216 replies to this topic

[SiRD31M0S]

I'm just saying (perhaps too aggressively) that solutions exist.

[PLPM]

SFIR... you use 2 ORS´s as a fleet?

 

Why not just one?

 

I mean, they really **** shit up, you just need one for most uses

[SiRD31M0S]

I meant having two of them roaming around separately. :/

[Lord Stark]

SFIR... you use 2 ORS´s as a fleet?

 

Why not just one?

 

I mean, they really **** shit up, you just need one for most uses

We like overkill here at SOTPs.  

 

Those pesky innie's hindering your colonization efforts?  Look no further? The ORS-class heavy cruiser can wipe out those pesky rebel fleets and occupy worlds all for the one time price of 19.99.  Order now and we will double your order to two ORS-class all for the same price of 19.99.  We will also include a complimentary flotilla of CRS-class light cruisers a 40.00 value all now for 19.99!

[Battlemage1]

As you can see here the menu is a WIP and that "false" button clearly is referring to the save tab rather than actually clicking there to save.

 

 

It's been said before and will be said again; the Shiva's AoE damage is low as a nuclear weapon has very poor AoE in a vacuum. Further, outside of the NOVA bomb, we have not seen any UNSC nuclear weapon having vast AoE damage upon detonation. Making allied ships take damage will not be applied due to how the ability autocasts, namely that it disregards how close you are to allies. Without this, you could use probing fleets to get the enemy to literally kill themselves. The TEC's BRB has a condition that has the ability autocast solely as a last resort measure, while the Shiva is an offensive weapon; the two are not comparable in this instance.

There is a reason behind the long range buff doing more damage than the medium/close ranged ones; it's a byproduct of how Sins itself functions. To start, there is no "apply buff beyond X distance, but before Y distance" function Sins. As a result, the medium buff is often applied to close/point-blank targets and close is often applied to point-blank targets. This results in a weird mess. The long ranged buff is often applied to all three of these target types as well, however, given it's notably longer application range and target count, it gets a lot of "independent" targets, which do not have medium, close, and/or point-blank buffs applied to them. I'm not sure if I've explained it well, but to sum it up a bit better, the first three ranges often stack with one and other, while long range hits a lot of "alone" targets.

 

Fighters are a valid target group for the Shiva damage buff, which truthfully makes this statement incorrect. However, they appear to be absent from the EMP effect; this is a bug and is unintentional. I will fix this, thanks for bringing it up!

 

 

While I see where you are going with this, however, buffing the EMP effect would make Shivas far too powerful. It was the EMP effect, not the damage, that made the Shivas the terror they were in 0.55, where they would instantly lock down any ship in point-blank range, make nearly all close ranged ships ineffective, and severely cripple medium ranged ships. Even long ranged ships would get a small, but notable, debuff. While perhaps it could use a buff, I'd approach this very carefully, given past experiences; the numbers suggested here are far too powerful for starters.
 

Again, it's about MAC barrel length; the longer the barrel, the stronger the MAC, even if the guns are otherwise the same. That being said, it is a matter of gameplay here rather than balance; if the Charon had the same MAC power as a Paris, the Paris would thus be pointless assuming the Charon had any planet bombing ability. Giving the Charon little health would not matter as the UNSC is all about alpha damage and the basic UNSC frigates are treated as write-offs as it is. Getting rid of it's bombing damage would make the ship utterly pointless from a gameplay perspective and break the AI and as such will not be done.
 

What? If you "know how it works" you would have not suggested it seriously as you would know that it's just a damage reduction in disguise. Unless you are suggesting this in order to put in a stealth buff for frigates, which is silly nevertheless.
 

Congratulations on finding an unused entity file that was purely used for random testing months ago! This is a hint for something coming in the future. I will say however that currently there are no plans to make the Strident a buildable frigate; it will only be spawned from Infinity via ability.

 

Hold on here. In your opening post you said the only useful UNSC ships versus the Covenant are "Halcyon, Autumn, Orion and Infinity". Now you are suggesting to have research buff a ship which you have also mentioned might be nearly OP in a post some time after the opening post. This is rather contradictory. That being said the Halcyon certainly does not need a buff.

 

1) About HUD.

 

And what? You have the point. That's reason why this thread excists. To show you wrong things I've found. You may know about them or not. 

 

 

 

2) About Shiva.

 

So, it was said wrong. Did you read me carefully? I mean exactly DAMAGE DISTRIBUTION between pointblank and long range.  I said that I almost agreed with Shiva damage, but I completely disagreed with THIS: 

 

 

Shiva AoE damage

 

Damage 1st lvl

Point blank(100)->4700

Close range area(300)->100

Medium range area(1500)->50

Long range area(2500)->150   

 

 

THIS is YOUR version ^

 

Damage 1st lvl

Point blank(100)->4700 ---  (Impact. Highest damage) (I'd buffed it to 4900 to annihilate some types of small targets completely. I see your tendency to add +400, but there are reasons to change it. You have one.)

Close range area(300)->1000  ---  (Blast area, where you can see flash and wave. Also, fast moving debris.) (To damage closest small ships)

Medium range area(1500)->100 --- (Large number of fast moving debris) 

Long range area(2500)->50 (Fast moving debris.)

 

 

And THIS is my suggestion^

 

I understood you well, because I've already faced it before. But I still can't agree with such values for close range. 

 

 I suggest 800 (if you too afraid of this problem)-1000 instead of  100.  My values will help to kill some of  those fighters flying through flash without damage. Yes, they're valid group, but I often see them alive after event, when such craft must be simply vaporized. Check it twice. 

 

All explanations you may wish to see above. 

 

3) About Shiva damage to allies.

 

The problem can be solved by expanding target area of attack for all ships to one range. Best range. Furthermore, you said about low AoE damage in vacuum. I agreed with you (but not with close range current values). So, such damage won't kill somewhat major part of your or AIs fleet even if you'll shot all "33 ideal" Shivas. 

 

 

4) About EMP

 

Who asks you to buff them to that 'far above clouds' level? I've suggested (on my opinion) logical numbers to debuff both UNSC and Covenant, basics on their technology levels and game mechanics. Also, in UNSC vs UNSC combat both factions could simply debuff themsevles for almost equal time. Humans needs more time for repairs and restarts. 

 

Point blank(100)->75%   (Extremely intensive EMP. Repairs or restart inevitable... Weapon fire manually and malfunctioning. UNSC should see if their ship AI is alive)

Close range area(300)->50%  (High EMP. Bad damage.)

Medium range area(1500)->10%  (Ripples on the screens, bad interferrance)

Long range area(2500)->5% (Ripples on the screens, interferrance)

 

Perhaps 50 in close area is too cool (in your mind), but 40% is OK. 

 

Excuse me, but THIS is NOT EMP:

 

WeaponCooldown

Point blank(100)->20%

Close range area(300)->10%

Medium range area(1500)->5%

Long range area(2500)->5%

 

^This is fraud. Maximal 20% is nothing for Covenant. UNSC due to their Alpha damage nature would suffer from it anyway. It's inevitable. They have only one chance to save themselves: good EMP shots to disable both parties for almost equal times, before MACs online. 

Also, there are only duration changes with levels. What matter starter or not?

 

+About EMP on allies... They will feel only 5-10% after explosion. Ofcourse, if AI will go directly to close are, it would suffer greatly. But I've never seen this in 0.75. They stay close, yes... but it never tried to ram me.

 

 

5) About MAC

 

Thank you, I know how it works. It's also strange,that your MACs shots with clunks/thunds instead of solenoids buzzing. I mean sound effect. 

 

Charon's low armor and planetary bombardment attack with 0-extremely low damage and autocast ability would prevent players from heavy spam. Ships will engage planet, but major (All) part of their damage will be done by autocasting ability. Other way... you may try to decrease it's recharge speed greatly and add ability.

 

Also, one-shot Charons even with Parises' MACs won't be more  preferable due to Halberds and later Halcyons and Stridents excistense. Charons are doomed anyway, but with with Paris MAC damage you at least will solve problems with lack of basic offensive capability and logic. 

 

You know... it's unease to explain all picture  in English. Perhaps soon I'll screw it all.

 

 

6) About dodge

 

Why? If I know how it works, then I would suggest it in order to improve small ships durability. Small numbers (every stat below 30) were suggested only because Halo aesthetics. Way I see it: this will decrease overall damage from light energy weapon and archers, this will save light ships from small crafts and corvettes attacks, but heavy weapon like Plasma torpedoes and MAC will finish enemy anyway. Also, 30 is for Sloops and Covenant Recons, 20-25 for Sahara. Unstealthy frigates, like Stalwart, Paris and Charon would have 15-20, 10-15 and 5-10 respectively.

 

Also, I suggest to add high dodge chance to Marathon's Run ability. 

 

 

7) About Halcyons

 

I didn't  call not even a single ship in UNSC fleet as OP.  The one and only  OP in current build is the Covenant, but in your overall picture this seems right. 

 

I said that Halcyons and Punics are effective to attract enemy fire, while Orions and Autumns will do their part as damage dealers. Infinity is a Titan so we can't count her as OP due to her price and unit nature. 

 

Halberds are good, but I don't want to pay whole fleet reconstruction after every battle with the Covenant. Now Halberds are good to mass them against rival UNSC, while Halcyons are good against Covies. Same thing with Marathons, because their pea thrust is good to overrun rival MACs from back/side and strike first.

 

With slightly improved offensive capability, Halcyons wouldn't become OP. Why?

 

-Low basic damage

-Low speed and manueverability

-High price (especially if resourse cost increases after research)

 

Also, their 'high durability' is working only in numbers. 

[Battlemage1]

We like overkill here at SOTPs.  

 

Those pesky innie's hindering your colonization efforts?  Look no further? The ORS-class heavy cruiser can wipe out those pesky rebel fleets and occupy worlds all for the one time price of 19.99.  Order now and we will double your order to two ORS-class all for the same price of 19.99.  We will also include a complimentary flotilla of CRS-class light cruisers a 40.00 value all now for 19.99!

You definitely should increase number of UNSC fans there. And hire a commissar. 

[SiRD31M0S]

Charons are doomed anyway, but with with Paris MAC damage you at least will solve problems with lack of basic offensive capability and logic.

Charons really aren't meant to have any sort of offensive capacity. Their only real chance of surviving is an accompanying fleet. Their weapons are less of a meaningful utility, and more a last, ditch effort to kill something if the need arises. Truth be told, I really only use them to harass poorly defended worlds, instead of engaging with real, valuable fleets, so they never really die off.

Regardless, like Lavo said, removing their planet bombing attack would break the AI.

You know... it's unease to explain all picture in English. Perhaps soon I'll screw it all.

Consider it a learning opportunity. Your English can only get better, the more we talk.

[Battlemage1]

Charons really aren't meant to have any sort of offensive capacity. Their only real chance of surviving is an accompanying fleet. Their weapons are less of a meaningful utility, and more a last, ditch effort to kill something if the need arises. Truth be told, I really only use them to harass poorly defended worlds, instead of engaging with real, valuable fleets, so they never really die off.

Regardless, like Lavo said, removing their planet bombing attack would break the AI.
 

Consider it a learning opportunity. Your English can only get better, the more we talk.

 

 

1) Bombardment

 

Yes, it will. But if main bombardment attack would be ineffective, and main power of bombardment will go from ability, then AI won't be broken. This is actually not a major suggestion. It's even not mine, because I'm not so far crazy as the guy who made it. But he's quite competent in modding, so it must be working somehow (I didn't see overall results).  I've just brought it here with all other stuff, because you I considered that you might be interested. 

 

 

2) MACs 

 

Charons definitely are not for combat. Definitely they have no chances without a supporting fleet. BUT: with MAC damage of Paris' level they would be somehow effective in parties, consisting from Halcyons and Halberds. This also would decrease their loses, if they have to combat light Covenant or UNSC frigates alone. Shit happens.

 

MAC damage is decisive, and UNSC can't just throw it through an airlock. 

 

I don't insist on Stalwart's MAC damage, because they meant as escort ships and have another MAC model. They have no need in powerful MAC to defend themselves, because it's unlikely that you will send them alone or that they will be left alone. Alpha damage is not their priority. But Charons really have no other way to survive in such situation, when they have to combat enemy ships, than kill the enemy before it killed them all. 

 

You won't spam them instead of Parises, because you won't spam Parises instead of Halberds and Halcyons. Charon's MAC damage is important in mid and late game, when we already said goodbye to Paris. Even then, it's unlikely that Charons will make more than 1 shot. 

 

 

 

3) Language

This is the 2nd main reason of 2, why I still here. 1st is models making and VOs suggestions + feedback regarding most interesting and severe problems you may want to know. All other things, including MAC damage and Halcyons refits and Shivas' stats I can fix myself. Honestly, I already have fixed Charon MAC, Shiva and some other stuff in effect. These changes are so small, so I can't say that balance was ruined. Yes, when you fight rival AI UNSC you feel some insignificant differences (primary in part of Shiva EMP, Dodge and ODPs. Also I've changed Valiant damage and Sahara available to attack small crafts), but nothing critical.

 

 

The only real problem is Dodge, because in Sins it looks unfinished. It's looks like game devs just gave up and left it undone. Just wanna find some way to make light ships more durable.

 

My Shiva is also quite dangerous, if you have a lot of capitals, but usually I have a lot of cruisers ( against Covenant, because somebody must hold punishment) and destroyers (against UNSC, because damage here is more important than ghost of surviability)... So EMP is not so evil as you may think... against Covies, while UNSC seems to feel worse. Question is... how to make it effective against Covies, but not OP against rival UNSC. Perhaps max value 60 in pointblank and 40 in close range would do better. I will test it today. 

 

AI here also spams Halberds more than capitals. But... perhaps I should do something to balance it better: increase cooldown and decrease effect. I'm also thinking about adding 'disabled abilities' debuff in pointblank. 

 

To counter it, more Covenant ships should have improved EMP resistance (after researches?). But not invulnerability.

 

 

I still didn't test damage to friendly targets and friendly EMP debuff as it should be tested (many times, loooong). 

 

 

I'm finding our version more... interesting.

[Lavo]

6) About dodge

 

Why? If I know how it works, then I would suggest it in order to improve small ships durability.

So you acknowledge that it's a stealth buff for frigates.

 

 

5) About MAC

 

Thank you, I know how it works. It's also strange,that your MACs shots with clunks/thunds instead of solenoids buzzing. I mean sound effect. 

 

Charon's low armor and planetary bombardment attack with 0-extremely low damage and autocast ability would prevent players from heavy spam. Ships will engage planet, but major (All) part of their damage will be done by autocasting ability. Other way... you may try to decrease it's recharge speed greatly and add ability.

 

The MAC makes that sounds based off of Halo 2's SMAC stations, if I am correct. That said, the Charon may very well be too flimsy, the same applies to the SDV as well; this is worth looking into.

 

 

4) About EMP

 

Who asks you to buff them to that 'far above clouds' level? I've suggested (on my opinion) logical numbers to debuff both UNSC and Covenant, basics on their technology levels and game mechanics. Also, in UNSC vs UNSC combat both factions could simply debuff themsevles for almost equal time. Humans needs more time for repairs and restarts.

 

Excuse me, but THIS is NOT EMP:

 

^This is fraud. Maximal 20% is nothing for Covenant. UNSC due to their Alpha damage nature would suffer from it anyway. It's inevitable. They have only one chance to save themselves: good EMP shots to disable both parties for almost equal times, before MACs online. 

Also, there are only duration changes with levels. What matter starter or not?

Fire 2 nukes at a target and that's 40%. More nukes mean more disabling. I'm not really seeing the issue here, though as I believe I mentioned, perhaps they were nerfed too much.

 

3) About Shiva damage to allies.

 

+About EMP on allies... They will feel only 5-10% after explosion. Ofcourse, if AI will go directly to close are, it would suffer greatly. But I've never seen this in 0.75. They stay close, yes... but it never tried to ram me.

 

It can happen and has happened, in particular with AI vs. AI fights. It is rare, but it is there, and thus must be accounted for.

 

 

2) About Shiva.

 

So, it was said wrong. Did you read me carefully? I mean exactly DAMAGE DISTRIBUTION between pointblank and long range.  I said that I almost agreed with Shiva damage, but I completely disagreed with THIS:

 

I believe there's a misunderstanding here, I tried to explain why long range has a particular damage rating. Perhaps close could use a buff, though I'm not nerfing long range.

[Battlemage1]

So you acknowledge that it's a stealth buff for frigates.

 

I used to call it as secondary half-defense. And thus more needed to recons and Sahara. 

 

 

The MAC makes that sounds based off of Halo 2's SMAC stations, if I am correct. That said, the Charon may very well be too flimsy, the same applies to the SDV as well; this is worth looking into.

 

Both sounds are correct. But in current build we can't hear minor solenoids buzzing. It's not a problem, but it would be great if you'll update it.

 

  -hear carefully. 

 

 

Fire 2 nukes at a target and that's 40%. More nukes mean more disabling. I'm not really seeing the issue here, though as I believe I mentioned, perhaps they were nerfed too much.

 

Definitely, they were nerfed too much. I'm not sure how it works and should it stacks or not. I will ask one my nerdie friend. 

 

 

 It can happen and has happened, in particular with AI vs. AI fights. It is rare, but it is there, and thus must be accounted for.

 

Nobody can protect AI from another AI and the AI itself. But I can't understand, why do you need to protect it? Remember the UNSC Commonwealth. They've lost 3 longswords. Let's say that such losses are inevitable consequences of war. If not... well, what's about friendly EMP? Medium and long distance won't debuff allied fleets so much. Also, AI has much more resourses than player, to rebuild it's fleet relatively fast. Shit happens, after all. 

 

 

I believe there's a misunderstanding here, I tried to explain why long range has a particular damage rating. Perhaps close could use a buff, though I'm not nerfing long range.

 

Nerfing long range? I've just suggested to change numbers

 

See again

 

CURRENT - MINE

Damage 1st lvl

Point blank(100)->4700 

Close range area(300)->100 >>> 1000 (It's not too cool. I now play with such parametrs. Can't say both UNSC and Covies are dying after 1st shot. )

Medium range area(1500)->50 >>>100 (150 could be too cool, if there are badly damaged ships or small craft. I suggest 100, but these 50 points are not the reason to argue)

Long range area(2500)->150  >>> 50 

[The]

Hm. Just ignore this. 

My opinion contradicts itself.

[Battlemage1]

It's a pitty, that his opinion contradicts itself ^ 

 

Quote and answer deleted. Like nullified.

[SternuS]

 If not... well, what's about friendly EMP? Medium and long distance won't debuff allied fleets so much. Also, AI has much more resourses than player, to rebuild it's fleet relatively fast. Shit happens, after all. 

So...what's the point of having it? It won't affect the board. It won't change anything.

[Battlemage1]

So...what's the point of having it? It won't affect the board. It won't change anything.

PRIME REASON: It will debuff allied fighters and bombers in area, so you'll have to order them to change their battlefield. UNSC players will have to choose moment (of course, with improved Shiva range) for strike and control their formations more accurately. AI will suffer, but suggested numbers aren't so bad for real ships, like frigates, cruisers and capitals. Almost noteless. 

 

This is one of those interesting features I was talking about. So, if you'll proceed with caution, then you won't suffer small debuff, but if you're going to STORM THEM in "space close combat"... be ready for consequences. 

 

+Lore and logic friendly.

[SternuS]

PRIME REASON: It will debuff allied fighters and bombers in area, so you'll have to order them to change their battlefield. UNSC players will have to choose moment (of course, with improved Shiva range) for strike and control their formations more accurately. AI will suffer, but suggested numbers aren't so bad for real ships, like frigates, cruisers and capitals. Almost noteless. 

 

This is one of those interesting features I was talking about. So, if you'll proceed with caution, then you won't suffer small debuff, but if you're going to STORM THEM in "space close combat"... be ready for consequences. 

 

+Lore and logic friendly.

I might not be the best player in the Corps, but from my expereince handling fighters has always been problematic in large or fast fleet battles where you have to micro every ship you have.

 

I don't think adding a layer of difficulty would make the mod more interesting to play, especially for the new beginners. Also, the fact that fighters are grouped three-by-three doesn't help (what happens if you have a squadron out of the range, but one of its fighter is still inside the range of the shiva? Do all of them get the debuff? If not, then microing them would be pointless - the odds that your fighters are out of the way are heavily against you).

 

I also fear that this would make carriers useless to build, since most of the fighters in the battle are going to be useless 90% of the time given the huge amount of shivas you can carry.

 

Again, lore isn't dictating this mod's mechanisms, especially when they go against its playability. Although I do see the logic point.

[Battlemage1]

Those 5%-10% are nothing. This change is just a minor feature.

 

I have no doubt that it won't be made as suggested, because there are too many things to test and change and to think about. Well, I've at least suggested fair variant. If you wanna nuke debuff, be ready to suffer it too, as suffered UNSC officers in lore. But, with increased fire range, you might simply wait until it detonate... at least... some part of your fleet.  Also, you can simply don't send your fighters into fight until nukes detonated. TACTICS!!!

 

If you wanna lose your fighters... Well, stupid. If you understand that nukes will debuff you too, then you'll be more cautios. AI is a kinda cheater anyway. There is no way to preserve it's interests to... overzealous. 

 

 

 

Again, lore isn't dictating this mod's mechanisms, especially when they go against its playability. Although I do see the logic point.

This is the question of features. I'm not talking about Lore in harm to gamelay or mechanics. 

[Admiral Stukov]

 

I also fear that this would make carriers useless to build, since most of the fighters in the battle are going to be useless 90% of the time given the huge amount of shivas you can carry.

You may prevent launch of your fighters  with one button for all battlegroup.  Before shiva's impact.

[Bornstellaris]

This is the question of features. I'm not talking about Lore in harm to gamelay or mechanics.

It's a feature that will do more harm than good. This mod has to cater for all types of players. As Lavo previously said, this EMP effect has been tested before and was deemed too powerful for the Shiva to possess. Especially when it could affect allied ships. Continue to suggest ideas for the mod in a polite fashion, but unless the balance team suddenly changes their mind, this is one feature that simply will not exist within SotP.

[Battlemage1]

Well, cater... 

 

I think casual and inexperienced players should learn how to play in game or not play at all. If you have other opinion... shall it be. I can change only my version of mod, installed on my PC... so... It all rests in your hands. 

 

 

But I believe current EMP is underpowered and invalid in way of debuff destribution. Same thing with damage (primary distribution). Perhaps you were too scared there, to find the golden mean. Hope you'll make progress with it. 

[SternuS]

Those 5%-10% are nothing. This change is just a minor feature.

 

I have no doubt that it won't be made as suggested, because there are too many things to test and change and to think about. Well, I've at least suggested fair variant. If you wanna nuke debuff, be ready to suffer it too, as suffered UNSC officers in lore. But, with increased fire range, you might simply wait until it detonate... at least... some part of your fleet.  Also, you can simply don't send your fighters into fight until nukes detonated. TACTICS!!!

 

If you wanna lose your fighters... Well, stupid. If you understand that nukes will debuff you too, then you'll be more cautios. AI is a kinda cheater anyway. There is no way to preserve it's interests to... overzealous. 

 

 

 

This is the question of features. I'm not talking about Lore in harm to gamelay or mechanics. 

Dude, for every suggestion you make, you keep saying "Those X%-Y% are nothing, this is jsut a minor feature". Let's break this thing down.

1) No, they are not nothing, they change things. You say you're an expereinced modder, and you want us to believe you, but please believe that we are testers and we test things, and for as much as we can be bad testers we KNOW what makes a change and what doesn't, and changing something by 10% delivers a change.

2) If they truly do not change the game, then why should we make them? Why should we change something if what we change doesn't modify anything? Why bother?

 

Then, surely Tactics are cool but as I just said, it is hard to make those tactics when you have to micro your whole, 200-ships-big fleet. Furthermore, as you said, you can't control AI. Playing with friends is 100% more enjoyable than playing alone, but please remember there are plenty of people who play vs. AI. We can't - and we WON'T - break the AI (once more, should I add?) for the sake of having a useless mechanism in the mod.

 

Regarding the lore thing - but you are. You are taking the lore as your source for many, not all, but most of your suggestions (such as the one about the Titan death effect). If you write "+Lore" at the end of your post to give more importance to your suggestion, then pardon me if I'm wrong, but I'm safe to assume that you are using the lore as a source/support information.

I think casual and inexperienced players should learn how to play in game or not play at all. If you have other opinion... shall it be. I can change only my version of mod, installed on my PC... so... It all rests in your hands. 

Skmimming off the fanbase is an absurd concept in itself, that I fail to see the logic for. That is so wrong, it's just...why would we even do that? Losing 50% of the fanbase just to add a goddamn feature that no one save 3 people care for? How does that...do you even realize how dumb is that?

"Guys we decided to make this mod nigh impossible to play for the casual player and less-experienced player alike because of this feature a guy wants to be put in, even though we tested it for months and realized it couldn't work. Sorry eh!"