cRPG
Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: chadz on January 04, 2011, 05:05:06 pm
-
We had a long discussion yesterday evening about this, and I'd like to hear more opinions about this.
The idea is as follows: Both teams start with a respawn timer of, say, 10 seconds. Every time One guy dies, it takes 10 seconds to respawn.
As the battle goes, the kill:death ratio will shift - which would also shift the respawn timer (for the whole team).
With a good K:D ratio, one team could get reinforcements within 3 seconds, while the worse team would eventually have to wait up to 25, 30 seconds per respawn.
Also, if a spawn is taken, you cannot respawn on it any more - if all spawn are taken, the enemy gets routed.
Reason for this? It would eventually allow more tactic in battles, it would allow a smaller team to win against a large team by being clever.
Thoughts?
-
Respawn - so its for siege mode only?
If so: +1, it may balance the chances for defenders. Only thing... I am not sure about this spawn taking...
-
I think it should be the opposite actually
The worse team should have faster respawn time so they can have a chance to retaliate
If they do successfully retaliate Both teams will respawn at same rate again
-
Do you mean having some kind of spawn/capture points? Becuase I think that's a good idea. But as far as the respawn timer, I'm not sure how u mean it to work. People with better or worse K/D ratio gets a shorter timer?
Because if its the worse guys, that's just penalizing the good team. But if its for the better team, that's just giving them a bigger advantage and hurting the team which is losing atm. Would it be possible to implement this in a test game before adding it to all the Strategus battles? Because I am skeptical.
-
With a good K:D ratio, one team could get reinforcements within 3 seconds, while the worse team would eventually have to wait up to 25, 30 seconds per respawn.
Thoughts?
-
This is a brilliant idea, and I'm really looking forward to ingame evolutions. Finally battles might have sense now.
I'm a bit worried on how it could effect Siege battles, though. What about setting one "hard" respawn for each team (one on the flag for defenders, one off the walls for attackers), and leave the rest be "soft" respawns; ie. tactical choke points, each army trying to take it back.
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
In red, attackers hard respawn. In blue, defenders hard respawn. In yellow, tactical soft respawns.
Soft respawns could aswell help lowering the respawn timer, maybe ?
I think it should be the opposite actually
The worse team should have faster respawn time so they can have a chance to retaliate
If they do successfully retaliate Both teams will respawn at same rate again
No, the point here is to see less bullshit on the battlefield; more cautious teams, and more teamplay.
-
Would you still keep your routed troops? Or could one technically lose 10.000 soldiers versus a shock squad of 100?
-
you would (probably) keep the troops, but lose some/all? of your gear.
-
I like the idea of being able to rout an enemy.
But make it so that looser looses x amount of troops, money and EQ in the process (though not all). What ever X is I have no idea.
-
Then I support this idea, perhaps keep some equipment? Maybe lose 50-75% of it as a punishment for beeing routed.
And I think you should lose some troops also, just not all of them(maybe more depending on the number of enemy troops?)
Oh and when were talking about the respawn time, its not induvidual spawning we are talking about right? Waves I presume, otherwise the losing team would soon be doomed to rout nomatter what
-
Does it calculate troop ratios somehow? Else you will just see normal10k armies destroyed by 60fullplate charger people.
-
My first thought is "Cool". Sounds like this could make battles more interesting and give teams a reason to push forward.
Possible misuse is cav rush around the enemy force just to ninja cap the enemy spawns.
-
Ok what do you do if the better team starts to exploit that tactic.
For example:
You have one big army of bad equiped soldiers and one small army with very good equpiment.
Maybee a battle 10000 vs 1000. The Good equiped Soldiers start very well soon getting a k/d ratio of 5:1 or better.
In normal battle they still would lose. But now they could easily win and kill the whole army.
At one point (good army spawns within 5 seconds bad army within 30 seconds) on one bad equipped guy there would be
nearly the full team of the good army. With that long respawn time the bad army would be killed one by one from archers/ cav etc.
The point is if the good army manages to get to this point there is no more reason to take any further respawnpoint. You would
let your opponent keep the last respawnpoint until the last man of them spawned and you can kill his own army without the opponent
being able to do very much against this.
Its better to implement mobile Respawnpoints (to be able to spawn on the wall as attacker for example) which can be taken etc.
-
i would suggest maps with 5 strategic respawn
each team starts with 1 respawn, then there's 3 strategic respawns on the map at strategic points, like a hill, a bridge, a forest, a building or whatever
each spawn you conquer gives you some seconds less to respawn or gives you an advanced respawn, if you get 4/5 of the spawns you root the enemy who has to retreat, losing some troops and equipment
so no camp, no ninja rush, tactics and real strategy
maybe less spawns for smaller battles
-
+1
Good Idea
-
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
In red, attackers hard respawn. In blue, defenders hard respawn. In yellow, tactical soft respawns.
This is even greater idea.
Edit: Would like to see something like that for battles as well.
-
except for fief attack i'm against the hard respawn idea
-
The main problem is this makes spawn raping even more likely a way to win rather than real fighting. You keep killing them so they spawn slower so you can camp their spawn. What we really need is random spawn points within a general area so spawn camping doesnt happen anymore as its a ridicilous game engine way of winning rather than actual fighting. Right now main strategy in most fights is to spawn camp which is silly and not at all realistic.
-
you would (probably) keep the troops, but lose some/all? of your gear.
IMO you should lose a % of troops and equipment (but not all equipment). This represents people throwing down their equipment and running away, and it also represents the winning team running down some of the routers in the aftermath of the battle. Equipment loss should be a bit higher than troop loss.
-
I would base respawn time on the troop ratio, not k:d. Else the army with better equipment will field more players, instead the army with more troops should be able to
-
One drawback would be that low level (or bad) players would not be accepted to Strategus battles anymore because they would hurt their team in two ways ("wasting" tickets and increasing the respawn timer). Furthermore I agree with Leiknir. Tropp ratio has to be taken into consideration (along k:d if you like).
-
We had a long discussion yesterday evening about this, and I'd like to hear more opinions about this.
The idea is as follows: Both teams start with a respawn timer of, say, 10 seconds. Every time One guy dies, it takes 10 seconds to respawn.
As the battle goes, the kill:death ratio will shift - which would also shift the respawn timer (for the whole team).
With a good K:D ratio, one team could get reinforcements within 3 seconds, while the worse team would eventually have to wait up to 25, 30 seconds per respawn.
Also, if a spawn is taken, you cannot respawn on it any more - if all spawn are taken, the enemy gets routed.
Reason for this? It would eventually allow more tactic in battles, it would allow a smaller team to win against a large team by being clever.
Thoughts?
I really like this in that it will prevent strategus battles from being as grueling as they have been in the past. The peasant slaughters will be over much faster and it removes the ability to grief when a most of the team leaves but there are many tickets left. Having an objective to attack makes for a much more tactical game, and i can also see a brilliant commander make a come from behind win if he times things right. Only thing i worry about with this idea is archers still being "all that and a bag of chips" as they will initially reduce the enemies spawn rate which sets them up for failure.
-
I agree with Leiknir, troop ratio is most important cause if you have 10k troops but 20 players vs 1k but 60 players this will not reflect reality (or goos sense) but game mechanics and then the 60 players can win, it's ridiculous.
With troops ratio (or scalling) you can implement a respawn timer based on k:d, then good team can have an advantage but will not make impossible things.
-
As I have probably led or been in most of the strategus battles over the last month I think I have some insight that other players may not, so here goes my try at constructive criticism.
This is a bad idea, there is already a huge problem of uneven teams in Strategus.
Here is an example, the battle is 5000 troops vs 1000 troops.
The team with 5000 troops can only get 35 players to sign up, where the army with 1000 troops can get 60 players to show up.
Now you have a 5:1 ratio of tickets but a 1:2 player ratio. The team with 60 players will be able to kill tickets faster (all other things being equal, such as player skill) because they have twice as many players actually playing. But now since the 5000 troop team can only respawn every 30 seconds and the team with 60 players can respawn every 5 seconds they've effectively turned a 2:1 player ratio into a 12:1 player advantage. Also this will make spawn camping much worse.
Teams that are clever and use teamplay (or just have more players) already have an advantage based on tactics, they don't need a physical game mechanic to give them an additional bonus.
I would like to see the spawns changed.
Also I'd like to see a way for the enemy team to surrender so you don't have to kill 4000 peasants.
Also I'd like to see a way to retreat.
I like the idea of spawn flags, but it would be extremely tricky to balance this.
-
Spawn camping has to be considered if you push the timer back as far as 30s.
-
If you get a ratio of 5:1, you deserve to win anyway.
I had a different suggestion - teams re-spawn in waves, either 30 seconds or 1 minute apart. If one side has a bad K:D ratio, it loses some tickets to "routing".
For example, if one side has killed 100 enemies and lost 1000 troops:
(insert balanceable number here) * (Deaths/Kills)% of its total tickets rout.
These routed tickets are recovered after battle. So, if one side does bad, it will lose the battle before it loses all its troops.
-
This
Does it calculate troop ratios somehow? Else you will just see normal10k armies destroyed by 60fullplate charger people.
Is the only problem i see with it
-
thinking about it;
how many strategus battles have u been in where the k:d on one side was 2:1 or better?
most of mine are around 1:1, ranging from 1:2 to 2.5:1 im guessing
it's been really, really hard to get a team K:D of anything better than 2.5:1 and im not sure how it has changed to make it any different right now
my point being, would this proposal have any real effect on strat battles?
I too would like to see # players depend on army ratios/scaling
speaking of scaling, i died once in the yalen siege and had 7 deaths, but had around 3-4 kills for a total of 12...?
How is that right?
-
chadz, what if one team has more players (i mean people, not tickets) than the other team...
Faster respawn and more players could make things really unbalanced...Any plans on balacing out into the spawn equiation?
-
As I have probably led or been in most of the strategus battles over the last month I think I have some insight that other players may not, so here goes my try at constructive criticism.
This is a bad idea, there is already a huge problem of uneven teams in Strategus.
Here is an example, the battle is 5000 troops vs 1000 troops.
The team with 5000 troops can only get 35 players to sign up, where the army with 1000 troops can get 60 players to show up.
Now you have a 5:1 ratio of tickets but a 1:2 player ratio. The team with 60 players will be able to kill tickets faster (all other things being equal, such as player skill) because they have twice as many players actually playing. But now since the 5000 troop team can only respawn every 30 seconds and the team with 60 players can respawn every 5 seconds they've effectively turned a 2:1 player ratio into a 12:1 player advantage. Also this will make spawn camping much worse.
Teams that are clever and use teamplay (or just have more players) already have an advantage based on tactics, they don't need a physical game mechanic to give them an additional bonus.
I would like to see the spawns changed.
Also I'd like to see a way for the enemy team to surrender so you don't have to kill 4000 peasants.
Also I'd like to see a way to retreat.
I like the idea of spawn flags, but it would be extremely tricky to balance this.
+1
-
As I have probably led or been in most of the strategus battles over the last month I think I have some insight that other players may not, so here goes my try at constructive criticism.
This is a bad idea, there is already a huge problem of uneven teams in Strategus.
Here is an example, the battle is 5000 troops vs 1000 troops.
The team with 5000 troops can only get 35 players to sign up, where the army with 1000 troops can get 60 players to show up.
Now you have a 5:1 ratio of tickets but a 1:2 player ratio. The team with 60 players will be able to kill tickets faster (all other things being equal, such as player skill) because they have twice as many players actually playing. But now since the 5000 troop team can only respawn every 30 seconds and the team with 60 players can respawn every 5 seconds they've effectively turned a 2:1 player ratio into a 12:1 player advantage. Also this will make spawn camping much worse.
Teams that are clever and use teamplay (or just have more players) already have an advantage based on tactics, they don't need a physical game mechanic to give them an additional bonus.
I would like to see the spawns changed.
Also I'd like to see a way for the enemy team to surrender so you don't have to kill 4000 peasants.
Also I'd like to see a way to retreat.
I like the idea of spawn flags, but it would be extremely tricky to balance this.
I think a combination of the two would work well. Instead of KDR, have it be the remaining tickets
-
If you get a ratio of 5:1, you deserve to win anyway.
Yes because IRL the bigger army always wins, no matter the equipment, leadership, or tactics :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
With a good K:D ratio, one team could get reinforcements within 3 seconds, while the worse team would eventually have to wait up to 25, 30 seconds per respawn.
[...]
it would allow a smaller team to win against a large team
What is wrong. You know why? The current system we use, with respawns, already priviliges quality over quantity A LOT.
In reality, a group of 50 people would never be able to defeat a mob of 10.000 people, no matter how skilled they were, or what gear they use.
In the game, they already can kill way more than they would be able to kill, when all enemies were present at the same time.
If you realize this idea, the small group will, after having survived the first offense of the larger group, be able to fight the enemy in many 1 vs 1 what violates the whole system, frankly because it takes away the advantage of the mob (way more numbers of the larger group), what makes a mob useless.
-
The problem is some people want strategus battles to be balanced or fair. But they are just there to portray the stuff going on on the map. If a faction fails to deliver an army to the fight, it should not get any benefits but be crushed.
-
I shouldn't be able to destroy 60000 man armies with 100 troops just because I have good fighters and we can all get 10-1. I should be able to do that because I have 6001 troops and we can all get 10-1.
-
Just another idea I had, maybe its good maybe its not: tie the amount of players allowed on a team to ticket ratio.
For example, I have a 100 man army attacking Captain Troll, who has 10 men. I can hire 10 times as many troops as he can (60 troops*, he can hire 6).
Or another scenario: Captain troll has 12,000 men, I have 5000. Capt. Troll can hire 60 troops*, I can hire 25.
This would make the player ratio = ticket ratio, and you wouldn't need to mess with spawn time.
*61 is the current limit AFAIK, you could raise this I suppose to make net player count 122 instead of evenly divided. Or raise it even higher.
But maybe this idea isn't good, I'm sure its been suggested before. Perhaps there is some shortfall I don't see.
-
I like the idea of having multiple capturable spawns or some sort of mobile spawn system.
I don't think having a spawn timer that changes is needed, however.
-
Only problem I see with multiple captureable spawn points is how is it decided what spawn points you will spawn at? If its random that could seriously weaken a team when they spawn all over the map. but if its like battlefield where you can select spawn points then I'm 100% for this! :D...If its not possible :( then how about capturable flags that decrease your teams spawn time? or increases the other teams spawn time? or both?
Wave responding like in sp would be kick ass, would make things more tactical as well
+1 to route idea
+1 to retreat idea only if it has a stiff penalty
-
It is possible, Vince coded conquest mode to be like that for Musket Mod and it is real nice.
-
Rewarding teamwork is definitely a good thing. Strategus battles are way too much of a game of numbers.
Numbers should count however, so perhaps a tactic bonus similar to singleplayer, with amount of hirable soldiers should be enforced.
1000 vs 100, should be 100 vs 10 in the battle.
Still, with the respawn timer bonus. Say those 10 are armored knights and the rest mere light infantry, the Knights should have the advantage, and could perhaps push the KD ratio so far that they win in the end, or do far more damage to the enemy's number of troops.
Of course there are examples of players with 10:1 K:D ratio, but almost never for a whole team, unless they ran out of weapons or something like this. This is just a matter of experience and adjustment to find the right factors for the spawntimes.
Maybe make a server to test out the concept and adjust it in a "normal" battlemode?
Another note, please make it so that anyone can get accepted to a battle if no one has been hired 1 hour to 30 minutes before it starts.. Too many battles are playerless, and take up time in the Strategus calendar.. (Also all battles should have some kind of minimum equipment of simple spears and clubs, as well as some simple peasant armor for free by default)
Anyway, these changes could lead to people "Topping" their equipment lists, going for heavy gear in the beginning of the match to get a good initial K:D ratio, gradually changing it to cheaper gear. I think the consequences are interesting and should be tested!
-
It is possible, Vince coded conquest mode to be like that for Musket Mod and it is real nice.
I would love to see this in cRPG. I was a big BF2 player and imo the same system would work great, especially for sieges.
-
Does it calculate troop ratios somehow? Else you will just see normal10k armies destroyed by 60fullplate charger people.
Exactly.
And guess who in Strategus has been fighting with super-great equipment all the time, and guess who has been using average one all the time. Then do the math.
-
Didnt read anything, but:
Dunno, this would mean, the obviously already better team gets even more advantage by faster respawn time ... I think you shouldnt implent it, wouldnt probably make such a difference anyway.
The second idea sounds interesting though, I think this would be pretty cool, not to mention that the stupid random respawning in the middle of 10 enemies would finally stop ... =)
-
capturable spawn points ---> Hell yes
changing spawn timer ---> yes, but it should include something more than just K:D like advantage in soldiers could also inflict it mayby less than k:d but it should.
All in all great idea that will kill the mod
-
Yes for updateable spawnpoints!
and bind player ratio to ticket ratio!
Just split the 122 player pool relational to the ticket amount,
like 20000 vs 10000 ticket / 91 to 31 players, this will also end idiotic blocking armies because the smaller will get slaughtered quickly.
With a minimum of 75% to 25% it should be okay (no bigger difference possible even if it would be 100000 vs 300 to still do the sparta thing).
200 vs 100 the same, 20 vs 10 / 20 to 10 just because of not enough tickets) etc.
Also reduce the transfer radius to and from villages/castle/towns to the same as player to player (or less).
(who needs player chains if you have village chains...)
-
I just noticed that it refers to Strategus... +1 to the idea, no "buts".
-
i would suggest maps with 5 strategic respawn
each team starts with 1 respawn, then there's 3 strategic respawns on the map at strategic points, like a hill, a bridge, a forest, a building or whatever
each spawn you conquer gives you some seconds less to respawn or gives you an advanced respawn, if you get 4/5 of the spawns you root the enemy who has to retreat, losing some troops and equipment
so no camp, no ninja rush, tactics and real strategy
maybe less spawns for smaller battles
Brilliant!, no more dam camping!
-
you've got something there; if people kill more they spawn faster; they kill less, they still get a respawn... team cohesion would be at an all time high!
-
i would suggest maps with 5 strategic respawn
each team starts with 1 respawn, then there's 3 strategic respawns on the map at strategic points, like a hill, a bridge, a forest, a building or whatever
each spawn you conquer gives you some seconds less to respawn or gives you an advanced respawn, if you get 4/5 of the spawns you root the enemy who has to retreat, losing some troops and equipment
so no camp, no ninja rush, tactics and real strategy
maybe less spawns for smaller battles
I support this completly and would add a timer for holding / defending the captured respawn points...
... perhaps 2-5 mins, if the time runs out and the loosing team wasn´t able to recapture at least one of the respawn points the battle is lost and the army routed. (Result: -50% of all remaining troops and -100% of all unused equipment)
Tactical Retreat:
If not all strategic points are captured by one team, every team commander should be able to retreat if he lost 50% of his army. A tactical retreat should result in loosing only 5-15% of the remaing troops and 5-15% of the unused equipment. An army on retreat can´t neither attack nor receive reinforcements during the next 24h, cannot be attacked by the enemy army from the last battle during the first 6h and moves automaticly towards the next neutral or own village/castle/town with double movement speed. But during retreat any other army is able to attack the retreating one.
If all strategic points are captured by one team, the other commander can´t order a tactical retreat.
This would add more strategical depth to battles and prevents the abuse of capturing only 2 of 3 spawn points on purpose and killing the enemy 1by1 because of the increased/decreased respawn time or the advanced respawn position.
-
I like the previous and a few ideas on the spawn points, as long as you can pick them [Hate spawning onthe walls while I need to defend the flag... can never get there in time]
But I 100% think we need a wave spawn delay, that way we have "waves" of reinforcements [realistically] rather than one guy coming every few seconds. Would also make for easier team work and help balance spawn times [once one person dies, timer starts, every teammate who dies until timer ends joins that timer and they all spawn together]
-
Not sure about the K:D respawn thing as it would encourage everyone to buy a small amount of uber-gear to be thrown away at start purely to affect spawn times and gain an immediate advantage.
-
Not sure about the K:D respawn thing as it would encourage everyone to buy a small amount of uber-gear to be thrown away at start purely to affect spawn times and gain an immediate advantage.
Well all armies should have an elite group of fighters to decide the fight. In RL you sent cannon fodder first, so it'd weaken the enemy when the better soldiers showed up. Here you'll send the elite bersekers first to do as much damage possible before the actual fight begins.
I love most the ideas around here, +1 to chadz, and +1 to troop size affecting available players, but maybe not so harsh (10000 vs 1000 would give you 100 vs 20 instead of 109 vs 11)
-
Like the idea of multiple spawn points as this will stop the spawn camping as astrategy that doesn't match a all with a real life battle but is a game mechanic manipulation. Don't think the respawn based on k/ds would be good as this would increase the rate of spawn camping as the delayed respawn rate allows the team that intitially does better to spawn rape the rest of the battle. A soft ratio of troops to mercs hired could be interesting if it only is a slight modification not a direct 1:1 (like 1000 to 100 means 60 v. 6), but more like (1000 to 100 means 80 to 40, 2000 to 100 means 85 to 35, etc.).
Oh and by the way, when is strategus coming out and can we get patch updates/notes soon?
-
+1 for retreat/surrender options
+1 for multiple spawn locations: it would be nice if teams can decide where to spawn after some critical positions ( capturable spawn points) have been taken by the enemy. Of course the availability of these "team decided" spawn locations would have restrictions; such as siege attacker team cannot be spawned in the castle :) or siege defender could only be spawned in some rooms ...
-1 for changing spawn time. If I have 100 guys in my clan who recruited 100000 men (tickets) for battle, then its your problem, why reconfiguring my or your time? Try to find a good spot to kill those men, rather than make them wait at the red light. World is not fair in numbers, so would strategus be. So spawn times should stay same for both groups independent of KD or any other ratio
-
you would (probably) keep the troops, but lose some/all? of your gear.
I would say keep the armor, people dont drop their armor do they when they route?
-
I would say keep the armor, people dont drop their armor do they when they route?
They drop it to run faster :P
-
im generally against anything that supports the outdated mantra that 'winners get perks to win more'
-
They drop it to run faster :P
Run to the forests!
NAKED! :D
-
+1 for retreat/surrender options
+1 for multiple spawn locations: it would be nice if teams can decide where to spawn after some critical positions ( capturable spawn points) have been taken by the enemy. Of course the availability of these "team decided" spawn locations would have restrictions; such as siege attacker team cannot be spawned in the castle :) or siege defender could only be spawned in some rooms ...
Agree with that.
And as for the respawn timer. If team A is taking heavy losses (team B is slaughtering them), the commander of team A would probably send in reinforcements which shouldn't increase the respawn time, but maybe even reduce it (would sound more logical to me, not ingame-balaced way tho, so lets not reduce it at least :P ).
From a team A's soldiers perspective rushing into the battle where you'd most likely die like your teammates before you, routing sounds more reasonable.
So as a result, individual soldiers start routing = increased ticket cost if the enemy team's k/d ratio gets too high, for example:
Enemy team's average k/d ratio is now 2.25/1 your team now loses 1.25 tickets for each respawn.
(enemy's k/d ratio) - 1 = your ticket cost/respawn
Only when enemy has k/d ratio is > 2, so it wouldn't result as reduced ticket cost per respawn
When it starts to look that bad a tactical retreat would be a much better option.
-
there was somewhere an idea of deployable spawns, players themselves choosing where to spawn might work well. but for destroying such a deployable spawn the enemy team could get some serious penalty.
-
This is dumb, if the team who is sucking has to wait longer and longer for reinforcements you will only continue to propel their loss.
-
I don't understand, people are talking about realism but they want it balanced.
Realism:
Most soldiers do not die in formations on the "battlefield" they die routing, cut down when they start running. So routing is very bad in the real world since that is when most people die.
Balanced:
Routing saves your gear and your troops, no; a retreat saves the bulk your soldiers who drop everything and run for their life's while Cavalry screens and counters to protect, and dies for the most part.
Realism:
A army of 60 knights should destroy 500-1000 peasants, 60 knights is equivalent of putting 60 tanks against 500 postmen armed with letter openers.
Balanced:
People want to win, they want to wear cloth against plate and still win.
Realism:
No one who has a 100 man strong army would fight a 10,000 man strong army. They would never even be able to catch up to them. The smaller force would skirmish and run, the bigger force would send out scouts and cavalry to hunt down and destroy the smaller force.
Balanced: I don't even know
I am not even sure anything I have written here is true, but it sounds like it... a little bit, does it not.
-
Sounds like a terrible idea to me, sometimes a team can swing things around even if their players start out a bit rusty, penalising others for this would be stupid and would make the outcome of battles decided too quickly, "oh no our team is losing, well thats it it's just
going to get harder now".
The taking of spawns sounds interesting though.
-
there should atleast be up to 8 respawn points on each map and each team start with 2 then the other 6 are left to fight over
other than that +1