1169 replies to this topic

[DarklightCA]

I would agree with everything QueenBlade said in his doc. Faction Play has always needed something that gave it more depth in and out of game and always needed something to make it different than Quick Play. I would imagine solo players would have a harder time repairing but I don't see it taking them out of the game. There is only so much accommodation you can make for solo players in a team based game aside from going back to the whole split queue debate.

The only input I have to add to it is rethink the game modes for Faction Play. Some of them just don't work for it while others could work better with just a few tweaks. Incursion could work better if the bases had more HP or more defenses to make it harder for teams to just straight rush it on wave 1 but rather take multiple attempts to win by objective.

Conquest could use a higher ticket limit to extend the game a little more as well as possibly revisiting their locations to use more of the map. Teams that lose control of the points need more time to regroup and fight for control back. That or give players a ticket count from the start, capturing points ticks points away from the enemies count and killing mechs also takes away points from that count so you have a mash up of objective and killing.

[xX PUG Xx]

@Paul

How much oversight will be devoted to the running of FP? Will it have the same "stand off" style and let the player base drive the activity or will there be an active an "overlord" (DM?) team that pushes players/units/teams toward a certain conflict?

In any case, here's my 50p worth.

There are a few levels at which the player base (IMO) are looking to be engaged:

• The smallest level but the most active - the individual battles. Opinions vary depending on the player but it may be worthwhile polling them to find out which modes/maps are in-favour, which they think need work and which they feel needs to be removed.
  
• The next level - unit management, both Loyalist and Mercenary (the where to send forces and the why they should send forces there). The where is driven by the manner in which you chose to implement the battles, SLIDE's proposals on conflicts is interesting and dependant on the visual representation, could be very engaging. The why should and can only be driven by Lore, whether it is a direct representation of BT Lore or a derivative created by yourselves at PGI or perhaps a team of community writers (and I know there are MANY) that can provide "campaign" ideas.
  
• The largest level - Faction politics. There has to be some sort of Role Playing element to the Factions, otherwise whats the point of me belonging to Clan Davion....erm House Davion or being an elite Clan Mechwarrior? (from Avalon ) .Whether it is driven by some sort of podcast RPG or is allowed to be driven by a selection of players in a restricted forum, this one is a big can of worms but it was also a major driving force behind the activity in Ph.1,2 and even 3, the only real sticking point would be the policing and "etiquette" of those partaking. This wouldn't directly affect the in-game mechanics or gameplay but it would provide a much needed "depth" to the game and FP as a whole.

I have also listed a couple of things which I feel would help with immersion:

• "Planetary information not available" WHY? I can load up Sarna and search any planet in the Inner Sphere, Periphery or Clan Homeworlds and find out a bare minimum of information in seconds. If the issue is with the number of planets then cull them: I'm sure none of us would miss fighting over a weird little back water planet that had zero significance in any Era of BT.
  
• Limit the Biome types in correlation to the planet we are fighting on: Tharkhad and New Syrtis have only ice based maps, therefore Boreal, Polar Highlands(I hate this map) and Frozen City are straight picks with perhaps a snow version of River City and Crimson Straight? I know you said maps/modes are a high resource drain but is it possible to change the climate of the existing maps to provide the illusion of a different biome without having to totally redesign the map?

There is a LOT more but I will leave it there for now and see which direction this goes. I would like to say thank you for at least reaching out to us, it has been a longtime coming but perhaps you have regained a little faith from me with the effort.

[Horseman]

Reno Blade, on 02 August 2018 - 01:16 PM, said:

- Weapon buffs to range/cooldown about 5-10% (depending on planets)
- Steiner gets X% buff to Assault mech speed and Gauss Rifles
- Davion gets X% buff to agility of Medium mechs
- Davion gets X% buff to Ballistics and ML
- Liao gets 15-40% buff to range/duration on ECM, BAP, Stealth Armor, UAV and scouting/incursion sensor effects
- Liao gets X% buff to SRM and Pulse Lasers
- Marik gets X% buff to speed of Heavy mechs
- Marik gets X% buff to LLaser and LRM
- Kurita gets 25-50% buff to all faction bonuses
- Kurita gets X% buff to PPCs and LRM
- FRR gets X% buff to ER Lasers
- Clan Wolf gets X% buff to short range weapons and UACs/LRM
- Clan Jadefalcon gets X% buff to medium range weapons and LBX/PPC
- Clan Smoke Jaguar gets X% buff to long range weapons and Gauss/Streak
- Clan Ghost Bear gets X% buff to short weapons and SRM/Laser

No. No faction-specific buffs to mech or weapon performance.

[Brauer]

Joshua McEvedy, on 02 August 2018 - 01:34 PM, said:

Thanks for the response. I actually do appreciate it. The problem with your weekly tax scenario though is that my small casual unit (and others like it) still don't have any real way of making C-Bills at a macro level in-game (since we can't take and tag planets on our own), and that the burden of paying the weekly danegeld would fall on the same ten always active members. Just to survive, we'd end up culling out the 37 semi-inactives, who'd probably leave the game for good, which is counterproductive for all concerned. And like I said, our coffers are nearly always at zero, so how could we pay the tax each week, and what would happen if we defaulted? I for one don't enjoy grinding out C-Bills only for Comstar to come in behind us each week to take them as tax.

If you want to implement a system like this, then you have to give us some way of making money as a unit besides individual member contributions to the coffers.

For units that can somewhat regularly tag planets the MC rewards are helpful. MJ12 distributes small amounts of MC for contributions to the unit and in-game achievements, or getting screenshots of interesting occurences. The small MC flow from planets helps keep this going, and I think helps boost member engagement with the unit and game. It would be good to retain planet tags, or something similar, as a reward for in-game success. I do agree that small and/or casual units should be able to have enougj of a c-bill flow to add members, or pay the c-bill tax for their roster. Perhaps there could be some nominal c-bill award to units for participation and success in FW (outside of planet tags). It might be hard to find the right amount, but it would make sense for a unit member to be able to pay for their roster spot if they play some reasonable number of games in FW.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

@paul

Thanks for engaging the playerbase on the forums. As mentioned by many here. some modes (or map/mode combos) need some attention. Even if there isn’t the resources (currently) to remodel maps (I think there is broad agreement that Boreal really needs work), incursion absolutely needs the base health buffed. In FW: 4 waves (vs. 1 wave in QP) of determined base rushers cannot be stopped and that weakness makes what should be a great mode for FW, play out pretty badly. I think 90%+ of FW regulars would agree to a base health buff. Any chance changing base health values can get looked at?

[Daurock]

Lots to take in here.

Personally, i feel that the biggest thing that keeps the mode from being popular is that it simply isn't FUN for someone new to the mode. All games naturally have some fall-off over time, and to keep modes from becoming vacant when the original vets leave, it needs to bring in replacements, and just as importantly RETAIN them. There are a lot of things about the current FW setup that almost by design punish newer players. The suggestions I am putting below are meant to 1) help make the mode easier on new players, and 2) Retain as much of the Group-vs-Group play as possible, since that is the very idea of the mode in the first place.

Suggestion 1:
- Add in an "Attrition" Win condition to all FW Matches -
No one likes being on the receiving end of a stomp, especially when it involves you knowing that your next ten minutes will be spent getting slaughtered. It feels dramatically worse than on QP, in no small part due to the fact that you can see it coming for a long time. Additionally, Honestly, no one really wants to be on the dealing end of that kind of game either. At a certain point, it's better to simply end the match, rather than continue to let the farce go on at that point.
So, to help mitigate the worst of the stomps, I would suggest that the game end with an "Attrition Win" when one side has twice the mechs remaining on the field when compared to the other. Thus, a 24-0, 30-12, or 36-24 showing on the scoreboard would finish the match right then and there. I would, however, also make sure that after a certain point in the match, the match finishes out regardless of the scoreboard (to make sure those come from behind wins when you're down to 4 mechs vs their 8 still can happen.) Personally, I'd probably put that number at 10 or 12 mechs remaining on the losing side, but I think that's a bit flexible. Lastly, to not punish the team who simply played well, I would add in a Sizeable cBill reward for attaining such a win. The number can obviously be put to whatever feels good, but i'd probably start it at about 20-25k, per mech alive on the "Losing" team, per winning player. (So something like a 30-12 win would result in an extra 700-900k cBills, in addition to all the cash they normally earn in the standard win from their damage, kills, etc.)

Suggestion 2:
- Attempt a "Soft" team matching setup for larger groups -.
Team matching is an old, well worn topic. Lots of people want to segregate groups from Solos. To be frank, I don't think the mode has the playerbase to do this, nor are there enough solos left around to fully man the mode. However, it is still something that drives newer players away from the mode, ensuring that the playerbase will continue to dwindle. To help cut back on the whole solo-vs-premade thing, yet still ensure that premades can que, i would make sure that a large group fights a different large group, but, very importantly, NOT require that the sizes of them exactly match. For example, if 12 man ques up, the MM will wait for at least an 8 (just an example number) man on the other side to que up before filling the other team. It could be 10, it could be 12, but it would never be less than 8. The rest of the players with the 8 will obviously be solos/small groups, but that 8 man has a FAR better chance of taking on a 12, than would a couple of 3 mans, and a set of solos. I'd suggest that the MM start attempting to match groups, once the group size reaches 6 or so, (So, that 6 man would see the largest group on the other side be between 4 and 8, for example) but that could be adjusted based on how the mode feels if it were to be implemented. The basic idea is to Yes, separate solos and groups to some extent, but also to make sure that large groups are not waiting forever in the que just to get a match with another group of exactly the same size.

I realize this may ruffle a few vet's feathers, but as this is simply an outlet to bring forth thoughts, those are mine. Feel free to disagree, tweak these thoughts, complain, etc.

Edited by Daurock, 02 August 2018 - 04:18 PM.

[Spheroid]

@Daurock: I suggest an alternate 4v4 mode other than scouting. If you had a mixed weight class requirement the TTK would be very long and scrubs could bring their garbage mechs and feel they weren't useless.

Edited by Spheroid, 02 August 2018 - 02:40 PM.

[JonDoeIowa]

Ideas.....

1. Double drop decks from 4 to 8 at minimum. It's honestly gotta be a simple fix.`````````````````

2. Remove the unit tax, as no one has to leave their unit any longer to flip flop from clan to IS. So jumping units seems rarer. Check your numbers to be certain.

3. Reduce invasion bonus % chance to happen. Don't want to spend every night doing just Invasion. The other modes I'd like to see far more.

More later once I finish a long long rant..... sorry.

[Bud Crue]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

-snip-

So basically, post your thoughts/ideas and let's discuss.

Given the limitations that I presume you are held to, then I must fall back to what I see as thee most basic elements that FP (in its current form) must have if it wants to attract more players of all stripes: More and better rewards, that are designed to encourage folks to play each facet of the game; loyalist, merc, etc. Accept that the warning sign doesn't work and encourage bads and casuals with better rewards on a loss, and encourage them to "git gud" by having rewards that are tailored to encourage team play.

I'd also like to see factions come back to encourage the nerd politics of yore,but assuming you people maintain the one bucket solution and keep factions effectively out of faction play, you need to do something to encourage a sense of factionalism with more events that allow some flavor of IS v IS and Clan v Clan fighting on a regular and frequent basis.

I suspect that most of the other things I have put in writing since phase 3 are beyond the scope of what you guys are willing/able to do (I can reprint if you like but Ash, Queenblade and others have already provided most of them), but the above is what I know from speaking to other former regular players of the mode would be a minimalist step toward getting them to be regular players again.

[Natural Predator]

Here are my ideas a bit more developed out:

Short term fixes (Small)
-Remove or rework Alpine Peaks in favor of a better map like Canyon or The new Solaris map.
-Rework Polar Highlands to provide deeper trenches or more avenues to avoid buffed LRM fire.
-Rework Mountains on Boreal vault to make it harder to gate camp the attackers, its too punishing for attacking team to even get the gate open.
-Dynamic drop zones without having drop command would be huge if possible. Not sure if that would be a small or large fix.
-Vastly improve health of base in Incursion mode to prevent assassin rushing and or vastly improve damage of laser turrets.
-rework drop zone trump walls to make them less of a hinderance to getting out of base.
-increase damage of dropships coming in to make drop ship camping extremely dangerous/not worth it.
-New player introduction into Faction play, not sure what's possible here. Maybe prevent trial mechs in faction play?
-increase or reward dropping in a group versus dropping solo to encourage group play. dropping solo is FP is usually a tough decision.
-Allow defenders to shoot door gens to open them if opposing team is refusing to do so. maybe after x amount of time?

Bigger Picture Ideas additional content
New Map: Star league Base
-Base capture mode- Have a 3 stage base capture mode with changing spawn points as each capture point is taken:

1st stage- Capture and dominate base gates. Skirmish outside the base with a domination point.

2nd stage- Destroy 2 turret generators to disarm base defense. Defensive interior short range battle with objectives to open final defensive stand. Generators must be destroyed before moving on to 3rd stage.

3rd stage- Capture HQ and dominate for 90 seconds. All out skirmish with short walk drop zones to defend HQ to make it challenging to hold.

each play gets there 4 mechs and so must work together to overcome those obstacles.

Once 3rd stage finishes teams switch sides. Wins are based on Capturing objective or defending objective. If both teams capture objective or successfully defend it comes down to mechs killed. IE 96-72 etc etc.

Second Big Idea:
Partisan Support, would work on any map.
Escort a moving domination circle towards enemy spawn points to help partisans rescue or alternatively to bomb an objective.
Domination circle moves when you have control. Any mech within the circle takes damage it stops. If other team holds objective it moves towards your base. Basically tug of war with a dynamic domination circle. Moving towards the enemy means it gets harder and harder to dominate the circle. Once it reaches the objective the enemy team has 90 seconds to take control of it or the match is over.

[Wing 0]

Spheroid, on 01 August 2018 - 07:59 PM, said:

@Gwentler: If you delete the QP modes you are left with only siege. I can't believe anyone would want that. Do you not remember phase 1 and 2? Why return to that?

You don't enjoy multiple wave conquest or skirmish? There is plenty variety and chance for comeback in such combat.

Faction Play was built originally on Siege Maps and the Majority of the time now, were being forced to play on are Quick Play Modes/Maps most of the time. Quick Play Modes/Maps have no place in Faction Play and lots of players are not willing to learn to get good.

Adding Quick Play Maps was suggested by pugs who don't even partake in Faction Play. Most of us are now tired of taking 10 LRM boats on polar highlands and playing the soundboard "Its Raining LRMS" while murdering pug tards who don't understand jack. We've got accused of cheating and were tired of it. I'd rather go back to Phase 2 when fights were at their best. First Tuk Event was epic and there were fights all day.

We wouldn't be seeing idiots making rushes on bases on incursion mode since there are units out there who do that only. I wont them call out here but they sure as hell know that they don't got jack. They would have to learn to fight an enemy team knowing that they could lose. We don't want PvE here. Go play STO or BattleTech if you care about shooting bots and not humans.

[Paul Inouye]

Just gonna touch on something that I've seen here. (Don't worry.. all points are being read and looked at.)

Increasing defensive HP on Incursion. This is an issue that has a double edge to it. Yes, making a base really tough to take out makes it feel more like actually assaulting a hardened installation. However, what happens when Team A is down to 4 'Mechs remaining and Team B with 3 'Mechs decides to stay in the base. Team A is going to be pounding at the walls for a lonnng time just trying to get in.

[SilentScreamer]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Here's my personal thoughts as to what we can do with what is currently in FP:
- A while ago, we removed all the penalties for switching factions. Personally I think this is a good thing. My main thought on this is to move forward with this notion where ANYONE wanting to play Faction Play can choose their path of participation on a per match level.
- Adding lore and decisions to your participation in any given conflict. For example, if the conflict is between Clan and IS, when I select a planet that is in contention, I will choose at that point whether I want to play as Clan or IS. If the conflict is between IS and IS, I can choose the faction I want to back. Even as a Kurita Loyalist, I can choose to fight in a conflict between Steiner and Merik and not have to be penalized for doing so. I also want a story or story arch to tell me WHY I'm going to be fighting.
- I'd like to see the MM put everyone into a singular bucket and fill teams according to group size first, followed by solo players filling the gaps.
- We will be investigating large scale events like Tukayyid for smaller conflicts which pull everyone into the fight. An example of this, would be something like a 3 day event over Planet XYZ with rewards and notoriety at stake.
- I'd like your thoughts on unit coffer use in general. I'm not sure if we will be able to create something like a unit inventory where you buy 'Mechs that unit members can 'borrow' 'Mechs from, but what are some other possibilities of c-bill use in general?

Hi Paul, reviewing your post

1) Switching Factions on a per match basis.
- Great for including the whole Faction Play population in special events. But, how do you discourage the tendency of large units to PUG farm by moving to a different planet after facing strong opposition as opposed to farming PUGs? Example: In CW beta phase 2, Clan Jade Falcon would never queue for defense, players/units only queue for attack because they were more likely to get a PUG team as defenders rather than defend their own territory and face another organized team.

2) Being able to choose a side in each match
- Another concern; How would PGI balance the tendency of the player-base to dog-pile on the current "winning side" of Faction Conflicts; ex: Clan Jade Falcon in CW phase 2 had MANY more players than any other faction.

3) Matchmaking favoring groups over solo players.
- I know I've had trouble as a solo player and in groups of 2-4 during large-scale events of getting bumped out of queue by larger groups. Would there be a safety to ensure that players can only be "bumped" once, or were no longer eligible to be "bumped" by a large group after waiting for XX minutes?

4) Smaller events as well as big are fantastic. I loved the old Comstar Intercepts.

5) Units Coffers. I'm not part of a unit anymore, but I'm sure some players are very eager for this sort of thing.

I had an old post I'd like to bring up: during 2016 we still had multiple conflicts for each faction before the one bucket. My suggestion used Mercenaries as the gap-fillers, they could pick Clan or IS for each match, but would be unable to pick WHICH PLANET they dropped at, after all, Mercs go where the money is. Loyalists would queue first, and if no other loyalists queue to oppose them the Mercenaries would be sent in. I feel this type of system would prevent some abuse of queuing to game the system that I mentioned above regarding units shifting queues to seek out PUGs rather than standing in the same conflict after facing challenging opponents.


https://mwomercs.com/forums/topic/237306-balance-faction-queues-not-population/

P.S. I hope you take these as thoughts for conversation and not a direct demand for answers now. I know you are planning and I don't expect the answer to Life the Universe and Whatever Else I demand of you....(btw it's 42).

Edited by SilentScreamer, 02 August 2018 - 08:50 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Thanks for starting this justcallme A S H.

The only reason I mentioned that we'd be taking input after the FP podcast is because there are quite a few restraints that we have to work under. Saying "turn MWO:FP into WOW in 'Mechs" isn't going to happen. However, there are still things we can do and ideas that you guys come up with that we can investigate.

Hey Paul.

Firstly man, I am sure everyone will agree, it is AMAZING to have a Dev in the FP area and being active. It's been a good 2-2.5 years since we've really had anyone stop by to pass a comment.

We definately need to know what restrictions/framework you have in your mind. Of course some stuff outside of it will be approprite from the 'inside' I guess. Just looking at the names posting in this thread there is some some 40k+ Faction Play games between us. I'd have 4k-5k on my own.

A lot of what you have said makes sense. The singular planet idea is interesting and finally using the Unit Coffers that have laid dormant since their inception. Good to know Repair/Rearm is not possible - Can you keep going with this type of commentary as you see big ideas so we know what is/is not as we go?

Although the big one you've missed in your posts so far is the basic QoL improvements. I think all players will agree to them getting attention. I can summarise those later as others chime in some good ones keep coming out. Quick/Easy ones as well, relatively speaking. I mean a new map would be amazing (Add Solaris City please?)... But the bigger one is fixing the ones that are really bad like Boreal/Sulferous/Vitric for attacking teams, not a bit ask there, hopefully.

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 12:50 PM, said:

The Tug-of-War mechanic is a thorn in my side at the moment and I'm working on implementation designs to have alternate win conditions that do not use that thing. But it ain't pretty.

Agree. I think Eisen's idea of a 'staged planet' ToW Capture - (1)25% - (2)50% - (3)75% - (4)95% - ToW bar would be a simple fix to alleviate it without reworking entirely as I see no easy/pretty solution. Even adjust the percentages to 35/55/80/95 or something. Units/Groups will then be much more motivated and it fixes the 95% capture issue all in one go.


Also one last one - Can you please look over QueenBlade's doco and comment on what is/is not possible out of it? It is exceptionally well put together, as with anything he does, and echos a lot of what the playerbase wants in terms of a deeper level to FP.

[Paul Inouye]

Two things:

xX PUG Xx, on 02 August 2018 - 01:52 PM, said:

@Paul How much oversight will be devoted to the running of FP? Will it have the same "stand off" style and let the player base drive the activity or will there be an active an "overlord" (DM?) team that pushes players/units/teams toward a certain conflict? *snip*

The new system will be driven by the event system. This means every event will be manually created but allow us to create events far out into the future. Essentially a long forecasting DM.

xX PUG Xx" said:

There has to be some sort of Role Playing element to the Factions, otherwise whats the point of me belonging to Clan Davion....erm House Davion or being an elite Clan Mechwarrior? (from Avalon ) .

Nothing elite ever came out of Avalon.

RP is a major driving force behind what I'm looking at for FP.

[justcallme A S H]

Paul Inouye, on 02 August 2018 - 04:10 PM, said:

Just gonna touch on something that I've seen here. (Don't worry.. all points are being read and looked at.)

Increasing defensive HP on Incursion. This is an issue that has a double edge to it. Yes, making a base really tough to take out makes it feel more like actually assaulting a hardened installation. However, what happens when Team A is down to 4 'Mechs remaining and Team B with 3 'Mechs decides to stay in the base. Team A is going to be pounding at the walls for a lonnng time just trying to get in.

Easy. There is a direct counter to base camping like that - Air Superiority tower/control point. Team A goes and gets it and Team B is punished for staying within the walls. That is what it is there for, correct? I have played many games where the Air Superiority tower has been used to amazing affect with teams sitting inside walls. So I would not worry about that situation at all, it would happen less than 1% of all games, and honestly, never one happened to me yet.


When we say increase the HP. We are not talking about walls, I 100% assure you of that. They are all referencing building/structures & turrets only. The items within the base, behind the walls. Walls are absolutely not an issue and do not need a hitpoint buff.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 02 August 2018 - 04:24 PM.

[Clownwarlord]

When was the last Tukayyid event? Maybe we need another one but better rewards for ANYONE to participate. As in for solo players to group.

[Paul Inouye]

justcallme A S H, on 02 August 2018 - 04:16 PM, said:

Although the big one you've missed in your posts so far is the basic QoL improvements. I think all players will agree to them getting attention. I can summarise those later as others chime in some good ones keep coming out. Quick/Easy ones as well, relatively speaking. I mean a new map would be amazing (Add Solaris City please?)... But the bigger one is fixing the ones that are really bad like Boreal/Sulferous/Vitric for attacking teams, not a bit ask there, hopefully. Agree.

QoL stuff that is quick to address will be on our plate as we move forward through addressing the bigger feature plans.

justcallme A S H said:

Can you please look over QueenBlade's doco and comment on what is/is not possible out of it? It is exceptionally well put together, as with anything he does, and echos a lot of what the playerbase wants in terms of a deeper level to FP.

Already read through it. Will take a while to break it down. I can pre-empt with yes, stuff we can do in there. Yes, stuff we can't do in there. I'll try to highlight each. Note: A LOT of stuff in QB's doc is related to repair/rearm.. so a lot of stuff would have to be stopped there. But there are a lot of sub-features that will work outside of having repair and rearm in place which is what I will investigate with everyone here.

[Marquis De Lafayette]

justcallme A S H, on 02 August 2018 - 04:21 PM, said:

Easy. There is a direct counter to base camping like that - Air Superiority tower/control point. Team A goes and gets it and Team B is punished for staying within the walls. That is what it is there for, correct? I have played many games where the Air Superiority tower has been used to amazing affect with teams sitting inside walls. So I would not worry about that situation at all, it would happen less than 1% of all games, and honestly, never one happened to me yet.


When we say increase the HP. We are not talking about walls, I 100% assure you of that. They are all referencing building/structures & turrets only. The items within the base, behind the walls. Walls are absolutely not an issue and do not need a hitpoint buff.

Spot on...

[Paul Inouye]

Marquis De Lafayette, on 02 August 2018 - 04:36 PM, said:

Spot on...

Fine... if this is what you guys think will work for base defense in Incursion... I'll put it on the task list. However, if I hear any noise about it.. I'm pointing at you guys!