|
On July 14 2011 00:51 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:44 andrewlt wrote:On July 14 2011 00:27 Lokian wrote:
nuclear bombs can control a space for a couple of secs, as well as vortexes, forcefields, etc.
The thing is, lurkers, siege tanks, spider mines can all be killed. What is permanent about that. You're describing a category that is not defense nor spell casting. In a sense, every unit has a certain amount of 'controlling space and positioning.' but when you're using lurkers, siege tanks, spidermines it means you want to surprise your enemy using traps. so ima assume that's what is meant by 'controlling space and positioning' lol
in sc2, what kind of units can utilize the role of trapping an army without spellcasting? burrowed bannelings. Dts. ghosts. You can rule out Dts and ghosts since what you're probably wanting is static defense that can trap units, which doesn't even matter IMO.
burrowed bannelings. Burrowed anything. umm... point defense drone?
The difference is that they do so efficiently. They can cause a lot more damage compared to what they cost but they don't leave an opponent completely helpless and having to wait them out. If the sentry's forcefields have hitpoints, they can simulate the effect somewhat. Burrowed banelings can be like spider mines but they are prohibitively expensive and you can't spread them around the map. They are not just used for trapping, though trapping is one of their biggest uses. They are also used for slowing down the enemy advance by forcing your opponent to either slowly clear them or take huge losses trying to rush them. See how easy it is to rush sieged tanks in SC2 compared to BW. You can't do that in BW because strategically placed spider mines can destroy huge chunks of your army. What makes these units important is that they can be used to guard chokepoints or far off third, fourth, etc. bases without weakening your main army too much. It lets one player attack an expansion without the other player simply waltzing in and destroying one of his expansions in response. A few of these things can massively slow down the opposing army and let your army come back to defend. you have planetary and spine and spores, which dont need supply and protoss has cannons and warp ins
You're talking about mostly base only defenses that can't be used offensively or be used to control different areas of the map. Not to mention, they don't have the cost effectiveness of siege tanks, lurkers and spider mines.
Take your earlier example of an overlord spreading creep so spine crawlers can control space. Guess what, 2 roaches do the same dps for roughly the same cost. By controlling space, we don't mean doing so in a completely cost ineffective way.
|
On July 14 2011 00:26 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:18 lorkac wrote:On July 14 2011 00:14 andrewlt wrote:No. No. No. No. No. No. No. You're just missing the point completely. Sieged tanks, lurkers and spider mines allow you to control any point in the map permanently until you move them or your opponent destroys them. The way they do it is being much more efficient than more mobile units that don't need to be rooted down to attack. They are also used to slow down an opponent's advance or retreat because they have to be careful moving around the map. Static defense buildings and a temporary AOE attack aren't space controlling units. A nuclear bomb controls space just as well as a psionic storm. Terrans have Siege Tanks Zerg have been using a combination of Spine Crawlers and Infestors for much the same thing Protoss doesn't really have anything like that--but neither did they have anything like that in BW. If that's your only argument I hate to be the one to tell you that it's only factually wrong. You're still missing the point. Siege tanks are much weaker than they are compared to their BW counterparts. Both spider mines and lurkers need detection so their opponents need to walk carefully around the map. Spine crawlers don't have the dps and splash damage to control space effectively nor can they do it outside of creep. Infestors can be somewhat compared to the defiler but not to the lurker. Protoss actually had that in the reaver. It was so slow that people very rarely moved it on its own. People moved it around using shuttles. People who have only followed one scene can't really argue well with people who follow both.
Actually, yes siege tanks do hold the line in sc2. However, it's much easier to circumvent them in sc2.
Yes, spine crawlers are limited to creep. But creep is spread across half the map more times than not. Creep spread alone slows down Protoss and Terran as they have to clear them out or risk getting overwhelmed by Zerg forces.
An are comparing reaver/shuttle to a siege tank line? Are you really suggesting those two serve the same function?
Please try not to so this stupid so often.
|
I agree. SC2 really has deeper micro and it matters more,so SC2 skill cap is even higher than BW.
Look when you use marines. You must micro them hard, because their dps is so high, but they also die fast. BW doesnt have this very high dmg, so micro matters less cos longfight = everything evens so macro guys win. But with SC2 u have pro micro, you need hard micro to win fights because it matters. You got baneling drops, burrows, rine splits, pro forcefield angles. You gotta do this because you win or lose game from this, so IMO the skill cap is higher in SC2 and rhino is in BW pro scene, not the other way around.. which might explain the numerous leavers.
|
On July 14 2011 01:07 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:26 andrewlt wrote:On July 14 2011 00:18 lorkac wrote:On July 14 2011 00:14 andrewlt wrote:No. No. No. No. No. No. No. You're just missing the point completely. Sieged tanks, lurkers and spider mines allow you to control any point in the map permanently until you move them or your opponent destroys them. The way they do it is being much more efficient than more mobile units that don't need to be rooted down to attack. They are also used to slow down an opponent's advance or retreat because they have to be careful moving around the map. Static defense buildings and a temporary AOE attack aren't space controlling units. A nuclear bomb controls space just as well as a psionic storm. Terrans have Siege Tanks Zerg have been using a combination of Spine Crawlers and Infestors for much the same thing Protoss doesn't really have anything like that--but neither did they have anything like that in BW. If that's your only argument I hate to be the one to tell you that it's only factually wrong. You're still missing the point. Siege tanks are much weaker than they are compared to their BW counterparts. Both spider mines and lurkers need detection so their opponents need to walk carefully around the map. Spine crawlers don't have the dps and splash damage to control space effectively nor can they do it outside of creep. Infestors can be somewhat compared to the defiler but not to the lurker. Protoss actually had that in the reaver. It was so slow that people very rarely moved it on its own. People moved it around using shuttles. People who have only followed one scene can't really argue well with people who follow both. Actually, yes siege tanks do hold the line in sc2. However, it's much easier to circumvent them in sc2. Yes, spine crawlers are limited to creep. But creep is spread across half the map more times than not. Creep spread alone slows down Protoss and Terran as they have to clear them out or risk getting overwhelmed by Zerg forces. An are comparing reaver/shuttle to a siege tank line? Are you really suggesting those two serve the same function? Please try not to so this stupid so often.
Yes in terms of mobility and setup time reavers are probably closer to the siege tank than to the colossus...
|
I am going to argue for the increased automation of SC2 mechanics.
Any set of actions that does not require a decision should be condensed. This is a guiding principle of automation.
In your post you state:
Just take it to its logical extreme. Imagine if macroing were just a toggle button. One click and the insane computer AI took control of your workers and structures. You simply toggled which units you wanted and the computer built them as efficiently as it could. The only thing that separated you from your opponent was unit control. Unit control and unit selection. Do you really think Flash would still be Flash and Jaedong would still be Jaedong? Sure they would win games, but the margin of error would be razor thin. Normal players would become much, much better. Pros who who already do everything flawlessly? Doesn't help them as much.
This is flawed because decision making is required in the production of probes, scvs, and most of all drones. A player can make a decision to cut workers for his 4-gate or a zerg can decide to stop producing drones for his 11 pool. This is not a valid argument against automation.
If I direct the rally point of my command center to a mineral patch what do you think I am going to do with that unit once it gets there. If I didn't want it to mine I could direct it anywhere else. There is no decision making required in the process of sending an scv to mine. You will always want an scv directed to a mineral patch to start mining.
A better and more controversial example of SC2 automation is smart casting. Many BW veterans disagree with this feature because it reduces the amound of skill required to mass cast spells e.g. carpet storming. When a pro carpet stormed in BW it was an act of massive skill because of the intense APM requirement. In SC2 a toddler could carpet storm. I argue that this is not a negative. Besides selecting the locations and timings for his storms the BW player made no other decisions. He will always want to use the closest high templar with enough energy to storm, but bringing those decisions into the game took considerably more button presses than it did for the SC2 toddler.
Why should we cling to these dated mechanics? If I had to choose between hitting 10 keys in a row to carpet storm and 4, then I would choose 4 every time.
For those of you who would say that this sort of arbitrary skill is what makes BW players great I have a response. If APM is being saved by automating non-decision actions, then that APM can be allocated to other actions. Imagine how great SC2 will be in 10 years once the players have learned to utilize their massive APMs properly. Imagine how much more APM will be available to players for dropping, harrasment, creep spread, unit micro, etc. If a player could do a 4 pronged attack in BW then I am sure with practice that he could a 6-pronged attack in SC2 with the same APM because of the new automated mechanics.
There are many problems with SC2 including a few boring units, short battles, and some bad maps to name a few, but there are still two expansions and many additional patches that will eventually fix these problems. The important fact is that automating non-decision sequences is not one of those problems. It is one of the games greatest strengths.
|
On July 14 2011 01:05 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:02 Miefer wrote:On July 14 2011 00:53 aimless wrote:On July 14 2011 00:36 crms wrote:
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW. All I said was that non-Koreans seem more competitive in SC2 than BW. You can throw out the first couple years of BW; nobody really played the game the way RTS are played today. -if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games. Yes, but in BW armies are harder to control. Which gives a good player has more time and space to set up his units, so it is less likely that the good player ends up in a terrible spot. A bad player won't smash a good player as quickly in BW as it happens in SC2. As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released? I certainly never said SC2 was bad. I said people will reach the best levels of play more quickly and there will be more "best" players than BW ever had, so the game won't have the same level of excitment to watch. It was much cooler watching a game of a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable. I'm not sure we'll see an "unbeatable" SC2 player. That's all. one player dominating everything isnt exciting for me. I mean if I already know the outcome of the game, why should I care to watch? Its more fun if there is a chance to win also for the underdog, like Sen vs MC. In soccer for example the german Bundesliga is more fun to wach then the spanish Primera Division where only 2 teams dominate the whole league. In Bundesliga you have more teams that have a chance to win the championship. * You never watched BW do you? In BW what was really exciting was the fact that one era of dominance succeded an other one. The fact that Oov who looked invicible in TvZ was suddenly stomped by sAviOr, that sAviOr who was the best player ever at the time had been totally outclassed by Bisu and so on... Show nested quote +
spines dont need supply, so you can get bigger armys. also spines only cost minerals and zergs generally lacks on gas and have plenty of overmins
Yeah maybe in late game but i doubt that zerg players really want to hold certain positions in mid game with spines
so you are saying that it is exciting for you, so it has to be exciting for me too? just look at the viewer count of streams. 70000 watching nasl finals. 300 osl or msl...
also I dont understand why the zerg need to hold certain areas in the late game. all zergs needs to defend are the drops or hellion harras by the terrans. the rest of the army stays most of the time together so you dont need to hold an area.
|
Basically the op said, sc1 > than sc2 will ever be. I don't agree with that, shoot me, man.
User was warned for this post
|
The fact that people don't see what's so good about 0 supply defensive structures that started the game defending the natural and then moves to a choke point during the midgame to slow down the enemy's advance is astounding. It blows my mind actually.
|
lol @ people trying to convince themselves that sc2 has higher skill cap :p that won"t ever be the case, sorry.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 14 2011 00:42 Lokian wrote:
whats so incredibly skillful of placing down spider mines again? Positioning right? It's basically, everywhere on the map in progaming these days.
If you want units that can slow down armies. how about sentries blocking ramps?
The only difference is that you have to be more skillful to put down forcefields than put down mines and leave.
And forcefield don't even last that long. There's tons of abilities that can slow down armies. Even armies can slow down armies by clashes. Marauders even have slowing and ppl hate that unit.
again there's auto turrets, and point defense drone...
sc2 didn't want to make them permanent i guess. but for what reason? I wonder why... maybe because they think spidermines aren't fun?
Skill isn't placing mines. That's not that hard. The point is that by placing mines you have a chance to recover from your losses For example. Player A terran, B protoss.
Player A decide in the mid game to do a small push with tanks and vulture, but before that he places some mines on the road that connect the center to his natural. Player B goes for the classic goon speedlot composition The 2 armies clashes in the middle, and player B is able to push back the Terran and to kill some tanks and vultures. Now, if this scenario was in SC2, Player B could go for the kill by walking into the natural of player A, who has NO time to rebuild an army capable of pushing back Player A's army. But this is BW, so there are mines. Let's continue the example. Player B has pushed back the terran, and now he wants to take advantage of his superior army by destroying terran natural. Player B send in two zealot to check for mines. The two zealot dies because a mine exploded and killed them. Player B must clean the minefield if he wants to destroy the natural, so he send his obs along with this dragoons to carefully clean up those nasty mines (he doesn't want to lose those expensive goons!). Player B could even have no obs, thus forcing him to build a romo, then an observatory, then the obs, but let's say that B has got an obs and he clear the minefield. By the time B reach A's natural, A was able to build up an army that could fight back B, but not to kill it entirely, so B can decide or to contain A, or to fall back to his base and gather a larger army.
As you see in BW there aren't big blob vs blob battles that decide the game, for 2 reasons:
1) the defender is able to retreat to his base and to build ap an army
2) the units aren't so awfully clumped, thus AOE can't kill the army in 3 sec
|
On July 14 2011 01:12 Miefer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 01:05 Kanku wrote:On July 14 2011 01:02 Miefer wrote:On July 14 2011 00:53 aimless wrote:On July 14 2011 00:36 crms wrote:
I think a lot of the OP is intellectually dishonest.
-bit about non koreans being able to compete with koreans after only 1 year but couldn't after 12 in BW.
That isn't even analogous. Non Koreans could complete with Koreans within the first year of Starcraft.. The gap didn't happen until Korea became the mecca and its proscene developed. There was none of this outside of Korea. Now with SC2 each area Korea/Non Korea has a developing and thriving proscene, of course Korea is still practicing and the infrastructure and playbook is already further along as they've learned lessons from BW. All I said was that non-Koreans seem more competitive in SC2 than BW. You can throw out the first couple years of BW; nobody really played the game the way RTS are played today. -if a player is out of position for a moment a great player can lose to someone because units kill efficiently and easily-
Ok.. so you dont think if a great BW player left his army out of position against any decent starleague player the starleague player would smash the army? In both games making minor errors can cost you games. Yes, but in BW armies are harder to control. Which gives a good player has more time and space to set up his units, so it is less likely that the good player ends up in a terrible spot. A bad player won't smash a good player as quickly in BW as it happens in SC2. As for the rest of it.. yes sc2 is less mechanically demanding to do basic functions such as harvest or build units. However, I haven't seen any substantial or empirical proof why this is 'bad' or will make sc2 any less skillful. The game hasn't even hit 1 year old yet. Do you think people were playing much better when SC1/BW was first released? I certainly never said SC2 was bad. I said people will reach the best levels of play more quickly and there will be more "best" players than BW ever had, so the game won't have the same level of excitment to watch. It was much cooler watching a game of a guy that everyone thought was unbeatable. I'm not sure we'll see an "unbeatable" SC2 player. That's all. one player dominating everything isnt exciting for me. I mean if I already know the outcome of the game, why should I care to watch? Its more fun if there is a chance to win also for the underdog, like Sen vs MC. In soccer for example the german Bundesliga is more fun to wach then the spanish Primera Division where only 2 teams dominate the whole league. In Bundesliga you have more teams that have a chance to win the championship. * You never watched BW do you? In BW what was really exciting was the fact that one era of dominance succeded an other one. The fact that Oov who looked invicible in TvZ was suddenly stomped by sAviOr, that sAviOr who was the best player ever at the time had been totally outclassed by Bisu and so on...
spines dont need supply, so you can get bigger armys. also spines only cost minerals and zergs generally lacks on gas and have plenty of overmins
Yeah maybe in late game but i doubt that zerg players really want to hold certain positions in mid game with spines so you are saying that it is exciting for you, so it has to be exciting for me too? just look at the viewer count of streams. 70000 watching nasl finals. 300 osl or msl... also I dont understand why the zerg need to hold certain areas in the late game. all zergs needs to defend are the drops or hellion harras by the terrans. the rest of the army stays most of the time together so you dont need to hold an area.
You missed my point, you misundestood the interest of the BW scene (of course no one want to watch the same player rape everyone again and again) so I just explained it to you and of course there will be more foreigners viewers for the NASL finals than for the OSL because SC2 foreign community is way bigger; does that mean that OSL and MSL aren't as exciting to watch I don't think so.
Also you misunderstood what I said concerning spines.
I said that as spine crawlers aren't efficient way of controling space they are not going to be used before late game when you start to bank a lot of ressources.
|
in early game where u have a hatch and a ramp to defend do you need untis like lurkers for that?
|
I think the OP is pissed cause Nestea and MC didn't win 4 championships in a row! Or that would be fucking imba, right?
|
On July 14 2011 01:07 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2011 00:26 andrewlt wrote:On July 14 2011 00:18 lorkac wrote:On July 14 2011 00:14 andrewlt wrote:No. No. No. No. No. No. No. You're just missing the point completely. Sieged tanks, lurkers and spider mines allow you to control any point in the map permanently until you move them or your opponent destroys them. The way they do it is being much more efficient than more mobile units that don't need to be rooted down to attack. They are also used to slow down an opponent's advance or retreat because they have to be careful moving around the map. Static defense buildings and a temporary AOE attack aren't space controlling units. A nuclear bomb controls space just as well as a psionic storm. Terrans have Siege Tanks Zerg have been using a combination of Spine Crawlers and Infestors for much the same thing Protoss doesn't really have anything like that--but neither did they have anything like that in BW. If that's your only argument I hate to be the one to tell you that it's only factually wrong. You're still missing the point. Siege tanks are much weaker than they are compared to their BW counterparts. Both spider mines and lurkers need detection so their opponents need to walk carefully around the map. Spine crawlers don't have the dps and splash damage to control space effectively nor can they do it outside of creep. Infestors can be somewhat compared to the defiler but not to the lurker. Protoss actually had that in the reaver. It was so slow that people very rarely moved it on its own. People moved it around using shuttles. People who have only followed one scene can't really argue well with people who follow both. Actually, yes siege tanks do hold the line in sc2. However, it's much easier to circumvent them in sc2. Yes, spine crawlers are limited to creep. But creep is spread across half the map more times than not. Creep spread alone slows down Protoss and Terran as they have to clear them out or risk getting overwhelmed by Zerg forces. An are comparing reaver/shuttle to a siege tank line? Are you really suggesting those two serve the same function? Please try not to so this stupid so often.
Much easier to circumvent is the key phrase here. They barely hold the line at all. Many pros have opted to abandon them by going for full bio. A space controlling unit has to be much stronger than mobile forces, which isn't the case. A few marauders can easily wreck a siege tank line.
Spine crawlers just do not have the dps or the splash damage of lurkers. They're not effective offensively, either, aside from some early game cheeses.
And like another poster mentioned, reavers are much closer to siege tanks than to colossus. In late game situations, many protoss players have reavers with their cannons in their expansions. The splash damage is significant
|
Isn't the fact more people prefer watching A instead of B indicative that society as a whole prefer A over B?
Cold hard facts wise I mean. You can always have your own biases and opinions. But if numbers say that more people watch A than they do B--doesn't that mean that the people defending B are silly for holding on to an archaic game that they feel is superior because (according to this thread)
it's harder to click on the screen and combat is more forgiving allowing you to come back from making mistakes and feel like you have a big penis just because you can remember to right click a mineral patch every 15 seconds or so.
|
On July 14 2011 01:20 Miefer wrote:
in early game where u have a hatch and a ramp to defend do you need untis like lurkers for that?
Yes. Marines can easily destroy base defenses. In BW, once the zerg has teched up to lurkers, it makes marine busts more difficult. The Terran needs to tech up to get detection and get either siege tanks or science vessels for irradiate.
A few lurkers also allow your zerglings and mutalisks to roam around the map harassing instead of having to defend your ramp. Lurkers are way more cost effective at defending ramps. Furthermore, unlike static defenses, you can switch to attacking with lurkers.
|
Basically SC2 is more WC3 than BW. *ducks*
On July 14 2011 01:30 lorkac wrote:
Isn't the fact more people prefer watching A instead of B indicative that society as a whole prefer A over B?
Cold hard facts wise I mean. You can always have your own biases and opinions. But if numbers say that more people watch A than they do B--doesn't that mean that the people defending B are silly for holding on to an archaic game that they feel is superior because (according to this thread)
it's harder to click on the screen and combat is more forgiving allowing you to come back from making mistakes and feel like you have a big penis just because you can remember to right click a mineral patch every 15 seconds or so.
There are more sc2 players therefore there should be more viewers, not because the games are better.
right click a mineral patch every 15 seconds or so
You have never player BW have you :3 That's a huge oversimplification.
|
I personally think that SC2 skill is far more enjoyable to watch and more interesting than BW skill. I mean seriously we're testing how fast someone can click their workers to the mineral line and hit different buildings to build units? Yes, to do that well takes practice and skill, but I liken that to working on an assembly line, challenging, but also insanely boring and kinda useless when we can have the machines (ie AI) do this for us. This is when strategy becomes MORE important than simple mechanics and making it so that people who have a deeper understanding of the game can be competitive instead of those who simply spend thousands of hours practicing their worker splits. (obviously this is an exaggeration but you know where I'm coming from)
Also, I don't understand why people WANT bonjwas in the first place. I mean come on! When the same player wins every time, then the excitement dies down because the game stagnates. Think about soccer (or football whatever) and how there can be freak losses because of big mistakes. Teams can be upset all the time (think 2010 world cup) and this game is insanely popular. It actually takes a higher level of practice to make sure that you don't make these game-losing mistakes which is a skill in its own right. I think starcraft 2 advocates for perfect play, and is far less forgiving in some aspects than BW. Because of this we won't have bonjwas, at least not until people can truly perfect their play.
|
On July 14 2011 01:30 lorkac wrote:
Isn't the fact more people prefer watching A instead of B indicative that society as a whole prefer A over B?
Cold hard facts wise I mean. You can always have your own biases and opinions. But if numbers say that more people watch A than they do B--doesn't that mean that the people defending B are silly for holding on to an archaic game that they feel is superior because (according to this thread)
it's harder to click on the screen and combat is more forgiving allowing you to come back from making mistakes and feel like you have a big penis just because you can remember to right click a mineral patch every 15 seconds or so.
Have you seen anyone arguing that harder mechanics are a good thing since like 3 page now?
You obviously couldn't make a point concerning area control so you try to derail the discussion...
|
spidermines -> Reavers, spidermines have auto-target
burrowed banelling has same role as spidermine if that role is 'slowing down enemies.' supply? 1 supply? really?
in summary, people are complaining sc2 is easypeasy and that players should be chained down and have their hands tied to make those that can play it with restraints be better than everyone else. That's how people think bw 'bonjwas' are produced. Except its not. Credit the progamers for their good micro and strategies. bw progamers are more than that, come on. got to respect their game.
The other more rational argument is about game mechanics and unit variety and how they interact with each other.
Basically, everyone is saying BW is fun because its BW and nothing else. SC2 must be just like BW in order for it to be good. SC2 needs units to have the same role and purpose as BW. SC2 needs to have the same movement control as BW. Everything has to be the same or have mirrored purpose/role as in BW.
Sounds to me like someone really likes BW. SC2 has its up and down just like BW, and there's plenty of skill involved. Every game is not the same and there's tons of more strategy to be explored because new maps will keep being released. SC2 movement mechanic vs SC1 movement mechanic is what really makes the difference. SC2 movement is more fluid and bobly, which makes splash damage more effective. I don't get why that makes things easier for progamers. You want to seperate your units and make an arc vs your enemy just like BW for more damage via surface area. What is the difference here?
When you have two terran balls, who will win? the one where its just A move and that units in front only fire while the others in the back find its way? Or the ball where it seperates first so that the majority of the units gets the first hit in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
