ScenComp Drama aside, I wonder how many of those AMs will underperform assuming the map goes from EU+ to Asia/Africa/or any other preset.
I am a world player first and foremost, so i see how they perform in world games. They are typically a dominate force as long as they can stay focused and don't quit halfway through lol.
Now hold up everyone, let me just pop in as the voice of reason for a second. You guys do know that this is all coming down to an ego war... right? I mean come on folks, how petty do we have to be about this? Say this battle between the two communities happens and scenario players win the scenario map battle and world map players win the world map battle. What does this all prove? All it proves is people who specialize into one type of map style are good at it and where will we be afterwards? We'll be back here on a similar ranking forum in a few months, saying the same things, and challenging each other to yet and another competition where most likely the same things will happen.
Come on guys, are we really going to go through this over and over and over again until someone loses wifi in the middle of a game and the other side claims victory to break this endless cycle? Players are players, maps are maps. All games in atwar require the same skills just some empathizes certain skills more than others. World map players don't just play metas but also mind games, expansions, aggressive walls, and proper eco and troop management a skill which is a lot more difficult to master than people think. Scenario players don't just relay on event heavy maps but rather are good at understanding various troops types, aggressive combat play, and extreme microing in a multi front setting. We all have strengthens and weakness and if we really need to fight it out to show the obvious, then damn what a sad state we have come to as a community. Shame on us all for coming to this state and shame on us for perpetuating this cycle over and over again.
My intention with this post is not to be a party pooper or to hinder any formalization of what the competitive state of this game is. I just wish to share my opinion on this system as a whole.
Other than the reason that I mentioned (formalizing the competitive state of the game) as well as trying to formalize some sort of tier list for what skill is in this game, I don't see any other reason why we need this in the game. If anyone can come up with more reasons why that are constructive for the game, please let me know.
Furthermore, this system doesn't fully succeed at doing those two things fundamentally. Atwar is a complicated game, and it is not a standardized game. There is no formal or strict definition for what 'competitive' is. You can say that it's 10k EU+ 4 min. But that's just based on majority. It's not even like all tournaments in this game use that setting anyways. Not only that, but skill in this game is multi-criteria and subjective to opinion. A person can be extremely good in a specific setting in this game, and just above average in the rest, while you can have players who excel at most settings. With that in mind, you can't come in and define what an 'Atwar Grandmaster' is in the way that this system tries to do. I mean, you're basically disregarding a big part of the community here. I know that you've implicitly narrowed the scope in the description by saying that this pertains to EU+, but the title is misleading. And even then, EU+ by itself is complicated and can be subdivided further. That's why you have Master of West, Master of East, CW tournaments, 5k, low-turn-time tournaments, etc.
Furthermore, you add to that the element of nominations, adding even more subjectivity to the matter. Any top player can in theory nominate anyone. Also, the descriptions for the titles themselves are subjective and ambiguous: "extremely skilled yet aren't quite GM level". This is a very basic explanation but, in chess, you become a grandmaster through norms, which you earn by performing well in tournaments which are exclusive to very high level players, players who are better than you on paper. You don't just beat one GM and become a GM. You have to consistently perform well in this higher skill environment. This is a more objective system. And it is detached from what the player's ELO rating is. You basically remove rating from the equation by making it fully based on results. You could have a Grandmaster title and have a below-average-rating for the players with that title. It is very hard to do this in Atwar. There are technically no 'official' regular tournaments. All tournaments are hosted by community members, sometimes once a year. And the decrease in activity has also decreased the frequency and legitimacy of these tournaments. I mean, the last Master of East started months ago and hasn't finished. The next Master of West should've already started by now.
I appreciate what this system is trying to do. It can help new players who care about improving to understand how do top players fall on a scale, and it can give them something to strive or to improve towards. But, unless this system improves somehow, people will just see this as a circle jerk.
The system would be great if it didn't have this nomination or voting system. It is pretty tone deaf considering the fanctionism atWar is currently facing.
I would just mirror it how Chess Grandmasters are chosen, and not on some elitist... have to be nominated and be approved by the establishment. If someone is worthy of being a "Master" they should get the title.
Also extremely tone deaf to continue to create systems for just the competitive scene and ignore scenarios/casuals/rp etc.
Also looks like this is a giant fool-around. They don't get any special title or medals kekw.This kind of feels like a... "giving yourself your own medal of honor" kind of thing
My intention with this post is not to be a party pooper or to hinder any formalization of what the competitive state of this game is. I just wish to share my opinion on this system as a whole.
Other than the reason that I mentioned (formalizing the competitive state of the game) as well as trying to formalize some sort of tier list for what skill is in this game, I don't see any other reason why we need this in the game. If anyone can come up with more reasons why that are constructive for the game, please let me know.
Furthermore, this system doesn't fully succeed at doing those two things fundamentally. Atwar is a complicated game, and it is not a standardized game. There is no formal or strict definition for what 'competitive' is. You can say that it's 10k EU+ 4 min. But that's just based on majority. It's not even like all tournaments in this game use that setting anyways. Not only that, but skill in this game is multi-criteria and subjective to opinion. A person can be extremely good in a specific setting in this game, and just above average in the rest, while you can have players who excel at most settings. With that in mind, you can't come in and define what an 'Atwar Grandmaster' is in the way that this system tries to do. I mean, you're basically disregarding a big part of the community here. I know that you've implicitly narrowed the scope in the description by saying that this pertains to EU+, but the title is misleading. And even then, EU+ by itself is complicated and can be subdivided further. That's why you have Master of West, Master of East, CW tournaments, 5k, low-turn-time tournaments, etc.
Furthermore, you add to that the element of nominations, adding even more subjectivity to the matter. Any top player can in theory nominate anyone. Also, the descriptions for the titles themselves are subjective and ambiguous: "extremely skilled yet aren't quite GM level". This is a very basic explanation but, in chess, you become a grandmaster through norms, which you earn by performing well in tournaments which are exclusive to very high level players, players who are better than you on paper. You don't just beat one GM and become a GM. You have to consistently perform well in this higher skill environment. This is a more objective system. And it is detached from what the player's ELO rating is. You basically remove rating from the equation by making it fully based on results. You could have a Grandmaster title and have a below-average-rating for the players with that title. It is very hard to do this in Atwar. There are technically no 'official' regular tournaments. All tournaments are hosted by community members, sometimes once a year. And the decrease in activity has also decreased the frequency and legitimacy of these tournaments. I mean, the last Master of East started months ago and hasn't finished. The next Master of West should've already started by now.
I appreciate what this system is trying to do. It can help new players who care about improving to understand how do top players fall on a scale, and it can give them something to strive or to improve towards. But, unless this system improves somehow, people will just see this as a circle jerk.
Shut up Lelouch, don't you see that Sid shat blood and tears to make this happen? how dare you mock his genius.
If you're gonna come up with a first list, you come up with a list of players who have results, and you list their achievements and why they merit GM status. Elo peaks, tournaments, seasonal trophies, etc. These are the only metrics of results we have. This initial list will be subjective no matter what. But at least it is clear why you are in the initial list and skipping the nomination process. Everyone who deserves the spot but has no results will earn their spot through nomination if the nomination process works like it's supposed to. This should not be exclusive to active players. We should includes the achievements of players who are no longer active as well.
The initial list should have no GMs, for fairness. GMs should be nominated by people from the AM list exclusively. Furthermore, the number of votes should be proportional to the amount of people in the list, so it should grow over time, for both GM and AM nominations. This is to protect against bias (friend groups supporting each other)
A nomination process should not just be based on votes. A list of achievements that merit entering the list should back the nomination up somehow. I'm not suggesting a standardized way of doing this since that's impossible. But we can't go based off of nothing. It can't just be like I think x player is good and that's it.
My intention with this post is not to be a party pooper or to hinder any formalization of what the competitive state of this game is. I just wish to share my opinion on this system as a whole.
Other than the reason that I mentioned (formalizing the competitive state of the game) as well as trying to formalize some sort of tier list for what skill is in this game, I don't see any other reason why we need this in the game. If anyone can come up with more reasons why that are constructive for the game, please let me know.
Furthermore, this system doesn't fully succeed at doing those two things fundamentally. Atwar is a complicated game, and it is not a standardized game. There is no formal or strict definition for what 'competitive' is. You can say that it's 10k EU+ 4 min. But that's just based on majority. It's not even like all tournaments in this game use that setting anyways. Not only that, but skill in this game is multi-criteria and subjective to opinion. A person can be extremely good in a specific setting in this game, and just above average in the rest, while you can have players who excel at most settings. With that in mind, you can't come in and define what an 'Atwar Grandmaster' is in the way that this system tries to do. I mean, you're basically disregarding a big part of the community here. I know that you've implicitly narrowed the scope in the description by saying that this pertains to EU+, but the title is misleading. And even then, EU+ by itself is complicated and can be subdivided further. That's why you have Master of West, Master of East, CW tournaments, 5k, low-turn-time tournaments, etc.
Furthermore, you add to that the element of nominations, adding even more subjectivity to the matter. Any top player can in theory nominate anyone. Also, the descriptions for the titles themselves are subjective and ambiguous: "extremely skilled yet aren't quite GM level". This is a very basic explanation but, in chess, you become a grandmaster through norms, which you earn by performing well in tournaments which are exclusive to very high level players, players who are better than you on paper. You don't just beat one GM and become a GM. You have to consistently perform well in this higher skill environment. This is a more objective system. And it is detached from what the player's ELO rating is. You basically remove rating from the equation by making it fully based on results. You could have a Grandmaster title and have a below-average-rating for the players with that title. It is very hard to do this in Atwar. There are technically no 'official' regular tournaments. All tournaments are hosted by community members, sometimes once a year. And the decrease in activity has also decreased the frequency and legitimacy of these tournaments. I mean, the last Master of East started months ago and hasn't finished. The next Master of West should've already started by now.
I appreciate what this system is trying to do. It can help new players who care about improving to understand how do top players fall on a scale, and it can give them something to strive or to improve towards. But, unless this system improves somehow, people will just see this as a circle jerk.
Ok let me break this down because it's very confusing and i'm not sure what you're saying in the first half.
Here's what I gathered from your post:
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
There isn't a formal definition of competitive?
Someone can be good at one setting and not another in Eu+
Any top player can nominate anyone
Title description is vague for how narrow the scope is
Difference in chess vs this system
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
There isn't a formal definition of competitive?
There is, it's dueling and CWing. Any setting in either of those is competitive by definition. That includes scenarios and other maps but it just so happens that players who play mostly other maps/scenarios DECIDE not to duel or CW on them.
Someone can be good at one setting and not another in Eu+
True, that is why the definition of GM will also include 'mastered all of Eu+'. You must be well rounded to be a GM <- this is the sole reason why I didn't put you as a GM.
Any top player can nominate anyone
Not true, you must first meet the other prerequisites. If you can meet the prerequisites and convince 5 AMs or 2 GMs and 1 AM to nominate you then you deserve to be on the list. I will of course delete "troll" nominations but the way the system is created, it's hard to troll in the first place.
Title description is vague for how narrow the scope is
True, it is vague for how specific i made the scope. But as i said previously, the scope i created defines the objective as best as you can. The objective is the "best" player. The scope is what mostly everyone will accept as the place you find the best players. It's just not feasible to prove someone is a master on ALL maps or ALL scenarios when they don't play them competitively anyways, and it wouldn't prove anything substantially different from what my scope provides either (pending i'm correct about Scen/RP players).
Difference in chess vs this system
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!
You need to show some evidence of this. past tournament results are legitimate in my opinion and should be considered. Same for past seasonal trophies. Right, now, you didn't show any evidence or reasoning as to why the people on the initial list deserve to skip nominations. Otherwise, it does look like your list.
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!
You need to show some evidence of this. past tournament results are legitimate in my opinion and should be considered. Same for past seasonal trophies. Right, now, you didn't show any evidence or reasoning as to why the people on the initial list deserve to skip nominations. Otherwise, it does look like your list.
We have to start somewhere, so i added all the current competitive players with atleast 1400 elo (or had that elo very recently) that dueled or cw'd in the last 30 days. You're right that they shouldn't have skipped the nominations process, but i needed judges, if everyone could vote then it would have been trolled immediately lol. The biggest concern i had was that you guys wouldn't accept the initial AMs/GMs but it seems like mostly everyone who was chosen should be there. If you want proof about the tournaments, look at the forums, it's a lot of started and not finished tournaments, which can be BS'd easily anyways. we might get like 1 AM every year if we went off of tournaments alone. You are free to use your vote/nomination to only include past tournies/seasonal trophies.
They're all better than you. You can really only give Dominicano a run for his money tbh, and he seems to go through phases of playing like a 1500 player and then playing like a 1200 player.
They're all better than you. You can really only give Dominicano a run for his money tbh, and he seems to go through phases of playing like a 1500 player and then playing like a 1200 player.
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!
You need to show some evidence of this. past tournament results are legitimate in my opinion and should be considered. Same for past seasonal trophies. Right, now, you didn't show any evidence or reasoning as to why the people on the initial list deserve to skip nominations. Otherwise, it does look like your list.
We have to start somewhere, so i added all the current competitive players with atleast 1400 elo (or had that elo very recently) that dueled or cw'd in the last 30 days. You're right that they shouldn't have skipped the nominations process, but i needed judges, if everyone could vote then it would have been trolled immediately lol. The biggest concern i had was that you guys wouldn't accept the initial AMs/GMs but it seems like mostly everyone who was chosen should be there. If you want proof about the tournaments, look at the forums, it's a lot of started and not finished tournaments, which can be BS'd easily anyways. we might get like 1 AM every year if we went off of tournaments alone. You are free to use your vote/nomination to only include past tournies/seasonal trophies.
Bro, but your judges determine everything hence fourth. If you need to start somewhere, be a little more selective. Just picking based on elo is not gonna lead to a good set of judges. These people are skipping the nomination process. You're giving haters fuel to question the legitimacy of this. You might just say, fuck the haters. But I assume you want people to at least respect this system, even if they don't like it.
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!
You need to show some evidence of this. past tournament results are legitimate in my opinion and should be considered. Same for past seasonal trophies. Right, now, you didn't show any evidence or reasoning as to why the people on the initial list deserve to skip nominations. Otherwise, it does look like your list.
We have to start somewhere, so i added all the current competitive players with atleast 1400 elo (or had that elo very recently) that dueled or cw'd in the last 30 days. You're right that they shouldn't have skipped the nominations process, but i needed judges, if everyone could vote then it would have been trolled immediately lol. The biggest concern i had was that you guys wouldn't accept the initial AMs/GMs but it seems like mostly everyone who was chosen should be there. If you want proof about the tournaments, look at the forums, it's a lot of started and not finished tournaments, which can be BS'd easily anyways. we might get like 1 AM every year if we went off of tournaments alone. You are free to use your vote/nomination to only include past tournies/seasonal trophies.
Okay, new AMs get added through nominations mainly. I'm saying, for your INITIAL list, try to use more results to back this up. I'm not saying that every new AM needs some achievements to get added. Because it is as you say. It would be like 1 AM a year. I get that. I'm just saying, be more strict for this INITIAL list. And lower the requirements once you're sure you have a good set of judges, rather than just making your initial list with a 1400 elo requirement.
And the unfinished tournament situation is only a thing right now. That was not the case a few years back. Those results are legitimate and SHOULD be considered for people skipping the line. That's all I'm saying.
This is my favorite argument, because i thought about this quite a bit before making this list. I didn't want this list to be "my list". I wanted it to be the communities list. If the staff chose the GMs/AMs then they likely wouldn't be accepted. Tournaments don't go to completion like 60% of the time so i didn't want to base it off of that. And I trust the GMs and AMs will only sign off on players who are skilled enough according to their definition.
Hopefully this satisfies your concerns!
You need to show some evidence of this. past tournament results are legitimate in my opinion and should be considered. Same for past seasonal trophies. Right, now, you didn't show any evidence or reasoning as to why the people on the initial list deserve to skip nominations. Otherwise, it does look like your list.
We have to start somewhere, so i added all the current competitive players with atleast 1400 elo (or had that elo very recently) that dueled or cw'd in the last 30 days. You're right that they shouldn't have skipped the nominations process, but i needed judges, if everyone could vote then it would have been trolled immediately lol. The biggest concern i had was that you guys wouldn't accept the initial AMs/GMs but it seems like mostly everyone who was chosen should be there. If you want proof about the tournaments, look at the forums, it's a lot of started and not finished tournaments, which can be BS'd easily anyways. we might get like 1 AM every year if we went off of tournaments alone. You are free to use your vote/nomination to only include past tournies/seasonal trophies.
Okay, new AMs get added through nominations mainly. I'm saying, for your INITIAL list, try to use more results to back this up. I'm not saying that every new AM needs some achievements to get added. Because it is as you say. It would be like 1 AM a year. I get that. I'm just saying, be more strict for this INITIAL list. And lower the requirements once you're sure you have a good set of judges, rather than just making your initial list with a 1400 elo requirement.
And the unfinished tournament situation is only a thing right now. That was not the case a few years back. Those results are legitimate and SHOULD be considered for people skipping the line. That's all I'm saying.
Fair point, what do you suggest i do now? Whatever the solution is, it should be based on current skill. I don't want inactives to be able to become GMs/AMs.
Well, chess works only with ratings; maybe the ones that hit +1400 AM +1600 in all their playing time would be GM +1700 SuperGM
and the data is collectible from the game, since I've seen Clovis doing it.
----
*enough atwar, leaving it for the game of real life
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
What base mechanics do you think are only seen in world map that isnt in others let alone mastered O.o
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
What base mechanics do you think are only seen in world map that isnt in others let alone mastered O.o
They're not even seen in the world map "community" either! Almost no world player knows TB mechanics, long term planning done early game, how to fight across oceans, how to use stealth properly or how to defend from it, learning meta of different strategies, etc. Everyone who does learned it from the competitive field. Those things might not be taught in competitive, but the mindset and critical thinking required are. I'm only speaking for world players as i don't play scenarios / other maps myself.
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
What base mechanics do you think are only seen in world map that isnt in others let alone mastered O.o
They're not even seen in the world map "community" either! Almost no world player knows TB mechanics, long term planning done early game, how to fight across oceans, how to use stealth properly or how to defend from it, learning meta of different strategies, etc. Everyone who does learned it from the competitive field. Those things might not be taught in competitive, but the mindset and critical thinking required are. I'm only speaking for world players as i don't play scenarios / other maps myself.
Come play scenarios where u could own like more lands than in world map. Try to micro that.
TB is a thing in every map. All players who are decent know about this.
Lots of scenarios where u can cross oceans, different strategies, stealth etc. I didnt learn any of that in competitive field, all in scenarios.
One thing i havent seen EU players think about is how HP works.
You think u can come fight me and not figure out i am blitz or IF in some scenario?
Come fight me in Third age with ur team of grandmasters and show how grandmaster you are.
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
What base mechanics do you think are only seen in world map that isnt in others let alone mastered O.o
They're not even seen in the world map "community" either! Almost no world player knows TB mechanics, long term planning done early game, how to fight across oceans, how to use stealth properly or how to defend from it, learning meta of different strategies, etc. Everyone who does learned it from the competitive field. Those things might not be taught in competitive, but the mindset and critical thinking required are. I'm only speaking for world players as i don't play scenarios / other maps myself.
Come play scenarios where u could own like more lands than in world map. Try to micro that.
TB is a thing in every map. All players who are decent know about this.
Lots of scenarios where u can cross oceans, different strategies, stealth etc. I didnt learn any of that in competitive field, all in scenarios.
One thing i havent seen EU players think about is how HP works.
You think u can come fight me and not figure out i am blitz or IF in some scenario?
Come fight me in Third age with ur team of grandmasters and show how grandmaster you are.
80% of maps are smaller or based on the world map. I know micro'ing large amounts of units fairly well.
Doesn't include Scen/RP "communities"
This is by design, none of them have mastered the base mechanics of the game sufficiently just by playing Scenarios/RP/other maps/other presets. They have a fundamentally different view on what fun is in this game I think. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong about this, but we'll see when a tournament between them and GM's gets made. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will find a way to include them.
What base mechanics do you think are only seen in world map that isnt in others let alone mastered O.o
They're not even seen in the world map "community" either! Almost no world player knows TB mechanics, long term planning done early game, how to fight across oceans, how to use stealth properly or how to defend from it, learning meta of different strategies, etc. Everyone who does learned it from the competitive field. Those things might not be taught in competitive, but the mindset and critical thinking required are. I'm only speaking for world players as i don't play scenarios / other maps myself.
Come play scenarios where u could own like more lands than in world map. Try to micro that.
TB is a thing in every map. All players who are decent know about this.
Lots of scenarios where u can cross oceans, different strategies, stealth etc. I didnt learn any of that in competitive field, all in scenarios.
One thing i havent seen EU players think about is how HP works.
You think u can come fight me and not figure out i am blitz or IF in some scenario?
Come fight me in Third age with ur team of grandmasters and show how grandmaster you are.
80% of maps are smaller or based on the world map. I know micro'ing large amounts of units fairly well.
i dont rly see how that benefits your point as EU is smalller as well.
When you make 1 map the default starting map for every new player.
It obviously becomes the map which gets most played.
Id say make a new map, make that map the new default map and lets see how many plays eu will get once duels cw and nonprems go to play that.
Lelouch. 11/3/2021
