On January 26 2012 09:51 rkshox wrote: If the carrier will no longer exist, casters will no longer have the privilege to say
"OMG he's going for the fleet beacon will we be seeing carriers?"
C'mon blizzard, get your heads out of your asses, fix it, don't remove it. Here here!
What confuses me the most is the lengths they went to to change units like the phoenix and archon. Even the infestor has had some pretty radical changes. Its not like it is unheard of for them to make big changes to units.
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
Oh how wrong you are...
Carriers were used in PvZ on very rare occasion, but it was extremely map dependent.
Terran needs anti-air to shoot shuttle very early on, and to clear out observers and arbiters later. You should always have some goliaths on hand past earlygame.
Every race in BW had a long range ATA unit too: Scouts, Wraiths, and Devourers.
Carriers melt because dps of units in SC2 is higher, and they have I believe 2 base armor vs the 4 they have in BW.
Carriers are actually quite useful vs T, but you are correct, they are simply outclassed by so many other options, and very few T gets mech these days cause it's not viable. It's not that carriers are useless and have to be removed, it's that mech is stupid and bad and needs to be fixed.
Even though i was wrong on very rare occasions. (you build turrets early on vs shuttles, right )
Sure BW had longrangeA-A units. But were they as powerful as Corruptors and Vikings, I dont think so. Sure 2 Armor on a Tier3 units is complete bullsh*t. I agree. I dont see why hightechunits have to suffer so hard because of the upgrades, new idea about hightechattacks (eg battlecruiser shooting X lasers so they are bad all the time) etc.
And yes carriers are useless cause there is no mech.. And in SC2 WoL there cant even be cuase you need to rely on Vikings as antiair instead of goliath (damn you thors!). Carrier wont have a role in SC2. No matter what
On January 26 2012 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
IF Blizzard wants to keep the Carrier they have to remove the Voidray, remove the Viking and nerf Terran Bio A LOT. So if you look at it you could a) edit the game while removing at least 3 units and break the whople game or b) remove a unit that isnt needed and hasnt had a use in nearly 2 years of SC2 (beta included)
Nothing makes carriers more vulnerable than colossus other than their speed. If they had a better capacity to pull in and out of engagements, there would be no difference. As of right now, they struggle to keep themselves alive, but this would be true for any air unit if their speed. As I said in the op, Brooks are commonly assisted with infestors, which is how they manage to stay alive. All they need is a little speed!
Read again. There is no place in the Game were Carrier would fit more than another unit. Not even in TvP Mech. Speed wont do anything since Interceptors dont attack when you move the carrier.
Ok, so lets say that interceptors were able to attack while the carrier moved. Just as it did in BW, and just as Blizzard did with the phoenix. What then? My point is that all that is needed are small changes. It doesn't need to be removed, obviously, as the reasons you outline are easy fixes that would not make it imbalanced. If it is not imbalanced, and it becomes useful, there is no reason for it to be removed.
So they are able to attack when you get focusfired by some stalkers/marines etc. It still whouldnt have enough armor, dps (enemy armor upgrades destroys your dps horribly), and still no role to fit in. Did you see HerO vs whoever zerg it was at IEM? HerO build Carriers and evn though the zerg was _dead_ the carriers got killed by a few corruptors. No small change will keep the carrier in this game.
wtf lol, how is that any different than any other air unit? The fact that they would die to focus fire by marines or stalkers makes them a bad unit? Does the same not hold true for the void ray, banshee, or brood lords? The same also holds true for colossi. If they were able to attack better while moving and had better speed, they would be able to keep up. I don't see what you have against the carrier man, there is nothing about it that makes it so useless. And quoting a single game? What about all the games Hongun and other players have won with carriers? Even in their current state? I don't think any certain games should be used to justify the death of the carrier, especially when I am suggesting methods to eliminate the excessive weakness it currently has. Did you really hate carriers that much in BW? :p
The difference is that you need to tech to them very hard. Yuo need to get Airupgrades while noone gets airupgrades in SC2 but for Mutalisks. So it costs a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of tech and then you want to do what? harass or deny a 3rd like you do it with phoexnix,Banshee or void ray?
Name me more than 2 games when a guy with carriers won (because of the carriers). I can quote you a lot more games where the one who went carrier lost hem all to hydras, marines, vikings, corruptrs - and they didnt do anything in that game. they arent cost efficient and they will never be that way.
I dont hate on carriers. Im just showing you blind guy that carriers have no place in SC2. read myy posts again and you will also read that im sad that they will go. Is it that hard to understand that there is no role for them? they are a lategame unit. you need to mass them so they are efficient - 1 carrier or 2 wont make anything. so your opponent goes for vikings or broodlords and you will just loose your 600/300 carriers with airupgrades to units that have use in the game after that engagement. larvaemanagement and reactors mean the death of carriers.
Agreed. Never understood why they remove the carrier (and the mothership for that matter)
If the unit is not working as designed, just keep it in and hope someone finds something, because deletion is permanent as far as the metagame is concerned.,
HotS is an EXPANSION, which means it should EXPAND possibilities, strategies and variety of units. If Blizzard wants to remove any units that means something is wrong. I mean they haven't even tried to make any change to Carrier and now they decided it's useless. And what about Mothership? After months of hard work they basically said to it "Ok, after many patches you are completely balanced! Now gtfo!".
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
Oh how wrong you are...
Carriers were used in PvZ on very rare occasion, but it was extremely map dependent.
Terran needs anti-air to shoot shuttle very early on, and to clear out observers and arbiters later. You should always have some goliaths on hand past earlygame.
Every race in BW had a long range ATA unit too: Scouts, Wraiths, and Devourers.
Carriers melt because dps of units in SC2 is higher, and they have I believe 2 base armor vs the 4 they have in BW.
Carriers are actually quite useful vs T, but you are correct, they are simply outclassed by so many other options, and very few T gets mech these days cause it's not viable. It's not that carriers are useless and have to be removed, it's that mech is stupid and bad and needs to be fixed.
Even though i was wrong on very rare occasions. (you build turrets early on vs shuttles, right )
Sure BW had longrangeA-A units. But were they as powerful as Corruptors and Vikings, I dont think so. Sure 2 Armor on a Tier3 units is complete bullsh*t. I agree. I dont see why hightechunits have to suffer so hard because of the upgrades, new idea about hightechattacks (eg battlecruiser shooting X lasers so they are bad all the time) etc.
And yes carriers are useless cause there is no mech.. And in SC2 WoL there cant even be cuase you need to rely on Vikings as antiair instead of goliath (damn you thors!). Carrier wont have a role in SC2. No matter what
On January 26 2012 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
IF Blizzard wants to keep the Carrier they have to remove the Voidray, remove the Viking and nerf Terran Bio A LOT. So if you look at it you could a) edit the game while removing at least 3 units and break the whople game or b) remove a unit that isnt needed and hasnt had a use in nearly 2 years of SC2 (beta included)
Nothing makes carriers more vulnerable than colossus other than their speed. If they had a better capacity to pull in and out of engagements, there would be no difference. As of right now, they struggle to keep themselves alive, but this would be true for any air unit if their speed. As I said in the op, Brooks are commonly assisted with infestors, which is how they manage to stay alive. All they need is a little speed!
Read again. There is no place in the Game were Carrier would fit more than another unit. Not even in TvP Mech. Speed wont do anything since Interceptors dont attack when you move the carrier.
Ok, so lets say that interceptors were able to attack while the carrier moved. Just as it did in BW, and just as Blizzard did with the phoenix. What then? My point is that all that is needed are small changes. It doesn't need to be removed, obviously, as the reasons you outline are easy fixes that would not make it imbalanced. If it is not imbalanced, and it becomes useful, there is no reason for it to be removed.
So they are able to attack when you get focusfired by some stalkers/marines etc. It still whouldnt have enough armor, dps (enemy armor upgrades destroys your dps horribly), and still no role to fit in. Did you see HerO vs whoever zerg it was at IEM? HerO build Carriers and evn though the zerg was _dead_ the carriers got killed by a few corruptors. No small change will keep the carrier in this game.
wtf lol, how is that any different than any other air unit? The fact that they would die to focus fire by marines or stalkers makes them a bad unit? Does the same not hold true for the void ray, banshee, or brood lords? The same also holds true for colossi. If they were able to attack better while moving and had better speed, they would be able to keep up. I don't see what you have against the carrier man, there is nothing about it that makes it so useless. And quoting a single game? What about all the games Hongun and other players have won with carriers? Even in their current state? I don't think any certain games should be used to justify the death of the carrier, especially when I am suggesting methods to eliminate the excessive weakness it currently has. Did you really hate carriers that much in BW? :p
The difference is that you need to tech to them very hard. Yuo need to get Airupgrades while noone gets airupgrades in SC2 but for Mutalisks. So it costs a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of tech and then you want to do what? harass or deny a 3rd like you do it with phoexnix,Banshee or void ray?
Name me more than 2 games when a guy with carriers won (because of the carriers). I can quote you a lot more games where the one who went carrier lost hem all to hydras, marines, vikings, corruptrs - and they didnt do anything in that game. they arent cost efficient and they will never be that way.
I dont hate on carriers. Im just showing you blind guy that carriers have no place in SC2. read myy posts again and you will also read that im sad that they will go. Is it that hard to understand that there is no role for them? they are a lategame unit. you need to mass them so they are efficient - 1 carrier or 2 wont make anything. so your opponent goes for vikings or broodlords and you will just loose your 600/300 carriers with airupgrades to units that have use in the game after that engagement. larvaemanagement and reactors mean the death of carriers.
Allow me to articulate my argument in another way. I feel that given the drastic changes made to all other units in the game, very big measures can be taken to fix the carrier, while still maintaining its function. I believe the only things that must remain the same about the carrier are: Its image, the fact that its the protoss capital ship, and the fact that it fights through the use of interceptors. Aside from that, why can't other things be changed? Too costly? Other units have had their cost reduced. Build too slow? Other units have had their build time reduced, substantially so in the case of the ultralisk. Hell, the Void Ray used to be a *totally* different unit than it is now. Besides the things I listed, nothing else has to remain the same. And through small, careful changes, I believe it can reach a point where it is a good unit, while not being imbalanced.
I made you a graph to show you how I feel things work.
Its not a choice between total shit or really imbalanced. Many units have had drastic changes. If you agree that there would be a point where the carrier is imbalanced, and we acknowledge it is not a good unit now, we can conclude that somewhere in between, there is a shift.
On January 26 2012 10:32 erazerr wrote: so the question is: how do you make it good? because its actually the worst unit in the entire game
Its currently too vulnerable. Other flying units are either faster than the carrier or have fungal growth to slow down pursuers. Increase carrier speed.
It is currently too costly or takes too long to build. Reduce those numbers.
Interceptor upgrade also too costly, as only then are carriers remotely decent. Make it no longer require an upgrade.
These things can all be tweaked and changed as needed. As I said in my most recent post, its not a choice between imba and garbage. Tweaks can be made, as they have been to other units. Just look at the Archon and Ultralisk. The Infestor didn't even always have infested terran as a spell. If they are willing to make such big changes to other units, they should do the same for the carrier. They haven't even tried ;_;
Make the interceptors fly out faster and return quicker. But really I think Blizzard have shot themselves in foot here. Reason why they had to remove the Protoss icon is because other units have tons of maneuverability against flying units. Terran especially have an effective counter air weapon in their arsenal. If anyone have even bothered checking out the professional Brood War scene, there is someone by the name of "Stork". Historically speaking, he is the virtuoso against the Terran dominion and is known for his unrivaled Carrier micromanagement feats. He would still decide going for the Carrier route even when he is at a disadvantageous position and ultimately sealing a win. One of his strategical move would be to start the game with a handful of ground units, a little bit of Dragoons (Brood War equivalency of the Stalkers) and a bit of Zealots and then construct the Fleet Beacon. From there on, he would slowly back away with his ground force one step at a time to buy enough time for the fleet to be massed. But you were able to put this style into use because the Terran army consist of immobile forces with Goliath and Tanks. In SC2, you have units like Vikings that fits into the anti air role of the Goliath. Unlike the Goliath, Vikings can spread its wings and chase the Carriers. Therefore our dear Carriers can't just hang by cliff sides and feints shots so this leaves way less room for control. Our blimp would not survived under this threat. Blizzard probability comprehend this fact. This lead them to the agreement of replacement.
I guess I'm not the only one that felt a bit disgusted when Dustin made fun of the Carrier asking for a "Moment of Silence". The Mothership is currently the savior of late game PvZ, and he made fun of the mothership just like he did the Carrier. The Carrier might need some modification, if anything, but I don't think it should have been removed. A more elegant, simple, and intuitive response to the "Mutalisk problem" is required. Honestly the problem might not even directly be "Mutalisks balls". Perhaps it's the Spine crawler spam that prevents counter attacks, or some other issue.
I just don't trust the move to remove the Mothership and the Carrier... Though with the new 75 energy recall tech, and the non-spell air AoE it might be the correct decision.
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
Oh how wrong you are...
Carriers were used in PvZ on very rare occasion, but it was extremely map dependent.
Terran needs anti-air to shoot shuttle very early on, and to clear out observers and arbiters later. You should always have some goliaths on hand past earlygame.
Every race in BW had a long range ATA unit too: Scouts, Wraiths, and Devourers.
Carriers melt because dps of units in SC2 is higher, and they have I believe 2 base armor vs the 4 they have in BW.
Carriers are actually quite useful vs T, but you are correct, they are simply outclassed by so many other options, and very few T gets mech these days cause it's not viable. It's not that carriers are useless and have to be removed, it's that mech is stupid and bad and needs to be fixed.
Even though i was wrong on very rare occasions. (you build turrets early on vs shuttles, right )
Sure BW had longrangeA-A units. But were they as powerful as Corruptors and Vikings, I dont think so. Sure 2 Armor on a Tier3 units is complete bullsh*t. I agree. I dont see why hightechunits have to suffer so hard because of the upgrades, new idea about hightechattacks (eg battlecruiser shooting X lasers so they are bad all the time) etc.
And yes carriers are useless cause there is no mech.. And in SC2 WoL there cant even be cuase you need to rely on Vikings as antiair instead of goliath (damn you thors!). Carrier wont have a role in SC2. No matter what
On January 26 2012 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do.
There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL.
IF Blizzard wants to keep the Carrier they have to remove the Voidray, remove the Viking and nerf Terran Bio A LOT. So if you look at it you could a) edit the game while removing at least 3 units and break the whople game or b) remove a unit that isnt needed and hasnt had a use in nearly 2 years of SC2 (beta included)
Nothing makes carriers more vulnerable than colossus other than their speed. If they had a better capacity to pull in and out of engagements, there would be no difference. As of right now, they struggle to keep themselves alive, but this would be true for any air unit if their speed. As I said in the op, Brooks are commonly assisted with infestors, which is how they manage to stay alive. All they need is a little speed!
Read again. There is no place in the Game were Carrier would fit more than another unit. Not even in TvP Mech. Speed wont do anything since Interceptors dont attack when you move the carrier.
Ok, so lets say that interceptors were able to attack while the carrier moved. Just as it did in BW, and just as Blizzard did with the phoenix. What then? My point is that all that is needed are small changes. It doesn't need to be removed, obviously, as the reasons you outline are easy fixes that would not make it imbalanced. If it is not imbalanced, and it becomes useful, there is no reason for it to be removed.
So they are able to attack when you get focusfired by some stalkers/marines etc. It still whouldnt have enough armor, dps (enemy armor upgrades destroys your dps horribly), and still no role to fit in. Did you see HerO vs whoever zerg it was at IEM? HerO build Carriers and evn though the zerg was _dead_ the carriers got killed by a few corruptors. No small change will keep the carrier in this game.
wtf lol, how is that any different than any other air unit? The fact that they would die to focus fire by marines or stalkers makes them a bad unit? Does the same not hold true for the void ray, banshee, or brood lords? The same also holds true for colossi. If they were able to attack better while moving and had better speed, they would be able to keep up. I don't see what you have against the carrier man, there is nothing about it that makes it so useless. And quoting a single game? What about all the games Hongun and other players have won with carriers? Even in their current state? I don't think any certain games should be used to justify the death of the carrier, especially when I am suggesting methods to eliminate the excessive weakness it currently has. Did you really hate carriers that much in BW? :p
The difference is that you need to tech to them very hard. Yuo need to get Airupgrades while noone gets airupgrades in SC2 but for Mutalisks. So it costs a lot of money, a lot of time, a lot of tech and then you want to do what? harass or deny a 3rd like you do it with phoexnix,Banshee or void ray?
Name me more than 2 games when a guy with carriers won (because of the carriers). I can quote you a lot more games where the one who went carrier lost hem all to hydras, marines, vikings, corruptrs - and they didnt do anything in that game. they arent cost efficient and they will never be that way.
I dont hate on carriers. Im just showing you blind guy that carriers have no place in SC2. read myy posts again and you will also read that im sad that they will go. Is it that hard to understand that there is no role for them? they are a lategame unit. you need to mass them so they are efficient - 1 carrier or 2 wont make anything. so your opponent goes for vikings or broodlords and you will just loose your 600/300 carriers with airupgrades to units that have use in the game after that engagement. larvaemanagement and reactors mean the death of carriers.
No one gets air upgrades in SC2 except for Mutalisks? How bout TvP Ship Weapon upgrades for Vikings to kill Colossus? How bout TvT for Ship Weapon upgrades for BC/Viking wars? Or how bout Air Weapon upgrades for PvZ for any of the widely used Sky Toss builds? Yeah, people get air upgrades.
Also, people build Carriers. White-ra comes to mind, almost every PvZ he plays on a macro map.
carrier ftw. When i get bored at laddering. I just go troll builds like double expand/defend and massa carriers/mothership! with some high templars on the side. Works pretty often and quiet fun to play too. Since i get raged on 24/7 doing those builds. People threatning me etc just by doing that pretty funny story
On January 26 2012 09:39 J.E.G. wrote: The carrier should stay in the game regardless of how viable it is. Sure it doesn't fit any practical roles, but I think I can speak for any sc2 fan when i say that as soon as a carrier pops in a pro level game, everyone watching goes "OH SHIT HE GOT CARRIERS!!!!!" and proceeds to shit pants. Is this not a good enough reason in and of itself?
Also, I still feel it is too early to count them out. How long had BW been out until Bisu popularized phoenix/dt?
I would love for the carrier to stay in HotS with some changes because I loved them since BW (still miss my fucking reavers, dark archons and arbiters as it is). Honestly, they need something to protect them from vikings, that's it. Some kind of long ranged shield that makes them take minimal damage from projectiles from like 8 or more range or something.
But yeah, for me it's not a "make the game this way thread", because the carrier is just a great concept and fun to use. It's the type of awesome unit that SC2 needs if it wants to be succesfull IMO as a spectator sport. Just look at BW; the protoss armor was 1000x more interesting IMO than it is now.
The replacement unit seems a bit meh. That's probably going to change somewhat (or already changed) but I just don't look at it and think "epic!", like I do with the carrier.
I agree about celebrating the Carrier. The most exciting GSL game for me in the first few seasons was when HongUnPrime decided to go Carriers in a p v t and actually won. The mere sight of the carriers paralyzed his opponent with shimmering awesomeness.
EPT
)![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/21Hqx.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8oYEX.png)
