Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 02:14:49 -
[1] - Quote
Hi again,
The structure revamp is well on its way and we are looking to see Citadel enter the game next year. I'd like your thoughts on a few things regarding potential bonuses that could be connected to warzone control.
(I am writing a separate post to discuss Citadel anchoring in the warzone)
Over the last two years, Faction Warfare has lost several bonus aimed at improving the quality of life of a Militia Pilot. The removal of clone costs for instance. With the arrival of Citadel, I feel that we are in a position to look into recreating bonuses to the Militia Pilot for living in their space. What I am looking for is a list of potential bonuses to structure owner's with warzone control.
A simplest example is: a fuel consumption bonus so that the structure consumes less fuel.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
116
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 03:42:34 -
[2] - Quote
The option to use LP to clear out unopened plexes. It's not hard to be that guy that opened all the enemy buttons. This could help save LP investments if other sources of LP are reduced with changes, and allow us to invest a little more in keeping upgrades high in home systems during down-times.
The option to burn out active cloaks in system.
Bonus to PI resource pools planet side.
I realize some of those are not structure specific. Allow Citadels to be anchored/linked to ihubs permanently (or until they are destroyed), and give them a unique style appropriate to faction, with a discount to upgrade costs for system level depending on structure size. Have them become the ihub, basically.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3434
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 07:31:50 -
[3] - Quote
if ccp decides to give structures a FW bonus please make sure that it only applies to structures whose owner is in FW. Last time this could not be done because of legacy code but luckily the structures are all new code now.
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
May Arethusa
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
95
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:02:03 -
[4] - Quote
Fuel consumption, obviously.
Administration Hubs System level should dictate the level of agents available for FW missions. They should also allow corporations/alliances to tax LP earned in plexes within that system, feeding it either directly to the iHub, or to a pool for distribution to other systems. System level should determine the frequency and efficiency of the new NPC patrols we can expect, and Admin Hubs should allow us some degree of control over their actions (whether they patrol hostile/friendly space, clear plexes, etc.)
Observation Arrays Increased effectiveness based upon adjacency and system level.
I'm sure there's more. |
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:20:26 -
[5] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:if ccp decides to give structures a FW bonus please make sure that it only applies to structures whose owner is in FW. Last time this could not be done because of legacy code but luckily the structures are all new code now.
That is my goal. That the bonuses would be for those who own the warzone.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
1167
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:24:25 -
[6] - Quote
LP taxes to corporations and alliances have been discussed with CCP. Both will require an extensive rework of the lp store and lp distribution system. While that would be lovely, and the current state of the LP store has been extensively discussed, taxing LP is out of the scope of these structure changes.
Member of CSMX - CSMX Weekly Updates
Member of CSM9
Low Sec Lifestyle - An Eve Blog
@Sugar_Kyle
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Spaceship Bebop
429
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 17:20:10 -
[7] - Quote
The fuel bonus is nice, although I'd also like to see a fuel penalty (ie use considerably more fuel) for ANY Citadel that allows a faction who does not hold sov to dock at it. I'm worried without this, we will see too many medium citadels anchored in hostile space effectively making the FW docking restriction mechanic obsolete. The fight for docking rights is really the biggest conflict driver in FW right now and citadels have the potential to shift that conflict driver. In other words, the conflict driver will switch from FW sov mechanics for docking rights to citadel structure fights for docking mechanics.
.
|
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
34
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 20:21:31 -
[8] - Quote
Do not forget about "neutral citadel" where neutral corp can allow to dock anyone of any militia... Tbh FW docking mechanics go obsolete with citadels, so that is one of reasons why all tier's bonuses must be apply only to faction holding system... |
Arla Sarain
695
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 20:27:29 -
[9] - Quote
If the only point of this discussion is to establish a range of bonuses that improve the QoL of a militia pilot, here's a thought:
consider what people want from stations as things are now - hardly anything TBH. Stations provide a safe haven, repair facs, and some market function should you need certain items in a pinch, subject to whatever bright entrepreneurs decide to supply. All of which pretty much sums up whatever a typical average militia member would want from a dockable structure.
But on top of all that, Citadels offer the removal of station games, making them the safer option for docking up compared to NPC stations. Supplemented with guns and EWAR, one could likely expect the grids of Citadels free from any sort of threat, making available Citadels the primary docking choice.
This is all waaaay before you even start factoring in whatever bonuses people will start conjuring up for these structure.
In favor of focusing on improving "Militia pilot QoL", please recognize that, whilst the fuel reduction bonus is nice, it hardly improves the QoL for typical mil members - each individual FW member is highly unlikely to cash-out 608mill for their own personal Citadel. Hence, the fuel reduction bonus is unlikely to ever graze the concern or interest of the typical FW participant.
I think the range of bonuses the Citadels (and hopefully NPC stations) could provide for FW members depends entirely on how game changing are the mechanics that CCP is willing to give us access to.
One of the barriers that stops a typical FW member from living in deep LS is logistics. CCP, in one of their presentations, was talking about how they want Citadels to offer micro import/export of goods between Citadels and other trade hubs. But even this is coming to all types of space (except WH) and not unique to FW.
In conclusion, if your goal is to introduce QoL for the typical member, it's likely more prudent to focus on S sized structures - deployables. Militia Grade Mobile Depots that are cheaper but have less time on them would likely be extremely popular with the FW community, seeing as the main focus is PvP, which in turn revolves around counters and counters to counters, hence making refits a high demand. Not that regular Depots are a challenge to afford for more established players, but considering that they cost more than some frigate hulls, their purchase is likely avoided by newer FW members.
TL;DR - Citadels by their very nature are the defacto QoL change for typical FW members, as their availability and design circumvents all the BS associated with both POSs and Stations, even without any further bonus introductions. Any further bonuses would just likely devalue NPC stations in FW space even more.
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
509
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 22:28:42 -
[10] - Quote
how about the owners get to restrict access to anybody? sounds like a bonus to me of putting up the isk to get one then anchoring it.
Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
|
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
880
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 00:42:17 -
[11] - Quote
Tough question. Fuel Bonuses for service modules seems solid. Other than that, possibly allowing them to use service modules typically restricted for SovNull (should any be anticipated) might be an interesting incentive for FW pilots.
One idea would be to introduce a Service Module that increases the chance of NPC Patrols (or their strength) visiting the system. Have the percentage increase based on the system's upgrade level. Call it a militia resupply point or whatever, have it take an office away or something. Could lead to interesting gameplay where FW militias drop defensive Citadels with these things to make casual plexing in their homes more difficult - or anchor them in enemy space to harass defensive plexers.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3438
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 05:11:57 -
[12] - Quote
i don't know if thats a good idea but the other elephant in the room beside fuel is the vulnerability window.
lets say the window is set to 1h, the upgrade lvl could change that +-15mins or so (just as example, balancing would be difficult i imagine)
but again, not sure if thats a good idea given how broken plexing currently is. Adding stronger bonuses to the upgrade lvl with a weak foundation might break even more. (small vulnerability windows are bad for content etc etc)
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
per
Terpene Conglomerate
82
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 16:38:23 -
[13] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:if ccp decides to give structures a FW bonus please make sure that it only applies to structures whose owner is in FW. Last time this could not be done because of legacy code but luckily the structures are all new code now.
just thinking about this, this can still be easily bypassed by neutrals by having one man fw corp who gives all access to the citadel for the neutral block - no need to be in FW you can still use the spoils of war you never helped to gain |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3439
|
Posted - 2015.11.03 21:29:09 -
[14] - Quote
per wrote:Bienator II wrote:if ccp decides to give structures a FW bonus please make sure that it only applies to structures whose owner is in FW. Last time this could not be done because of legacy code but luckily the structures are all new code now. just thinking about this, this can still be easily bypassed by neutrals by having one man fw corp who gives all access to the citadel for the neutral block - no need to be in FW you can still use the spoils of war you never helped to gain yeah. but that is the case for all citadel FW bonuses and was also the reason why we never got useful bonuses in past
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
34
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 00:49:17 -
[15] - Quote
some of my ideas:
citadel atributes 2% bonus to all citadel resists(hp or anything like that) per tier -from RP view is logical, that militias things would be more dangerous, because war conflict etc
citadel repair service 20% reduction of repair cost per tier -> T5 = free repair for militia ppl which has docking rights .. citadel market module 5-10% reduction for broker fee or sales tax per tier
citadel production/research module 1% reduction in manufacturing/research required materials per tier
+ special citadel module
24th crusade(+others) LP shop/fw agent service in citadel -works only in T5 system 5% sale on LP requirements in LP shop
+ not citadel relevant
mobile things decay scan & cyno inhibitors, siphons, mobile mjd and other things get doubled lifetime in upgraded Tier5 system
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1573
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 05:52:24 -
[16] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Tough question. Fuel Bonuses for service modules seems solid. Other than that, possibly allowing them to use service modules typically restricted for SovNull (should any be anticipated) might be an interesting incentive for FW pilots.
One idea would be to introduce a Service Module that increases the chance of NPC Patrols (or their strength) visiting the system. Have the percentage increase based on the system's upgrade level. Call it a militia resupply point or whatever, have it take an office away or something. Could lead to interesting gameplay where FW militias drop defensive Citadels with these things to make casual plexing in their homes more difficult - or anchor them in enemy space to harass defensive plexers.
Ive spent years telling cerain to go to ho esystems if he really wants a fight. Now you want homesystems to be the hub of pve with increased NPC patrols making it harder to find pvp without simulated intervention. Homsystems dont need npc by virtue of people living there. Everywhere else doesnt need NPC patrols because its a bad mechanic shoehorned into fw for experimental purposes which has no beneficial impact that is worth the negative impact on pvp. |
Nameira Vanis-Tor
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Multicultural F1 Brigade
304
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 08:24:22 -
[17] - Quote
It would be interesting to see how citadels tie in with DUST regarding system bonuses.
Perhaps abilities that decrease the time required to wait for an orbital strike to be possible?
Perhaps abilities that increase or decrease the % influence Dust can have on contestation? |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
882
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 14:27:36 -
[18] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Tough question. Fuel Bonuses for service modules seems solid. Other than that, possibly allowing them to use service modules typically restricted for SovNull (should any be anticipated) might be an interesting incentive for FW pilots.
One idea would be to introduce a Service Module that increases the chance of NPC Patrols (or their strength) visiting the system. Have the percentage increase based on the system's upgrade level. Call it a militia resupply point or whatever, have it take an office away or something. Could lead to interesting gameplay where FW militias drop defensive Citadels with these things to make casual plexing in their homes more difficult - or anchor them in enemy space to harass defensive plexers. Ive spent years telling cerain to go to homesystems if he really wants a fight. Now you want homesystems to be the hub of pve with increased NPC patrols making it harder to find pvp without simulated intervention. Homsystems dont need npc by virtue of people living there. Everywhere else doesnt need NPC patrols because its a bad mechanic shoehorned into fw for experimental purposes which has no beneficial impact that is worth the negative impact on pvp. One viable change to NPC strength based on a bonus system would be their tank. Level 5 (or whatever) gives the plex rat 2x the tank. This does not impact on those seeking pvp. Many single frigs can still complete a novice. But it would encourage more micro gang content if you actually want to take a larger plex. So there's a few different things here that I think we need to unpack.
First, I think that home systems ought to be tough nuts to crack, given the impact of losing them on their occupants. Think of what would happen if (god forbid) Fortress Eha or Vlillirier should fall. That's a huge deal. You're right though, that it should be primarily due to player defense rather than NPCs, but I'll get to that in a second.
Second, a lot of the angst in FW discussions is the lack of impact of Tier on things, as well as plexing mechanics. A lot of folks don't like the requirement to actively deplex against folks that have no intention to fight. You know my stance on this, since I think that if you want to keep a system its on you to defend it, but we ought to acknowledge that there's a widespread complaint.
IMO, players should be able to invest in things that make their lives easier. Citadels are that kind of thing, in that if you invest in it (and defend it) you can have a home wherever you choose. We in GalMil do similar things by manipulating Tier levels to ensure there's enough deplexers on our side, which reduces the overall burden on our PvPers to do maintenance deplexing.
This kind of thing would have a similar impact, and yet there's potential for it to go even further - and I don't think folks have considered the impact that hostile NPC patrols will have on deplexing, in addition to their impact on offensive plexing. If we're having random hostile NPCs bouncing in on defensive plexers, essentially what you'll be seeing once NPC patrols are introduced is an environment where there's a lot more pseudo-PvP happening all over the place.
If that's going to be the case, and I think it will be, then we'll have an even harder time keeping our homes safe. Especially when assaults become easier with Citadels.
So, IMO there's opportunity to be had here in terms of introducing service modules that will help FW corporations keep their homes, without being overwhelmed by hostile NPC patrols they hadn't previously had to deal with. It would also satisfy a long-standing complaint by FW pilots that there's no incentives to upgrade their homes, and that there's no greater or lesser importance to any particular system.
If a service module like this is introduced, then there should be different ones for each size Citadel, with increasing effects. The final impact of these modules should be capped at the largest active module size and the system upgrade level (should that mechanic still be in place). So a Medium Citadel would have less of an impact than a Large Citadel, and having multiple Citadels of the same size wouldn't stack.
Oh - and there's no reason this same thing couldn't be used offensively. For example, I drop a Large Citadel in Hasmijaala with one of these modules in it. This would mean that there will be more Gallente patrols spawned in a Caldari system, making it more difficult to deplex and defend. That to me gives even more player control of the shape of the warzone - being able to truly decide how easy or difficult it is to take or hold a system.
And as always, there's ways to counter it. Dropping 700mil+ Citadels all over the place isn't going to be THAT common, and since they can be destroyed (and the service modules offlined at some point during that process) there's always a counter.
I dunno. Seems like there's some interesting space to play with here, something we've not seen before.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
560
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 15:36:08 -
[19] - Quote
I like the idea of bonuses for controlling faction, and negatives for all others (opposing faction & non-FW entities). You can even tier them based on system upgrade level. As an aside, please decouple system upgrades from Warzone Control Tier level.
With that in mind here's a few suggestions (numbers aren't thought through well at this point):
Fuel consumption : Base 2% reduction to owning faction, and 2% penalty to all others. +2% per system upgrade. Vulnerability Window: Base 4% reduction to owning faction, and 4% penalty to all other. +4% per system upgrade. Anchoring Time: Base 5% reduction to owning faction, and 5% penalty to all others. +5% per system upgrade. NPC defender cost: Base 10% reduction to owning faction, and 5% penalty to all others. +5% per system upgrade. Resistance bonus: Base 2% increase in resistance to owning faction, and 2% penalty to all others. +2% per system upgrade. Repair costs: Base 5% reduction in repair costs to owning faction, and 5% penalty to all others. +5% per system upgrade.
All I've got at the moment :)
-
Veskrashen wrote:Dropping 700mil+ Citadels all over the place isn't going to be THAT common
Sorry Vesk, gotta disagree on this one. 700 mil for staging with no fuel consumption is cheaper than a large deathstar. We'll be putting these things all over the place. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
882
|
Posted - 2015.11.04 16:58:02 -
[20] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Dropping 700mil+ Citadels all over the place isn't going to be THAT common Sorry Vesk, gotta disagree on this one. 700 mil for staging with no fuel consumption is cheaper than a large deathstar. We'll be putting these things all over the place. Maybe.
Another thought - require fuel for anchoring in areas you don't control?
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
|
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1574
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 01:09:35 -
[21] - Quote
Fuel will be quite trivial in relation to the advantages of an effective station in hostile systems. Multiple stage viln windows will just attract massive fusterclucks in our warzone as squids batphone 3 or more large entities like they do for any other timer. Fw works best when its always on. The advantages of citadels are too great to have such an extended period of off each day.
Im not saying ccp are going to break from tradition and balance new features before they break aspects of the game with them. No, they will ignore all feedback, lose subs and then fix it never to regain the people that left, as per usual. Im just saying, as interesting as these new stations are, they are fundementally incompatible with fw as it stands. Importantly, incompatible with the single mechanic that has made fw so compelling for so many for so long.
Im sure there will be a period of flux where people are min maxing the use of these structures. But as andre has pointed out elsewhere, the min max of these structures is easy to predict in fw low sec and unless you are vesk and blinded by love, its hard to value a short term flux in experimental play over a long term healthy warzone.
Vesk sees a future where npcs do all the defending. I see a future where there multiple hostile citadels in every homesystem plexing them up out of their residents prime time leading to much greater need for dplex alts. Ive already seen it with posses, though i do pity anyone living out of a pos so i can accept that. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 14:25:08 -
[22] - Quote
We should be talking about penalties for these things, and not bonuses. They'll be called siege Citadels, and that's what they'll be used for. The docking check on restrictions might soften their impact, but ultimately put into question their purpose in the WZ. If these are intended to replace PoS, which are working just fine after recent changes, then I think that is such a sad waste. These are such a great idea, but so OP if they are to phase out PoS. Why would anyone build a station with these available? My initial comment for bonuses may have seemed out from left field, but if you really thought about it, having these before the objective that is bashed for system control would make them the greatest conflict driver we can have. An icon of envy and aggression; those who would build it invite war. And we all know fozziesov was framed on the principles of FW, and it could easily become the best change down there too. Alas, their uniqueness will not find their potential as replacements to towers, and that sucks.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
561
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 15:31:57 -
[23] - Quote
I still really like the idea of replacing ihubs with FW structures (Citadels) with 24/7 vuln windows that are immune until system goes vuln. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 16:44:35 -
[24] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:I still really like the idea of replacing ihubs with FW structures (Citadels) with 24/7 vuln windows that are immune until system goes vuln.
It already takes so long to grind a system that the extra time would be pretty redundant and such a buzz kill. People should be fighting the whole time to get it out of reinforced (vulnerable) mode. Except I would make offensive attachments vulnerable, regardless of system levels, much as they are on towers, being that they are outside the PoS shield. Com'on CCP! Take a giant leap forward instead of a step back with what this looks like atm.
+1 for iHub hats
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
561
|
Posted - 2015.11.05 20:36:39 -
[25] - Quote
Oreb Wing wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:I still really like the idea of replacing ihubs with FW structures (Citadels) with 24/7 vuln windows that are immune until system goes vuln. It already takes so long to grind a system that the extra time would be pretty redundant and such a buzz kill. People should be fighting the whole time to get it out of reinforced (vulnerable) mode. Except I would make offensive attachments vulnerable, regardless of system levels, much as they are on towers, being that they are outside the PoS shield. Com'on CCP! Take a giant leap forward instead of a step back with what this looks like atm. +1 for iHub hats
should have said without a RF timer as well. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1431
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 12:52:36 -
[26] - Quote
I appreciate your bringing this up in this community.
But I don't think we need more consequences for the currently broken sov warfare game where alts in stabbed and empty frigates hold systems. CCP needs to focus on fixing rabbit plexing instead of just giving it more rewards. Please keep them focused.
And Crosi I plexed all sorts of home systems when I used to pvp. No one bothers to fight. Because they can just wait until I leave and then put an alt in an empty frigate and dplex the system. Why risk a ship?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1577
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 17:12:59 -
[27] - Quote
I think you are projecting. People hate fighting me but they still come and do it in most busy systems.
If people fight in one warzone, but not the other, thats not indicative of broken mechanics. Just the outcome of a sequence of player decisions. |
Oreb Wing
Black Fox Marauders
117
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 18:33:41 -
[28] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:I think you are projecting. People hate fighting me but they still come and do it in most busy systems.
If people fight in one warzone, but not the other, thats not indicative of broken mechanics. Just the outcome of a sequence of player decisions.
It is underwhelming when offensive plexing for a fight is so out-done by mission running. People ask you why u do it! You shrug. That, I think, is symptomatic to how the mission mechanics do affect who goes out in a pvp frigate as opposed to who will go out in a mission fit. In our warzone, going out for offensive plexing turns out being a reward in itself, even if you don't find a fight. Multiply that by every gal pilot that shares the same mentality and you have a huge perception shift that cultivates pvp.
There is no grey area when the light of reason directs wisdom
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1431
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 19:28:39 -
[29] - Quote
I didn't just mean the amarr minmatar front. I can sit in a home system for 20 minutes with no fight. And usually the fights don't even come from faction war guys. It comes from neutrals who just happen to come by.
I would love it if a csm would take note of the top weekly vp gainers killboard in faction war and ask ccp if that is how they intend FW sov to work. Because the way they dropped rollbacks and better intel tools, I am not sure if they really do intend it to be something you can do to farm lp with an alt.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1577
|
Posted - 2015.11.09 19:38:38 -
[30] - Quote
How farmers run plexes for both sides in dead end stationless systems probably isnt high on ccps cares.
You keep talking about these high vp farmers, ignorant of the fact that the system they farm hasnt changed hands in a long time. Ergo they are having zero effect on the warzone. At best you could say they are gaming one system that can be completely ignored with no detriment to the warzone.
Dont get me wrong, id like farmers to have a rough time. But you fixate on these top 3 dudes who have had no effect on occupancy dispite their vp numbers as though it is a major problem. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |