SoR! looking for info

[SkyShroud.2865]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:ArenaNet is trying to fix the system itself and not this specific problem caused by the broken system. This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time ArenaNet should just keep progressing as they are, in efforts of fixing the system.

No, next relink we will have another bandwagon server. It isn't new, happens almost every relink.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Bandwagoning in mass is stopped in alliances. It would now only happen after the 2month period within the formation period. Transfers while a season is going on is greatly restricted. So for instance what you experience now is people restacking after a re evaluation. With Alliances you can't do that.

No, apparently transfer option still available, in this case, what's stopping people to transfer just to be "godly" for that 2 months? P2w is common in many games.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:ArenaNet is trying to fix the system itself and not this specific problem caused by the broken system. This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time ArenaNet should just keep progressing as they are, in efforts of fixing the system.

No, next relink we will have another bandwagon server. It isn't new, happens almost every relink.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Bandwagoning in mass is stopped in alliances. It would now only happen after the 2month period within the formation period. Transfers while a season is going on is greatly restricted. So for instance what you experience now is people restacking after a re evaluation. With Alliances you can't do that.

No, apparently transfer option still available, in this case, what's stopping people to transfer just to be "godly" for that 2 months? P2w is common in many games.

You can xfer if youre in that said guild on higher statues said by ArenaNet and the system itself is still being developed and you guys are still complaining when they've outlined the issues with bandwagoning. Next relink ...who cares about next relink.. They are fixing the game overhaul style.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Next relink ...who cares about next relink..

No. This is what you wrote.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time

A lot of misinformation has been going around that every relink population will fix itself but that is never the case.Relink does not account coverage and it does not stop people from transferring after.I hope people can stop spreading misinformation and most important, false hope, that relink will balance population and makes everyone's gameplay enjoyable once again.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:You can xfer if youre in that said guild on higher statues said by ArenaNet and the system itself is still being developed

No, what anet outlined is that certain % of the slots are reserved for guilds' players but it does not say anything about guilds not able to transfer to other servers after the matchup started. In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

[Chaba.5410]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

Why? In split second, one reason come up to mind and that is because the guild(s) suddenly decided to merge with another alliance. Then if you gonna ask why not wait 2 months, well, feeling rich? We already have guilds literally transferred one link after another currently.

Human decision can be made not only base on logic but can also made base on emotions. I am sure the world has a lot of ridiculous things happening, it happens because it can. As mentioned - As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

[Evolute.6239]

Giant transfers like SoR are unlikely to happen again to be honest. That was literally an entire server population making the lowest server population in the game to locked status in a week. JQ was a specific circumstance and it’s death was a year in the making.

Even Kaineng was nothing remotely compared to that and was still high status until last week.

While people will shift around on relinks, as they always do, im sure we will soon be back to the same old top end bottom end as normal.

[Chaba.5410]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

Why? In split second, one reason come up to mind and that is because the guild(s) suddenly decided to merge with another alliance. Then if you gonna ask why not wait 2 months, well, feeling rich? We already have guilds literally transferred one link after another currently.

Human decision can be made not only base on logic but can also made base on emotions. I am sure the world has a lot of ridiculous things happening, it happens because it can. As mentioned - As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

One or two guilds transferring to change alliances is not going to replicate the unbalancing that occurs when a whole alliance transfers.

[Etheri.5406]

I enjoy this thread. It's beautiful NA drama.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Next relink ...who cares about next relink..

No. This is what you wrote.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time

A lot of misinformation has been going around that every relink population will fix itself but that is never the case.Relink does not account coverage and it does not stop people from transferring after.I hope people can stop spreading misinformation and most important, false hope, that relink will balance population and makes everyone's gameplay enjoyable once again.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:You can xfer if youre in that said guild on higher statues said by ArenaNet and the system itself is still being developed

In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

I have a question for you. They say they calculate based of time played (population) only. They don't take into account skill, preference, activity, afk-farming or actually playing, experience, time of play (coverage), ...

So, how exactly do you think matchmaking will "calculate balance"? Please inform me.In my book, 20 pugs and a 20 man guild that play the same amount of time are valued exactly the same by the system. In my book, a 20 man guild rolls over 20 pugs 9/10 times. I know you think you'll suddenly get super balanced matches and you'll blame others if you don't but... the system doesn't calculate fight balance, PPT balance, coverage balance, not any of it. Only population balance based on total playtime.

I'd rather get that comm that leads 15 hours a week than those 15 pugs that play 1 hour a week; but that's just me!

[Sovereign.1093]

it is better to estimate a player normally plays 2 hours to 4 hours.despite.skill so.many can join in or have room vs one team playing long hours all the time.

why? we all eventually get worn out.

gw2 is easy but not all players have the hard headedness of a veteran.

its best to have many so they can be weeded out.

ex. our fights at sea eu time at t3. we were the only team vs massive nos.

it is fun but i cant continue to do this all the time. why? got a company to run and a family to feed. having more alts to myself will help so my guys can sometime do small group roaming.

[Sovereign.1093]

24 divided by 2 to 4 hours x 80 x 4 = population estimate to get 24 hour q everyday all the time.

3840 or 1920 players

[pukish.5784]

Whose e pe en is the longest one?

[Etheri.5406]

@"Sovereign.1093" said:24 divided by 2 to 4 hours x 80 x 4 = population estimate to get 24 hour q everyday all the time.

3840 or 1920 players

Let's state things different.

You leading your group for 4 hours is the same as someone AFK-pipfarming at ruins for 4 hours.A roaming flipping camps and killing enemy roamers for 4 hours is the same as someone who's AFK trebbing to durios from SM for 4 hours. Even if durios just flipped, or is theirs.In average zergs, 10-20% of the players do 80% of the work. The top players aren't valued any different than the bottom players.

At the end of the day, your active WvW driven players are the ones everyone relies on to carry servers. They genuinely hard carry servers. And 50-80% is just ... filler with very little added value.

On top of that, coverage isn't taken into account either. Imagine you have 2 alliances which are both SEA-dominant. These alliances would like to fight eachother; but there is NOTHING that prevents them from being paired to a mega-stacked SEA server with 0 NA coverage. This server would be stuck in low tiers (no coverage) and eternally ruin matches for SEA times (too much coverage in low tiers). Sound familiar? Yet there is NOTHING in the alliance system to prevent this. Coverage isnt even looked at.

Now somehow - without taking any of this into account - players expect balanced matches. Balanced matches when we still haven't fixed PPT, coverage, skill issues or to which extent motivated / dedicated players can hard-carry servers.

I value 1 good pugmander more than a map queue'd with pugs in coverage. I'd value rav leading 2 hours a day more than 100 (!!!!) pugs playing 2 hours a day. Hell, i'm pretty sure in an average matchup, he could make 100 pugs rq back to PVE within 2 hours. But hey, he's valued exactly the same as a single one of these pugs.

So maybe - magically, those few dedicated high-end players will be spread out. Just kidding - they're all in guilds which have been mingling and fighting eachother for 5 years. The chances of obtaining a flat, normalized distribution through pure RNG are exceptionally low. Yet that's what players are expecting here.

Imagine you're on an alliance with KISS. They lead roughly 10 hours a day. You can log in every day and you will most likely have a group running, which you can follow. Pug activity +50% !Imagine you're on an alliance without pugmanders. Pug activity -50%.

What do you think happens when two servers are "balanced" in population numbers at a certain timezone (which is far from guaranteed; but possible especially on queue'd maps such as prime); but one has a fight-oriented guild and the other has a PPT-oriented guild? Or even no guild, and as a result no commanders. How long do you think the pugs will keep playing if they're getting rolled by the guild? I expect their population to drop drastically.

Balancing based on total playstime will never ever yield reliable high-quality matches. It's too random. Rather add some pseudo-random elements which avoid creating poor alliances. (e.g. putting the two SEA-dominant alliances together by checking for COVERAGE TIMES instead of PLAY TIME. I want a 20v20 at offprime and a 60v60 at prime. Not an 80 vs 10 at prime and a 10 v 80 at off prime. Yet according to alliances and current matchmaking - 90 vs 90 means balanced fair match right? :trollface:

[Sovereign.1093]

thats where we differe in oppinion.

i prefer more players play and take over so the population do not depreciate as much.

whether players treb etc etc does not matter, if your community is lead by a good leader, it will fix itself.

not everyone can be like rav but someone out there from everyone can be great or better.

alliances are ally driven and player driven

if i want to do it, id do it this way.

check which alliances cover which time zone.

oh u guys play na, i go do sea, you go do eu etc.

that covers all time zones.

now if players choose only one timezone in their alliance, it is their problem.

the key, i believe is this - an alliance of commanders.

with respect to the current matches, there are just way to many tiers. :/

[Vicious.3042]

Two weeks have passed since the magical bandwagoning, hows SoR doing?

[Chaba.5410]

@Vicious.3042 said:Two weeks have passed since the magical bandwagoning, hows SoR doing?

Winning with good assist from BG on redbl too.

[Shagaliscious.6281]

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

Why? In split second, one reason come up to mind and that is because the guild(s) suddenly decided to merge with another alliance. Then if you gonna ask why not wait 2 months, well, feeling rich? We already have guilds literally transferred one link after another currently.

Human decision can be made not only base on logic but can also made base on emotions. I am sure the world has a lot of ridiculous things happening, it happens because it can. As mentioned - As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Guilds do that because they do not like the host server they get paired with. Unlikely to happen with alliances. Of course there's always a chance of guilds having a falling out, but I don't see that happening as regularly as the guilds that hop from medium population server to medium population server to be paired with a host server they like, but can't transfer to because it's full.

[SkyShroud.2865]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

Why? In split second, one reason come up to mind and that is because the guild(s) suddenly decided to merge with another alliance. Then if you gonna ask why not wait 2 months, well, feeling rich? We already have guilds literally transferred one link after another currently.

Human decision can be made not only base on logic but can also made base on emotions. I am sure the world has a lot of ridiculous things happening, it happens because it can. As mentioned - As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

One or two guilds transferring to change alliances is not going to replicate the unbalancing that occurs when a whole alliance transfers.

You won't notice such unbalance if you are on the bigger side (like now except for exodus scale). However, given that goal of this blow up is to create similar numbers, such transfer would definitely unbalance things.

@Shagaliscious.6281 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@Chaba.5410 said:

@SkyShroud.2865 said:In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Yes, possible, but that sounds so ridiculous. Why would allied guilds spend the gold to do mass-transfers to another team when they are already allied together and placed on the same team for free?

Why? In split second, one reason come up to mind and that is because the guild(s) suddenly decided to merge with another alliance. Then if you gonna ask why not wait 2 months, well, feeling rich? We already have guilds literally transferred one link after another currently.

Human decision can be made not only base on logic but can also made base on emotions. I am sure the world has a lot of ridiculous things happening, it happens because it can. As mentioned - As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

Guilds do that because they do not like the host server they get paired with. Unlikely to happen with alliances. Of course there's always a chance of guilds having a falling out, but I don't see that happening as regularly as the guilds that hop from medium population server to medium population server to be paired with a host server they like, but can't transfer to because it's full.

We wont know exactly how it will be thus it is still a valid concern which anet has to take note of while developing the thing. There were a lot of concerns raised back then (when wvw is much younger) which all either played down or being called unrealistic but end result is it happened and then anet start to do something about it while majority then start to QQ about it. Sustainable system is build not on reaction but prevention.

Edit: Also, in real life, system build base on reaction tend to fail and that can be a expensive failure. You don't millions or billions of losses.

[SweetPastry.8906]

@Chaba.5410 said:

@Vicious.3042 said:Two weeks have passed since the magical bandwagoning, hows SoR doing?

Winning with good assist from BG on redbl too.

They throw body after body during fights. With a KDR in the sub .70 (all week) But their ninja capping is strong.

[pukish.5784]

Play for Guild and Community, not for Server.I believe most guilds feel good there.

[MaLeVoLenT.8129]

@Etheri.5406 said:I enjoy this thread. It's beautiful NA drama.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Next relink ...who cares about next relink..

No. This is what you wrote.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time

A lot of misinformation has been going around that every relink population will fix itself but that is never the case.Relink does not account coverage and it does not stop people from transferring after.I hope people can stop spreading misinformation and most important, false hope, that relink will balance population and makes everyone's gameplay enjoyable once again.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:You can xfer if youre in that said guild on higher statues said by ArenaNet and the system itself is still being developed

In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

I have a question for you. They say they calculate based of time played (population) only. They don't take into account skill, preference, activity, afk-farming or actually playing, experience, time of play (coverage), ...

So, how exactly do you think matchmaking will "calculate balance"? Please inform me.In my book, 20 pugs and a 20 man guild that play the same amount of time are valued exactly the same by the system. In my book, a 20 man guild rolls over 20 pugs 9/10 times. I know you think you'll suddenly get super balanced matches and you'll blame others if you don't but... the system doesn't calculate fight balance, PPT balance, coverage balance, not any of it. Only population balance based on total playtime.

I'd rather get that comm that leads 15 hours a week than those 15 pugs that play 1 hour a week; but that's just me!

They didn't say they would only use one metric, infact they talked about a number of metrics including assessing commanders and their squads which would solve the issue you're talking about. The only thing I can say is wait and see.

[Etheri.5406]

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:I enjoy this thread. It's beautiful NA drama.

@SkyShroud.2865 said:

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:Next relink ...who cares about next relink..

No. This is what you wrote.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:This specific problem will settle itself in the next 5 weeks and in the mean time

A lot of misinformation has been going around that every relink population will fix itself but that is never the case.Relink does not account coverage and it does not stop people from transferring after.I hope people can stop spreading misinformation and most important, false hope, that relink will balance population and makes everyone's gameplay enjoyable once again.

@MaLeVoLenT.8129 said:You can xfer if youre in that said guild on higher statues said by ArenaNet and the system itself is still being developed

In other words, guilds still possibility can transfer to other servers if they want to and possibility disrupt the calculated balance done by the matchmaking system. As history shown, as long it can be done, it will be done.

I have a question for you. They say they calculate based of time played (population) only. They don't take into account skill, preference, activity, afk-farming or actually playing, experience, time of play (coverage), ...

So, how exactly do you think matchmaking will "calculate balance"? Please inform me.In my book, 20 pugs and a 20 man guild that play the same amount of time are valued exactly the same by the system. In my book, a 20 man guild rolls over 20 pugs 9/10 times. I know you think you'll suddenly get super balanced matches and you'll blame others if you don't but... the system doesn't calculate fight balance, PPT balance, coverage balance, not any of it. Only population balance based on total playtime.

I'd rather get that comm that leads 15 hours a week than those 15 pugs that play 1 hour a week; but that's just me!

They didn't say they would only use one metric, infact they talked about a number of metrics including assessing commanders and their squads which would solve the issue you're talking about. The only thing I can say is wait and see.

From alliance restructuring update 1 from benP on this forum. :

Player Play HoursIn the original post and discussion, we talked about using player hours (the current method we use for calculating world sizes for links and “full” status) and then adjusting those hours by other metrics like command hours, etc. We subsequently have decided to, at least at the start, use only play hours and not adjust using other metrics. This will allow us to compare apples to apples so to speak once the system is in place. From there we can simulate how certain adjustments would change the matchups. This will make it easier to determine if an adjustment will have a positive impact.

So they talked about those metrics before and now clearly stated "we're ignoring them at the start". It allows them to compare apples to apples? A player at 5 am EU is 10x more valuable for PPT than a player at prime time.

So I see ... only population. I remember a skirmish system to make matches less snowbally and granular and "an easy system they could add upon" which outside of changing points per skirmish from 1-3 to 3-5 (which is meaningless in +1-1 and in glicko had a further dampening effect on ratings) they never looked at again. So how long do you think it'll take before they realise it doesn't work? How long do you think any guilds and players that come back for alliances will stay if it doesn't work?

I think anyone that gets a pure garbage alliance first two months is likely gone before they roll the dice again. And most alliances on EU will be just that. I seem to remember something as dysfunctional as post HoT WvW and while MANY EU guilds came back to try, more than half had disbanded before they made WvW remotely playable. Can't blame them, balance was wonk and the game lagged like crazy every 2 hours. The map everyone asked them to change or not release was released and somehow casual plebs were loving it while casually not realising you could jump into half the structures, it would lag like crazy, you could glitch under the map, ...

You know, bugfixing glaring issues in WvW isn't particularly their top priority. So if anet says they're not starting with it; I'll safely assume in the case of WvW it'll come months too late if it ever comes at all.

As far as I can see, what I'm stating is consistent with how WvW reworks and updates have been throughout the history of GW2.So why is it that players think population balance will magically be fixed? The skill difference between pugs and organised groups is massive. Most pugs are just fairweather. Most guilds are just fairweather. The ones that aren't are hardened losers that live for the moment their ACs finally kill some enemies at which point they're amazed by themselves and how they "winning" fights from their ACs. Even half the "guilds" are just fairweather. Whichever side and alliance is getting carried will have big, fat groups and whichever side is getting facerolled will whine about how it's impossible to win. And frankly as long as pugs are incapable of organising, it is. Even assuming populations at a certain hour are "even" - which they won't be more often than not - one side will be dominant, and within a few weeks you'll have population inbalance all over again.

Because losers don't try to win, they afk or wait until their side magically does. There's no motivation or reason for anyone to tryhard. There's no server pride, no rewards for winning - only for participating - and even that players won't do because participating while losing isn't "fun" and "casual friendly" enough. Doing what it takes to win is also not "fun" and "casual friendly" enough. Only getting carried is. So truthfully ... no "sorting" system will create population balance without fixing the real issue with WvW : almost nobody wants to try and make their side win. They just want their side to magically win and anet to magically balance their motivation.

PPT-heavy players will see this as a "omagod see we just play the game as intended!! See you're supposed to try to win" but no; PPT servers are some of the most fairweather players out there. They literally camp siege until they're capable of getting free bags regardless of "skill".

tl dr : The gamemode PROMOTES population inbalance by rewarding based on participation, allowing "free" transfers and most players having no reason to care about winning at all. Unlike most RvR modes like DoAC where you were promoted to try to "win" regardless; and couldn't just do something else until your group was winning or move to the winning side for 10 bucks. Alliances will change NOTHING on this end; and thus population inbalances will naturally establish and continue to get worse.

[Sovereign.1093]

it could work or not. but because there is no aplha or beta test, its success or fail is still unknown.

while it is one way to predict how things go by based on their past performance, no one really knows how things will go without alpha or beta tests and feedbacks.

[Etheri.5406]

@Sovereign.1093 said:while it is one way to predict how things go by based on their past performance, no one really knows how things will go without alpha or beta tests and feedbacks.

You think they're going to alpha or beta test a mechanism to sort the entire population? Yeah.They could model it easily enough, and it'll show you similar results as I told you. But model results will always depend on their starting assumptions, which you can always draw into question.

[Sovereign.1093]

@Etheri.5406 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:while it is one way to predict how things go by based on their past performance, no one really knows how things will go without alpha or beta tests and feedbacks.

You think they're going to alpha or beta test a mechanism to sort the entire population? Yeah.They could model it easily enough, and it'll show you similar results as I told you. But model results will always depend on their starting assumptions, which you can always draw into question.

so, you can now predict the future. ok. even if you are right, no sane business person will invest money on a product without doing first their own research.

if they do it, without testing it and without getting feed back from the public, and if what you say is true. big losses.

if it works, and you are wrong, then wvw is great again.

but if they do a test, and they find you are right, then they will scrap the project and save money and probably invest on a better pvp mode, pve, or someother eventure.

but if they do test, and you are wrong, they still make money.

testing by their own research and getting player feedback will lessen their risk. it is standard sop.

if they dont do it, then, it only means someone working in anet shouldnt be there.

[Etheri.5406]

@Sovereign.1093 said:

@Etheri.5406 said:

@Sovereign.1093 said:while it is one way to predict how things go by based on their past performance, no one really knows how things will go without alpha or beta tests and feedbacks.

You think they're going to alpha or beta test a mechanism to sort the entire population? Yeah.They could model it easily enough, and it'll show you similar results as I told you. But model results will always depend on their starting assumptions, which you can always draw into question.

so, you can now predict the future. ok. even if you are right, no sane business person will invest money on a product without doing first their own research.

if they do it, without testing it and without getting feed back from the public, and if what you say is true. big losses.

if it works, and you are wrong, then wvw is great again.

but if they do a test, and they find you are right, then they will scrap the project and save money and probably invest on a better pvp mode, pve, or someother eventure.

but if they do test, and you are wrong, they still make money.

testing by their own research and getting player feedback will lessen their risk. it is standard sop.

if they dont do it, then, it only means someone working in anet shouldnt be there.

Yeah it's almost as if business planning, modelling and game design are things that exist.

Which kind of testing are you on about? The testing they did for skirmishes? :trollface: The testing done for gliding? :trollface: The testing that prevented desert BL from being literally unplayable every 2 hours for months? :trollface: The testing of desert BL during open alpha's which resulted in lists of keeps you could walk or jump into, the majority of which were NOT fixed upon release? :trollface:

Player feedback doesn't help much, most players are capable of telling which symptoms bother them but unable to look past that.

I guess we'll see the status quo in a year. I'll consider running a simplified model to show you how lovely RNG works.