Jump to content
  • Sign Up

Build diversity should be the main focus of the Dev team..no meta balancing


Supreme.3164

Recommended Posts

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Thank you for being the only one with common sense. This also makes the better players better.

+1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 80
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

The prime focus of balance differ from game to game, if I'd want a single build for a "single hero" I'd play SMITE and not GW2 which is a MMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Kulvar.1239" said:For PvP to be balanced, removing most of the build customization available and only allowing predefined builds (talent/skills/amulet/weapon/sigil/runes) for each class is the only way.Then, they would be free to make both PvE and PvP nice to play.

If you want predefined builds..go play League of Legends, people didn't sign for a MOBA and this is NOT A MOBA..dunno why the people don't get it, this is a PvE based MMO with some PvP elements. The ezport "legends" should go and play a different game

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Unfortunately, Anet chose the worst of both worlds. Killing diversity, and nerfing classes by making them clunkier and/or less fun to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also don't understand the builds > balance argument since there are builds that are perfectly fine as they are in their role (warrior) but because other builds are easier to play, more oppressive (condi revs) and deal more damage (holo) to the point of "wat", these viable builds are less viable in the general meta. So if you address the most problematic builds you let others take the stage.

Also, there will always be builds that are better than others and that's fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Arheundel.6451 said:

@"Kulvar.1239" said:For PvP to be balanced, removing most of the build customization available and only allowing predefined builds (talent/skills/amulet/weapon/sigil/runes) for each class is the only way.Then, they would be free to make both PvE and PvP nice to play.

If you want predefined builds..go play
League of Legends
, people didn't sign for a MOBA and this is
NOT A MOBA
..dunno why the people don't get it, this is a PvE based MMO with some PvP elements. The ezport "legends" should go and play a different game

Then forsake any balance and fun, PvP will be forever doomed to be trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

My guess would be when people say good build diversity they are referring to having 5 or so well balanced and viable builds across the roster, not 1 or 2 and not 20+ builds.Half the traits being useless, unused or bugged as well as poor balancing on skills I suspect are why people complain about build deversity being low. When u keep gw2 trait and build system in mind proper balance and actual attention given to underperforming, unused or buggy traits could definitely result in higher build deversity. It's a shame with gw2 potential as far as builds to see everyone running the same builds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Khalisto.5780 said:Nope

Even if you have 100 viable builds only few of those will perform well in higher tiers, and the community will naturally lean towards them

In this case yeah but its possible to have one build naturally be more viable in some cases and others in other cases not this one build is better in all cases mentality. If one build being the one used in high play is what we want to strive for than make things way easier for the devs to balance and just delete the trait and build system and set it to one build, have the weapons and their skills add the variety that way in the end were all playing the same builds and is easier to balance, I mean u may as well right? Since we're all gonna play the one most broken build anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;Wikipedia:Image

Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

And that game would be dead on arrival. More builds is far more important than having 1 Highly balanced build. You are right, we cannot have and balance infinite builds, by the meta should be at least 5-6 builds per class, not 1 or zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Psycoprophet.8107 said:

@Khalisto.5780 said:Nope

Even if you have 100 viable builds only few of those will perform well in higher tiers, and the community will naturally lean towards them

In this case yeah but its possible to have one build naturally be more viable in some cases and others in other cases not this one build is better in all cases mentality. If one build being the one used I'm high play is what we want to strive for than make things way easier for the devs to balance and just delete the trait and build system and set it to one build, have the weapons and their skills add the variety that way in the end were all playing the same builds and is easier to balance, I mean u may as well right? Since we're all gonna play the one most broken build anyway.

I haven't thought of it this way

Yes, i think everybody wants all traits to meaningful , not like now that you don't even consider picking some traits cuz they straight out garbage, like the 300 sec ones.

Sooner or later this would lead to balance the meta again

But I 100% agree we could have a big rework patch and neglect the meta a bit, specially cuz they fail to nerf meta so often, that it would be a better time investment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kulvar.1239 said:

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

Again this is not a valid description of Gw2. Classes are inherently different and there is no way to perfectly balance them towards each other, even if you have a single predefined build for each of one of them. It is only until you give each class the same exact things will it be considered balanced. Otherwise you will always have one class complain that it doesn’t have what the other class has and vice versa.

Again the premise of the traditional idea of game balance is fundamentally impossible to attain without eliminating player choice.

There is a well established economic argument that expands on the same dilemma. Imagine you had a capitalist economy, where there are an infinite number of companies trying to sell you a product. If any company wants to get ahead of their competition, other companies will do the same thing in order to remain competitive. Thus the product sold by all these companies will tend toward a homogenous product, where a consumer can no longer differentiate between products meaning even though these products are sold by different companies, they are exactly the same, but equally competitive.

The conclusion to draw is that this “perfect competition economy” eliminates consumer choice, because one could essentially say that these products could have also been sold by a single monopolistic company, making the perceived infinite amount of choices to actually be just a single choice. Both scenarios are one in the same because of homogeneity.

This is why diversity in economics is extremely important to how capitalism is able to function at all. You have the choice to go to a diner and eat a 10 dollar quality hamburger or you can go to a fast food joint for some cheap French fries cause you’re in a hurry.

Choice is driven by the scope of the amount of quality choices you have available to you. It’s the one reason why monopolies were and still are labeled as a huge economic problem since the 1800’s courtesy of the Dutch East India Trading Company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reposting because i think this is a much better stance to take in game design for GW2


Support(aka "Healer") Zero damage, cannot kill anyone and only survive. High team healing, high self healing but low survivability.

  • Firebrand
  • Tempest
  • Scourge
  • Druid
  • Ventari base Revenant

    Team fighter(aka "DPS") Squishy, no self healing, cannot 1vX, cannot 1v1 any duelist, highest dps and burst

  • Chronomancer
  • Berserker
  • Deadeye

    Siege(aka "Caster") Long range damage, plenty of CC, plenty of aoe CC, medium self healing and ok survivability, cannot 1v1 anything

  • Base Elementalist(Staff)
  • Base Necro
  • Base Mesmer(Staff & Scepter)
  • Base Engineer
  • Renegade

    Duelist/1v1er(Aka "Bruiser") ~33% Less DPS and burst than team fighter, but medium self healing. Wins 1v1 against everything except another duelist.

  • Staff/Staff Daredevil
  • Spellbreaker
  • Base ranger
  • DPS Meditations Base Guardian(Great Sword&Sword)
  • Sword Weaver

    Bunker(aka "Tank") Zero damage, high damage reduction but low sustain, high CC but melee range.

  • Base Warrior
  • Bunker Base Guardian(Mace&Hammer)
  • Scrapper
  • Malyx Herald

    Roamer(aka "Scout") High mobility, high disengage, cannot 1v1, low sustain, very low survivability, low DPS but medium burst.

  • Holosmith
  • Mirage
  • Dragon Hunter
  • Daredevil(Dagger+ SB or Sword + SB)
  • Soulbeast
  • Scepter Weaver

Every team would want a roamer, a support, and at least 1 team fighter. Duelist and bunker are interchangable, siege and team fighter are interchangable.

Specs/classes would be redesigned to fit the above templates.

If you cannot even give every class and spec a defined role, you cannot balance the game. You end up with stuff like holosmith that do literally everything S tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

@"Master Ketsu.4569" said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Diversity a false god? And yet nearly all things we currently know to exist function on the premise of highly diverse complex systems;

Chess is a homogeneous game in design, and it’s a fair design to have but it works only because it is completely homogenous, and such is not a valid description of gw2. As pscyoprophet alluded to, you can’t turn gw2 into a homogenous game without removing player choice. Ie; stick wars 2.

Or have 2-3 predefined builds (glass cannon, condi bunker, heal/support) to pick from per class only, with no other parameter.

Again this is not a valid description of Gw2. Classes are inherently different and there is no way to perfectly balance them towards each other, even if you have a single predefined build for each of one of them. It is only until you give each class the same exact things will it be considered balanced. Otherwise you will always have one class complain that it doesn’t have what the other class has and vice versa.

Again the premise of the traditional idea of game balance is fundamentally impossible to attain without eliminating player choice.

There is a well established economic argument that expands on the same dilemma. Imagine you had a capitalist economy, where there are an infinite number of companies trying to sell you a product. If any company wants to get ahead of their competition, other companies will do the same thing in order to remain competitive. Thus the product sold by all these companies will tend toward a homogenous product, where a consumer can no longer differentiate between products meaning even though these products are sold by different companies, they are exactly the same, but equally competitive.

The conclusion to draw is that this “perfect competition economy” eliminates consumer choice, because one could essentially say that these products could have also been sold by a single monopolistic company, making the perceived infinite amount of choices to actually be just a single choice. Both scenarios are one in the same because of homogeneity.

This is why diversity in economics is extremely important to how capitalism is able to function at all. You have the choice to go to a diner and eat a 10 dollar quality hamburger or you can go to a fast food joint for some cheap French fries cause you’re in a hurry.

Choice is driven by the scope of the amount of quality choices you have available to you. It’s the one reason why monopolies were and still are labeled as a huge economic problem since the 1800’s courtesy of the Dutch East India Trading Company.

You can achieve balance with a paper / rock / scissor balance. Limiting build diversity per class let you achieve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kulvar.1239 said:You can achieve balance with a paper / rock / scissor balance.

RPS is a rather big topic we could talk about extensively but I’ll try to keep it short and to the point.

You can balance the game to the simplicity of RPS. There is a reason it is one of the most popular design philosophies in today’s games. But you don’t have to because diversity yields the same results that RPS does.

To be more concise, RPS is an analog of complex systems behavior because RPS is a diverse game that is dependent on player choice and is not a homogenous game. For example, Rock is not the same as Paper. If it were, than Rock would be able to defeat Rock and be killed by Scissors. The game is able to function because the elements in the game are different to one another.

The reason you don’t have to simplify GW2 to the level of an RPS is because of it being an analog to complex systems behavior. Counters will naturally occur in competitive settings because of Anthropics. This is why counters was even mentioned in my first comment on this thread...because they naturally occur as the game becomes more diverse.

Limiting build diversity per class let you achieve it.

This is however not true. Like I mentioned previously, RPS is a diverse game, and in addition it is the most simplistic version of a diverse game to exist. One could extrapolate RPS to have thousands of elements to which one thing counters at least one other thing, and you will still have a balanced RPS game.

For guild wars 2, the problem with simply skipping complex systems analysis and jumping right into applying counters is because of how complex the game already is. You have abilities that we can’t even qualitatively compare to one another...like stability vs Immobilize. How would you even begin to compare the two abilities let alone try to make one a counter to the other one when they are so drastically different in function and usage. To back track on the game now is possible but it is incredibly insurmountable task, and it’s not even necessary to perform because diversification can do this already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s way more build diversity than godsofpvp would let you believe. There are actually many builds that will hugely out perform some of them most of the time, so I wouldn’t take too much salt from that list.I don’t think it’s as much for meta from gw1 though so your right. Not sure what we can do about it though

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Meta balancing encourages build diversity (or it should, if done well). By tapping down the easiest, most damaging, least vulnerable builds as they surface, you force players to be innovative and explore other options.

The meta is what happens when players obsessed with doing things optimally are left to their own devices for too long without a stage change. Eventually they find the best, easiest, fastest way to do something, that way becomes known to others, and they play specifically that and nothing else until they get bored.

Since it is almost impossible to know if something will overperform unless someone plays it and it becomes known that it overperforms, it is almost impossible to balance in a way that does not include some form of consistently hitting (and thus assisting the shaping of) the meta.

If you don't want to constantly get hit by that balancing effort, play something that isn't meta, and do not share your build with others.

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

This is the ideal, as long as this meta is not shaped by anything outside of those options being weak to the point of infeasibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Shiyo.3578 said:I agree with your 2nd thing, it's why I have a huge thread about my thief changes suggestions and there are numerous changes to adding condi removal/transfer to multiple weapon sets because I feel that condi cleanse is too important and you're hard locked into certain weapon/util choices to have them.

An example is: Shadowstep is condi removal(3), stun break, AND a teleport. This ability is so bloated, so I removed the stun break off it and put it on caltrops, a skill that's useless in every game mode, while adding condi removal or additional condi removal to a some weapon sets (D/D and Sword) to open up options.

Things are the way they are because you need x amount of stun breaks and x amount of condi removal or you're a sitting duck, but all that happens is you're hard locked into those weapons and utils just to survive and it destroys build diversity.

They could also overhaul scourge aoes if its needed or overhaul engineer turrets, but something has to be allowed.

If for instance lets say you and all your friends hate engineer and it gets nerfed into the ground and not allowed to be good and an engineer main plays have 0% chance to win he deserves to be angry frankly because there has got to be a better way to balance whether overhauling the skills on weapons traits etc. Completely neutering entire classes is not an option, as you are only looking at it from your perspective. I also frankly think some use the excuse of not fun to fight against as an excuse to neuter either an entire elite or an entire class at the downside of the person who plays said class which is wrong.

Fun is just too subjective of a matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Master Ketsu.4569 said:Diversity is a false god.

The idea that having thousands of different options would make something better is the same fallacy as assuming that quantity = quality, which is objectively false as it can be demonstrated to be untrue with simple math:

X = 20 x1000Y = 5x10000Y>X50000>20000

To put this in perspective of GW2: Would you rather have 5 viable builds per class that are fun, well designed, interactive to play both as and against, and fairly skill-based? Or would you want 20 viable builds per class that are completely based on luck, are drop dead boring to play, have zero counterplay/are completely rock-paper-scissors, and make little to no difference when played by a veteran vs being played by a trained monkey that is just 12345-ing his skillbar?

The prime focus of balance should IMO just be making sure every class has at least 1 meta build to play. Everything else should be going into making sure that meta is well designed around quality gameplay.

Wow, you really kicked those strawmen's butts!!! It's almost like Hyperbolies are OP and Strawman Fallacies are UP right now!! Plz nerf Hyperbolies and buff Strawman Fallacies Anet! :/Every bit of the best of times in the history of GW2's PvP were 'Perfectly Imbalanced', ie. a large variety of strong builds that could be used for effectiveness while still having at least one build that was a direct counter to keep them in line. This is balance through diversity and is objectively a better state of gameplay. Anet got us to the point we're at now by taking options away, not because they did a shave here and a buff over there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diversity should be encouraged and strongly focused on. That's the huge appeal of MMOs: choices from your class and race to your build and specialization.

Diversity doesn't destroy balance, in fact, it's the opposite. As mentioned before, a chess game is as bland and as balanced as it gets. And yet, there's still ways get the unfair advantage.

Diversity should take precedent over balance. Meta controls pvp, there isn't a chance to explore what you want to play. This idea of Rock, paper, scissors (RPS) deduces the Meta to simple gameplay. There's gonna be only one or two builds that do that role well.

TLDR: the solution is to drastically reduce the separation between meta and everything else. There's always gonna be the best of the best. But if there are plenty of close seconds, then you create the "fun" environment. People just don't want to be hard countered

Lastly : emphasize actual tactics. There's so many hard counters. For example, the strongest condi builds. If you can't clear 3-5 condi every 5 seconds. You're toast. If you can, your build is too strong. People are so used to instant results in this game. Why learn rotation, peeling, etc, when meta builds are all about hard countering and steam rolling the other team. Tanks in this game think just sitting on node is enough, when in other games, it's actually about reducing damage from a player (usually dps/support) so they stay alive. Making it so hard to kill the dps, it's not worth it. No, tanks just afk and Anet supports this cause hard countered builds are so prevalent.

RPS is the opposite of diversity, which ultimately kills fun and balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...