1063 replies to this topic

[Doc Holliday]

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

I guess I'll have to agree to disagree here ...

All you've done is nitpick. Yes, literally. That's ALL you've done. You've posted not one constructive thing.

It's become clear you care nothing for a rational discussion, all you want to do is twist what others say to nitpick and argue. That's fine, I'm done.

[Shismar]

Urgh, do you guys really have to necro this old corpse of a thread?

This is the deadest of all dead horses in all of MWO. The OP probably will never get what he wants and all the subsequent canon and lore slugging is a waste of time. Just let this die, please.

[Heeden]

Doc Holliday, on 22 February 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

Not really, the way chain-firing currently works. But that's beside the point, because as soon as you introduce a cone of fire you take away the potential for skill in firing the weapons, because no matter how skilled you are, you still won't be much more likely to hit than the next average joe.


Yeah, whatever, NONE of that crap is anything remotely realistic. And if you think it is, you know nothing about how real guns work. Whatever their reasons for putting in that ridiculous cone of fire, it does lower the skill ceiling dramatically and it makes the game a joke, and if anything, more unrealistic than UT ever was. Real guns don't care if you're standing, crouched, prone, running or anything else. Real guns always shoot exactly where they're aimed. They never shoot in random directions (well, except cheap crappy snub-nosed pistols with very poor precision). Red Orchestra (mentioned above by someone else) is probably the best current FPS example of how to simulate guns properly. CoD and Battlefield series are a pathetic joke, and not remotely realistic.

But that's all beside the point. The point is that crap won't help MWO and I'll quit permanently if they put it in.

Real guns may always shoot where they are pointed, but real guns are usually carried by real people, and real people are not static gun platforms. Games Workshop had a good way of explaining it when they introduced the rapid-fire weapon class in 3rd edition 40k. Fasten a torch (flash-light) on to the end of a broom, now hold it at the opposite end as if it were a gun and shine on a target. Now try running at the target and keep the torch shining on it.

That's why cone-of-fire makes sense in most FPS games, and yes it did reduce the skill cap for people with pin-point twitch accuracy but at least it made the games include more than circle-strafing whilst clicking on heads.

That said, I don't want to see c-o-f implemented in MW:O. Whilst it may stimmy the more skilled alpha-strikers it will also open up the game to spray-and-pray, with people who have trouble aiming using group-fire and hoping the RNG gods give them some good hits.

[P e n u m b r a]

face palm, of course grouped weapons will be better and always will be this is not battle tech you don't roll.

[HRR Insanity]

yamishan, on 23 February 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

so instead where firing 2 say large lasers in a 1 vs 1 brawl takes aproxx 30-45seconds(incl missed shots,dodging/twisting to avoid dmg in critical locations with assuming relative even skill matchup) to get through the armor and kill a heavy/assult mech by coring out the centre torso would then take at least twice as long to have the same accuracy ?

If you'd read the original post, you'd realize that with the proposed change you could go back to non-doubled armor. 'Mechs would likely live long enough to make it a slug-fest as opposed to an 'alpha->death' fight.

Quote

Or the same amount of time by reducing the armor down which means any passing friendly can just pump an ac20 round into the mix and core out your target or even miss and hit u and teamkill u by mistake?

AC20s should be scary weapons that are used carefully.

Quote

we would start to need 20-30 min per match for the evenly paired matches with current armor buffs and it would be UTTERLY POINTLESS to have anything smaller then an ac10/ppc/large laser as grouping fire wastes all the ammo/time on shots spent into either air or random less critical locations depending on how accurate u make such a form of CoF system?

I'm accurate with chain fire, so I don't see the issue. Especially with normalized weapon/armor values.

Quote

the current system of weapon convergence where torso and arm mounted weapons have different targeting axis and movement ranges could use some tweaking to alleviate some of the boating issues caused but it still does not help with things like the ssrm boating or splatcat issues where the weapons are on the same targeting axis (arm/torso)1 possible and a rather benign solution to those issues is for relock after fire with ssrms and splatcats not being able to fire 36missles out of a mere 18-24 tubes actually make it take time to fire through the tubes ending in sequential firing until the salvo is loosed at a target(I.E. said salvo fires off the 18-24 that can go through available tubes then remaining 18-12 missiles fire in the second half of the salvo)

Already proposed.

Quote

as for gauss/ac20 cats and atlas/s some form of ammo explosion chance increase would prob serve to offset its rewards more so as to bring a more proper risk to things .... as for laser boats there needs to be a critical heat level ceiling lowering and some form of a chance of causing reactor explosion due to excessive heat as was per normal in the old mech games (uhm...MW3 and 4 if i remember right) to reduce the amount of lasers possibly alpha'd at once at least

None of those things will actually prevent the weapons from being unbalanced when fired together.

Le0yo, on 23 February 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

face palm, of course grouped weapons will be better and always will be this is not battle tech you don't roll.

If they use the weapon/armor/damage model from BT without adding weapon spread in some fashion, the game breaks.

See original post.

[Doc Holliday]

HRR Insanity, on 23 February 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

If you'd read the original post, you'd realize that with the proposed change you could go back to non-doubled armor. 'Mechs would likely live long enough to make it a slug-fest as opposed to an 'alpha->death' fight.



AC20s should be scary weapons that are used carefully.



I'm accurate with chain fire, so I don't see the issue. Especially with normalized weapon/armor values.



Already proposed.



None of those things will actually prevent the weapons from being unbalanced when fired together.



If they use the weapon/armor/damage model from BT without adding weapon spread in some fashion, the game breaks.

See original post.

It's better the way it is now. You're pushing a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Heeden]

Actually I'd like this implemented just to see HBK-4Ps derping out and firing their 9 lasers in random directions, ultimate spray-and-pray mech.

[Doc Holliday]

Heeden, on 23 February 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

Actually I'd like this implemented just to see HBK-4Ps derping out and firing their 9 lasers in random directions, ultimate spray-and-pray mech.

Actually that's a perfect example of why this is a terrible idea for MWO. The 4P is already less potent than the 4SP with double SRM6's. Pinpoint accuracy is needed for lasers and ballistic weapons to compete with missiles.

[Heeden]

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Actually that's a perfect example of why this is a terrible idea for MWO. The 4P is already less potent than the 4SP with double SRM6's. Pinpoint accuracy is needed for lasers and ballistic weapons to compete with missiles.

Yes it would be bad for game-play, but imagine a whole team of them with a random assortment of L/M/S Las/PLas shooting into the sky.

[MustrumRidcully]

Heeden, on 23 February 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

Actually I'd like this implemented just to see HBK-4Ps derping out and firing their 9 lasers in random directions, ultimate spray-and-pray mech.

You may be underestimating the effect of cone of fire. If we'd come reasonably close to table top" accuracy", the pilot will definitely be the main arbiter for hitting his target at all. Cone of fire will just spread the exact hit location. (This will probably lead to some misses, like when you go for a small target with a lot of "non-target" around it, like arms or heads, but it won't bear much resemblance to firing in random directions.)

--

IMO, there is a good alternative to cone of fire and any hit randomization - alter the base armour values of all mechs. The torso sections must get more heavily armoured, the arm and leg section less well armoured. THis will reflect that people will aim for the spots that can destroy the enemy mech. AT the same time, it encourages shooting at arms or legs, to disable the enemy mech in some way instead of trying to destroy him.

Currently, if you go for a Catapult with all its weapon in its arms, you will take only lower its damage output by about 20 % over the time of its complete inability to inflict if you go systematically for its arms instead of its torso. That is a really small difference, and arms are probably harder to hit and easier to defend than the center torso.

That said, this will only deal with general pinpoint accuracy problems and armour balance. It doesn't deal witht he fact that in the table top, high damage weapons are heavier than a group of similar ranged low damage weapons that inflict the same final damage, because the weapon balance accounts for the "One-hit" advantage. To account for this, either the heavier weapons need a damage buff, or the lighter weapons need a damage nerf.

[Doc Holliday]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 February 2013 - 04:35 AM, said:

To account for this, either the heavier weapons need a damage buff, or the lighter weapons need a damage nerf.

So there's your solution: buff the heavier weapons.

[Kazarok]

In all mech made by Fasa, in all Technical readout, did anyone ever seen a mech with 6 srm6 with Artemis or any non-sens mech with 8 small laser. Trust me a hunchback with 8 small laser on a tabletop match is gonna get owned by a locust in no time. The point is there no mechanic has for accuracy in MWO. Running, walking , jumping ,heat...even distance wont affect your aim, only lag or that dozen beer that make you a bit lagy.

Everyone want to control the battlefield with "OP" design. But those design actualy, kill the essence of Battletech. Personaly, I dont care if they tweak weapons, armor...even hardpoint. What gonna happen when, Clan technology will be available. Cats with 6 streak srm6? or 4 mrm10+artemis?

I wish they would realy implement a chance to miss, that your reticle go from very small to big depending on movement and heat. Even they could implement with XP, traits skills or whatever they want it to call it..skills that would improve your accracy.

Has for spread damage from SRM, LRM, LB-10x" cluster ammo". Its gonna be hard has to like someone said" the size of the mechs like lights; damage will most likely go to the 3 torso , less likely the arms and legs, since the "target is smaller". They could put a lock on standard SRM like LRM that would help the mechanic for spreading the damage on any size of mechs. People will say that gonna give the more power to catapult. Let say we got a 6SRM6 Catapult shooting you, that 36 missiles at 2 point of damage each. You wont get hit by 36 missiles, unless you can roll 12 six time in a row with 2 dice. Average is gonna be around 20, that 40 point of damage spreading in your entire mech. Most likely your Center torso should get 35% of those hit. Sound less nastier than 72 point of damage with the current mechanic.

I would go Farther, we shouldnt be able to shoot someone unless you target them. Any kind of weapon system need a targeting computer, aiming without one your most likely to fail. You could try , but the reticle would be so big, is likely to miss.

Im pretty sure people will disagree with this post. Its my deepest desire to get a mechwarrior "simulation game"with balanced design mechs rather than a "Mechwarrior arcade game".

Kaz

Edited by Kazarok, 24 February 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Doc Holliday]

Kazarok, on 24 February 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

In all mech made by Fasa, in all Technical readout, did anyone ever seen a mech with 6 srm6 with Artemis or any non-sens mech with 8 small laser. Trust me a hunchback with 8 small laser on a tabletop match is gonna get owned by a locust in no time. The point is there no mechanic has for accuracy in MWO. Running, walking , jumping ,heat...even distance wont affect your aim, only lag or that dozen beer that make you a bit lagy.

Everyone want to control the battlefield with "OP" design. But those design actualy, kill the essence of Battletech. Personaly, I dont care if they tweak weapons, armor...even hardpoint. What gonna happen when, Clan technology will be available. Cats with 6 streak srm6? or 4 mrm10+artemis?

I wish they would realy implement a chance to miss, that your reticle go from very small to big depending on movement and heat. Even they could implement with XP, traits skills or whatever they want it to call it..skills that would improve your accracy.

Has for spread damage from SRM, LRM, LB-10x" cluster ammo". Its gonna be hard has to like someone said" the size of the mechs like lights; damage will most likely go to the 3 torso , less likely the arms and legs, since the "target is smaller". They could put a lock on standard SRM like LRM that would help the mechanic for spreading the damage on any size of mechs. People will say that gonna give the more power to catapult. Let say we got a 6SRM6 Catapult shooting you, that 36 missiles at 2 point of damage each. You wont get hit by 36 missiles, unless you can roll 12 six time in a row with 2 dice. Average is gonna be around 20, that 40 point of damage spreading in your entire mech. Most likely your Center torso should get 35% of those hit. Sound less nastier than 72 point of damage with the current mechanic.

I would go Farther, we shouldnt be able to shoot someone unless you target them. Any kind of weapon system need a targeting computer, aiming without one your most likely to fail. You could try , but the reticle would be so big, is likely to miss.

Im pretty sure people will disagree with this post. Its my deepest desire to get a mechwarrior "simulation game"with balanced design mechs rather than a "Mechwarrior arcade game".

Kaz

That's all terrible ideas, and here's why. In TT, you run a team of mechs, you don't actually pilot any of them. And even if you could pilot one specific mech, there's no way to provide any mechanic for a player to actually have a "skill" at aiming and firing weapons. Thus there's a dice mechanic, to see how good the pilot was at aiming and firing his weapons.

In MWO however, you are piloting one mech, and YOU are in control of aiming and firing weapons. There should not be a luck mechanic because there is a PLAYER SKILL mechanic instead. Instead of luck and dice, it depends on how good YOU are at keeping your weapons aimed properly and getting hits. And thus the chance-to hit-mechanic translates fairly well, as no one gets 100% of their shots to hit 100% of the time.

This is why any cone of fire or luck-based chance to miss has no place in MWO. If that is what you want, a shooter is not the game you should be looking for. You should be looking for a turn-based game that's a lot more like TT. I think you want Mechwarrior Tactics, not Mechwarrior Online.

Edited by Doc Holliday, 24 February 2013 - 07:22 AM.

[Velba]

FFS people they are called magazines not clips

/pet-peeve

*unless you are actually talking about a clip, which non of you are *

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Pht, on 23 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Amazingly bigoted way to classify everyone who disagrees with you on the topic of deconvergence.

Ignorant as well, given that actually simulating how it would be to pilot a battlemech in combat in the BTUniverse would require all of the hand eye coordination that the average FPS requires AND the knowledge of how your mech will perform under any given condition...

... it seems, however, most people are happy to be ignorant bigots on the topic, instead of actually engage what people post.

Here's a hint: not everyone that thinks the weapons fire should be deconverged wants a cone of fire system: http://mwomercs.com/...different-idea/

EDIT: better yet, inside the spoiler fold is the reason why simulating what it's like to pilot a battlemech in combat requires more player skill:

Spoiler

The first thing to understand about a MW (FPACS in the BTU) VG is what the pilot does and what the 'Mech does.

Mass confusion on this topic has arisen because the previous MW games have done WFR in a way that does not represent the BTU well at all.

What the pilot directly does as far as controlling WFR is to use his joysticks to indicate with the reticule on his HUD to the 'Mech what should be fired at, and he must track that target with the reticule - the 'Mech is not allowed to target or track anything with the reticule! The pilot also directly controls what weapons should be fired, when they are fired, their firing modes, and choice of ammo type. The pilot also controls how much time the 'Mechs Targeting and Tracking computers (T&T) and physical systems that align the weapons in accordance with the T&T get to "chew on" getting a really good aim at the target. These are the direct ways a 'Mech pilot controls WFR in a 'Mech.

The pilot does not aim the 'Mechs weapons in the same way that aiming is done in a first person shooter game - he would have to, in the VG, physically control where each of the weapons were being pointed for this to be true! In an MW VG, you are in first person control of an armored combat unit - not in direct first person control of a weapon, as the FPS genre indicates!

The pilot indirectly controls the other conditions that allow or disallow his 'Mech to be capable to hit whatever is being indicated as a target. This would include controlling heat levels in your 'Mech, the physical movement of your 'Mech, and its placement relative to how your target is moving across your field of view.

The combination of these direct and indirect things are what "gunnery skill" in the BTU really consists of; and they do not make a smaller skill set than is required in an FPS!

The "direct" skills should be given to us, the VG players, to control with our PCs, no questions asked. Taking these away results in a BattleTech MMORPG game, not an FPACS in the BTU! The indirect skills should be considered on a one by one basis as to which we should directly get to control with our PCs and which make no sense to have us directly control.

I want some of what you are smoking.

[Sirous]

HRR Insanity, on 07 January 2013 - 05:12 PM, said:

Significant deviations from BattleTech canon for weapons (ML, LL, ACs, LRMs, SRMs, etc) including damage/heat making individual weapons weak relative to armor

• Armor doubled exacerbating the individual weapon weakness
  
• Hardpoints significantly limiting customization (not ideal, but tolerable)
  
• Large weapons are not powerful (Single AC20 = not dangerous)
  
• Need groups of small weapons to be effective, single ML or SL is basically worthless vs. doubled armor, especially with heat nerf to MLs
  
• Mechs are generally nerfed because small weapons are nerfed (MGs, SLs, MLs, etc) combined with hardpoints.
  
• Grouped weapons dominate the field (2xGR, 2-4xPPC, 3-6xLL, 9xSL, 2xAC20, 4xAC2, 3xUAC5) because individual weapons are weak compared to groups of weapons and vs. double armor.
  
• Constant struggles when implementing and balancing new ‘Mechs/variants/weapons (new ‘Mechs need to be hardpoint nerfed to prevent unbalanced grouped weapon configurations such as 3xGR mechs... though they’re coming via CBT canon). The Stalker with it’s 6LL/6PPC is just the most recent issue.

Insanity

Edit: Fixed formatting.

I honestly don't agree with most of what you posted, it is very contradictory.
In essence you want a one shot game, where every weapon can kill immediately, or within one or two shots.

Right now matches are short enough as it is and you proposals would only make things even shorter.

Armor doubled is a good thing, if they take that away they need to halve all weapon damage.
As for removing hardpoints that will only increase most of the other issues you have in regards to this game.
That will only increase the boating issues you have within the game.

Doubled up weapons are more powerful and it is a result of the hardpoint system. Though a single ac20 in my Hunchback will heartily disagree with the AC20 not being feared or useful or damaging or powerful. What is the first thing most people try and take out and that is the AC20, or Gauss if someone fit that in there.
PPC's are much better now and very useful
LL or also very damaging and useful
LRM's and SRM's are in limbo, Both are considered very powerful but they are constantly being changed so we shall see next month.

ML are what they are basically the best self defensive weapon in the game, or in the case of lights and mediums best offensive weapons in this game. Though they need to be grouped, is that really such a bad thing.

From what I gather SL's were rarely useful in any of the mech games. Unless they were boated. Nor should they be, Same with MG's apparently from what I have read were never really meant to be used against other mechs.

As for boating, Everyone complains that the hardpoint system is ruining customization, but without it every mech could essentially turn into a boat of some weapon or other, where will the rest of your complaints be then.

Armor needed to be doubled because this is an FPS game and not based on die rolls. If you wanted to see what happened to mechs if armor wasn't doubled you should have been around when repair/rearm was in and people either didn't or forgot to repair their mechs and how quickly they went down. No Sir I do not want that at all, thank you very much.

[Pht]

Lazydrones541, on 23 February 2013 - 01:58 PM, said:

Part of the problem is this is not BattleTech simulator. It is Mechwarrior Online.

So, besides not using any of the parts of the TT game that simulate pilot skill and the game playing in real time...

What's the difference?

Quote

I cant agree with following tabletop rules to the letter, its just too, slow and tedious.

... It's only slow when you have humans rolling dice and having to figure lots of things out.

[Pht]

Der Geisterbaer, on 23 February 2013 - 02:35 PM, said:

I'll put it in easy words here: By personal experience I do know that "business procedures" in that particular field of work more than just "often" turn into "stance" ... influenced by various things such as staff size, time frames and even personal connections between the involved people. What I'm not saying is that the current makers aren't trying to adhere to said procedures and I'm also positive that overall they're trying to be more successful than some of their predecessors (who by their own right tried to be "good" as well), so please refrain from further attemps of nitpicking there, because that will most certainly lead to what you just critized with one of Doc's postings: flaming ...

... So, your experience is that procedures can turn into mere stance, but you say that you're not saying that the developers aren't trying to actually use their procedures ... but you've already equated stance with procedure previously ...

It seems to me you are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

So, do you believe they are following their procedure... or that they are not ... and ditto on the past novels and such?

It's an Either/Or not a both/and question.

I can see no good reason to make the assumption that they are not and have not been keeping things in line. As you yourself have already mentioned, the novels and the (in this case, hit-location table mechanic) line up pretty well - personal experience is fine and all, but we have to know when our experiences apply, and so far, the evidence simply isn't there.

Quote

Big "iffy" here ... that can be expanded with "provided that the creators actually still remember". I' don't know how old you are and how well you think you can recall your earlier days, but I can honestly tell you that at least I cannot remember with absolute certainty all details of "procedures" I followed during the 1980ies (the very era when BT came into existance) and I have that "gut feeling" that Jordan and Ross aren't that much better in that regard.

Yes, and I know people who, in their 60s, remember an obscene amount of detail from back to their very earliest days.

How do we know who's experiences apply in this particular case?

Quote

Damn me and my long sentences ...

Nah, there's nothing wrong with your sentences. I was trying to read too quickly.

Quote

Try rereading what I wrote and particularly what I quoted from you: It's not me who didn't want to discuss the older implementations of the TT system" ~smile~

... and you'll note nothing I posted has the meaning that I "didn't/don't want to discuss the older systems" ... and that In my just previous reply I pointed this out expressly - and than i even discussed the older systems.

Quote

I surely wouldn't call them "the place to the hard and fast black and white rules" but rather "one of the places to get the feeling for what should be implemented in a MW video game". And that mainly due to two reasons:

1. The novels shed light upon stuff that the TT rules, the TROs and other sourcebooks simply don't adress

2. Since the novels - more or less - abide to the basic premises of the universe without actually going into the details of the underlying rules, they are somewhat better suited to convey the feeling a video game maker would have to understand before making his attempt, since he's not distracted by said underlying rules.

I'm even going to claim that some of the perceived problems with the current MWO implementation actually stem from looking too closely at rule details without taking a look at their design implications. Something that could have been avoided ... possibly by looking at the less obvious rule driven parts of the BT background info ... But I guess that's really just my PoV.

I don't think I'd use the word "feeling" but I would say that things which the rules don't touch on that are necessary for a MW video game can be gotten in at least some form or the other from the novels and the source book fluff.

In fact, that's one of the main reasons I wrote up the second link in my signature line.

Which percieved problems in MWO and which rules would you be thinking of?

[Pht]

Shismar, on 23 February 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:

Urgh, do you guys really have to necro this old corpse of a thread?

This is the deadest of all dead horses in all of MWO. The OP probably will never get what he wants and all the subsequent canon and lore slugging is a waste of time. Just let this die, please.

... This argument has been around since MW 1. I wouldn't expect it to die any time soon... and It's not as if someone's forcing you to read this thread.

Le0yo, on 23 February 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

face palm, of course grouped weapons will be better and always will be this is not battle tech you don't roll.

Wanting a game that is, by definition, about imitating what it's like to "do" combat in a BattleMech ... to actually imitate what it's like to do combat in a BattleMech ... is not "face-palm" worthy.

Doc Holliday, on 23 February 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

It's better the way it is now. You're pushing a "solution" for a problem that doesn't exist.

I don't agree with his solution but the problem he points out is very real.

They started with the weapons damage numbers and mech armor/structure numbers from the TT system but they did NOT use the non-pilot combat mechanics those numbers were designed for.

Instead, they took those numbers and put them into a system that would, by it's very design, result in horrible gameplay with those numbers - and because of this they have had to constantly tweak the numbers; and it will get worse as they add more weapons.

They have forced themselves to choose between either having uber-munchkinized gameplay ... or constantly tweaking their combat system in whack-a-mole fashion to try and "equalize" whatever the latest/greatest setup is.

If they stop tweaking, the game will become stratified, unfriendly to new players in the extreme, and boil down to a one or two trick game.

If they keep tweaking, they will be continuously ticking off people as their latest and greatest setup is nullified.

Either way, it's bad mojo.

[Sean Casey]

Random spread? No, I would not agree to that. However, no or fixed convergence for torso based weapons? Yes. Also, let the wweapon fire be based off of the actual motion of the mech, not the target rectical. So a mech standing still has an accuracy advantage, one at a full run will be much harder to shoot with in a natural manner. Don't just gimick it with a random numbers, base it off of the angle and position of the weapon on the torso. The more simulator approach.

This also had the advantage of better simulating the fact that in TT light mechs while being harder to hit when running 11 hexes, also had a harder time hitting. Currently, a light mech is correctly hard to hit at full speed, but your weapons are just as accurate at 129kph as they are at 0kph. If the circle is on the part, it hits, always with near perfect convergence.

Fix the weapon fire to the motion of the mech and fix/remove torso weapon convergence and damage will naturally be more spread and allow lower armor values naturally helping PPC's, and AC/20's. It would interesting also help the Hunch 4SP since most of its torso weapons are in one spot so they group damage well. Plus arm based weapons will be come more useful as they could converge and adjust for motion being more accurate. The K2 could actually be effective keeping the weapons in the "ears".