|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances.
I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
|
On February 07 2014 04:15 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:03 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:00 tokinho wrote:
Dear David Kim,
Please have a formal public vodded discussion with all top 30 rated Terrans on balance or please resign for someone else willing to do so.
Tok While I think this would be a great thing, it's never going to happen and it would be impossible to pull off any way. Getting a few Terrans alongside David Kim on some talk show, maybe, but thirty? I didn't even know there were thirty Terrans left.  I'll get my hat.
Got to make sure Avilo is there to accuse David Kim if playing only Protoss.
|
On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny.
Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
|
On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances.
Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes.
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
No, that isn't just you.
On February 07 2014 04:21 nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me. Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny. Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
Disagreeing with you, or even the majority (it's not clear it is the majority) is not a useful metric for competence.
|
On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
It would go a long way for sure. Really we just need and balance and game design sub form.
|
On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings
In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB.
Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:26 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame.
Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
|
On February 07 2014 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes.
I havent seen that, is Starbow now the proof case that community based development is, in fact, a terrible idea?
|
United States7483 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:27 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:26 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame. Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff?
Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
|
On February 07 2014 02:27 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 00:47 Doomhunter wrote:
"This is a stupid question. With David on this one.
Just as a pointer for David, it's quite hypocritical to nerf Hellbats for TvT, refrain from a nerf because of PvP and consider a buff for ZvZ, that's pretty unfair.
Also, Roach Hydra lategame is Broodlord Corruptor, eventually probably Vipers + Spores, seems like fun..?"
In all fairness to DK here, it was the Terrans who wanted the Hellbat nerf the most for TvT and the matchup was just plain bad when it was constant Hellbat drops.
The Nexus Cannon timer really has no effect on PvZ and PvT and I cant tell you how freaking horrible PvP was in wings and how much better it is now simply because of the nexus cannon - PvP is also the only matchup now where the attacking army literally sits 1 pixel outside nexus cannon range waiting for it to expire while I desperately try and get an immortal and some extra stalkers out to hold an all-in. In PvZ and PvT I cast and they either commit to burning the nexus or retreat - the 10 seconds is meaningless in these matchups but means the world in PvP. You got your MS core nerf and possibly a vision nerf coming so please just be happy with that.
The ZvZ Hydra buff breaks the other matchup's so badly that I don't even know where to begin.
Point remains: Hellbats went from 18 +12 Light to 18 flat. IF this was a nerf for TvT only, because TvT was a bad matchup > WHY 18? SCVs have 45 Health, Drones 41 effective health, Probes 40 health. Why should the damage be from 30/attack to 18/attack if the nerf was for the sake of TvT only? It nerfed Hellbats vs workers of all races, while TvT was the problem. The only other Terran unit that might explain said benchmark is the Marine without Shields and with +1 armor- that'd now survive 2 attacks barely. So, Hellbats were nerfed badly because of TvT, but the nerf affected all three matchups by weakening effectivity against other races workers (there's no reason not to make Hellbats do 18(+3 light) or 18 (+4 light) if the nerf was intended for TvT only, now, Hellbats are weaker to Zealots and in harrasment, thus, it's a nerf. Reason: TvT. Effect: TvT TvP TvZ. I've played random since WOL Beta BTW, so I know how crucial Photon Overcharge is for PvP. However, doesn't give a reason to refrain from for example Overcharge to 15+5Shields or to reduce range, if it is for the sake of PvP ONLY. TLDR: I feel that Mirror matchups are often used as a reason to do or not to do certain adjustments to units, while the effects of said adjustment are way broader than only the mirror matchup.
Ok, so i dont know why the hell people still think that PO is just for PvP when its actually really clear that they put it in the game to deal with Speedvacs, mutas and harassment over all. In WoL was really hard to defend against harassment from zerg and terran without getting your whole army out of position due to the fact that gateway units sucked as defense.
User was warned for this post
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On February 07 2014 04:29 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:27 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:26 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame. Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff? Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison.
That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
|
On February 07 2014 04:31 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:29 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2014 04:27 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:26 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame. Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff? Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison. That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though.
I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever.
EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
|
On February 07 2014 04:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:22 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. Lol, the community has never been constructive. Starbow should be proof of that...the more control the community thinks it has, the more they'll act like assholes. I havent seen that, is Starbow now the proof case that community based development is, in fact, a terrible idea?
I don't follow the thread that much, I just remember a lot of vitriol regarding Irradiate balance changes. Avilo was especially dumb, but that's avilo for you.
And I wouldn't say proof. All it shows is that, at the end of the day, the community is just a bunch of individuals screaming for what they personally want. If a developer has to sift through dozens of garbage suggestions on a 160 page board for a map mod that probably gets a few hundred players at most, the task is even more ludicrous if you have to listen to thousands of angry little voices.
No matter how much Starbow is supposed to be community driven, it will inevitably revolve on the developer's own opinions.
|
We need 1 million game designers to please 1 million players.
|
On February 07 2014 04:21 nojem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me. Balance discussions would fall under that category. But when you see the captain of the ship demonstrate how incompetent he is, you only have two options -- jump ship or mutiny. Most have jumped, I reckon the rest should mutiny. At least get someone who has some vision or at least knows where he's going.
In your analogy are the remaining community members part of the ship crew? If so, are you suggesting that an uprising should be started with the aim to kidnap or otherwise remove David Kim from his duties?
|
On February 07 2014 04:41 Wertheron wrote:
We need 1 million game designers to please 1 million players.
I would say that it's not strictly necessary for a game to reach BW level participation rate to be considered a success.
But it's difficult to imagine that the current status quo is optimal by any measure.
I will agree that the real underlying problem is one of design and not balance. That is to say it's more a Dustin Browder problem than a David Kim problem. He doesn't need to please everyone but right now he's certainly not pleasing enough people.
|
On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me.
The problem with SC2 is that the developers and the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play. And talking with the developers just doesn't have much effect on the game. Or what the players request is being done 1-2 years later.
|
On February 07 2014 04:37 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:31 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:29 Whitewing wrote:On February 07 2014 04:27 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:26 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 03:19 Araneae wrote:On February 07 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 07 2014 01:19 Roswell wrote:On February 07 2014 01:13 Loccstana wrote:
I think the biggest problem here is Blizzard's inability to admit mistakes they made and correct them. Take the hellbat for example: It received 3 back to back nerfs, with the cargo size nerf being rather arbitary and hurting late game harassment. Now that the hellbat's damage been nerfed, the hellbat's cargo size should be reverted back to 2. Also whats with the widow mine being at 2 supply? That unit should be 1/2 supply, 1 supply most. Give the most cost efficent unit in the game a zerglings supply? I think its fair to complain about overpatching things, but so far we havent met a dead end, the games gotten better over time. Most efficient unit in the game? The mine? Are you serious? I agree to the Hellbat comment BTW. Hellbats have been nerfed to shreds and are used only as a mineral dump for mech, but nobody seems to care. Hellbat is on the return in TvZ now, with terrans going marine, thor, hellbat and medivacs. Of course, they do get the bf upgrade, so they do 18+12 to lings/blings In TvZ it is really starting to feel like you have to pick out of 3 bad options because you NEED AOE vs MLB. Tanks > Nerfed, Hellbats > Nerfed, Mines > Nerfed. I'm sad David doesn't even consider reverting the Helbat and Siege Tank nerfs, we're in an entirely new metagame. Tanks were nerfed? I thought the last tank change was a buff? Tanks have not been nerfed since WoL, but mutas were buffed, so they are worse in comparison. That's very true. Claiming that tanks were nerfed any time recently (the last time was in 2010 when Terrans were in a pretty good spot) is a blatant lie though. I agree, I wasn't clear enough. Tanks haven't been nerfed recently, but because of the larger and more open maps and the buffs to mutalisk they perform worse than ever. EDIT - not to forget the current Metagame that demands fast play as well as fast upgrades, which both dislike the Siege Tank.
Based upon which data? They perform pretty amazing in 2/3 matchups. In TvT probably better than ever.
|
On February 07 2014 04:50 Talack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:17 Zealously wrote:On February 07 2014 04:10 nojem wrote:
Being constructive is fine when you know the other party is competent and receptive to suggestions. But what other recourse is there when after years and years of constructive input from every branch of the community has fallen on deaf ears and incompetance displayed at every opportunity?
At this point, what SC2 really needs is a good lynching -- of the Jay Wilson type. The D3 debacle was bad but at least it looks salvageable with the expansion. Is SC2 salvageable after all this time or has the point passed? IMO it's a pity things weren't corrected before when the community was more positive but the lesson learned is that trying to be all constructive and nice is detrimental in some circumstances. I think what SC2 "really needs" is less people telling everyone else what the game "really needs", but that might just be me. The problem with SC2 is that the developers and the players have completely different ideas of what they want when they play. And talking with the developers just doesn't have much effect on the game. Or what the players request is being done 1-2 years later.
So tell me what do I want that the developers dont implement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
