EPTRazzia of the Blizzsters - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Warning for everyone in this thread: I WILL moderate your posts very harshly from now on if you can't have a civil discussion. | ||
|
Jj_82
Swaziland419 Posts
| ||
|
yuzisee
Canada10 Posts
I know that many of us felt the post was too long to read, or too wordy, or that the writing style clouds most of the underlying message TheDwf is trying to convey. I may not agree with everything in it, but I do believe that the topics from the OP are worth discussing. So, for posterity, I've done my best to cover the talking points in each section (even ones I disagree with), but with less wordiness and hopefully a more matter-of-fact style of writing. Here goes. -- Spaghettification 1. There is a difference between a "Real-time Strategy" game and just "Real-time". Starcraft is at its best when we have constant tension (e.g. multi-tasking) throughout the game while feeling in control. Unfortunately, Starcraft today feels like two players waiting for the first major blunder induced purely by time pressure. Key point: If we slow down the battles, we will see even more impressive multi-tasking -- and isn't that when Starcraft is its most beautiful? 2. (something something Blizz is bad at its job) More harassment tools is not a silver bullet to the "one single max-army vs. max-army fight decides the game" problem. Now, your attention span is continuously consumed by a constant fear of your mineral lines evaporating in seconds, which can be paralyzing -- or at the very least, leaves players feeling frustrated and means spectators miss out on seeing more creative forms of multi-tasking on a regular basis. Key point: We like harassment, but we need to do it in a way that makes both players feel in control, rather than just being frustrated when it finally happens. If we do this well, spectators will be rewarded with creative multi-tasking more often. 3. APM has human limits. So does attention & concentration. But, there is a difference between "wow I was outplayed" vs. "if only I had seen that widow mine 1ms earlier" or "if only I had moved my MSC 2 pixels higher." The difference between a huge win and a huge loss shouldn't be a tiny moment, otherwise it makes the rest of the game feel meaningless. Worse, if it's too easy to decide a game in a single moment (the extreme was WoL TvT before blue-flame patch) we lose out on the most rewarding part of being a spectator: pros developing unique "play styles." Instead, most pros focus on mastering the same set of critical moments because no matter what play-style you have, and what advantage you have built up during a particular game, you still live or die by those tiny moments so you have no choice but to practice those instead of developing new play-styles. (analogy about driving a car: driving at a normal speed, your skill determines when you crash. If you're going fast enough, basically only luck can determine when you crash.) Key point: When small mistakes can have a huge cost, it reduces the creativity of play and quality displays of skill. Supernova 4. (preamble about why people complain to Blizzard usually) Hard-counters, compared to soft-counters, leave fewer opportunities to display skill. Forced randomness, such as build-order losses, leave fewer opportunities to display skill. Easy actions with too large of an impact (WoL force field, Nexus overcharge, single widow mines, etc.) leave fewer opportunities for both sides to display skill. Key point: It's okay when things that take a lot of work can swing a game hugely into your favor. But things that take a small amount of work should only be able to swing a game a small amount in your favor. 5. (various analogies) Key point: As much as spectators believe that a player has "earned" a win, they should also feel that the opposing player "deserved" the loss. 6. What causes ladder anxiety? Probably a large part of it is that when you lose it doesn't feel like you deserved it. You don't always feel like you were outplayed. (something something Blizz is bad at its job) There is a way to make the game fun for players that makes it even more fun for spectators... but that's not approach we seem to have taken so far. Key point: If players start to feel like they are in control, spectators will begin to see even more awesome stuff. Meteorite bombing 7. Some of the best design choices were an accident. Towers were always intended for defence, but today cannon rushes are an expected aspect of the game. But this is great. Rather than stifle behavior that does not match the intended design, let players be creative. It is totally okay, and potentially even more rewarding to see the game you designed played out in ways you never imagined. Key point: A willingness to take control away from players _during_ the game (easy actions having a large impact on the outcome) seems to parallel a willingness to take control away from the community while _discussing_ the game. 8. It's hard to make things that are "exciting" when everything has smartest & overkill prevention because now if something is powerful, it's quickly too powerful. But did the same thing happen to macro mechanics? As an idea, macro mechanics are a neat idea: Add actions that are visible to the spectator that help your economy, not just battles. But it's a fine line, because making macro easier also means it's easier and faster to get and spend resources, which is a problem because it leads to bigger armies faster, which leads to deathballs because battles are too fast for most people to keep up with multiple battles at once. Key points: Faster economies combined with faster battles strongly encourages passive, deathball play, rather than creative multi-tasking styles -- except for a small number of pros who can handle it. Why not encourage multi-tasking for more people? Would it hurt to have smaller armies or slower battles? 9. There is a difference between "micro-mechanics" and "exciting action." Most people agree that Siege Tanks are more interesting/exciting/fun than Colossus, even though Siege Tanks just sit there, while Colossus have to be moved around during battle. The reason is that Siege Mode creates real-time tension between decisions (should I unsiege or stay sieged?), whereas Colossus simply has one obvious goal "stay out of range and hit the enemy." Key points: Add tension between decisions (e.g. Siege Mode) not just between clicks (faster or more precise = win). 10. What else adds tension between decisions? Making sure units have _weaknesses_. It is strategically interesting for Zerglings to be very fragile. It is strategically interesting for Siege Tanks to have a very slow attack rate. What else encourages "max-army vs. max-army fights to decide the game"? It's hard to build smaller armies. Ultralisks can only be built 6 supply at a time. Despite their role, hydras and roaches can only be built 2 supply at a time (why not a half-as-effective hydralisk or roach @ 1 supply?), etc. Smaller cost less effective units naturally lead to more skirmishes ("you can split three Goliaths, [for the same cost] you cannot split a Thor". You can lose one Goliath at a time, but the Thor living or dying is all-or-nothing.). (more examples) Key point: It does not require an overhaul of the engine to make the changes I am asking for. Simple things like lowering hitpoints/armor/acceleration/attack rate/supply & resource costs, etc. could already make a huge difference. 11. --> Can read this section yourself. It's not super wordy and straight to-the-point. The Mammoth in the Room 12. In WoL, Blizzard & the community had identified a "mutalisk problem" in PvZ. But in response, we went down what was likely the wrong path. We added counters, Phoenix range, anti-air AoE Tempest, etc. when the underlying problem was probably that Zerg reaches those huge Mutalisks flocks too easily. But the game continues to evolve and we are stuck with various "hard counters" to the mutalisk, which means "Mutas become cheesy, builds/counters become coinflippy and no one is happy." Slow down the economy, and a lot of what appear to be "unit" problems may go away. Another example is given about the Ultralisk and how it became a hard counter that now needed its own hard counter, which then needed its own hard counter, etc. Key point: When you make a change, that is supposed to fix a problem, and that change opens up a new problem elsewhere, instead of continuing to play whack-a-mole, why not just undo the original change and look for the deeper root cause? 13. Were the new HotS units really necessary, or could we just have fixed deficiencies in the existing units? (e.g. Tempests added despite Carriers never being used.) (Specific discussions about specific units: Tank, Widow Mine, MSC, Oracle, Tankivac. Many aren't too wordy, probably ok to read yourself.) Key point: "when assessing new units, the first question one should ask is: what does this unit do that an overhaul of the already existing ones—especially those who are underused—can't?" The Fault in Our Stars 14. "Promoting aggressive multitasking means promoting low-medium risk, low-medium reward operations. Huge risk leads to deathballing: why would you move out if you risk losing everything, which means immediate checkmate?" BUT that doesn't mean ZERO-risk. Zero risk reduces control, and leaves fewer opportunities to display skill. Many of the new designs are leading toward "zero risk" such as: "Recall from the MSC; Warp Prism pick-up range; Release Interceptors from the Carrier; Tactical Jump from the Battlecruiser; uncatchable units; possibly Medivacs picking up Tanks in Siege Mode; etc." Key point: Risk & reward of particular actions should be low, not zero. 15. --> It's not too bad to read this section yourself. 16. [mostly paraphrased] There appears to be some sentiment from Blizz that "aggression is good, defence is bad." However, aggression isn't always good -- it can be hollow. Similarly, defence isn't always bad -- it can't be skillful. (The 4-gate era of early WoL PvP was strictly built upon “constant aggression”; ask Protoss players if it was a satisfactory match-up.) Better if we have legitimate defenders advantage. The attacker has the privilege to choose when and where he attacks, so the defender obviously needs “counter-privileges”. Defender's advantage comes from various things like terrain (ramps, chokes), superior vision (information), unit formation (concaves), closer production, artillery units, etc. Certain concepts tend towards an inherent attacker's advantage (e.g. Warpgate, boost Medivacs, muta regen), which is fundamentally absurd. Spoon-feeding players with specific units like the MSC is crude." 17. --> Can read this section yourself. It's not super wordy and straight to-the-point. Stardust accretion 18. (Tried my best, but couldn't figure out what the underlying message is here... maybe that "casual gamers" have been used as an excuse to dumb things down too much, and that we need to give them more credit?) 19. The community needs to come together to recognize what is a distraction and what are the deep problems to push for in LotV. Cyclones are "OP" (at the time of LotV beta) is not the root cause of our deeper problems. Same for “buffing is good, nerfing is bad” because obviously poorly selected buffs can break the game, and well-targeted nerfs can open tons of options. Key point: Don't complain about the topic of the day. Remember to think back to what the deepest problems actually are. 20. Yes, everyone already knows players of all games crave the feeling of control; how else do you explain superstitions? There's nothing new here. But what we need to do is make sure Blizzard hears us this time. Let's not fight amongst each other (especially about "BW vs. SC2"). We're all in this together to make Starcraft better. Let's find a way to engage Blizzard in this conversation. Key points: It's been 5 years (at the time of this article) since SC2 began, and many of the things in this article have not been addressed (or considered?) by Blizzard. There must be things that we, as a community, can be better at presenting this message to them? 21. Give control to the players. Make sure there is strategic tension between as many actions/decisions as possible. The best units offer complex interactions from simple concepts (not just more active abilities.) TheDwf concludes with an example of a game that had 8(!) minutes of dead time where each player built up their economy followed by "bowling, with workers as pins falling left and right because bases are too spread to be protected." -- @TheDwf: If I've missed or misunderstood anything, please let me know. Happy to correct it. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
| ||
|
SetGuitarsToKill
Canada28396 Posts
| ||
|
OrangeGarage
Korea (South)319 Posts
| ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
In my opinion, two factors could be stressed more: 1. The root cause for many of the (design) problems mentioned is the fact, that the design is controlled by a commercial company interested in increasing the shareholder value. There was no privately held company designing chess or football, even though now there are commercial organizations exploiting those games. But in SC2 an arbitrary team of designers is hired to ultimately maximize profit. This incentive is prone to lead to conflict of interest. Not the best game shall be engineered, but the most financially profitable. 2. Intentional design (as opposed to the mentioned and praised unintentional design) is not inherently bad. What makes it bad is the cognitive limits of humans who fail to account for the complexity. What is happening in SC2 reminds me of the various failed attempts of (e.g. communist) governments to plan an economy. In theory it is possible, but in practice the world is just too complex to be understood by a team of economists. Even if they are considered very good among their peers. Players don't behave as designers might have expected (see the example on defensive structures in the article). One way to overcome this is to use collective intelligence and listen to more people than just a small group of designers. Conclusion: Yes, LOTV needs a revolution! This revolution should be an open-source version of the game, developed under the supervision of an independent non-profit council whose members are elected. The council acts according to a constitution, which states some general rules and goals. Examples of such a rule: - "Design shall attempt to achieve an equal distribution of all 3 races" - "Design shall attempt to increase the number of skill levels in the game" * Companies who seek to exploit the game commercially can still do so, just as it is done in many other sports via tournaments, sponsorship, merchandise, selling of gears, etc. etc. The core game shall be optimized for the community (players and spectators), the rest can be optimized for profit. * footnote: in other words: increase the skill gap between the best and the worst player. A skill level is defined given a probability as follows: If a player A beats a player B with a probability of P (say e.g. 90%) then A is one level above B. The more levels exist, the much better is the highest level player compared to the lowest level player. This means that the game has more depth and less chance. Chess has about 7 levels. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5211 Posts
Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players. SC2 lacks talented designers. | ||
|
SC2Towelie
United States561 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent. Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players. SC2 lacks talented designers. lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW.... | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:05 SC2Towelie wrote: lacks talented designers? What RTS is designed better than SC2? And don't say BW.... Why not  I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts | ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
On July 28 2016 05:58 BronzeKnee wrote: Many great games were designed by individuals or small groups of designers. They just need to have talent. Just like if someone was trying to setup the world's greatest football team, even with the best coaches and game plan, you still need talented players. SC2 lacks talented designers. I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear. And talented soccer players do not need to design soccer, just perform within rules that are already designed. Balancing 2 races with x different units such that every unit has its place is another category of complexity. Balancing 3 races even multiplies that complexity. Let's look at a very very simplified picture and assume the following: We define "complexity" as having to look at how each unit interacts with other units (~ balancing them) Let's say each race has 10 units. Creating a meaningful mirror match then takes complexity 10 * 10 = 100. Creating a meaningful game for two different races: 10 * 10 = 100 as well This should be easy to comprehend because we look at the interactions of each unit with each other unit (10 * 10). By "meaningful" I mean that each unit has its place such that no unit is just strictly better than another one, considering abilities, attack, health, moving speed, cost to build, time to build, size, etc. Thus: Game with 1 race: Complexity = 100 Game with 2 races: Complexity = (100 + 100) * 100 = 20'000 (balancing 2 independent mirrors AND the non-mirror matchup) Game with 3 races: Complexity = (100 + 100 + 100) * 100 * 100 * 100 = 300'000'000 (balancing 3 independent mirrors AND all 3 non-mirror matchups) btw. I use "+" because mirror matches can be balanced independently from each other, therefore complexity is just added, but I use "*" because non-mirrors are not independent of the mirror anymore. This can be seen easily by the following example: If I balance a marine vs a banshee for TvT it does not affect ZvZ, but it will affect TvZ. As the above super-simplified illustration shows, complexity just explodes with 3 races to the point where I argue a small team of designers, even if they are very intelligent, won't be able to handle it. Of course Blizzard has taken measures to reduce that complexity. For example you will notice, that non-mirrors never use all the units available in the game. Rather, overlapping subsets are used. For example, if hydras are only used in mirror and ZvP, but never in ZvT, this already reduces the complexity from 300 millions to (100 + 100 + 100) * 100 * 100 * 90 = 270 million. This is a 10% reduction. It's a neat and necessary trick, but it only emphasizes my point. Again: managers who believe their design team can handle the complexity and foresee how the game develops are just ignorant. Designers will do their best to start well and then patch, but will over-compensate, introduce new problems, fail to recognize existing problems, etc. etc. ultimately leading to failure. Not because they're bad, but because they are humans. | ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19152 Posts
On July 28 2016 23:30 imp42 wrote: I don't buy this analogy. Yes, many great games were designed by small teams. But these games typically lack the complexity of SC2. Creating awesome 3D graphics may be difficult as well, but difficulty is rather linear. The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow). | ||
|
inermis
353 Posts
| ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On July 28 2016 06:23 The_Red_Viper wrote: Why not I mean there aren't many rts titles which are close to starcraft in style so that's a tricky question tbh (because it's kinda hard to compare starcraft to say total annihilation). I guess it really depends what you are looking for in an rts You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!". They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen. On July 29 2016 01:54 BisuDagger wrote: The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow). Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch. (Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective) | ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19152 Posts
On July 29 2016 02:18 KeksX wrote: You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!". They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen. Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch. (Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective) Correct, I certainly won't take a side in this one as I agree it is to subjective. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 29 2016 02:18 KeksX wrote: You could argue that Brood War was not designed to be this way, though. All these bugs, all these gameplay elements that were found later on - these aren't things the developers looked at and said "Well, this is the way it should be. This way people can do all these cool things!". They had a lot of technical limitations that SC2 did not have, thus leaving less room for these "happy little accidents" to happen. Starbow maybe took 1% of the amount of work that it took to make SC2, though. And from a design perspective they mainly analysed what made fun in BW and tried to bring those things into SC2. So more of a "translation" than actual design from scratch. (Completely leaving out the fact that whether or not Starbow is more fun is really subjective) Yes there were as you call it "happy little accidents" for sure. But it's also unfair to say that everything about bw was coincidental I am not really interested in saying that bw is perfect or anything bw elitists would say, but at the same time i still think that there are a lot of elements in bw which would make sc2 a better game if implemented in some form or another. (like economy, different pathing, high ground advantage, basic unit interactions a lot of the time) While not everything was pre planned, i also don't think it really matters in the end. Blizzard's job should have been to analyze what made bw great (no matter if it was designed that way), implement it in sc2 and build on that basis. That way we would have had a way better game than what lotv is i think. So yeah, i don't see why we shouldn't compare sc2 to bw and vice versa, i think comparing it to any game makes sense when we wanna improve it. It's just that a lot of hardcore bw people instantly bash sc2 and sc2 people get triggered when they see "bw" in a post. Hard to have a meaningful discussion :/ | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
On July 29 2016 02:50 The_Red_Viper wrote: So yeah, i don't see why we shouldn't compare sc2 to bw and vice versa, i think comparing it to any game makes sense when we wanna improve it. It's just that a lot of hardcore bw people instantly bash sc2 and sc2 people get triggered when they see "bw" in a post. Hard to have a meaningful discussion :/ I personally think that while both are RTS, BW and SC2 are completely different beasts designwise and liked for different reasons by different people. You can definitely compare the two games, but making a statement such as "this is what people like in BW, therefore people will like this in SC2 as well" cannot be universally made. People would hate Dragoon-AI in SC2, yet it worked out for BW just fine - just to give an example. We're at a point where the vision for SC2 is just a different one that people have for BW/somewhat had for SC2. And can you blame Blizzard? Compared to BW, SC2 is the more succesful game worldwide(and it also probably maybe made them more money? Not sure on this one but I think it's likely). And in the end they need to post numbers, too. Just look at the discussion of macro mechanics and how split it was within the community. For BW or "traditional starcraft" players it made sense to increase the mechanical gap(or rather to not decrease it), for a lot of other people though it made sense to ease the burden on players. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 29 2016 02:56 KeksX wrote: I personally think that while both are RTS, BW and SC2 are completely different beasts designwise and liked for different reasons by different people. You can definitely compare the two games, but making a statement such as "this is what people like in BW, therefore people will like this in SC2 as well" cannot be universally made. People would hate Dragoon-AI in SC2, yet it worked out for BW just fine - just to give an example. We're at a point where the vision for SC2 is just a different one that people have for BW/somewhat had for SC2. And can you blame Blizzard? Compared to BW, SC2 is the more succesful game worldwide(and it also probably maybe made them more money? Not sure on this one but I think it's likely). And in the end they need to post numbers, too. Just look at the discussion of macro mechanics and how split it was within the community. For BW or "traditional starcraft" players it made sense to increase the mechanical gap(or rather to not decrease it), for a lot of other people though it made sense to ease the burden on players. I can see what you are saying, but at the same time i am not advocating to simply use every bw element you can find just for the sake of it. I am more talking about the bigger things. Do i think 12 units per control group would be a good part of bw to implement in sc2? Probably not. Do i think a different pathing system would be better both gameplay wise and also aesthetically? Absolutely! I think looking at design decisions made in both games (and maybe even other games, not even necessarily rts games) and analyzing the pro/cons and then trying to test it in some form (on a ptr would be the optimal solution, i dislike when i read "tested by out internal team") would be the dream. You are right that the vision is different and people like bw and sc2 for different things. Hey i actually like both games. That doesn't mean that adding certain elements of other games (including bw) wouldn't help if done correctly. And no i am not asking for dragoon ai necessarily | ||
|
KeksX
Germany3634 Posts
And at some point you have to ask yourself just how much "worth" there is in investigating these issues. These things would have to be implemented, tested, pushed out on PTR, reviewed, tested, adjusted, pushed out again, reviewed (...). All these steps cost a ton of money - will they increase sales though? Can they even increase sales or just bring players back that were playing before? Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase. | ||
|
imp42
398 Posts
On July 29 2016 01:54 BisuDagger wrote: The counter argument, is that a small team of developers/designers have made an arguably more fun version of SC2 (i.e. Starbow). actually that is the exact opposite of a counter argument. a counter-counter argument is you so will  Starbow is a community project attempting to transfer bw to the sc2 engine. This is the perfect example of what I am talking about: There is no small group thinking very hard in an ivory tower. Instead, the project uses the collective intelligence of the community and about 18 years of experience! Chess had hundreds of years to refine*. I don't blame the Blizzard team for not achieving this in 6 years. I blame them for not crowd-sourcing game design using the probably best collective intelligence available: a large pool of dedicated players. * + Show Spoiler + at some point many many years ago an individual "designer" suggested to increase the chess board to 10x10 fields because he thought the game was too easy | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On July 29 2016 04:24 KeksX wrote: I agree that adding certain elements of games can improve the gameplay, but as with everything there are going to be people disagreeing. It's never going to be universally agreed on, at the very least people want to test these changes. And at some point you have to ask yourself just how much "worth" there is in investigating these issues. These things would have to be implemented, tested, pushed out on PTR, reviewed, tested, adjusted, pushed out again, reviewed (...). All these steps cost a ton of money - will they increase sales though? Can they even increase sales or just bring players back that were playing before? Changing the payment model to a microtransaction one is probably the first step Blizzard needs to take before the game can change in these ways, otherwise there will be no financial incentive for Blizzard to do so. I mean right now, outside of initial sales, Blizzard doesn't really profit from a larger active playerbase. Sure money is probably the most important part atm and thus i hope their micro transaction model will work. At the same time it's also about their reputation though. In general Blizzard supports their games for many years and people know that. I would assume that helps their future sales as well if people are actually content with the patches/changes. (but yeah typically there are addons planned, so it makes more sense) Still, at the community summits it was said that blizzard wants to support sc2 in the coming years, i would expect more effort tbh. New features/modes are cool, but the main game should get some love as well :D You are obviously right that people will never agree on things in general. But let's be real: Do you actually think that the current iteration of the game is close to the point where changes wouldn't make the game more enjoyable to play/watch in general? At this point my hopes aren't high that blizzard is actually willing to change bigger things, they weren't really doing it with addons either, but you never know right. | ||
| ||
