish's the same thing (same skill cap, same incentivize for splitting up your army, same "metagame" etc.). But before we think of solutions we need to be more specific regarding the problem; - Is it a problem that controlling units is too easy since we need to make surrounds manually (this will mostly be early game related I assume). If yes, in which cases - Be specific please. If this isn't a problem (if for instance korean pros isn't close to the early game micro skill cap then this isn't neccesary)? Basically I am of the impression that you want to fix a problem that probably isn't there, and even if it is there it can be fixed in a different way which leads to a win-win situations (rather than a win-lose). | ||
|
decemberscalm
United States1353 Posts
And where do you have these statistics from that 95% of players would be lost as a potential group. How do you know the composition of players and what they'd be annoyed by. AS far as I'm concerned the goal should be to make an absolutely better SC2. Pathing seems like a necessary thing to bring back small scale micro. Lings vs hellions isn't really a good example. That is merely trapping them or catching them off guard. This pathing is actually so effective it makes rudimentary ling vs ling engagements more skillful. Again, it is about adding that twitchy micro back into the game for everything, not merely adding action everywhere. That is a large part of what SC2 lost when switching to the sequel. It was integral to the game, and really the only RTS that was amazing in this way. In SC2 we have stutter step, and that is extremely easy to do. Meanwhile zealots and lings get their micro done for them. There was a time when Kabel added 50 HP to make lings have some sort of micro power and the ability to do anything besides get 1a'ed at opponents, or run past them and then 1a. Stat fixes won't fix a pathing issues, it won't fix spatial problems of units. | ||
|
Azelja
Japan762 Posts
On April 10 2013 02:04 decemberscalm wrote: In SC2 we have stutter step, and that is extremely easy to do. Only a dragoon... only a dragoon... | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
On April 10 2013 02:04 decemberscalm wrote: @Hider And where do you have these statistics from that 95% of players would be lost as a potential group. How do you know the composition of players and what they'd be annoyed by. AS far as I'm concerned the goal should be to make an absolutely better SC2. Pathing seems like a necessary thing to bring back small scale micro. Lings vs hellions isn't really a good example. That is merely trapping them or catching them off guard. This pathing is actually so effective it makes rudimentary ling vs ling engagements more skillful. Again, it is about adding that twitchy micro back into the game for everything, not merely adding action everywhere. That is a large part of what SC2 lost when switching to the sequel. It was integral to the game, and really the only RTS that was amazing in this way. In SC2 we have stutter step, and that is extremely easy to do. Meanwhile zealots and lings get their micro done for them. There was a time when Kabel added 50 HP to make lings have some sort of micro power and the ability to do anything besides get 1a'ed at opponents, or run past them and then 1a. Stat fixes won't fix a pathing issues, it won't fix spatial problems of units. I'd say this sums it up perfectly. Whether the change is 'necessary' or not depends on what we are trying to achieve. If we are trying to achieve a better game, then it is at least highly desirable. What the argument has boiled down to is this: Is it worth adding such a beneficial aspect to the gameplay if it is going to scare off a significant portion of the playerbase? Since we do not actually know if it will have such an effect, the only solution for the time being is to leave it in and allow for new players to give feedback over time so we can gauge their reactions. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
AS far as I'm concerned the goal should be to make an absolutely better SC2. Pathing seems like a necessary thing to bring back small scale micro. Lings vs hellions isn't really a good example. That is merely trapping them or catching them off guard. Ok so lets say the main reasoning for pathing is make early game micro more relevant. That still makes ling vs hellion micro extremely relevant no matter which word you use to describe this. Ling vs ling is now replaced by bling battles which are also very micro intensive. Reaper is another very microintensive early game unit which rewards micro from the opponent as well. Ling vs zealot/stalker is probably the best example of an element of the early game that isn't very micro intensive (when the zerg player gets speed). But IMO this is such a small part of the whole game, that I wouldn't prioritize this very highly. Since we do not actually know if it will have such an effect, the only solution for the time being is to leave it in and allow for new players to give feedback over time so we can gauge their reactions. Over time is not the correct approach here as time is too valuable. But making players who meet the criterias I outlined above seems like a good idea if you can do it in a non-biased way. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
1. Reaper. Too many, they come too fast and healing. I suggest one of two or both. i) Remove healing or ii) make tech lab requiered. Or maybe both. Reapers just killed TvZ match up.... See reps. 2. Tempest. Long rang, high dmg AND splash. Not even in few numbers is there an effective counter for zerg (scourge ar obsolete because of splah, one hit = 4 scourge is dead). See rep there as well. Maybe remove splash, so scourge can counter them in small numbers (like they did with a small number of carriers). Protoss already has templars and reavers, and the new AI is already removing the deathball. I would, ofc, just see the carriers again.... http://drop.sc/321235 - tempest http://drop.sc/321236 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321237 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321238 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321239 - Reapers I know I did not play that well. I am not used to reapers too much, since I've played so much Starbow lately, but this is just ridiculous. | ||
|
SmileZerg
United States543 Posts
I also stand by Xiphias on the Reaper changes. Even the Terran player agreed. :D With Medics available at T1 in Starbow we don't need the natural regen, and they are absolutely too powerful in numbers early on to be a Reactored unit. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9366 Posts
On April 10 2013 05:13 Xiphias wrote: Two issues: 1. Reaper. Too many, they come too fast and healing. I suggest one of two or both. i) Remove healing or ii) make tech lab requiered. Or maybe both. Reapers just killed TvZ match up.... See reps. 2. Tempest. Long rang, high dmg AND splash. Not even in few numbers is there an effective counter for zerg (scourge ar obsolete because of splah, one hit = 4 scourge is dead). See rep there as well. Maybe remove splash, so scourge can counter them in small numbers (like they did with a small number of carriers). Protoss already has templars and reavers, and the new AI is already removing the deathball. I would, ofc, just see the carriers again.... http://drop.sc/321235 - tempest http://drop.sc/321236 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321237 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321238 - Reapers http://drop.sc/321239 - Reapers I know I did not play that well. I am not used to reapers too much, since I've played so much Starbow lately, but this is just ridiculous. HOTS reapers are balanced because they do 4 damage to everything (not 5 to light as in Starbow) and because zerg has more larva and terran less gas. I don't see why 5 damage in Starbow is neccesary and at the same making it require a tech lab probably wouldn't be a bad idea if there is no other way to balance it. Healing though gives it a lot of utility in the early game and makes it a better harass unit in the late game (it will work in a similar way as medivacs do in that regard), so I don't think that should be removed. With Medics available at T1 in Starbow we don't need the natural regen, and they are absolutely too powerful in numbers early on to be a Reactored unit. Medics have absolute 0 synergy with reapers. Reapers works best for them selves alone, thus giving them regen is actually a great way of rewarding multitasking and small group of units. | ||
|
Kabel
Sweden1746 Posts
Reason? (Letter from Blizzard) + Show Spoiler + Action: 7 Day Suspension Violation: Naming Policy - Racial/Ethnic/National Map Name: Starbow - Sniper Ridge (Complaint) This includes names with racial, ethnic, or national connotations. This is a warning against the above behavior, which Blizzard deems unacceptable for StarCraft II. In addition to this warning, your game licence has been issued a suspension as detailed above. Your game licence will not be available for play during this time. As the account holder, you are responsible for the activity associated with this game licence. Further violations will result in harsher suspensions or permanent closure. | ||
|
Xiphias
Norway2223 Posts
I am dreadfully sorry.... Did no one in blizzard ever play BW? It is a remake of the old map. They should suspend Kespa then! Can you complain? This is rediculous. Edit: I reread the complaint. The name is racial?? How can the name be racial? "Sniper Ridge". The Ghost has a "snipe" ability. Is he a racist? This is not a game about creating world peace??? I am confused.... (Actually, I am confraged = confused and outraged) | ||
| ||
