204 replies to this topic

[Void Angel]

Well, thanks for the vote of general confidence. I really do appreciate it, and I'm glad that I've been making sense at least to some people.

However, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment here: you can't treat the two playstyles' use of the map as equivalent. You say, "they can do the same thing," but they really can't. The two teams have access to the same terrain, but the things they want (and the way terrain affects that) are different. Sure, they can maneuver through all that low cover too, but they can't do that and be shooting you inside your cover at the same time. Even poptarts (which are more common than they used to be, but still fail to dominate the battlefield as in days of yore,) can't shoot at you from one valley to the next. Mobility is also a consideration; while you do see some big, slow brawlers (like my beloved Atlas,) many brawling builds rely on speed to close the gap - they may not be the swiftest chariots in the race (since they want armor and guns when they get there,) but they are notably faster as a demographic than your typical missile boat.

We can't postulate that one side has all the LRMs and snipers, while our side is just trying to brawl. That's not a reasonable force mix even in maps perceived as more short-range, much less Polar Highlands; it's more realistic to expect that both sides with have a mix of forces with long-range builds over-represented compared to other maps. So you're not going to be trudging through the snow under the cruel eyes of endless UAVs and high-explosive rain while the enemy is all optimized long-range builds with dedicated scouts on their side - in most matches. When you are, though, it feels like it. Trust me, I played an Atlas Brawler throughout the heyday of the Poptart Meta, I know the feeling:

Spoiler

But typically, it's not really the case.

It's also unrealistic to treat scouting as unopposed: if we don't have any Lights, it may be a rough day; but what about the times they don't have any lights? What about the many, many times that all you have is a laserchicken or ERLL Arctic Cheetah for your Light component? It's necessary to consider how an asymmetric force mix affects map balance, but for general balance discussions, a more even distribution of roles and tonnages should be assumed.

My advice in this thread (and the mini-guide I posted) is based on my own observations playing the map in the PuG environment. Maneuver warfare isn't a magic wand to wave at LRMs and make them go away, but it will produce victory more often than not with a typical force mix. Certainly, Polar is a tough place to face LRMs in certain circumstances - but it is those scenarios which are idealized. If you have a perfect storm of team composition and tactics, Polar Highlands is a hellish place for the disadvantaged side. Of course there is a problem with the depth of the cover available - but it doesn't break the map in most games. And, like AMS, no one who refuses to use a counter-tactic should expect complaints to be taken seriously.

(Also, remember that I didn't say, "just bring AMS and it's fine." I said "no one who refuses to use AMS gets to complain about LRMs," and parried an objection to that statement by pointing out that AMS really is worthwhile in the current tactical environment. Even so, your analysis of AMS effectiveness misunderstands an important point: you're not bringing AMS to shoot down all their missiles - you're bringing AMS to provide damage reduction from those missiles while you close on the LRMs.)

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 09 June 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Speaking of failure to adapt...

If you wanted an answer at all, you'd have tried reading more... carefully. What you seem to want is agreement, which is wrong of you to demand. If you actually want to summarize that microguide, it would read "use the terrain to maneuver; don't just assume that the only options are 'run at them,' and 'camp in place.'"

Polar Highlands is hard to play against LRMs - if the LRM team has all its ducks in a row complete with dedicated scout Lights and NARC. AND if your team has a force mix with some combination of insignificant AMS/ECM, inadequate screening forces, or just plain slow 'mechs. It's not reasonable to assume that you will always (or even usually) have the worst-case scenario when you play the map.

In any case, the tried and true way to defeat LRMs is to get in their faces -or just flank then out-slug them with direct-fire weapons - and Polar Highlands is well-suited to letting you do that. Sure, you get teams who see LRMs in the air and refuse to accept damage in order to reach those 'mechs - but that's a tactical failure and not a problem with the map.

It's an accurate summary if you're playing anything other than a light or fast medium. It isn't even specifically LRMs, but anything slower than 80kph simply cannot push or flank effectively and is at the mercy of their team.

For example I just got out of a game where I spent 90% of the time behind the same berm telling our lights to stop camping with the assaults.. while one of them tells us to "just push".. as though I'm even going to get into range to return fire at the laser vom sitting at the end of the trench.. of course our lights just tried to poke frontally and died fruitlessly. It would have been more productive to just alt-f4 at the start because it's simply not a well designed map for Skirmish especially... even the slight cover of Domination improves it tremendously.

Like Alpine Peaks it's simply too favorable for one style of play and too disadvantageous to others. Other maps like Canyon Network, Mining Colony etc. give avenues of advance that can't be adequately be covered without multiple mechs or taking positions reactively.

"Fixing" the map could be as simple as just plopping down a small to medium-sized complex or town in the middle so that there's more substantial hard cover to close distance behind. I don't think making the trenches deeper is necessarily the first fix that should be made, since the risk it turning it into Frozen Canyon Network.

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 12 June 2017 - 11:04 AM.

[Gwahlur]

It's a shait map.
Or, the map itself could be good, but with the current game mechanics, it's shait through and through.

[Jiffy]

Void Angel, on 11 June 2017 - 02:47 PM, said:

Well, thanks for the vote of general confidence. I really do appreciate it, and I'm glad that I've been making sense at least to some people.

However, I'm going to have to disagree with your assessment here: you can't treat the two playstyles' use of the map as equivalent. You say, "they can do the same thing," but they really can't. The two teams have access to the same terrain, but the things they want (and the way terrain affects that) are different. Sure, they can maneuver through all that low cover too, but they can't do that and be shooting you inside your cover at the same time. Even poptarts (which are more common than they used to be, but still fail to dominate the battlefield as in days of yore,) can't shoot at you from one valley to the next. Mobility is also a consideration; while you do see some big, slow brawlers (like my beloved Atlas,) many brawling builds rely on speed to close the gap - they may not be the swiftest chariots in the race (since they want armor and guns when they get there,) but they are notably faster as a demographic than your typical missile boat.

We can't postulate that one side has all the LRMs and snipers, while our side is just trying to brawl. That's not a reasonable force mix even in maps perceived as more short-range, much less Polar Highlands; it's more realistic to expect that both sides with have a mix of forces with long-range builds over-represented compared to other maps. So you're not going to be trudging through the snow under the cruel eyes of endless UAVs and high-explosive rain while the enemy is all optimized long-range builds with dedicated scouts on their side - in most matches. When you are, though, it feels like it. Trust me, I played an Atlas Brawler throughout the heyday of the Poptart Meta, I know the feeling:

Spoiler

But typically, it's not really the case.

It's also unrealistic to treat scouting as unopposed: if we don't have any Lights, it may be a rough day; but what about the times they don't have any lights? What about the many, many times that all you have is a laserchicken or ERLL Arctic Cheetah for your Light component? It's necessary to consider how an asymmetric force mix affects map balance, but for general balance discussions, a more even distribution of roles and tonnages should be assumed.

My advice in this thread (and the mini-guide I posted) is based on my own observations playing the map in the PuG environment. Maneuver warfare isn't a magic wand to wave at LRMs and make them go away, but it will produce victory more often than not with a typical force mix. Certainly, Polar is a tough place to face LRMs in certain circumstances - but it is those scenarios which are idealized. If you have a perfect storm of team composition and tactics, Polar Highlands is a hellish place for the disadvantaged side. Of course there is a problem with the depth of the cover available - but it doesn't break the map in most games. And, like AMS, no one who refuses to use a counter-tactic should expect complaints to be taken seriously.

(Also, remember that I didn't say, "just bring AMS and it's fine." I said "no one who refuses to use AMS gets to complain about LRMs," and parried an objection to that statement by pointing out that AMS really is worthwhile in the current tactical environment. Even so, your analysis of AMS effectiveness misunderstands an important point: you're not bringing AMS to shoot down all their missiles - you're bringing AMS to provide damage reduction from those missiles while you close on the LRMs.)

Sorry, don't mean to quote the entire message but I don't know how else to make it evident that I'm responding specifically to you.

Anyway, I disagree wholeheartedly with the last point about AMS. As I mentioned, because a single AMS isn't effective at defeating LRM's, and because Polar is generally voted on because people are bringing excessive amounts of LRM's, this necessitates the use of excessive AMS to effectively deal with that situation (that is, if AMS is an important part of your plan to defeat LRM's). I tend to agree with the perspective that generally AMS isn't a worthwhile investment, because really the only (and I can't stress the word only enough) map where I feel like I'm gaining any benefit from its use is Polar. I literally don't need it anywhere else, as I have good enough positioning and awareness to avoid it. The fact is that on Polar I'm usually well aware of where the enemy team is, but as soon as the LRM's start flying there's absolutely no position I can move to that will save me. And that's basically the problem, in a nutshell. All it takes is one NARC and you're dead, or one light with ECM that nobody's happened to spot.

[Damnedtroll]

A triple ams nova or kit fox block most of lrm, my twin ams Knight is quite good at blocking most of the rain.

If you stay put without moving, or running all over the place like beheaded chicken waiting that god save you with naval bombardment and got mauled by the enemy team, it's clearly your fault and not the map...

Balanced mech that bring some long range backup weapon is a lot better than boating smallpulses or srm, and respond better to different situation like an open map. Lrm boat are more or less useless at close range, pushing them with the support of 3 ams on different mech win the day most of the times.

Lrm boater don't moan all the times because of mining ? Why do brawler cry for Polar ?

notes: most of my mech are medium range brawler but now i put ams on them when possible or put a long range backup for lrm boat.

Edited by Damnedtroll, 12 June 2017 - 03:42 PM.

[Void Angel]

Jiffy, on 12 June 2017 - 01:00 PM, said:

Sorry, don't mean to quote the entire message but I don't know how else to make it evident that I'm responding specifically to you.

Just remove most of the original quote, leaving only what you're talking about - so long as you're not relying on wording in the quote that might be changed by the context of other text, you're fine. Just avoid the practice of chopping the post up into sections; it makes it nearly impossible to quote you succinctly in response. Some people will remove all the text, or insert "<snip>" or somesuch to be clear that they've removed text. Personally, I just use notes in brackets, [possibly bolded,] if I've felt the need to clarify.

For AMS, you literally only have to prevent 24 damage - to anyone - to justify a 1.5 ton expenditure. Some builds can't afford this, but most can. That's not very much, and you're not going to be able to always avoid any LRMs thrown at you in other venues. Coupled with the inability to avoid open maps like Polar Highlands and Alpine Peaks all of the time, this makes AMS a worthwhile investment as long as you're not significantly crippling a build (for example, my old Hunchback 4P build needed all of its space; if it had taken out that weight, it would have lost an alpha between zero and shutdown on most maps.)

Similarly, AMS is effective against LRMs - it may not be enough to batter down all missiles, but that wouldn't be fair. Yet even against an LRM30 Catapult, for example, you're looking at a nontrivial damage reduction. If I remember correctly, pre-skill AMS systems would shoot down about 5 missiles per volley. If our hypothetical catapult lands all of his missiles, your AMS is preventing ~17% of that incoming damage. A 65-ton 'mech has 422 armor potential before quirks and skills, so this gives you around 70 extra armor - even if you arbitrarily halve this number to model the fact that you're likely only going to lose one or two locations that matter before you die, you're still up tonnage. You'd have to go below 34% to lose out.

Don't mistake AMS' linear returns for ineffectiveness in the face of massive firepower, or treat it as a substitute for cover: it's not a hard counter, it's just there to help. And it's there to help everyone. It's like vaccinating your kids; you not only protect them from diseases, you also protect other people who might otherwise be infected (and who may not be able to take the vaccine themselves.)

Edited by Void Angel, 12 June 2017 - 07:53 PM.

[Void Angel]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 11 June 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

It's an accurate summary if you're playing anything other than a light or fast medium. It isn't even specifically LRMs, but anything slower than 80kph simply cannot push or flank effectively and is at the mercy of their team.

Uh, your arbitrary claim is false in my repeated experience. Make excuses, or adapt - the choice is yours.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 12 June 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

Uh, your arbitrary claim is false in my repeated experience. Make excuses, or adapt - the choice is yours.

Thanks for another non-answer enlightened one.

You're passing off extremely generic advice as being somehow specific to the map (and as evidence of how the map is fine) and end up giving no real answers about how to play it. Scouting and mobility are key to all maps- the team that takes the most advantageous positions in reaction to the information about the enemy positions is often the one that wins. On most maps, brawlers can use cover or concealment to effectively close the distance or reposition in the early stages of the game- something that is simply not realistic on Polar Highlands. Cover is too dispersed and almost all of the fighting is done at 400-500m in Skirmish.

There really are no maps where you can really just "take a strong point" and shoot it out frontally, as you suggest in your guide- putting the enemy in a crossfire is always the superior option so long as you don't divide your force in a way that allows the enemy to push one half while covered from the other. Scouting is likewise essential in all cases.

So please, tell me specifically how an assault, or slow heavy with an optimal range of 270-330m is supposed to play this map?

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 12 June 2017 - 08:27 PM.

[Void Angel]

I've already explained in fair detail how you play the map; you just hand-wave it away, claiming it's "generic" "non-answers." Now you want a detailed rundown? I know how this game works: I lay out a scenario, and you play "but what-if" ad nauseum.

You've been given answers. You can keep on making excuses, or try to learn the map.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 12 June 2017 - 08:57 PM, said:

I've already explained in fair detail how you play the map; you just hand-wave it away, claiming it's "generic" "non-answers." Now you want a detailed rundown? I know how this game works: I lay out a scenario, and you play "but what-if" ad nauseum.

You've been given answers. You can keep on making excuses, or try to learn the map.

You haven't given answers. Your guide literally says that mobility and scouting are what you use to make winning happen. You're trying to shut me down saying that I'm making excuses or that I've been given answers, when all you've said is that we should be using mobility and effective scouting- a non-answer because it is just generic advice applicable to every map.

I'm asking you what a slow mech is supposed to do because I know you don't have an answer that fits the narrative you're trying to sell us. You and I both know that if you're in a big slow mech and drop into PH, you're at the mercy of your team because you don't have the mobility to react to the enemy positions given the distance between cover. You're saying that you've explained this when actually you haven't- all of your advice is catered to fast brawlers and lights.

I've given no excuses nor am I playing "what-if" ad nauseum- I'm just asking you to defend your advice in specifics. If you can't do that, then you aren't giving very good advice.

[ArmageddonKnight]

This map sucks, for the same reason some other maps suck.
We cant pick and or modify our mechs to suit the environment, you know, like one would IRL.

Instead its assumed as a mechwarrior, ur always clueless about where ur going to be fighting

This map is a LRM map. The team with more LRM's ..wins 90% of the time. Hence why it sucks.

[Damnedtroll]

Would be great if we can choose between any mech of our dropdeck and choose it after the map is set...

[Void Angel]

Aggravated Assault Mech, on 12 June 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

You haven't given answers. Your guide literally says that mobility and scouting are what you use to make winning happen.

I'm asking you what a slow mech is supposed to do because I know you don't have an answer that fits the narrative you're trying to sell us. I've given no excuses nor am I playing "what-if" ad nauseum- I'm just asking you to defend your advice in specifics. If you can't do that, then you aren't giving very good advice. [post edited for brevity; emphasis mine]

It's an interesting epistemological question: do you really "know" something simply because you have decided it is true? How much does that certainty justify disregarding opposing claims? I'm certain that the earth is round, for example, and thus decline to critically examine the claims of flat-earthers. All advanced (and some more basic) knowledge is based in whole or part on other things we believe we know; where does the balance lie between confidence in what we know and the possibility that we might be wrong? That's beyond the scope of this discussion, but it's something you should consider.

More to the point, you've made a liar out of yourself here. It saddens me, because it means I've read you correctly - I would have liked to be wrong. See, in This Post I do mention scouting and mobility; you're correct, those words were used. They're not presented as "what you do to win," however. Instead, they're high points that I wanted to draw attention to because of how the map plays. They're also part of bullet points that explain in more detail - yet in almost your next breath you claim that I'm providing "generic non-advice" and demand that I "defend my advice in detail." Having ignored all the details given you thus far and misconstruing my points, how do you expect me to believe you when you claim that you might be convinced by more of what you're willing to ignore? I recognize this game; demanding ever-increasing amounts of proof is a standard sophistry called "moving the goalposts."

That's not going to fly; you've ignored details already given you without addressing them, offering an unsupported claim and then challenging me to disprove it. That's not going to lead anywhere; it's a game, and I decline to play.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 13 June 2017 - 05:08 PM, said:

It's an interesting epistemological question: do you really "know" something simply because you have decided it is true? How much does that certainty justify disregarding opposing claims? I'm certain that the earth is round, for example, and thus decline to critically examine the claims of flat-earthers. All advanced (and some more basic) knowledge is based in whole or part on other things we believe we know; where does the balance lie between confidence in what we know and the possibility that we might be wrong? That's beyond the scope of this discussion, but it's something you should consider.

More to the point, you've made a liar out of yourself here. It saddens me, because it means I've read you correctly - I would have liked to be wrong. See, in This Post I do mention scouting and mobility; you're correct, those words were used. They're not presented as "what you do to win," however. Instead, they're high points that I wanted to draw attention to because of how the map plays. They're also part of bullet points that explain in more detail - yet in almost your next breath you claim that I'm providing "generic non-advice" and demand that I "defend my advice in detail." Having ignored all the details given you thus far and misconstruing my points, how do you expect me to believe you when you claim that you might be convinced by more of what you're willing to ignore? I recognize this game; demanding ever-increasing amounts of proof is a standard sophistry called "moving the goalposts."

That's not going to fly; you've ignored details already given you without addressing them, offering an unsupported claim and then challenging me to disprove it. That's not going to lead anywhere; it's a game, and I decline to play.

And like I've said, they're how every map plays. If you aren't mobile and you don't scout, you're less likely to win on any map. It's generic advice. These are not details, this is advice akin to telling people "don't get shot".

And of course, you still aren't willing to give more specific advice nor provide any sort of discourse about how slower mechs are supposed to play this map other than simply hoping the rest of their team can carry them.

Map is just fine, because you say so, and everyone that disagrees is a *******, right? lmao

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 13 June 2017 - 10:39 PM.

[Void Angel]

More detail was provided, and you ignored it - when I called you on it, you simply reiterated your opinion and the demand for more detail. The straw man at the end is exactly why I've refused to engage with you: you refuse to enter the discussion in good faith. Move along.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 14 June 2017 - 10:53 AM, said:

More detail was provided, and you ignored it - when I called you on it, you simply reiterated your opinion and the demand for more detail. The straw man at the end is exactly why I've refused to engage with you: you refuse to enter the discussion in good faith. Move along.

You haven't provided more detail- just continually referred back to your own post that is simply isn't as specific or detailed as you think it is. You've just gone on about how mobility and scouting are important, and taking AMS is good. All valid points, but from these generalities you draw the conclusion that the map is fine- without addressing how mechs that aren't good at scouting are supposed to actually play the map.

"A slow mech on Canyon Network can use the trenches to reach the central plateau around D4 to engage the enemy at close range. Staying in the outer canyons from C3 - E3, or C5 - E5 puts you at the risk of being isolated from your allies and susceptible to being ganged by enemy lights, so it's imperative that you take these positions in groups or within line of sight of your allies.

While you're fighting enemies at close range in D4, pay attention to your longer-ranged allies on the outer ridges, and rotate around the central terrain features to keep them behind you. If you don't, it's likely that you'll be harassed from behind by lights and mediums. Rotating counter-clockwise provides more advantages than clockwise, as you'll be able to drop into the canyon behind enemy brawlers and conceal yourself from their long-range allies."

See that? That's the advice I'd give to someone asking how to play Canyon Network. Specific, pointed advice about strong positions and how to play them. You give nothing of the sort about how to play Polar Highlands:

"...Polar Highlands is the second new map - the first is Viridian Bog - where this behavior is.. disadvised, and for the same reason. On both maps, the team which stops and tries to corner camp loses, because the enemy has covered routes to get around to the side of any cover you're camping behind, and can then pick you apart with crossfire from their own cover. This kind of terrain is the primary map feature in Polar Highlands, and there is a covered route to just about anyplace on the map you care to go."

"So rather than camping behind provided cover objects and staring droolingly downrange behind your battery of LRMs or ERPPCs, you have to pay attention to what the enemy is doing and move proactively to counter it."

You are suggesting that myself and other players have a failure to adapt, and I'm asking you to clarify how someone piloting a mech moving <70kph, and especially those with optimal ranges <270m are supposed to proactively counter enemy positions when terrain features are seperated by >400m of open ground. The covered routes that you espouse as key to the map are actually just concealment from long-range fire from gridsquares away. Without a certain threshold of speed to escape them, they are killing fields- these trenches are perfectly within optimal of LPL vom and UAC5 dakka that is common, and conveniently these trenches tend to end in T-junctions, giving defenders cover to peek from while anyone trying to advance down them finds themselves in a fatal funnel.

To this, you are continually referring back to a post that would seemingly suggest that the map is fine so long as I'm just playing an entirely different type of mech! You mention that players simply use the available cover to advance on LRM boats, without ever acknowledging that most pieces of cover are ~400m from one another. The distances involved limits this tactic specifically to lights and mediums, and at no point have you given any insight how anyone else is supposed to play the map.

What a great case you've made that the map is fine through all your condescension.

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 14 June 2017 - 12:23 PM.

[Void Angel]

Projecting your own attitude onto me doesn't prove anything about my attitude.

You've continued to misunderstand both the original post and the map, however; long, contiguous covered routes are not "~400m from each other."

Your issue is that you insist on thinking in terms of, well, Canyon Network. Specifically, Canyon Network as the map where everyone scatters out to their favorite camping rock and stares downrange - or else advances down one of three canalized avenues of approach. You can't play Polar Highlands like that - it's too fluid, which is what confuses you. There isn't any "go here, do this, and use these specific pieces of cover to do this" on Polar Highlands. The map is too complex for such simplifications - instead, you have to focus on moving through cover to reach a goal that continually changes. Insisting that advice has to include specific grid squares and terrain feature to be valid simply underscores your lack of comprehension: I can't give you that on this map, but I can give you principles. If you can adapt to them.

Also, I haven't been "continually referring back" to my original link so much as refusing to accept angry opinionation and moving goalposts from you in lieu of argument. It took how many posts doing that before you even tried to give the same level of detail you were demanding? (By the way, why is the bar for a "slow" 'mech now 70kph?) I haven't told you that there isn't any more in depth I could go; I've told you that the kind of evidence you're demanding is unreasonable and inapplicable, and that it's not worth my time to explain the map on your terms - when the problem is that your terms don't apply to the map.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 14 June 2017 - 06:18 PM, said:

You've continued to misunderstand both the original post and the map, however; long, contiguous covered routes are not "~400m from each other."

You are literally just making **** up at this point. Go and actually walk around the map and see how far terrain features are from one another.

What you don't seem to understand is that I'm not treating Polar Highland like Canyon Network, I'm trying to explain to you that success on the map relies too heavily upon mobility. Assaults and slow Heavies are simply not fluid enough to do anything other than bend over and hope their team can do the work for them unless they can hill hump, poptart, or lrm.

All the advice you give about how to best play the map suggests that players just better hope they're in a good mech for the map. There is no map in the game that punishes LRM boats as hard as PH punishes heavy and assault brawlers- for that reason it's simply not a good map.

Here:

Skirmish



Assault




Blue lines are the avenues of approach from spawn
Yellow areas are high points typically used by lights, mediums, and poptarts.
Red line represent the trenches you refer to.
Green marks represent strong, covered positions that are often taken.
Black areas are death zones.

Looks cool right? Lots of great ways to attack the enemy and use mobility to achieve victory.

Now consider that each grid square is 500m across.

Edited by Aggravated Assault Mech, 14 June 2017 - 07:43 PM.

[Void Angel]

Your crayon marks don't match the map; there are more trenches, there are more variations in terrain than you even can represent using this method, yet you can see, just looking at the topography, that your illustrations don't match the real world. But you don't want to deal with the map as it is, so that doesn't trouble you.

There may come a day when you decide you want to improve your tactical skills...



We're done here.

Edited by Void Angel, 14 June 2017 - 07:43 PM.

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Void Angel, on 14 June 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

We're done here.

Speak for yourself

I'm still wondering how the devs expect someone to play an Atlas on this map.

Spoiler

¯\_(ツ)_/¯