|
On July 16 2011 00:26 MidKnight wrote:
Oh this thread is back again?
At any case, SC2 is less mechanically demanding, that's a fact and anyone who played SC:BW should understand that immediately.. If that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion altogether.
It seems most of these SC2 elitists never played BW at all least semi-competitive level. That game is HARD, man.
Between stupid AI and thus the requirement to constantly pay attention to your units in order for them to not bug out and be effective, smaller field of vision, 12-max control groups, smartcasting etc. etc., heck, even trying to get rid of a scouting worker requires a lot of attention, because the way AI works you ACTUALLY have to predict your opponents juking patterns and can't simply right-click with your lings and be done with it, the skill ceiling can't even be comparable. Talking from personal experience here.
Again, if that's a negative or a positive thing depends on the preferences, facts still remain facts
I don't think there are SC2 elitists. There are however BW elitists who come to thread like this to express how much SC2 is inferior compared to BW and how much it sucks. And then, since SC2 is kinda new and popular, someone new responds to that by making some arguments which have no foundation in some ways since they don't know that much about BW understandbly. And then it goes over and over again.
|
I play SC2 and BW and i know for a fact that SC2 skill cap is way lower. It will never go up
As far as im concerned, a good two base build is all you'll ever need
|
On July 16 2011 00:42 Loodah wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 00:40 Kanku wrote:On July 16 2011 00:36 lorkac wrote:[B]On July 16 2011 00:21 Kanku wrote: How many years did it take for Flash to show up in BW? During the years before Flash was BW a bad game that only noobs played?
No right? As time progressed players got better right?
Or is that something BW supporters don't believe is possible? And that's exactly what I said (you know the part that you quoted, you know the part talking about the addons...), so please read my posts before posting dumb things like that... Then you agree that SC2 is currently only comparable to the early years of BW where Foreign players were dominating and Koreans were just people who played the same build over and over and over again. SC2 is still a young game. But people like to bring up players like Flash showcasing dominance and when SC2 players show that there more than one person who have the same win % or better--suddenly it doesn't count because Flash's win % is supposedly more meaningful. It's arbitrary. If you want to stick to the math--SC2 players are already dominating as much as him. If you want to bring up number of games played, SC2 players have time on their side in that they haven't had enough tournaments to allow that many games to be played. If you want to go to the "player quality" aspect--that is all relative. Give me a baseball bat and I could a near infinite number of 3 year old children in a fight. But give another 200+ lbs 6' tall man a baseball bat and it's a high stakes matchup. Difficulty of opponent is only relative to the skill difference between them. Was Flash's dominance because he was really good or because his opponents sucked compared to him? etc... (Yes, I know he was good, I'm just making an theoretical point) SC2 players are not as refined and not as intense as BW players--yet. But even now we see trends. How much more once time passes. It took BW FOREVER to get their own Flash. SlayersBoxer was the first bonjwa and he was known for bad macro and bad mechanics. But he could micro really well. SC2 players have bad macro and bad mechanics right now--but given time that goes away as well. Not the early years of bw because actually you have to take into account the fact that back then ESPORT wasn't even existing macro and micro were unknown concepts and all that good jazz and again who do you think you are to predict what will happen in the future of sc2 given his current state? We still don't know... He's saying players will improve... Are you really going to deny that? Are you trolling? This is getting a bit ridiculous, I won't be responding to you specifically any more. Your points have all been refuted easily by multiple people. Good day.
I'm refuting the fact that players will improve toward the way things are actually in SC: BW with a dominant player (in a polarized scene).
I'm just saying that we don't know yet.
Is it wrong by any mean?
Again read my posts
|
People need to understand that BW is NOT all about emphasis on mechanics. There are SO many more strategies/tactics you can utilize in BW; The game has been out for over a decade. A decade of developing gameplay and strategy.
I play about an average of 2-3 SC2 games a month. With my BW history alone (C on iccup, comparable to silver or gold league in SC2) I'm able to go jump right into diamond/masters and comfortably outplay opponents with mechanics alone.
TLDR. SC2 hasn't been out long at all; strategy and mechanics both need time to develop. With that said I just find it pretty useless to speculate a comparison between the two games.
Just wait a few years, a few expansions.
|
On July 16 2011 00:14 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 23:36 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
For those arguing that Starcraft 2 is still new and that professional players are nowhere near the polish of BW players, might I suggest that a possible reason for this? In Broodwar, micro and execution was key to many type of fights, especially in infestor based plays. In Starcraft 2, it is more important that macro and unit type is done correctly. It is for a good reason that Day[9] have advised newer players in the past to simply A the army and focus on production at base instead. To do anything of the sort in Starcraft 2 would be suicidal for any unit composition. Other factors like fungal growth, forcefield, marauder slow, etc even make micro something of an impossibility because it negates the possibility to micro to some extent.
So tl;dr it is usually better to have a bigger army than to have a better controlled army, and therefore emphasis must be placed on macro rather than micro. I know there are exceptions such as infestor plays, marine splits, and blink stalker micro, but these are exceptions where as in Brood war, finding a composition that requires no micro would be likelier exceptions. Actually, once the top players of SC2 stop supply blocking themselves, stop forgetting to expand, etc... Then Micro and positioning and scouting becomes EVEN MORE important. You can't win a game simply because you move a marine to the left instead of the right--you'll have to have proper scouting, followed by perfect positioning, followed by perfect micro or else suffer immediate death. In a more intense dps game scouting and positioning AS WELL AS *perfect* micro execution becomes the main winners. I don't understand why a BW fan would prefer a game that does not require as much perfect execution? Why they would prefer a game that allows mistakes at high level play. Your top two reigning Bonjwas (Flash and Savior) became great because of how good their strategy was! Think about that. Now think about a game where that type of playstyle is encouraged instead of discouraged. People like to say that SC2 is swingy--yet the top players remain consistently the same. People like to say that SC2 is too luck based--yet almost all the GSL finals have shown the better player win DOMINANTLY over the other. When one player was considered even slightly better than the other, the game was landslide victory. People then like to say that foreigners are winning too much despite the fact that even Moon who doesn't play SC2 fulltime can overrun foreign tournaments. NASL, dominated by Koreans. Dreamhack, dominated by Koreans. In fact, the more a person trains in Korea the better he does everywhere else. So even that is actually false. Are BW fans always this dense to reality? They haven't even gotten past the "Things are better when they're harder" mindset. And when I ask them to remove the keyboard so that it's purely difficult all of a sudden it's all "Oh that's too extreme" because they want hotkeys, they want control groups. They just don't want non-BW hotkeys and non-BW control groups. It's elitism at it's core. Why? Because it's not that BW fans are asking for no hotkeys, and no automation (How many BW fans complain that the medic is an automated Warcraft 1 healer?), it's that they want only BW automation and BW easy mode options. That is why SC2 supporters are getting upset by it. It's not BW players are hopping on to the SC2 forums and going "Has anyone found a need to actually hotkey more than 12 units across multiple control groups and if so how has that effected gameplay?" In an attempt to discuss the differences on a case by case basis. Instead it's threads like this where BW players show up and belittle SC2 players with their only defense being harder is better and you don't understand go watch BW (which a lot of SC2 players have already been doing for a while) Would a thread be interesting if BW players come by and ask Protoss players how having the probe hotkey on E instead of P changed the way they used to play Protoss (assuming it was a former BW player) etc... etc... But no. Instead it's this "My game is better than yours, I don't believe anything you say" attitude that is confrontational and malicious. I love watching BW, I do. BW is what got me interested in RTS games. SlayersBoxer was specifically the guy who got me playing BW as seriously as my internet connection allowed (mostly I depending on LAN parties with my friends because my connection was too bad for online gameplay) But even then, it was the S of RTS that impressed me. If I simply wanted the RT only--I'd have played a shooter. If I wanted only the S then I would have played Go. But I enjoyed the S with a bit of RT to provide a sense of build up--but not too much. Watching VODs was definitely more enjoyable than playing BW because you finally would be able to watch and enjoy the Strategy that you could only think about or abstractly be aware was happening as you played. Yes it would be impressive to micro a big battle like that--but when you're screen is spent in your main base for so long because you had to keep on top of your production, it became unfun to play a game that specifically *tries* to prevent you from playing it. The only reason people enjoy something being more difficult is elitism. They are people that believe that the less players are able to play the game the better it is for the game. Do you see how silly that sounds?
Thanks for this well reasoned post. Attitudes like those expressed in the OP had been irking me for a while because they claim to be objective pieces while downplaying an entire fanbase as a whole with an air of haughty elitism.
|
On July 16 2011 00:47 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 00:26 MidKnight wrote:
Oh this thread is back again?
At any case, SC2 is less mechanically demanding, that's a fact and anyone who played SC:BW should understand that immediately.. If that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion altogether.
It seems most of these SC2 elitists never played BW at all least semi-competitive level. That game is HARD, man.
Between stupid AI and thus the requirement to constantly pay attention to your units in order for them to not bug out and be effective, smaller field of vision, 12-max control groups, smartcasting etc. etc., heck, even trying to get rid of a scouting worker requires a lot of attention, because the way AI works you ACTUALLY have to predict your opponents juking patterns and can't simply right-click with your lings and be done with it, the skill ceiling can't even be comparable. Talking from personal experience here.
Again, if that's a negative or a positive thing depends on the preferences, facts still remain facts
I don't think there are SC2 elitists. There are however BW elitists who come to thread like this to express how much SC2 is inferior compared to BW and how much it sucks. And then, since SC2 is kinda new and popular, someone new responds to that by making some arguments which have no foundation in some ways since they don't know that much about BW understandbly. And then it goes over and over again.
It's also because people get butt hurt when their hobby is oversimplified.
Model Trains => Playing with toys
Dungeons and Dragons => Nerds in basement
Wings of Liberty => Luck based
Broodwar => Right click minerals every 15 seconds.
Each subgroup feels the urge to defend the validity of their side when the truth is that they're not comparable. If I went to a grandmaster chess player and told him the Go was such a better game than Chess, he'd honestly look at me funny and say "Go play Go then"
But since this is the internet people are much more willing to be confrontational.
|
On July 16 2011 00:51 beachbeachy wrote:
People need to understand that BW is NOT all about emphasis on mechanics. There are SO many more strategies/tactics you can utilize in BW; The game has been out for over a decade. A decade of developing gameplay and strategy.
I play about an average of 2-3 SC2 games a month. With my BW history alone (C on iccup, which is HORRIBLE compared to the top progamers in korea right now) I'm able to go jump right into diamond/masters and comfortably outplay opponents with mechanics alone.
TLDR. SC2 hasn't been out long at all; strategy and mechanics both need time to develop. With that said I just find it pretty useless to speculate a comparison between the two games.
Just wait a few years, a few expansions.
Exactly!
We just don't know what the scene will look like in few years
|
On July 16 2011 00:49 Galaxy_Zerg wrote:
I play SC2 and BW and i know for a fact that SC2 skill cap is way lower. It will never go up
As far as im concerned, a good two base build is all you'll ever need
2 base builds was all the rage last year. Those simply die right now unless you use it as a rush tactic. But mostly it dies in top level play.
Glad to hear that you're SC2 is a year behind though 
|
On July 16 2011 00:26 MidKnight wrote:
Oh this thread is back again?
At any case, SC2 is less mechanically demanding, that's a fact and anyone who played SC:BW should understand that immediately.. If that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion altogether.
It seems most of these SC2 elitists never played BW at all least semi-competitive level. That game is HARD, man.
Between stupid AI and thus the requirement to constantly pay attention to your units in order for them to not bug out and be effective, smaller field of vision, 12-max control groups, smartcasting etc. etc., heck, even trying to get rid of a scouting worker requires a lot of attention, because the way AI works you ACTUALLY have to predict your opponents juking patterns and can't simply right-click with your lings and be done with it, the skill ceiling can't even be comparable. Talking from personal experience here.
Again, if that's a negative or a positive thing depends on the preferences, facts still remain facts
Using a sword is HARD compared to using a gun. Why do armies use guns when swords obviously show of skill?
I could understand arguments from a strategic standpoint, and how SC2 isn't there yet while BW has been evolving for much longer and is, therefore, currently the more strategic game. That I'd buy, though I wouldn't agree that it makes one better than the other, just that one has more metagame behind it. SC2 will evolve into that.
The idea that BW pros are inherently better than SC2 pros because they play with dumb AI is... absurd. Both players play with the same ideas, it's just harder for BW players to do because the game restricts them. Does that make them a better player? Mechanically, maybe. Strategically, it's the same damn thing.
|
On July 16 2011 00:52 Kanku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 00:51 beachbeachy wrote:
People need to understand that BW is NOT all about emphasis on mechanics. There are SO many more strategies/tactics you can utilize in BW; The game has been out for over a decade. A decade of developing gameplay and strategy.
I play about an average of 2-3 SC2 games a month. With my BW history alone (C on iccup, which is HORRIBLE compared to the top progamers in korea right now) I'm able to go jump right into diamond/masters and comfortably outplay opponents with mechanics alone.
TLDR. SC2 hasn't been out long at all; strategy and mechanics both need time to develop. With that said I just find it pretty useless to speculate a comparison between the two games.
Just wait a few years, a few expansions. Exactly! We just don't know what the scene will look like in few years
Which means you can't predict that SC2 will look bad. Heck, SC2 could surpass BW--"we just don't know"
|
On July 16 2011 00:56 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 00:52 Kanku wrote:On July 16 2011 00:51 beachbeachy wrote:
People need to understand that BW is NOT all about emphasis on mechanics. There are SO many more strategies/tactics you can utilize in BW; The game has been out for over a decade. A decade of developing gameplay and strategy.
I play about an average of 2-3 SC2 games a month. With my BW history alone (C on iccup, which is HORRIBLE compared to the top progamers in korea right now) I'm able to go jump right into diamond/masters and comfortably outplay opponents with mechanics alone.
TLDR. SC2 hasn't been out long at all; strategy and mechanics both need time to develop. With that said I just find it pretty useless to speculate a comparison between the two games.
Just wait a few years, a few expansions. Exactly! We just don't know what the scene will look like in few years Which means you can't predict that SC2 will look bad. Heck, SC2 could surpass BW--"we just don't know"
Of course but I've never said so (that SC2 will look bad) 
Edit:you seem to believe that I'm the average BW diehard but that just not the case I actually follow both scenes and I'm enjoying their developpment.
|
@kanku
pardon then. It's easy to get caught up on the momentum of things.
|
On July 16 2011 00:51 Envisage wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On July 16 2011 00:14 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 23:36 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
For those arguing that Starcraft 2 is still new and that professional players are nowhere near the polish of BW players, might I suggest that a possible reason for this? In Broodwar, micro and execution was key to many type of fights, especially in infestor based plays. In Starcraft 2, it is more important that macro and unit type is done correctly. It is for a good reason that Day[9] have advised newer players in the past to simply A the army and focus on production at base instead. To do anything of the sort in Starcraft 2 would be suicidal for any unit composition. Other factors like fungal growth, forcefield, marauder slow, etc even make micro something of an impossibility because it negates the possibility to micro to some extent.
So tl;dr it is usually better to have a bigger army than to have a better controlled army, and therefore emphasis must be placed on macro rather than micro. I know there are exceptions such as infestor plays, marine splits, and blink stalker micro, but these are exceptions where as in Brood war, finding a composition that requires no micro would be likelier exceptions. Actually, once the top players of SC2 stop supply blocking themselves, stop forgetting to expand, etc... Then Micro and positioning and scouting becomes EVEN MORE important. You can't win a game simply because you move a marine to the left instead of the right--you'll have to have proper scouting, followed by perfect positioning, followed by perfect micro or else suffer immediate death. In a more intense dps game scouting and positioning AS WELL AS *perfect* micro execution becomes the main winners. I don't understand why a BW fan would prefer a game that does not require as much perfect execution? Why they would prefer a game that allows mistakes at high level play. Your top two reigning Bonjwas (Flash and Savior) became great because of how good their strategy was! Think about that. Now think about a game where that type of playstyle is encouraged instead of discouraged. People like to say that SC2 is swingy--yet the top players remain consistently the same. People like to say that SC2 is too luck based--yet almost all the GSL finals have shown the better player win DOMINANTLY over the other. When one player was considered even slightly better than the other, the game was landslide victory. People then like to say that foreigners are winning too much despite the fact that even Moon who doesn't play SC2 fulltime can overrun foreign tournaments. NASL, dominated by Koreans. Dreamhack, dominated by Koreans. In fact, the more a person trains in Korea the better he does everywhere else. So even that is actually false. Are BW fans always this dense to reality? They haven't even gotten past the "Things are better when they're harder" mindset. And when I ask them to remove the keyboard so that it's purely difficult all of a sudden it's all "Oh that's too extreme" because they want hotkeys, they want control groups. They just don't want non-BW hotkeys and non-BW control groups. It's elitism at it's core. Why? Because it's not that BW fans are asking for no hotkeys, and no automation (How many BW fans complain that the medic is an automated Warcraft 1 healer?), it's that they want only BW automation and BW easy mode options. That is why SC2 supporters are getting upset by it. It's not BW players are hopping on to the SC2 forums and going "Has anyone found a need to actually hotkey more than 12 units across multiple control groups and if so how has that effected gameplay?" In an attempt to discuss the differences on a case by case basis. Instead it's threads like this where BW players show up and belittle SC2 players with their only defense being harder is better and you don't understand go watch BW (which a lot of SC2 players have already been doing for a while) Would a thread be interesting if BW players come by and ask Protoss players how having the probe hotkey on E instead of P changed the way they used to play Protoss (assuming it was a former BW player) etc... etc... But no. Instead it's this "My game is better than yours, I don't believe anything you say" attitude that is confrontational and malicious. I love watching BW, I do. BW is what got me interested in RTS games. SlayersBoxer was specifically the guy who got me playing BW as seriously as my internet connection allowed (mostly I depending on LAN parties with my friends because my connection was too bad for online gameplay) But even then, it was the S of RTS that impressed me. If I simply wanted the RT only--I'd have played a shooter. If I wanted only the S then I would have played Go. But I enjoyed the S with a bit of RT to provide a sense of build up--but not too much. Watching VODs was definitely more enjoyable than playing BW because you finally would be able to watch and enjoy the Strategy that you could only think about or abstractly be aware was happening as you played. Yes it would be impressive to micro a big battle like that--but when you're screen is spent in your main base for so long because you had to keep on top of your production, it became unfun to play a game that specifically *tries* to prevent you from playing it. The only reason people enjoy something being more difficult is elitism. They are people that believe that the less players are able to play the game the better it is for the game. Do you see how silly that sounds? Thanks for this well reasoned post. Attitudes like those expressed in the OP had been irking me for a while because they claim to be objective pieces while downplaying an entire fanbase as a whole with an air of haughty elitism.
I'm going to make the bold assumption you didn't even read my OP. How do I know? Because I'm not a BW player and never really was and I'm not bashing SC2. Why exactly would I bash the fanbase that I am a part of?
I really only stated that the pro scenes of each game are different enough that we shouldn't be seeking to compare performances across the gap. That the games at the highest level are different and having expectations of a certain performance level/style (like some BW people do) does not necessarily translate. To reiterate, not better or worse. Just different.
|
2 good points have been made on the last few pages imo. These are areas i'd like to see improved but i'm not sure how blizzard will do it. Might as keep the discussion going  .
1. SC2 lost a lot mechanically in the transition from BW but it hasn't gained anything in terms of "strategy" while retaining plenty of the mundane (macro mechanics). This is a strong argument for those who want to see a combination of both mechanics and strat (RTS). There may be more room for evolution (since the game is new) but overall there is no reason to believe that SC2 has much more, if any more, strategy options than BW. What are we getting for losing the mechanical requirements then? Better graphics and smarter AI I suppose.
2. Units don't seem as microable. In BW every single unit seems completely OP in the hands of a pro. Every single pro can micro those units in a way that makes them unkillable by noobs and gets everything out of them. You can say that micro hasn't peaked in SC2, and that is obviously true, but so few units in SC2 even seem microable to that level. With auto-surround and the glass-cannon nature of units, a lot of units frankly aren't microable to that level. Making the AI smarter wasn't all good imo.
Here's the comparison i'd make: imagine if every single unit in SC2 could be microed at the level that blink stalkers are by MC. That would make for some amazing games eh?
|
On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:
2 good points have been made on the last few pages imo. These are areas i'd like to see improved but i'm not sure how blizzard will do it. This is a little devils advocate as well.
1. SC2 lost a lot mechanically in the transition from BW but it hasn't gained anything in terms of "strategy" while retaining plenty of the mundane (macro mechanics). This is a strong argument for those who want to see a combination of both mechanics and strat (RTS). There may be more room for evolution (since the game is new) but overall there is no reason to believe that SC2 has much more, if any more, strategy options than BW. What are we getting for losing the mechanical requirements then? Better graphics and smarter AI I suppose.
2. Units don't seem as microable. In BW every single unit seems completely OP in the hands of a pro. Every single pro can micro those units in a way that makes them unkillable by noobs and gets everything out of them. You can say that micro hasn't peaked in SC2, and that is obviously true, but so few units in SC2 even seem microable to that level. With auto-surround and the glass-cannon nature of units, a lot of units frankly aren't microable to that level. Making the AI smarter wasn't all good imo.
Here's the comparison i'd make: imagine if every single unit in SC2 could be microed at the level that blink stalkers are by MC. That would make for some amazing games eh?
Maybe we'll see some improvements and microable abilities at Blizzcon?
|
On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:This is a strong argument for those who want to see a combination of both mechanics and strat (RTS).
Which part exactly of "RTS" means that there has to be what you call 'mechanics' (mundane actions for different things to make stuff do stuff).
I'm not saying it isn't required, but where is that shown in the acronym RTS?
|
On July 16 2011 02:23 SeaSwift wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:This is a strong argument for those who want to see a combination of both mechanics and strat (RTS). Which part exactly of "RTS" means that there has to be what you call 'mechanics' (mundane actions for different things to make stuff do stuff). I'm not saying it isn't required, but where is that shown in the acronym RTS?
That would be Real Time.
|
On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:
Here's the comparison i'd make: imagine if every single unit in SC2 could be microed at the level that blink stalkers are by MC. That would make for some amazing games eh?
Oh god yes.
I don't really see why not, either. Maybe not in the exact same way as BW, but since you can get more units in one selection, what's to stop people from splitting their army in half and controlling each one equally well in two different positions?
Burrow Roach micro works kinda similarly, I'd like to see more with them. People controlling Broodlings after the Broodlord shoots them is kinda cool. Baneling drops are kinda like limited Reaver drops, but cooler cuz it's Zerg  Little micro wars like Terran trying to draw Lings into Tank fire and Zerg trying to bait Marines into Banelings are comprable to BW as it is, just a bit easier to control. I think there is room in Protoss's arsenal for a lot of stuff as well, as we've seen with Phoenix play from MC. I'm sure people will come up with new and interesting micro tactics as time goes on.
Caster units already require a decent amount of micro, especially in caster v caster fights (Snipe/EMP vs Feedback vs NP/FG). If you watched Day9's PvT daily, there was a cool Ghost timing push that the Terran did for massive, punishing damage that I can see being used more. QXC is already known for his crazy Ghost plays.
|
On July 16 2011 02:26 gn0m wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:23 SeaSwift wrote:On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:This is a strong argument for those who want to see a combination of both mechanics and strat (RTS). Which part exactly of "RTS" means that there has to be what you call 'mechanics' (mundane actions for different things to make stuff do stuff). I'm not saying it isn't required, but where is that shown in the acronym RTS? That would be Real Time.
um.... Uh... You do know that the "real time" portion of
RTS is the fact that you don't have to wait for
your opponent?
|
On July 16 2011 02:14 On_Slaught wrote:
2. Units don't seem as microable. In BW every single unit seems completely OP in the hands of a pro. Every single pro can micro those units in a way that makes them unkillable by noobs and gets everything out of them. You can say that micro hasn't peaked in SC2, and that is obviously true, but so few units in SC2 even seem microable to that level. With auto-surround and the glass-cannon nature of units, a lot of units frankly aren't microable to that level. Making the AI smarter wasn't all good imo.
Phoenixes.
It ain't no muta stacking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
