On April 26 2011 06:31 Footler wrote: It seems pages later this thread is still off topic from what the OP wanted discussed.
The OP is not saying BW>SC2 because of harder mechanics or that SC2 needs ancient mechanics to be more interesting.
The OP is saying that SC2 simply needs more things requiring more player-unit interaction. So if the mechanics are not going to change (which they are not) then what can be done to the game to increase this player-unit interaction?
A: Units that serve more dramatic roles, more complex, etc. that will force players to interact more.
Personally, I think the phoenix is a good example of a unit which forces interaction. Also, perhaps the goal was for SC2 to have less player/unit interaction and for the amount of this interaction to ramp up with the release of expansions.
Ya, and that's kind of what I'm expecting. There's not much I expect from patches to really increase interaction but I'm betting they have some units planned for expansions to really increase this. We definitely need more air casters.
On April 26 2011 05:36 ChopSuey2 wrote: Starcraft 2 has a better User Interface, do we really want players to win games just because they can click more and faster? I mean come on, the game is about strategy, tactics, positioning, timing, people can focus more on these things now, I think that makes this game a better game, Starcraft Brood War was a fanasticly awesome game don't get me wrong, but the world really needed Starcraft 2. The game is just as complex if not more so than Brood War. You guys can go have fun to selecting 12 units at a time, have fun with that, especially if your zerg. So I don't see why there's this hating on Starcraft 2 so much.
SC2 has much better code than SC BW had, unit pathing issues playing a major role troughout the game, from prolonging the battles into several minute long dances of death
i'd just like to point out that pathing was not the reason battles in bw were so drawn out. the pathing in bw is actually fine. people exagerate the hell out of how bad it was.
i just finished uploading a vod yesterday of an SC2BW match where a battle started and lasted 5 minutes. dragoons and hydras dancing back. lurkers repositioning constantly. shuttle/reaver also repositioning. observer flying around. overlords trying to help snipe it. etc.
also i really think MBS and unlimited unit selection are issues. all they've done is make players lazy frankly.
yeah, they do last quite a long time and they can use the SC2 interface in his map it's not the interface that makes the battles short, it's just the way they designed the units you can still win by clicking faster in SC2...that could be done in any rts
I don't really know how to explain positioning, but thankfully there are units that personify the idea of positioning perfectly: siege tanks and lurkers. If you've ever been a victim of a lurker or siege tank contain you know how powerful these units are when they are properly setup. 5 properly setup siege tanks can mow down twice the amount of dragoons and 5 properly positioned lurkers could deny an infinite amount of marines from touching your expansion.
Now that Spore Crawlers burrow fast (on PTR, at least), do they count?
For 125 minerals, one larva, and 0 supply, Spores are incredible against armies that are heavy in the air units. It's true that Colossi can out-range them, but you can scoot back a little and make the toss engage slowly (which a Colo/VR player doesn't want to do; he wants to kill your army and rush into your base before you can remax).
Brood Lords with like 6-7 spores under them (and, obviously, a ground army)? That's really scary to attack into, especially for Terrans. But is it viable to do a slow push like that?
I think this article might already have had an effect. Looking at 1.3.3 PTR notes, we see that Ghosts now cost more minerals, less gas. This favors Ghosts for mech players more than for bio players now, and makes a severe buff to mech play versus Protoss. And as we can imagine, Mech play meets the points of the OP of this thread much, much more than bio play does!
I went in-depth on this here in a blog thread. I outsorced this, because I felt like it was too much stuff to add to this thread.
Even though I enjoy SC2, this topic explains my uneasy feeling of playing SC2 when I'm thinking about BW. I hope Blizzard will get their ideas for the next Starcraft from BW rather than from SC2, it would be so much better for e-sports. Everything that made BW such a great and unforgettable game is missing in SC2.
The more I watch and play SC2, the more I realize how relevant and significant the OP's points were. I feel so little sense of my actions having a significant effect on the outcome of the games because of the lack of interactivity. So whether I lose or win I feel quite apathetic about it all. I really hope the expansions bring something new to the game, but I am losing faith in that at the moment.
the thing is atm units hard counter each other a bit too hard and even awsome micro isnt enough to overcome stupid build order loses (lack of early scouting and fact its way easier to execute strong all ins isnt helping either), often we end up in situations where one army counters other and theres not much u can do about outcome other than watch them fight and hope ur unit composition was better. Speed up pace of the game and design flaw of macro mechanic where any base over 3 is meaningless made the gameplay look even more shallow and boring when theres one big battle, armies clash somebody ends ahead and kills opponent since theres almost no way to defend when u lose your main army cuz of close to no defendors advantage (not always true but thats the general rule of many matches). The more i read interviews with blizzard employees the more im convinced they are clueless and bw was just lucky design, pretty much lost all the hope for sc2 to be even half as good.
Spines/Spores should be able to burrow without creep, it would be like lurker pushes!
Also, why are lurkers not in sc2? that seems like a fundamental fuck up to me. Along with warpgate mechanic.
Despite all of this, I do think late late game ZvT and PvT is semi reminiscent of broodwar. Especially with units such as broodwars forcing vikings, unsieging etc etc.
I don't really know how to explain positioning, but thankfully there are units that personify the idea of positioning perfectly: siege tanks and lurkers. If you've ever been a victim of a lurker or siege tank contain you know how powerful these units are when they are properly setup. 5 properly setup siege tanks can mow down twice the amount of dragoons and 5 properly positioned lurkers could deny an infinite amount of marines from touching your expansion.
Now that Spore Crawlers burrow fast (on PTR, at least), do they count?
For 125 minerals, one larva, and 0 supply, Spores are incredible against armies that are heavy in the air units. It's true that Colossi can out-range them, but you can scoot back a little and make the toss engage slowly (which a Colo/VR player doesn't want to do; he wants to kill your army and rush into your base before you can remax).
Brood Lords with like 6-7 spores under them (and, obviously, a ground army)? That's really scary to attack into, especially for Terrans. But is it viable to do a slow push like that?
I don't know if they did that change to encourage Zerg to do slow pushes, at least I would certainly hope not. Zerg is not/should not be Terran. Generally, any design decision to make the game more/less lazy is bad for game design. I'm not talking about UI/unit selection/hotkeys.
I strongly feel that alot of passive abilities that do not require micro should be removed/changed from the game. This is different from active abilities that prevent micro from happening. Consider the Immortal. Great unit. Awesome design. However it's ability does not require any micro. Consider that in BW, you needed to use zealots and sometimes shuttles to break a Terran defense. This made it alot more interesting to watch as a spectator and alot more fun to play as a player.
I'll give another example. Hellion's blue flame upgrade. Whilst it's kindof fun to watch it burn down a conga line of drones, having the research does not actually give the unit any ability to micro. If you would compare it to it's counterpart, the vulture. The vulture had the ability to harass due to its speed upgrade and also lay mines offensively and defensively.
Why does everyone think that there is gonna be some nice magic ultra units and upgrades in the expansions that would turn it out into bw style ? you think that they will balance it out and then add some new units to start again... Expansions will only contain campaign and some new CE creatures. That is IT guys. Anyway big agreed with mahnini, it is a little sad i like to use my example all over again: click on darkshrine and take a look at NOTHING, in bw - BUNCH OF UPGRADES for dark archon... ahhh dark archon rest in peace bro ^^
I dont understand why people hate new psi storm. Smartcasted ok, now there is no skill requirement for it to be used and they can be used effectively even by bronze players. Pros? Well they used them effectively before smartcast and of course use them now so what's the difference? Psi storms became usable on lower level. On the other hand there is clumping of units in sc2 which is the primary reason why tanks, EMPs and psi storms got nerfed, not because these spells are smartcasted. Basicly in sc1 psi storm was underpowered on lower level and overpowered on pro level. Which is not good at all. Yes it looked amazing when storms were winning games left and right and you thought "damn, I wish I could use storms that good" but in the end balancing out the spell on different skill levels is good.
On May 02 2011 20:26 Cheerio wrote: I dont understand why people hate new psi storm. Smartcasted ok, now there is no skill requirement for it to be used and they can be used effectively even by bronze players. Pros? Well they used them effectively before smartcast and of course use them now so what's the difference? Psi storms became usable on lower level. On the other hand there is clumping of units in sc2 which is the primary reason why tanks, EMPs and psi storms got nerfed, not because these spells are smartcasted. Basicly in sc1 psi storm was underpowered on lower level and overpowered on pro level. Which is not good at all. Yes it looked amazing when storms were winning games left and right and you thought "damn, I wish I could use storms that good" but in the end balancing out the spell on different skill levels is good.
gratz. you just highlighted one of the major problems with starcraft 2. pros have a much much much harder time winning games against lesser players. theres very little they can exert in terms of skill or intelligence over their opponent. what can a pro do that a lesser player cant? theres almost nothing and yea. this is kinda good. but it's also one of the largest reasons why the top tier players is so volatile. noobs can take out legendary players. easily.
On May 02 2011 20:26 Cheerio wrote: I dont understand why people hate new psi storm. Smartcasted ok, now there is no skill requirement for it to be used and they can be used effectively even by bronze players. Pros? Well they used them effectively before smartcast and of course use them now so what's the difference? Psi storms became usable on lower level. On the other hand there is clumping of units in sc2 which is the primary reason why tanks, EMPs and psi storms got nerfed, not because these spells are smartcasted. Basicly in sc1 psi storm was underpowered on lower level and overpowered on pro level. Which is not good at all. Yes it looked amazing when storms were winning games left and right and you thought "damn, I wish I could use storms that good" but in the end balancing out the spell on different skill levels is good.
gratz. you just highlighted one of the major problems with starcraft 2. pros have a much much much harder time winning games against lesser players. theres very little they can exert in terms of skill or intelligence over their opponent. what can a pro do that a lesser player cant? theres almost nothing and yea. this is kinda good. but it's also one of the largest reasons why the top tier players is so volatile. noobs can take out legendary players. easily.
Youre overreacting you cant call someone legendary in game that is one year old. This game is RTS the reason that the "lesser player" ,as you say, can win is because he can be smarter... Some of pro's might sometimes be carried by their own ego's and underestimate opponent.. lets face it we are just human beings
correct me if i'm wrong but this is what i got from the op. sc2 is a bad game because there's no micromanagement involved, everything is about min/maxing surface area for dps, there's no gameflow/map control, and sc2 isnt suspensful for the viewer.
maybe im misunderstanding because i myself was never a serious BW player. i played the campaign when i was 8 and lanned it with a group of friends for a summer in highschool (2006). but i never played or watched competively. however that doesnt make my opinion on some of the observations you've made about sc2. and frankly im sad you feel so quick to down play sc2 as a flat game thats oversimplified. id like to go through some of the points the op made and say my 2 cents about the elements in question.
-"there's no micro involed in battles" this is a gross simplification of things. in any battle in sc2 i find there's often too much to do, or that i can always do things better. you use protoss forcefield as an example. as zerg forcefield is a spell i constantly have to be ready for and respond to. i need roach burrow, or baneling drops against a sentry heavy army. both of which require micro. if i have queens around i can transfuse my roaches. if voidrays are involved in their composition i need to target fire those, or colossus for example, corruption helps tremendously against them. those are all just random/common examples. the way you describe micro in sc2 is nothing but pull micro and spell casters. but the bottom line is there is always several things to micro in any given mid-late game battle.
-you mention min/maxing surface area and how its a huge part of sc2, but then you go on to say that positioning is missing from the game. is this not contradicting? as zerg i want to maximize surface area because its favorable to my units. this effects when i attack and how. say im playing a game on metalopolis, and its close by air spawns. a terran tank push is making its way toward my base, i could sit there with my army balled up and wait. or i could position based on surface area. so i move my infestors into my base and wait for the perfect time to fungal/throw infested terran eggs, i move a small roach force to the gold along with some blings, and get a decent spread on my blings. are those not strategical decisions made to influence the outcome of that battle? is there no setup time involved in that.
-that game flow and map control play are less prevalent in sc2. first ill talk about map control. as zerg i take the idea of map control and keep it in a very dear place in my heart. one of the advantages of my race is their great speed. so i utilize that speed in a way that controls the map. i'm ocd about holding the XNT's at all times. i use mutalisks to keep the opponent in their base, and i expand when i know my opponent cant push out on the map easily. if i know i have control of the map then i know my enemy cant attack me directly. so i prepare for dts, drops, banshees, anything that could catch me off guard. and when i lose a tower i scout his army positioning and prepare for an attack. its these fundamentals in play that demonstrate map control is still very much important in sc2. it may be easier than BW due to the xel naga towers but it still plays a fundamental role.
-as far as gameflow goes a large portion of that is answered with map control. and scouting. in sc2 you have to be aware of what your opponent plans to do and what their options are. those components effectively give you flow of the game. and in fact all the example you gave on game flow still imply in sc2, and you made no mention on how gameflow doesnt exist. for the sake of consistency ill give examples of game flow in sc2. when a terrans on three bases and turtling to 200 you can poke at their weak points to slow them down. fly mutas into their base while you attack their third with a sizable force. you kill some depots, a few tanks, and workers. in doing so your 4 base advantage trumps his 3. and you slow down the push or force an all in. another example is baneling dropping protoss mineral lines to slow their economy. or going burrow roach upon scouting 6 gate, stopping an attack cold.
-mechanics were more than a skillgap. im not sure what the argument here exactly is as you said saying somebody won the game because theyre faster is just stupid. and then you speak about unit dynamics and how sc2 you can 1a to victory and that is sufficient. and once again say the only type of micro one can execute is pull micro. as well as statements like, there are no clutch storms. etc etc. im not sure how familiar you are with sc2 but its no secret that mechanics are less taxing and easier to manage. so i dont see how mechanics have become only a skillgap when i feel if nothing, that gap has been bridged better. the game is more accessible by virtue of being easier to play. people can focus less on dropping depots, and making units and more on the strategical side of things. i consider this an excellent improvement in terms of gameplay and the argument that the games too easy is ridiculous. anyone who claims the game is too easy better be #1 or damn near close to it.
-in regards to your argument on the thrill of spectating sc2 as a sport, i must respectfully disagree with you. during the first few months what you say about wow factor and suspense was partially true. but as more and more strategies are figured out games have gotten exponentially exciting to watch. for instance the moment you see a group of banelings move toward the center of the map, or an obvious attack route; the seeds of suspense are sewn immediately. even the casters have trouble focusing on anything besides those inconspicuous banelings. and as the marine tank walks over, i can assure you everyone is holding their breath. and anything involving banelings honestly but thats the obvious answer to your doubts on sc2. what about the times when 3 ghosts creep up on a protoss army, and you know that the deciding factor of the preceding battle will be strong emps. how about the bunker thats repaired just in time, saving the entire terran base from destruction. or the stimmed marines that snipe that pivitol satalite expansion or tech structure when the the opponent is busy fighting a battle. even a unit that you made clear your opinion on, the sentry, can be used in truly beautiful and awe inspiring ways. fungal growth and neural parasite in conjunction with a great ling surround. or well practiced blink usage. or how about when a zerg players hold the protoss 6 gate that looked unstoppable only moments before, by the skin of his teeth, with a surge of roaches and lings, and then stomps all hopes of retreat. and lets not forget of course the obvious favorites; nydus worms, motherships, nukes. all a crowd pleaser.
CONCLUSION//TL:DR in closing i hope you dont consider this a flame post. as i mentioned before i dont claim to know the ins and outs of BW. i played it casually but that is the extend of my knowledge. however i did my best to keep my post relevant to what the meat and bones of the OP pertains to. and the above was written out of interest in discussion. starcraft 2 is a great game. as it should be considering its heritage. however, for it to be truly enjoyed it must be seen in its own right. and not in the shadows of BW. so once again i mean no offense to the brood war vets because without you guys sc2 simply would not be what it was. i am simply here to remind that you should not let yourself get distracted by what it is. please feel free to comment and critique my thoughts. Thanks for reading
On April 25 2011 09:11 nepitolko wrote: I still dont understand your point regarding changing the clumping AI and saying that it is a problem for e-sport?
In SC1 you were fighting with the retarded pathing....
Now the issue is solved and you need to fight with the clumping AI to avoid splash dmg and to get the most out of your units.
Retarded pathing eh ? have you even played bw before or are you just spitting out ideas that from some one else as for your info sc bw has very good ai pathing .
This is obviously a exaggerated video but the pathing is in no way good in BW.
you know that most of the scenes in these videos are staged?
how i see this game for now.... i was wc3 tft player.. and i played sc1 a litle (play some costum games finished campaing) before sc2 come..
and sc1 was and is great strategyc game OF positioning,map controll, skill micro macro,great brain usage... plenty of things involed in sc1..
wc3 tft on other hend is also skill based but its more micro then macro and there is no positioning and staff like that simply its hiro games with not much strategys(also game with hard conters )like sc2.... so strategy is based on only few unites riders,spriti walkers,grunts hero...(orc)
in sc2 i expected at list to be like sc1 bw with few add staf in game... but they change direction of game by add hard conters (i think like in wc3 tft) and that hard conters also mass DPS (collos,banglings,stim) i think they hurting game inovations in strategy...one dimension of gamepaly is put in front of as....but this is only 1st part of game so we can expect plenty of new things in 2expansions....
conclusion : i think sc2 should be more like bw and that is map control,more skillfull unites,positioning,more strategys,, unites that are uslfull wholl game...
i think the game will be like that after few patch and 2 expansions more... but i am woried abouth mass DPS from some unites in game...also i would like to unite conter unites and not like i need fungel or Tunder storm to conter mass marines or maraders....
also if i fight agenst colloss i cant conter em with zealots stalkers (almoust inposible) only wikings,coropters,, and colloss war conter colloss and that shouldnt be case..
simply i would like to hide some pylon and warp in some zealots (or stalkers) bihind colloss line and after my aremy face oponent army i trow some zealots on his collos bihind him and kill em....(that is positioning part of game that is mising) and if i do that now colloss will burn my stalkers zealots 2 easy...
if there is mass dps colloss i think that then that unites should be (if they are exposed ) easy to kill with basic unites....so if something do mass dps i think there should be week spot like to have wery low hp or something.....
On May 02 2011 21:38 Sporadic44 wrote: correct me if i'm wrong but this is what i got from the op. sc2 is a bad game because there's no micromanagement involved, everything is about min/maxing surface area for dps, there's no gameflow/map control, and sc2 isnt suspensful for the viewer.
maybe im misunderstanding because i myself was never a serious BW player. i played the campaign when i was 8 and lanned it with a group of friends for a summer in highschool (2006). but i never played or watched competively. however that doesnt make my opinion on some of the observations you've made about sc2. and frankly im sad you feel so quick to down play sc2 as a flat game thats oversimplified. id like to go through some of the points the op made and say my 2 cents about the elements in question.
-"there's no micro involed in battles" this is a gross simplification of things. in any battle in sc2 i find there's often too much to do, or that i can always do things better. you use protoss forcefield as an example. as zerg forcefield is a spell i constantly have to be ready for and respond to. i need roach burrow, or baneling drops against a sentry heavy army. both of which require micro. if i have queens around i can transfuse my roaches. if voidrays are involved in their composition i need to target fire those, or colossus for example, corruption helps tremendously against them. those are all just random/common examples. the way you describe micro in sc2 is nothing but pull micro and spell casters. but the bottom line is there is always several things to micro in any given mid-late game battle.
-you mention min/maxing surface area and how its a huge part of sc2, but then you go on to say that positioning is missing from the game. is this not contradicting? as zerg i want to maximize surface area because its favorable to my units. this effects when i attack and how. say im playing a game on metalopolis, and its close by air spawns. a terran tank push is making its way toward my base, i could sit there with my army balled up and wait. or i could position based on surface area. so i move my infestors into my base and wait for the perfect time to fungal/throw infested terran eggs, i move a small roach force to the gold along with some blings, and get a decent spread on my blings. are those not strategical decisions made to influence the outcome of that battle? is there no setup time involved in that.
-that game flow and map control play are less prevalent in sc2. first ill talk about map control. as zerg i take the idea of map control and keep it in a very dear place in my heart. one of the advantages of my race is their great speed. so i utilize that speed in a way that controls the map. i'm ocd about holding the XNT's at all times. i use mutalisks to keep the opponent in their base, and i expand when i know my opponent cant push out on the map easily. if i know i have control of the map then i know my enemy cant attack me directly. so i prepare for dts, drops, banshees, anything that could catch me off guard. and when i lose a tower i scout his army positioning and prepare for an attack. its these fundamentals in play that demonstrate map control is still very much important in sc2. it may be easier than BW due to the xel naga towers but it still plays a fundamental role.
-as far as gameflow goes a large portion of that is answered with map control. and scouting. in sc2 you have to be aware of what your opponent plans to do and what their options are. those components effectively give you flow of the game. and in fact all the example you gave on game flow still imply in sc2, and you made no mention on how gameflow doesnt exist. for the sake of consistency ill give examples of game flow in sc2. when a terrans on three bases and turtling to 200 you can poke at their weak points to slow them down. fly mutas into their base while you attack their third with a sizable force. you kill some depots, a few tanks, and workers. in doing so your 4 base advantage trumps his 3. and you slow down the push or force an all in. another example is baneling dropping protoss mineral lines to slow their economy. or going burrow roach upon scouting 6 gate, stopping an attack cold.
-mechanics were more than a skillgap. im not sure what the argument here exactly is as you said saying somebody won the game because theyre faster is just stupid. and then you speak about unit dynamics and how sc2 you can 1a to victory and that is sufficient. and once again say the only type of micro one can execute is pull micro. as well as statements like, there are no clutch storms. etc etc. im not sure how familiar you are with sc2 but its no secret that mechanics are less taxing and easier to manage. so i dont see how mechanics have become only a skillgap when i feel if nothing, that gap has been bridged better. the game is more accessible by virtue of being easier to play. people can focus less on dropping depots, and making units and more on the strategical side of things. i consider this an excellent improvement in terms of gameplay and the argument that the games too easy is ridiculous. anyone who claims the game is too easy better be #1 or damn near close to it.
-in regards to your argument on the thrill of spectating sc2 as a sport, i must respectfully disagree with you. during the first few months what you say about wow factor and suspense was partially true. but as more and more strategies are figured out games have gotten exponentially exciting to watch. for instance the moment you see a group of banelings move toward the center of the map, or an obvious attack route; the seeds of suspense are sewn immediately. even the casters have trouble focusing on anything besides those inconspicuous banelings. and as the marine tank walks over, i can assure you everyone is holding their breath. and anything involving banelings honestly but thats the obvious answer to your doubts on sc2. what about the times when 3 ghosts creep up on a protoss army, and you know that the deciding factor of the preceding battle will be strong emps. how about the bunker thats repaired just in time, saving the entire terran base from destruction. or the stimmed marines that snipe that pivitol satalite expansion or tech structure when the the opponent is busy fighting a battle. even a unit that you made clear your opinion on, the sentry, can be used in truly beautiful and awe inspiring ways. fungal growth and neural parasite in conjunction with a great ling surround. or well practiced blink usage. or how about when a zerg players hold the protoss 6 gate that looked unstoppable only moments before, by the skin of his teeth, with a surge of roaches and lings, and then stomps all hopes of retreat. and lets not forget of course the obvious favorites; nydus worms, motherships, nukes. all a crowd pleaser.
CONCLUSION//TL:DR in closing i hope you dont consider this a flame post. as i mentioned before i dont claim to know the ins and outs of BW. i played it casually but that is the extend of my knowledge. however i did my best to keep my post relevant to what the meat and bones of the OP pertains to. and the above was written out of interest in discussion. starcraft 2 is a great game. as it should be considering its heritage. however, for it to be truly enjoyed it must be seen in its own right. and not in the shadows of BW. so once again i mean no offense to the brood war vets because without you guys sc2 simply would not be what it was. i am simply here to remind that you should not let yourself get distracted by what it is. please feel free to comment and critique my thoughts. Thanks for reading
how i think game will gat positioning important in this game agean...
simply unites like colloss do trumendus dps if you are infront of their atc....but they are ranged 9 and they are hard to rech....and if you rich them they have enaph hp to risist your atc from bihing....(also they are able to wolk ower unites...)
so what i figure out now is that unites with mass dps they must have more weeknes than it is now like eaven less hp (exemple for collos) to be easyer killed from graund also as from air... so if you atc them from multiply directions you kill em easyer....
as for stim and baglings they also do to much dps and i think they also dont sufer enaph dmg from it.....simply medivac heal them or banglings they simply come to your thors sige lines whatewer you do....
*looks through thread for a post that supports my pre-existing view*
Ah very well said! Good job!
Sigh.. you managed to quote a post by a guy who admits he never played BW seriously, yet proceeded to write paragraphs and paragraphs of stuff anyway. You can't comment on a comparison between 2 games when you don't even know one of the games well enough to understand the comparison.
We need less of you pointless post-spamming bandwagon-jumpers around who can't even formulate their own opinion. Post that say SC2 good. Me agree. *post*
EPT
and that shouldnt be case..
