|
On April 06 2016 03:08 Gwavajuice wrote:
I'd like to point out that "standard" is an award maps wins over time.
For instantce, KSS was NOT seen as a standard map when it first came out. It had (and still has) some revolutionary features that we had never seen before : the rocks at the natural were just brilliant in the way it changed the map in late game, the forward 4th was pure genius and the general configuration of the map that allowed both ultra agressive proxy (I think the 10 first televised games on KSS must have involved some sort of proxy - reapers, oracles, banshees,...) and ultra long macro games (soO vs Reality anyone?) makes it above any other map in terms of games variety.
KSS was just a map too brilliant to be seen as just "standard".
I also think it's a bit, too easy when you write this kind of article to pick the best or most favored maps ever and call them "standard" just to prove your point. As a matter of fact many of the maps analysed weren't called standard back in the days.
The conclusion of all this is I'm pretty sure the author, the people posting comments, the players, the map makers and blizzard staff all have their own definition of "standard", this word is way overused and hardly means anything anymore.
I agree. King Sejong Station might be seen as standard now, but only because it influenced mapmaking to the extent that it became standard. Standardness is a fairly meaningless designation even when I applied to current maps, and even more when we look back at maps from history.
If we asked different people to put points for every one of the maps mentioned in the article on a chart like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
I have not doubts that people would place the points in very different spots along both axes. It would make a very interesting exercise though.
|
On April 06 2016 03:08 Gwavajuice wrote:
I'd like to point out that "standard" is an award maps wins over time.
For instantce, KSS was NOT seen as a standard map when it first came out. It had (and still has) some revolutionary features that we had never seen before : the rocks at the natural were just brilliant in the way it changed the map in late game, the forward 4th was pure genius and the general configuration of the map that allowed both ultra agressive proxy (I think the 10 first televised games on KSS must have involved some sort of proxy - reapers, oracles, banshees,...) and ultra long macro games (soO vs Reality anyone?) makes it above any other map in terms of games variety.
KSS was just a map too brilliant to be seen as just "standard".
I also think it's a bit, too easy when you write this kind of article to pick the best or most favored maps ever and call them "standard" just to prove your point. As a matter of fact many of the maps analysed weren't called standard back in the days.
The conclusion of all this is I'm pretty sure the author, the people posting comments, the players, the map makers and blizzard staff all have their own definition of "standard", this word is way overused and hardly means anything anymore.
Right on.
|
RIP Starcraft after this season mappool. David Kim singlehandedly is killing Sc2, Starcraft needs a change. I wish we could replace David Kim with someone who actually care about what community says.
User was warned for this post
|
as great as this article is, we (the community) have been pumping out these gold mines since 2009 and 2010 and blizzard has yet to listen. Maybe i'm too cynical but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.
|
On April 06 2016 02:51 Eternal Dalek wrote:
I liked the factual, informative bits.
I disagree with the opinions expressed in the article, especially the part about embracing the hardcore aspects of the game. Dark Souls is primarily a singleplayer game, which means that people can have fun with it despite not having anyone else to play with. Starcraft is primarily a multiplayer game which is dependent on a large and healthy player pool.
I'm firmly in the camp that believes that different maps should have different gameplay. Most of us aren't good enough to make a living through esports, so why can't we have fun and silly and weird maps to make things more interesting? Starcraft isn't just about showing how much better you are than your opponent; it's also about a three-war space war between three different spacefaring species. The terrain on Earth is much more varied than what you would expect in Starcraft, which is set far away from the Blue Planet.
Also, I really don't understand how you can call the maps bad when it's only been a short time since their addition to the ladder. They're different and non-standard, I'll give you that, but that mostly means that you cannot play the same way on them as you would on older, more standard maps. I feel like the community is pretty much proving David Kim right (wow that feels weird to say) when he says that people just want to play the same way they're used to.
The point behind adding these non-standard maps is that they force you to play in a different way. If you're unable to secure a third, or even your natural, then why don't you adapt to the map and do a 1-base or 2-base all-in? I know TL.net hates all-ins but they are part of the game. If all-ins weren't viable, no one would use them. It's like this community is married to a specific way of playing and dismiss other ways of playing as less skilled or gimmicky.
Back in my day, you adapted to the map. You didn't force mapmakers to adapt to the popular ways of playing. Eventually, some map types were retired because they were too difficult to balance, but players were much more open to alternative map styles back then.
I agree with Eternal Dalek's train of thoughts. Forcing a continuous flow of similar if not the same maps with slightly different layout making them "standard" is something that in my opinion works against the idea of SC2 being a game for years to come.
I feel that community is locked into thinking that the game should be played continuously in precisely framed ways, and maps should lock players into specific strategy paths that should never vary or change, when ironically it's an argument against the new maps - that have been out on ladder for a little more than a week.
On a side note, in my opinion term "standard map" is commonly used as a phrase to describe a map that community settled well with and lets players to freely choose between either passive macro or aggressive play, as people mentioned that for example King Sejong Station was not reffered to as "standard" back in the day.
|
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts.
|
On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts.
I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play.
But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message).
So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day...
But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard.
I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed.
Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining...
It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this??
I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end.
|
Good effort but unfortunately this is all opinion based without any real facts or figures to support. I tend to skew with blizzards thinking on this - the changing maps over time have been a large part of the evolution and improvement of the game over time. You make some good points about how creative players will remain creative etc but it certainly doesnt go so far as to discredit the element of diversity in maps.
Following the core of your thinking to the extreme, we should only have a single ultrastandard map that all games should be played on. No thanks.
|
On April 06 2016 06:32 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play. But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message). So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day... But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard. I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed. Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining... It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end.
Blizzard has been arguing with e-sports and viewers all along. What the playerbase says comes second to what the articles and reddit threads say. That's why stuchiu could prevent the inject change with his article and why throwing random cheeses at the opponent, even though noone wants to face them when they play, are still the main way to play the game.
That said, the general direction with maps would be pretty good, if David Kim just balanced and designed the game around a varied mappool. But he and his team are way too afraid that Korean pros and broodwar elitists would revolt when blizzard would actually take a role as caring father instead of "letting the meta settle" and the game die for anyone who doesn't have the time or endurance to train for 15 hours every week.
|
On April 06 2016 07:32 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 06:32 Spyridon wrote:On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play. But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message). So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day... But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard. I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed. Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining... It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end. Blizzard has been arguing with e-sports and viewers all along. What the playerbase says comes second to what the articles and reddit threads say. That's why stuchiu could prevent the inject change with his article and why throwing random cheeses at the opponent, even though noone wants to face them when they play, are still the main way to play the game. That said, the general direction with maps would be pretty good, if David Kim just balanced and designed the game around a varied mappool. But he and his team are way too afraid that Korean pros and broodwar elitists would revolt when blizzard would actually take a role as caring father instead of "letting the meta settle" and the game die for anyone who doesn't have the time or endurance to train for 15 hours every week.
It's not so easy to balance (and design) three unique races around a varied map pool though. If we really wanna do that then we probably get to the point where each race gets more similar to each other.
|
8748 Posts
On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts.
There's no way to "think out" what experimental map will work or be good for the game. When a player analyzes a map before playing it, they're thinking "can the strategies I know be done on this map?" and "what old maps have features like this map and what did I think of those features on those older maps?" There's no way to figure out what new things are going to work until the whole progaming scene is forced to play on it. And even then we don't know what new things might work on it because the players might not even be trying to play the map the best they can. They may judge that the best use of their time is to play the map sub-optimally with strats they already know because figuring out a new strategy for just one map and just one matchup is not worth it. Or even if they do try to figure out new strats, they might not succeed in time before the map is considered a disaster.
I think the problem is that the game mechanics that changed with LotV were already a big enough upheaval to unsettle players. Combining that with experimental maps was too much for a lot of people to handle.
|
On April 06 2016 08:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 07:32 Big J wrote:On April 06 2016 06:32 Spyridon wrote:On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play. But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message). So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day... But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard. I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed. Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining... It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end. Blizzard has been arguing with e-sports and viewers all along. What the playerbase says comes second to what the articles and reddit threads say. That's why stuchiu could prevent the inject change with his article and why throwing random cheeses at the opponent, even though noone wants to face them when they play, are still the main way to play the game. That said, the general direction with maps would be pretty good, if David Kim just balanced and designed the game around a varied mappool. But he and his team are way too afraid that Korean pros and broodwar elitists would revolt when blizzard would actually take a role as caring father instead of "letting the meta settle" and the game die for anyone who doesn't have the time or endurance to train for 15 hours every week. It's not so easy to balance (and design) three unique races around a varied map pool though. If we really wanna do that then we probably get to the point where each race gets more similar to each other.
That's a bold statement. It has never been tried.
|
On April 06 2016 08:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 08:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 06 2016 07:32 Big J wrote:On April 06 2016 06:32 Spyridon wrote:On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play. But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message). So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day... But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard. I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed. Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining... It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end. Blizzard has been arguing with e-sports and viewers all along. What the playerbase says comes second to what the articles and reddit threads say. That's why stuchiu could prevent the inject change with his article and why throwing random cheeses at the opponent, even though noone wants to face them when they play, are still the main way to play the game. That said, the general direction with maps would be pretty good, if David Kim just balanced and designed the game around a varied mappool. But he and his team are way too afraid that Korean pros and broodwar elitists would revolt when blizzard would actually take a role as caring father instead of "letting the meta settle" and the game die for anyone who doesn't have the time or endurance to train for 15 hours every week. It's not so easy to balance (and design) three unique races around a varied map pool though. If we really wanna do that then we probably get to the point where each race gets more similar to each other. That's a bold statement. It has never been tried.
It depends on what "varied map pool" means to you. Take it to the extreme and say that there shall be no ramps to the bases (and no walls around it  ) and you see where i am coming from.
|
Over time my opinion on how to make the best kinds of maps has evolved into: make a map with some interesting/dynamic paths that encourage army positioning. Give choices on how to expand throughout the game. Make sure the interesting features you do include don't close off too many options on how to play. Mainly you use the different expansions and strengths/weaknesses of each to allow many styles of play to be viable (and hence make the viewing experience great by having lots of different games on the map).
This article and its conclusions seem to reinforce that way of thinking.
Awesome article. As some have mentioned (and the article itself admits) you can't really definitively state what is and isn't a standard map or which maps "worked" and which maps failed, but I think this is a decent stab at it and in general I like the way stu thinks about maps and it gave me a few ideas about maps in the future.
|
On April 06 2016 08:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 08:10 Big J wrote:On April 06 2016 08:03 The_Red_Viper wrote:On April 06 2016 07:32 Big J wrote:On April 06 2016 06:32 Spyridon wrote:On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. I think the rest of the problem is that Blizzard is forcing them, rather than offering the experimental maps as an option for play. But they know that if they offer them as an option, players simply don't like them and will veto them (as they stated in their own damn message). So rather than giving a damn about the way players enjoy to play, they force these maps on people... Like force feeding is going to make people start enjoying them one day... But their statement that players will veto them and you won't see them commonly, should send a big message in flashing lights to Blizzard. I would say "They just don't get it"... but they DO get it. They have to if they are aware of it if they are commenting on them being veto'ed. Its completely mind boggling as to why they choose situations like this to completely insist on NOT caring what the community wants and sticking to their guns. Yet in situations where the community supports a change they are making, they scrap the plans due to a minor portion of the community complaining... It seems like intentional sabotage. But they are a business, they must have some bigger reasons. And they have all these lengthy PR statements every week... To what end? What is the point of dragging the community onward like this?? I'm becoming more and more convinced that they are already working on, or planning work on, another RTS. Keep people watching, but unhappy... just so you can then offer them something to fill the void with... It's like making people starve in preparation for offering them an amazing meal, just to make the meal taste that much better in the end. Blizzard has been arguing with e-sports and viewers all along. What the playerbase says comes second to what the articles and reddit threads say. That's why stuchiu could prevent the inject change with his article and why throwing random cheeses at the opponent, even though noone wants to face them when they play, are still the main way to play the game. That said, the general direction with maps would be pretty good, if David Kim just balanced and designed the game around a varied mappool. But he and his team are way too afraid that Korean pros and broodwar elitists would revolt when blizzard would actually take a role as caring father instead of "letting the meta settle" and the game die for anyone who doesn't have the time or endurance to train for 15 hours every week. It's not so easy to balance (and design) three unique races around a varied map pool though. If we really wanna do that then we probably get to the point where each race gets more similar to each other. That's a bold statement. It has never been tried. It depends on what "varied map pool" means to you. Take it to the extreme and say that there shall be no ramps to the bases and you see where i am coming from.
I tried to answer you without getting salty about blizzard. I didn't manage to. It's hard to talk about these topics when simple designs like an adept to give Protoss some form of mapcontrol and antilight (anttmarine, antizergling) of the gateway get screwed up because David Kim rather wants the unit to have a button press shadow walk ability so that it can suicide into workers, rather than let it have basic mobility/escapability. And then makes pylons with nearly the power of battlecruisers. Really hard to talk about greater design goals when they can't even design the gameto be fair on basic layouts like Lerilak or Dusk Towers.
|
Blizzard is trying to hide their terrible balance decisions & unit design behind the "creativeness" of maps. It's sad because it gets un-watchable. No one wants to see massive air armies attack moving into each other or turtle-ing into death compositions. No one wants to see an army dies in 3 seconds because of AOE damage. They need to go back to focusing on unit interaction, counters, toning down casters (viper *cough*) & making the game fun again. WoL TvZ was the most fun I've ever had playing a video game and mass Roach/Ravager just hurts my soul. Also, Protoss has way to many ways to kill my workers and it's terrifying.
|
This is a great article of course.
I wish to underline one of the points that seem very important in my eyes :
I don’t think it’s wrong to try to appeal to more casuals and bring them into the game, but the subtleties of the map pool and how they play into strategy is at the very end of the road.
I am somewhat casual in the sens that I don't have much time to play the game. But I have managed to reach masters once and I think I am a very solid diamond player. This probably means I am just above trash tier, but still better than most SC2 players.
Yet, I must admit (without shame) that despite this apparent confort with the game, I have never really understood the subtleties of maps. Maybe it's just because I am not versed into this side of the meta game? Whatever the reason is, I always knew that some maps "felt" right to play. Some others felt right to watch.
But I could never easily explain with elaborate arguments, why a map felt right. It seemed to me, to rely on very complex subtleties. Obviously, awful abusable maps felt wrong and that was usually easy to pin point why. All in all, I can say that nearly all the maps that felt right were not blizzard made!!!
So maybe it's just me that lacks game knowledge towards map, or maybe most are afraid to admit they don't understand maps as well, but I think that Stuchiu is definitely right when saying that blizz/map makers should go all in for map complexity. Let the Kespa coaches figure this stuff out for the players for all I care. If the map is hyper complex, but well done, I know I am going to enjoy playing it, even if don't fully understand why. And the most important part, I am going to enjoy watching games played by the best, on the best maps possible.
|
There is a lot of content here, but little is good.
Do not put Whirlwind into the same standard category that King Sejong Station is. I would never consider a map that has two entrances into the natural, and then a choice between two vulnerable thirds a standard map. It made for exciting games because there were timing windows depending on the matchups, and the games that progressed past those windows allowed for organic play, also thanks to the excellent middle section land diversity. Whereas Whirlwind was about as strategic as, Ok both players are up to 3 bases... And whoever takes the 4th first dies or wins defending!
Id be more interested in the layout influences for the map pools and overtime. For instance, all of the clones and better versions of Xel naga caverns submerged third, or Cloud kingdoms great serpentine raised S.
|
It is easy after checking all these. The best map to give multiple choice in terms of strategy are those with 4 spawn locations, an easy and hard third, and at least 3 possible ground attack paths.
You can then check other features and such, but with that, the map could get a lot of different gameplays and strategies based on every MU and spawning positions, whilce tweaking it if there is some racial advantage depending on the spawn locations.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On April 06 2016 08:05 NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2016 05:30 -NegativeZero- wrote:
there is nothing wrong with favoring experimental maps over "standard" maps, whatever your definition of that may be - that is one of the ways the game develops.
the problem is that blizzard's idea of experimental maps revolves around gimmicks rather than well thought out concepts. There's no way to "think out" what experimental map will work or be good for the game. When a player analyzes a map before playing it, they're thinking "can the strategies I know be done on this map?" and "what old maps have features like this map and what did I think of those features on those older maps?" There's no way to figure out what new things are going to work until the whole progaming scene is forced to play on it. And even then we don't know what new things might work on it because the players might not even be trying to play the map the best they can. They may judge that the best use of their time is to play the map sub-optimally with strats they already know because figuring out a new strategy for just one map and just one matchup is not worth it. Or even if they do try to figure out new strats, they might not succeed in time before the map is considered a disaster. I think the problem is that the game mechanics that changed with LotV were already a big enough upheaval to unsettle players. Combining that with experimental maps was too much for a lot of people to handle.
As an addendum to this, Brood War maps were constantly trying out new experiment things and as late as 2009 occasionally a total shit idea would be unleashed on proleague or what have you. And that was 10 years on in a game where KeSPA was getting playtesting from progamers to help improve concepts before release (or at least claimed to). The community always had big discussions when new maps were unveiled and it was incredibly rare for them to play out as people expected based on design ideas (in particular I remember IdrA , then playing for CJ Entus, saying Battle Royale was hard for Zerg - turns out that map was absolutely unplayable for T or P).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KqTWK4l.png)
