Topic: Fleet Poll

[Gook]

Seeing how polls get a wider response than threads on a subject, here is another, on fleets.

If you choose option 3, please add a few lines as to what you think the CnC should be. If you refer back to a previous server, please still say what the rules were

[Holocat]

I'd try to keep it as simple as possible.

You'd take all the ships that can fly solo and designate them something.

You'd take all the ships that can command a fleet or fly solo and designate them something else.

You'd take the ships that can fly in a fleet (but not solo) and designate them something else, if they exist.

And that'd be about it, unless you want to do PF and Fighter CnC.

To be clear, this is just a renaming of existing non-restricted ships.  Let's try this as an example.

The first ships (solo only) would be called STRIKE ships, and have that designated.  Therefore, you would have FFS, DDS, CAS, BCS, DNS, CVS, and so on, appending whatever else you want afterwards to designate it's particular type.  A solo drone cruiser would then be CASD.

The second ships are COMMAND ships, and would have that listed, meaning FFC, DDC, CAC, BCC, DNC, CVC, and so on.

The last ships are ESCORTS, and are thus called FFE, DDE, CAE, BCE, DNE, CVE and so on.


Now, this dosen't do anything to controling or policing CnC that Cleaven has brought up, and is a legitimate concern.

However, it makes it blindingly obvious to anyone who reads the CnC rule which ships can be combined with which.  xxSx must fly alone, xxCx may have another ship, and xxEx must have a xxCx around with them.  Secondly, anyone who reads this rule can quickly see if anyone else is following the rule or not, which may not be immediately obvious otherwise.


This may grate on a lot of people that want 'correct' tags, but this won't bother me much.

[el-Karnak]

CnC Rules

[Bonk]

CnC Rules

All cool except: "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel."
Which leaves out frigate squads and light cruiser squads, which do have leaders. If using this rule then leave frigate and light cruiser leaders off the list as they have no place. (similarly for #8)

[el-Karnak]

CnC Rules

All cool except: "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel."
Which leaves out frigate squads and light cruiser squads, which do have leaders. If using this rule then leave frigate and light cruiser leaders off the list as they have no place. (similarly for #8)

Valid points. We could modify  "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel." to be "In order to form a 2 ship fleet, the Primary vessel must be, at least, a CA-class vessel or, for the CL and under classes, a shplist designated leader-class ship."  Then modify #8 to require for leaders of CL-class and below the secondary ship must be the same class or below as compared to the leader's ship.

BTW, everyone may notice that I did not restrict Escorts but say that they can be flown solo.  That's because we are using fleets. And, no, you can't have a fleet of all escort ships.

As for disengagment rule concerns with fleets, that's easy to handle: 

The following rules of disengagement apply if, and only if, in the mission the winning side's smallest player fleet has a less than or equal number of ships per Human player as the losing side's smallest player fleet.

Note:  player fleet definition would be inclusive for cases where a player is flying only one ship.

If you are forced off the map by an enemy team, you cannot take missions in that hex for 10 game turns, or 1 hour, 40 minutes.

If your ship is destroyed by an enemy team, you cannot take missions in that hex for 5 game turns, or 50 minutes.

If a mission is buggy or has some other problem such as lag requiring a Alt-F4 or disengage,it will not count as a disengagment.


Basically, players flying solo would control when the disengagement rule applies by simply flying solo.  Those players with multi-ship fleets would have to hope the enemy plays ball by matching their fleets for the disengagement rule to apply.

[FPF-DieHard]

Might as well throw this out here . . .

SGODev CnC Rules (under Contruction)
Hull Size:
For the purpose of CnC/OOB classification, below are ship size classes:

BB (2 Move Cost)
DN/CVA (1.5 Move Cost)
BCH/CA/NCA (1 Move Cost)
CL, HDW (K-D6 variants)
DD/DW
FF


CnC Rules:

All Bombardment Ships, Fast Cruisers, PF Leaders (Not attached to a tender) and HDWs must be flown solo.

Command Cruisers:

Pilots may fly 2 ships. The first ships must be a command ship and the second ship is a vanilla-line ship of the same Hull Class or smaller.
EXAMPLE: K-C7, K-D5W and F-CLC, F-NCL+ are legal combos.

True Carriers and Tenders:

Pilots may fly one ESCORT ship with the carrier/tender provided it is 2 Hull Class sizes smaller than the Carrier.
EXAMPLE: F-NCV, F-DWA, and K-C7V, K-FWE are legal combinations.

Only ESCORTS may escort a carrier/tender.


PF CnC:

Full Tenders: Full Tenders are ships with 4 PFs. They are allowed the following:
1 PF Leader (May be a Leader Variant)
1 Variant PF
2 Standard PFs

Below are examples of legal flotillas:
G-PFDL, G-PFD, G-PF+, G-PF+
K-G1DL, KG1D, K-G1, K-G1

Casual Tenders: Casual Tenders have 2 PFs. Casual tenders are limited to standard PFs.
EXAMPLE: K-C7F + K-G1(x2), L-CWLF + L-PF+ (x2)

Solo PF Leaders:  PF leaders will be available as flyable ships.  Each PF leader will have 4 PFs attached to it.   This is to simulate a flotilla of PFs operating independently of a mother ship.  Solo PF leaders may take:
1 Variant PF
3 Standard PFs

Additional PF leader rules:  

In PvP, solo PF Leaders MUST deploy their PFs at the start of the battle.  The PFs CANNOT be recalled during the course of the battle as the PF leaders are not supposed to be able to repair the PFs in combat nor are they actual tenders.  



Fighter CnC:  TBD

[Bonk]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

I also think one bombardment ship should be allowed in a fleet, they really shouldn't be out there on their own... (half of why they are so hated by many...)

[FPF-DieHard]

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

Then don't fly one , they'll be real cheap so who cares?

This is part of my "War of Attrition" angle that I am going for.  I want to make certain ships exempt for the disengagement rule if killed in combat.  Solo PF leaders would be included in this list.

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Edited "Command Cruiser" with "Command Ship."  F-DWC and F-DW would be a legal combo, I am all for small-ship squads.

What i like about my CnC setup is i do not think people will be FORCED into flying fleets to be competitive. 

[FireSoul]

I really like it, DH. It makes sense to me, and sounds better than my own ideas.

-- Luc

[Bonk]

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

Then don't fly one , they'll be real cheap so who cares?

This is part of my "War of Attrition" angle that I am going for.  I want to make certain ships exempt for the disengagement rule if killed in combat.  Solo PF leaders would be included in this list.

Cool, they do sound like fun.

[SPQR Renegade]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the flyable leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

[Bonk]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Edited "Command Cruiser" with "Command Ship."  F-DWC and F-DW would be a legal combo, I am all for small-ship squads.

What i like about my CnC setup is i do not think people will be FORCED into flying fleets to be competitive. 

Its pretty good, I'm just picking at it here...

So no 3 ship fleets?

The closer it is to true SFB CnC the easier it will be for me to remember. Probably more natural for others too.
(As I see it a F-DWC and F-DW is not legal but a F-DWC and 2 x F-DW would be...)

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed.  

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

[Kroma BaSyl]

I like it, except I would allow FF and DD fleets of 3 ships. 1 command, 2 vanilla.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed. 

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

Actually I think it is a great idea. Otherwise every battle will come down to trying to protect the leader as the opponent realizes how easy it is to just kill the one PF.

[FPF-DieHard]

Its pretty good, I'm just picking at it here...

So no 3 ship fleets?

The closer it is to true SFB CnC the easier it will be for me to remember. Probably more natural for others too.
(As I see it a F-DWC and F-DW is not legal but a F-DWC and 2 x F-DW would be...)

Closer to SFB, yes.   But as much of a hardcore SFBer I am I have to accept the limitations of the SFC game engine.

Yes, I am saying no to 3-ship fleets.  Two-ship fleets are a lot easier to control and won't force people to fly fleets to be competitive.  

[FPF-DieHard]

Same complaint as for Karnak's CnC.

Also I'm a tad concerned about PFs carrying PFs, identify the carrier and thay all go pop real quick. (moreso than with a PFT). This concept is OK for an all PFs server though.

A possible fix for this is to add HUGE amounts of extra damage to the leader (like 50 points). That way, the leader can still be crippled with very few internals, but wont pop at the prick of a pin. Once the real fighting is over, 50 points of damage for the kill is easy to generate (at least for any ship that shouldn't have been quickly killed by the PFs).

Not a bad idea but why bother?  I't only going to be priced at about 500 PP and will be exempt from disenagagement when (notice I said when, not "IF"  ) killed. 

If you want something rugged, fly a real tender.

Actually I think it is a great idea. Otherwise every battle will come down to trying to protect the leader as the opponent realizes how easy it is to just kill the one PF.

I disagree, I want these to be a "Flavor," not the meal.  Again, if you want a tender that can take a beating, fly a real tender.

[Kroma BaSyl]

Yes, I am saying no to 3-ship fleets.  Two-ship fleets are a lot easier to control and won't force people to fly fleets to be competitive. 

That is true, but on a server that had FM like spots for fleets it might not be a bad idea.

[KHH Jakle]

Since people are talking about CnC and 3-ship 'fleets':

Patrol Battle Rules (GZ's 'CnC')

The Rules:
http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Final_PBR_Rules.htm

The Matrix:
http://home.comcast.net/~jakle/Patrol_Battle_Rules3.htm

All in all, a lot of similarities with what DH put up - just a different approach.  The whole idea behind the Matrix is to provide a reference aid as to what ships fall in what bucket (as defined in the rules).  I know - needs a neater presentation....

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Additional PF leader rules:  

In PvP, solo PF Leaders MUST deploy their PFs at the start of the battle.  The PFs CANNOT be recalled during the course of the battle as the PF leaders are not supposed to be able to repair the PFs in combat nor are they actual tenders.  

Damn!  That's word for word my PFL rules on Squadron Commander, and I know you didn't lift it from me because I haven't posted it anywhere.

I find it truly frightening that not only do we come up with the same idea, but we use the exact same words.

<S'Cipio wonders idly if he posts as FPF-DieHard during his "blackout" periods.  Where is Lon Chaney Jr? >

-S'Cipio

[el-Karnak]

Its pretty good, I'm just picking at it here...

So no 3 ship fleets?

The closer it is to true SFB CnC the easier it will be for me to remember. Probably more natural for others too.
(As I see it a F-DWC and F-DW is not legal but a F-DWC and 2 x F-DW would be...)

Closer to SFB, yes.   But as much of a hardcore SFBer I am I have to accept the limitations of the SFC game engine.

Yes, I am saying no to 3-ship fleets.  Two-ship fleets are a lot easier to control and won't force people to fly fleets to be competitive.  

The big deterrent to fleets on the dyna is the waiving of the disengagement rule.  You can separate most naval actions into 2 categories:

1)   Standard PvP.  For these, the disengagement rule would get waived as stated above when one side has too many ships in their fleets.  To simulate a real PvP fleet battle with disengagement rule in force, we just do the standard co-op thing.

2)  Stationary Target assaults.  For these, multi-player fleets are very useful to speed up the mission completion times. As for disengagement rule waivers: you usually need a covering PvP force to clear out  the hex anyway.

So, if you want fleets, NP.  Just remember disengagement rule won't apply in many cases in order to prevent the solo players from getting swarmed upon.  Of course, if the solo player can beat the multi-ship equipped opponent anyway then they are banned from the hex, in addition to losing lotsa PP.

I would be against any dyna that allowed fleets without disengagement rule waivers for their usage on the enemy.

[Gook]

I have no quarell witht he PF CnC. (are we having flotillas without PFTs?)

So far as other ships are concerned, I think what I suggested in another thread is simpler.

All fleets must be Commanded by a Command vessel

Command vessel (defined as Command in title (of the ship), any Carrier/PFT, any BCH, DN,BB) only one per fleet.

any one or two ships of same or smaller hull type.

So this means you cannot have multiple Carriers, BCHs, DNs etc as they are command vessels, You can have 2 Escorts and most CVs had two (SFB lore wise). You can have line, or "specialty" as second or third ships. So a D7C, with D5D and D5E is legal, but a D7C and D5C is not. No multiple PFTs or CV/As or CCZs.

It's less restrictive also.

[Rod ONeal]

The really fun thing that you could have with "solo" PFL's is PF vs. PF battles. This is about as close as dogfighting as SFC could allow.

IIRC (it's been a couple of years since I tried doing it like this), if you double list the PFs in the shiplist you can make them show up in fleet control. If you want to have sole PFLs this might be worth experimenting with more.

eg: First list the PF as a hull type other than a ftr, an FF for example. Then list it again lower in the shiplist, but still in the same race, as a FTR. When you open fleet control the PFs will show there. They also still respond to ftr commands. This gives you much more flexible control over them.

[FPF-DieHard]

The big deterrent to fleets on the dyna is the waiving of the disengagement rule.  You can separate most naval actions into 2 categories:

1)   Standard PvP.  For these, the disengagement rule would get waived as stated above when one side has too many ships in their fleets.  To simulate a real PvP fleet battle with disengagnement rule in force, we just do the standard co-op thing.

2)  Stationary Target assaults.  For these, multi-player fleets are very useful to speed up the mission completion times. As for disengagnement rule waivers: you usually need a covering PvP force to clear out  the hex anyway.

So, if you want fleets, NP.  Just remember disengagement rule won't apply in many cases in order to prevent the solo players from getting swarmed upon.

Yes, the disengament rule needs to be altered with multiple ships but I'm not quite sure as to what would be the best way to handle it . . .

Disengagement Rule: (work in progress)

If you disengage from a battle with a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 20 game turns (100 minutes).

If your ship is destroyed by a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 10 game turns (50 minuites).  

There are no exemptions (except for below) for the above two rules.  If you're stuck with a 1v3 or are forced to fly your FF against a BCH ... then the other side simply played their moves better.

If you are in a hex that is surrounded by enemy hexes then you cannot disengage. Stay and fight to the death.

If flying more than one ship, you cannot disengage until one of your ships is destroyed or captured by the enemy.  Self-Destructing a vessel counts as that ship being destroyed for these purposes.

Solo Vanilla Ships (up to the NCA class) and PF Leaders are exempt from disengagement if destroyed in combat.   These ships are a dime a dozen and are easily replaceable.  

[Lepton]

I voted no until a CnC is finalized that corresponds to that poll option.  A CnC that might end up limiting nothing is not a CnC.  We see people in disagreement on the nature of a CnC already here.  Three ship frigate or destroyer fleets is just asking for someone to abuse the system with some cheesy set up.  I vote for two types of servers: Wild Wild West (i.e. anything goes), serious servers with a restrictive OoB and CnC, yet still tending toward one ship servers in general.   

I don't mind an occasional fleet server, but I feel such a set-up benefits nutters more than the current one ship system.  Whose going to be able to afford a carrier/escort combo?  Not I.  Who will be able to take on such a combo in a single ship?  No one.  Individuals in single ships will be forced to hunt this guy together, thereby turning one player effectively into two by tying up two players.  This kind of stuff just makes the rich richer and the poor poorer, so to speak.  The casual player has no chance on a fleeting server.

If people want to fleet, why not mulltiple player fleeting?  Fleet control of AI is imperfect-to-broken and only droners benefit from its use with the fire and forget nature of their primary weapon.  Half the time people are running in pairs anyway.  Why not start the idea of a fleet and fleet control upon a more firm basis, that of live players, as AI fleet control is essentially a broken system.  Player-based fleeting and CnC would encourage people to actually fly line ships and escorts in proper fleet-like combos as wings to command ships.  To me that is a much preferable system to AI fleeting.  If we are going to end up imposing fleeting restrictions and require people to know those rules to pilot AI fleets that are useless and expensive for most, then why not just switch to a human pilot based system?

I'm not sure why people would want to spend the pp to maintain a AI fleet that is hard-to-impossible to control and have the vulnerability of stupid AI manuevers getting your ships picked off when people could fleet with other people in a sensible, controlled, and realistic manner that we are attempting to create for a broken AI fleet control system.

[Bonk]

Three ship frigate or destroyer fleets is just asking for someone to abuse the system with some cheesy set up.

SFB CnC, problem solved. Unless you can name a fleet that follows SFB CnC that would concern you.
As I see it, frigate and destroyer leaders without the required escorts is cheese of the smelliest kind.

Disengagement Rule: (work in progress)

See this thread for a similar reasonable (less complicated?) idea:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163344818.0.html

[762_XC]

My main objections to fleets:

1) It benefits different races unequally. Some races work better with fleet control than others, therefore it is inherently unbalancing.
2) Fleet control is bugged, and sucks even when it does work.
3) The AI gets your ships killed and ends up costing lots of $$$, making fleet rules benefitting nutters over casual players.

[Lepton]

We are in agreement.  Now this is a reasonable attitude from someone that is not considered a pariah like myself.  Well said.

[Lepton]

Three ship frigate or destroyer fleets is just asking for someone to abuse the system with some cheesy set up.

SFB CnC, problem solved. Unless you can name a fleet that follows SFB CnC that would concern you.
As I see it, frigate and destroyer leaders without the required escorts is cheese of the smelliest kind.

Disengagement Rule: (work in progress)

See this thread for a similar reasonable (less complicated?) idea:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163344818.0.html

The cheese is revealed not in the constituents of the fleet, but in their effect on gameplay.  There are certainly legal combos that are just going to make it easier for folks to abuse the already ineffectual AI.  The cheese is also evident in gameplay when fire and forget weapon races reap the benefits while others suffer from a "target rich" environment without the control to bring offensive and defensive assets to bear.

If there were SFB-like control to accompany that SFB CnC, I'd be much more inclined to agree, but in this game platform, I don't think it is very tenable.

[FPF-DieHard]

If there were SFB-like control to accompany that SFB CnC, I'd be much more inclined to agree, but in this game platform, I don't think it is very tenable.

Yup

[Rod ONeal]

If there were SFB-like control to accompany that SFB CnC, I'd be much more inclined to agree, but in this game platform, I don't think it is very tenable.

This is a very good point. I say let's not scrap the idea because of it though. I think that it would add a lot to the gaming and is worth putting the time into to see if it could be made to work.

[FPF-DieHard]

This is a very good point. I say let's not scrap the idea because of it though. I think that it would add a lot to the gaming and is worth putting the time into to see if it could be made to work.

How?  By re-programing the AI so they have some concept of drone defense?  Short of that, i can't think of anything.

[Hexx]

NO FLEETS!

-Depending on the Races being played on the server.
 Any server that you've got opponents like the Kzin and Lyran, fleet controls will so heavily favour the Kzin
that it would become pointless to try and match up.
A server where you have better balanced races (say Klinks vs Fed) I don't think I'd have a problem with. Although Fed fighter superiority *might* tip the balance on this one it would still be reasonable. (I'd think)

[Lepton]

BINGO!!!

[Rod ONeal]

How?  By re-programing the AI so they have some concept of drone defense?  Short of that, i can't think of anything.

Do you really feel that a two ship squadron is that unbalanced in favor of the droners that there's no way to make it work? If the overall bpv is similar do 2 smaller ships have an advantage over 1 larger one? I don't think that 2 DW, for example, have an advantage over 1 BCH. I think that they'd be disadvantaged, actually.

[FPF-DieHard]

How?  By re-programing the AI so they have some concept of drone defense?  Short of that, i can't think of anything.

Do you really feel that a two ship squadron is that unbalanced in favor of the droners that there's no way to make it work? If the overall bpv is similar do 2 smaller ships have an advantage over 1 larger one? I don't think that 2 DW, for example, have an advantage over 1 BCH. I think that they'd be disadvantaged, actually.

Using MY CnC rules, no I do not.  If the second ship can be a droner, yes i do feel it is un-balanced.

[Mog]

What Hexx said.

[el-Karnak]

NO FLEETS!

-Depending on the Races being played on the server.
 Any server that you've got opponents like the Kzin and Lyran, fleet controls will so heavily favour the Kzin
that it would become pointless to try and match up.
A server where you have better balanced races (say Klinks vs Fed) I don't think I'd have a problem with. Although Fed fighter superiority *might* tip the balance on this one it would still be reasonable. (I'd think)

This is why I put in strict Disengagement Rule waivers that heavily favor the solo ship player. Basically, the solo player controls the agenda on when the disengagement rule kicks in, not the multi-ship player, because it only applies if, and only if, in the mission the winning side's smallest player fleet has  less than or equal number of ships per Human player as the losing side's smallest player fleet.

It won't be in the multi-ship player's best interest to actively seek out standard PvP because the solo player will out-hex flip them.  Player multi-ship fleets are meant for special situations like attacking/defending stationary targets.  The EEK patrol missions themselves take care of fleeted ships options. For those races that don't like fleeted ships there is a corresponding unfleeted patrol mission version for every fleeted patrol mission in the EEK mission pack.  You can even disable the fleet control options for the fleeted missions by leaving the fleeted AI orders as "Firing at any target".

[KAT Chuut-Ritt]

If you disengage from a battle with a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 20 game turns (100 minutes).

If your ship is destroyed by a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 10 game turns (50 minuites). 

Umm....... so are we doubling the disengement rule penalty here, or keeping it the same?  I've seen some suggestions of lessening it on a smaller map on other threads,

Just want a bit of clarification here.  you got 20 turns = 100 minutes and 10 turns = 50 minutes, I think you made a typo somewhere just wondering where.

[FPF-DieHard]

If you disengage from a battle with a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 20 game turns (100 minutes).

If your ship is destroyed by a live enemy player, you cannot take missions in that hex for 10 game turns (50 minuites). 

Umm....... so are we doubling the disengement rule penalty here, or keeping it the same?  I've seen some suggestions of lessening it on a smaller map on other threads,

Just want a bit of clarification here.  you got 20 turns = 100 minutes and 10 turns = 50 minutes, I think you made a typo somewhere just wondering where.

Nope, I intend on using 5 minutes turns.  We are using 5 minutes turns on GW3 and did on GW2 as well.