These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

A message everyone in HED-GP can come together about

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Clay Coulter
Tactical Feed.
Pandemic Horde
#401 - 2014-01-21 12:56:22 UTC
Man i thought miners get but hurt.

*starts to summon the devs so they can fix sov*

Sounds like everyone needs to just chill out. Until it is fix, do the logical thing and dont use as many people per battle!

I even remember there being a way to contact CCP about a massive battle that was coming up have you guys tried that?

Anyway I think i am going to go back to watching now ;)
Prince Kobol
#402 - 2014-01-21 12:58:07 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
I think everyone can agree that the currect sov system is terrible,and needs to be reworked.

I personally favour some kind of system based on activity, and also based on current FW mechanics. I also think the truesec satus of nullsec space should change over time, to encourage alliances to move and conquer new space as their old space becomes less valuable.

I beliee that unless CCP comes up with a cast-iron commitment and timetable for a null-sec rework very soon, we are going to see a steady decline in subs, indeed this looks like it's already happening.


I like the idea of having FW system complexes but I wouldn't just eliminate structures. I would tie them in and give each Sov system a rating like FW system.

The rating would effect the amount of Shield , Armour and HP each structure has.

So if the enemy force run the those complex's the result will be a big reduction of the amount of overall HP any structures have making it easier to grind them down.

As for subs, they have been on a downward trend for most of the year but I do not place the sole blame on Sov Mechanics. I put it more down to the last 2 expansions have being somewhat a let down and a general unhappiness that CCP appear to be putting more resources in fixing what is a fundamental broken game that is DUST other side projects like Valkyrie.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#403 - 2014-01-21 13:00:16 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Fights such as HED and 6V are already very rare. They're likely to be rarer as this happens more often.

From a business perspective it is foolish to leave things as they are unless they have some sort of imminent fix which they do not. From a player perspective I imagine nobody joins EvE for fights like HED.

A 1000 vs 1000 where you're not incessantly crashing, freezing, stuck in warp will always be better than HED was. Especially if they happen more frequently.


They may be rare but they are a big source of lets say advertisement for Eve. They have a pull that one day you might be in a fight this large and there is no other game where this can happen.

It is not foolish at all. As I have already stated, do they invest what would amount to millions of dollars / euros / pounds in either a complete rewrite of the code to take advantage of all the new technologies and advancements that were not available when Eve was originally written or invest in more hardware for what amounts to a small percentage of the player base for events which admittedly happen rarely but generate more news then anything else.

For CCP to invest this much more, time and resource then other parts of the game will suffer, its inevitable.

So what do you do, neglected all the other aspects of Eve whilst trying to fix what is a very contentious issue with no guarantees that in a few months time we as players will be complaining again because we will just dog pile even more people?

As for 1000 v 1000, yes TiDi will kick in but to say it is completely unplayable is false.

I know as I have been in many fights of this size over the last few months and whilst it is frustrating, it is not unplayable and it is a price I am willing to pay to be able to have fights of this size and complexity.


Yeah I think you misread or I miswrote, I was saying 1000 vs 1000 I more frequently is more enjoyable than HED like encounters every 6 months.

And if you think about it, while technically the HED fight was 3900 people were 3900 people actually there fighting...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Prince Kobol
#404 - 2014-01-21 13:04:59 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:


Yeah I think you misread or I miswrote, I was saying 1000 vs 1000 I more frequently is more enjoyable than HED like encounters every 6 months.

And if you think about it, while technically the HED fight was 3900 people were 3900 people actually there fighting...


Sorry I did misread, yes you are completely correct, they are and they do :)

Who knows actually how many were fighting but what I can say from the N3/PL side is that other then a few boosting ships, dictors and cyno alts, pretty much everybody else was shooting at something.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#405 - 2014-01-21 13:28:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Prince Kobol wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
I think everyone can agree that the currect sov system is terrible,and needs to be reworked.

I personally favour some kind of system based on activity, and also based on current FW mechanics. I also think the truesec satus of nullsec space should change over time, to encourage alliances to move and conquer new space as their old space becomes less valuable.

I beliee that unless CCP comes up with a cast-iron commitment and timetable for a null-sec rework very soon, we are going to see a steady decline in subs, indeed this looks like it's already happening.


I like the idea of having FW system complexes but I wouldn't just eliminate structures. I would tie them in and give each Sov system a rating like FW system.

The rating would effect the amount of Shield , Armour and HP each structure has.

So if the enemy force run the those complex's the result will be a big reduction of the amount of overall HP any structures have making it easier to grind them down.

As for subs, they have been on a downward trend for most of the year but I do not place the sole blame on Sov Mechanics. I put it more down to the last 2 expansions have being somewhat a let down and a general unhappiness that CCP appear to be putting more resources in fixing what is a fundamental broken game that is DUST other side projects like Valkyrie.

Perhaps rather than system based sov it could change to constellation based. Remove timers, leave reinforcement. To capture a system you need to reinforce multiple TCU, let's say a number of them simultaneously which makes it possible to destroy one of the reinforced TCUs resetting the rest back to 100% and allowing you to drop your own.

In that way anyone preloading a system could be bypassed, much like the US bypassed Japanese fortresses in the pacific. They could be repped back up so that if a blob tried to do system to system one at a time leaving them undefended it would fail. Cap maximum amount of damage per second that a sov structure can receive so 100 dreads would be as effective as 1000 dread to avoid instablapping super fleets.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Prince Kobol
#406 - 2014-01-21 13:40:39 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

Perhaps rather than system based sov it could change to constellation based. Remove timers, leave reinforcement. To capture a system you need to reinforce multiple TCU, let's say a number of them simultaneously which makes it possible to destroy one of the reinforced TCUs resetting the rest back to 100% and allowing you to drop your own.

In that way anyone preloading a system could be bypassed, much like the US bypassed Japanese fortresses in the pacific. They could be repped back up so that if a blob tried to do system to system one at a time leaving them undefended it would fail. Cap maximum amount of damage per second that a sov structure can receive so 100 dreads would be as effective as 1000 dread to avoid instablapping super fleets.


At this I would near enough accepting anything lol

This is the thing, many people have posted some pretty good ideas on where to take Sov Warfare, as for the reason why CCP will not act, I am at a loss of for words.

I can only imagine that they do not have the manpower / knowledge / resource / funds to undertake such a tasks.

Maybe after what happened with Incarna they are terrified of getting it wrong again and having another Jita riot on there their hands, I don't know, but either way they are going to have to do something and soon otherwise that downward trend in subs is going to get a lot worse.

I know a lot of players who are pretty much at the end of their patience and are waiting for fanfest to see what is said and the usual "vision" isn't going to cut it.

2014 could be the most important year for CCP in its history, it will be interesting to see how things go.
Decian Cor
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#407 - 2014-01-21 14:54:37 UTC
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?

"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.

To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.

Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...

"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.

If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.

TL;DR

Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are.

[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Prince Kobol
#408 - 2014-01-21 16:03:57 UTC
Decian Cor wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but couldn't this be resolved by attacking multiple places at once? You know, divide and conquer?

"This single system can't support our +3000 players and is broken!" seems to be a pretty stupid and pointless arguement when you keep trying it over and over, reinforcing a single system and then sitting on the timer until everyone this side of New Eden is ready to jump in and experience 'fun' at half the speed of a dead snail.

To me it seems to be that there is nothing stopping you all from splitting your 3000 player battles into 2 or 3 different battles of 500 or so players, over a few adjacent systems, and still having just as great a time while accomplishing your objectives in the end.

Your smaller alliance can't muster enough resistance to counter the hostile numbers? Definitely sounds like CCP's fault to me...

"Get more friends to come and help you out." (that seems to be the popular theme and advice now-a-days anyhow). Then split the fights up.

If everybody wants fun fights and explosions, it will take the effort of everybody, not just CCP.

TL;DR

Repeatedly slamming your head against a brick wall and then asking why the brick wall isn't getting any softer is idiotic. I don't think the game is broken. I think your "I don't like this any more, fix it while I complain and keep doing it" attitudes and "dogpile" playstyles are.


You would think so but unfortunately it doesn't work that way and the reason is timers.

As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.

So along comes the attack and does what you say, attack 3 systems at once and puts the relevant structures in their first RF Timer.

Each Timer is different which means the defending force can muster all their ships in one place, hence you have the thousands of players in the same place fighting it out.

Now you can choose not to attack this system and hit other targets putting them in their 1st RF Timer, but by doing this you allow the defenders to rep the structures back, hence you getting no where.

This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights, throw in structures which have millions of HP which require either a massive fleet of subcaps or supers to put them in reinforcement in a reasonable amount of time and you have all the ingredients for large scale warfare.

So in one hand you can lay some blame on us, the players, but when the actual mechanics themselves are designed to create these type of fights then you can see why people for years now have been trying to get CCP to fix / rework Sov Warfare.
Decian Cor
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#409 - 2014-01-21 16:58:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Decian Cor
**DELETE**

[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Decian Cor
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#410 - 2014-01-21 17:15:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Decian Cor
You just said it yourself.

Prince Kobol wrote:


the reason is timers.

As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.




Prince Kobol wrote:

This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights


From what you wrote, I'd be more inclined to think that they are designed to work however the Sov-Holder deems fit. So if an alliance chooses to set each timer one at a time, they are embracing the 'everybody sit on one big timer, in one single system, for one big fight that is going to be 10% TiDi and ****** for everybody involved' type of playstyle. And that is completely their own choice, and probably because they care more about grinding sov than anything else.

In that way, you are perpetuating your own unhappiness at the game and blaming it on CCP.
How much sense does that make?

Using the timer arguement, the only options nul-blocs have that I can see are as follows:

a) continue setting your timers that way. continue embracing massive 3000 player battles full of TiDi, node crashes, and exponential pools of tears, in which nobody gets anything accomplished or has any fun, but you get to keep your sov.

b) change things up a little, embrace a new meta. set a few timers in line with eachother and spread out the fights. get multiple battles that are still massively bigger and more fun than any other MMO out right now, and still accomplish your objective. have many lolz and gf's in local, and less morons whining on the forums about how the game is broken.

Eve is what it is because of the players, it's a sandbox; if it is 'broken', it's not the coding.

[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Abla Tive
#411 - 2014-01-21 17:24:53 UTC
In the interests of having more capital ships blow up, I propose the following:

1) All capital ships now draw from an "quantum energy pool" in order to make jumps.
When the pool is empty, no more jumps. Each ship registered to the pool can view the total energy remaining in the pools via the UI.

A new POS module is created that holds the pool and it eats stront to refill it (at a pre-defined constant rate).

2) the module also produces registration crystals which are used by a capital ship to allow it to draw against that particular pool.

3) it takes 24 hours to change the pool registration to use a different pool.

This pool clearly limits mobility but could easily be gamed by corps / alliances using a lot of different pools.

Now comes the fun part:

4) If there are ships using different energy pools on grid, you get "quantum pool interference"
This quantum interference causes damage to those ships.

The more different pools on grid, the greater the damage (slow at the start but increasing an exponential manner).
Total damage for each pool is the same, but evenly distributed across every ship.
(i.e. if there are 3 ships with pool A, 2 ships from pool B and 1 ship from pool C, then if the pool C ship takes X damage, then the pool B ships take X/2 damage and pool A ships each take X/3 damage.

Damage is limited by the total number of hit points on grid (i.e. if the ship C ship blows up at 80% of X damage, t hen pool B and A damage are also limited to 80%

5) This damage mechanism takes place without regard to standings or alliances or whatever. If you have them on grid, they start taking damage! This means that staging areas need to be pool limited.

Taken all together this dramatically limits the usefulness of a "blob". In effect, a big blob can only move a short way, a smaller blob can move farther. Since it takes a long time to define a "blob" (24 hour registration)

Alliances now have a choice in how they configure their fleet. Do they keep fewer larger blobs on standby, or do they have many more fleets for rapid reaction.

Also, with many pools on grid, the damage to capitals could be immense (much more so than weapons, but the side with the more pools will take more damage (since total pool damage amount is constant) This makes for interesting fleet strategy.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#412 - 2014-01-21 17:32:13 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
In the interests of having more capital ships blow up, I propose the following:

1) All capital ships now draw from an "quantum energy pool" in order to make jumps.
When the pool is empty, no more jumps. Each ship registered to the pool can view the total energy remaining in the pools via the UI.

A new POS module is created that holds the pool and it eats stront to refill it (at a pre-defined constant rate).

2) the module also produces registration crystals which are used by a capital ship to allow it to draw against that particular pool.

3) it takes 24 hours to change the pool registration to use a different pool.

This pool clearly limits mobility but could easily be gamed by corps / alliances using a lot of different pools.

Now comes the fun part:

4) If there are ships using different energy pools on grid, you get "quantum pool interference"
This quantum interference causes damage to those ships.

The more different pools on grid, the greater the damage (slow at the start but increasing an exponential manner).
Total damage for each pool is the same, but evenly distributed across every ship.
(i.e. if there are 3 ships with pool A, 2 ships from pool B and 1 ship from pool C, then if the pool C ship takes X damage, then the pool B ships take X/2 damage and pool A ships each take X/3 damage.

Damage is limited by the total number of hit points on grid (i.e. if the ship C ship blows up at 80% of X damage, t hen pool B and A damage are also limited to 80%

5) This damage mechanism takes place without regard to standings or alliances or whatever. If you have them on grid, they start taking damage! This means that staging areas need to be pool limited.

Taken all together this dramatically limits the usefulness of a "blob". In effect, a big blob can only move a short way, a smaller blob can move farther. Since it takes a long time to define a "blob" (24 hour registration)

Alliances now have a choice in how they configure their fleet. Do they keep fewer larger blobs on standby, or do they have many more fleets for rapid reaction.

Also, with many pools on grid, the damage to capitals could be immense (much more so than weapons, but the side with the more pools will take more damage (since total pool damage amount is constant) This makes for interesting fleet strategy.

It's not really cap ships. It's ships. If such a system was implemented then there would be a limit on safe cap participation and the remainder would still be filled with sub caps. So still 4000 people.

Caps are not bad in themselves or cause more lag but rather they allow very long range projection leading to overloaded system fights.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#413 - 2014-01-21 18:00:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Speedkermit Damo
The thing is, how do we the players ram home the messge to CCP that sov mechanics are **** and we won't stand for it any longer. Otherwise they are never going to do anything about nullsec.

Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
MaD Missy
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#414 - 2014-01-21 18:05:50 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:

Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP finally listen.


+1
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#415 - 2014-01-21 18:07:20 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:


Perhaps all the nullsec entities, big and small. Should set aside their differences for a while and declare war on high-sec. A sustained campaign of ganking every miner and mission runner that undocks should make CCP and the rest of us happier.


FTFU

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
Prince Kobol
#416 - 2014-01-21 18:08:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Decian Cor wrote:
You just said it yourself.

Prince Kobol wrote:


the reason is timers.

As the defender, you set your timers so that they expire in your optimal time zone and at different times to structures in other systems.




Prince Kobol wrote:

This is one of the problems with the current Sov Mechanics, it is designed to promote these kind of fights


From what you wrote, I'd be more inclined to think that they are designed to work however the Sov-Holder deems fit. So if an alliance chooses to set each timer one at a time, they are embracing the 'everybody sit on one big timer, in one single system, for one big fight that is going to be 10% TiDi and ****** for everybody involved' type of playstyle. And that is completely their own choice, and probably because they care more about grinding sov than anything else.

In that way, you are perpetuating your own unhappiness at the game and blaming it on CCP.
How much sense does that make?

Using the timer arguement, the only options nul-blocs have that I can see are as follows:

a) continue setting your timers that way. continue embracing massive 3000 player battles full of TiDi, node crashes, and exponential pools of tears, in which nobody gets anything accomplished or has any fun, but you get to keep your sov.

b) change things up a little, embrace a new meta. set a few timers in line with eachother and spread out the fights. get multiple battles that are still massively bigger and more fun than any other MMO out right now, and still accomplish your objective. have many lolz and gf's in local, and less morons whining on the forums about how the game is broken.

Eve is what it is because of the players, it's a sandbox; if it is 'broken', it's not the coding.


They are designed to work how the Sov Holder seems fit but let be realistic here, nobody is going to set their timers so they all expire at the same time in their weakest time zone.

I have no issues with alliances / corps whatever setting their timers when it is best for them. Its natural, but there is no getting away form the fact that this promotes large scale warfare, if which ever Dev who decided on the Time mechanics didn't think this was going ot happen I hope they no longer work at CCP because only an idiot wouldn't see this coming.

Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"

Also a sandbox still has walls..
Marsha Mallow
#417 - 2014-01-21 18:27:52 UTC
Zulu Death Mask wrote:
I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.

As far as I know the CSM are on their way to Iceland either in person or by remote for the winter summit as mentioned here and here:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
...
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


It is a bit disheartening CCP couldn't put out a simple message saying they are aware of concerns and taking steps. But tbh after the $1000 dollar jean debacle perhaps it's best if they keep quiet until someone can come forward with something that won't inflame people further. It seems a bit off only one CSM member is posting on GD about this too, although others are blogging and commenting on news sites. The CSM subforums are dry for this topic, which seems odd. It's possible both parties are just exercising some caution about making statements and inflaming things further until they have chance for a proper chat. Fingers crossed.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Prince Kobol
#418 - 2014-01-21 19:06:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Marsha Mallow wrote:
Zulu Death Mask wrote:
I find the lack of CCP communication on the matter, highly disheartening.

As far as I know the CSM are on their way to Iceland either in person or by remote for the winter summit as mentioned here and here:
Malcanis wrote:
The solution to this is something that not many of you are going to like the sound of.
...
If you are then tell me so loud and clear right now, and that's the message I'll take to Iceland on Tuesday.


It is a bit disheartening CCP couldn't put out a simple message saying they are aware of concerns and taking steps. But tbh after the $1000 dollar jean debacle perhaps it's best if they keep quiet until someone can come forward with something that won't inflame people further. It seems a bit off only one CSM member is posting on GD about this too, although others are blogging and commenting on news sites. The CSM subforums are dry for this topic, which seems odd. It's possible both parties are just exercising some caution about making statements and inflaming things further until they have chance for a proper chat. Fingers crossed.



Why should they, it is not like they haven't this many times before.

How mean how many more Dev Blogs, sessions at fanfest, tweets do you need? Seriously?

Short of coming into system before every fight and warning people of the risk of TiDi and lag what else do you want them to do?

There is nothing CCP can say that already hasn't been said before a number of times.

TiDi and lag is not a new thing when fights of thousands of players are involved.

Anything else to add?
Decian Cor
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#419 - 2014-01-21 19:16:38 UTC
I agree, even a sandbox must have walls. I'm not asking anybody to do anything, just pointing out the fact that they are supplying their own dissatisfaction.

And I agree, it is unrealistic to see an alliance line up their timers...because of what you just wrote.

Prince Kobol wrote:

Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"


Your words have just shown that you, amongst others, are inexplicably and stubbornly latched onto the idea of keeping sov no matter how excruciating and unbearable the cost. You don't want to 'lose your sov' (as if it meant something) even if 'it is more fun' to have those types of battles we all dreamed of when we subscribed, and lose a little pixel space terrority in exchange.

Of course, that's human nature. Nobody likes losing. I get that. You want to have your cake, and eat it too. But even if CCP does change sov mechanics, new methods of sov grinding will pop up, and the eve community will be left with the same old:

"This cake tastes bad."



[u]Unfiltered for the masses.[/u]

http://imgur.com/mzSl1Ie
Prince Kobol
#420 - 2014-01-21 19:32:42 UTC
Decian Cor wrote:
I agree, even a sandbox must have walls. I'm not asking anybody to do anything, just pointing out the fact that they are supplying their own dissatisfaction.

And I agree, it is unrealistic to see an alliance line up their timers...because of what you just wrote.

Prince Kobol wrote:

Asking people to set their timers in line with other will only lead to that alliance losing their sov so why should they just because "it is more fun"


Your words have just shown that you, amongst others, are inexplicably and stubbornly latched onto the idea of keeping sov no matter how excruciating and unbearable the cost. You don't want to 'lose your sov' (as if it meant something) even if 'it is more fun' to have those types of battles we all dreamed of when we subscribed, and lose a little pixel space terrority in exchange.

Of course, that's human nature. Nobody likes losing. I get that. You want to have your cake, and eat it too. But even if CCP does change sov mechanics, new methods of sov grinding will pop up, and the eve community will be left with the same old:

"This cake tastes bad."



The counter is argument is after investing so much time and effort to acquire sov, why should we lose it just to give other people fun?

However in general I do agree.