EVE Search - Trade Embargos : New Idea for Eve

All Channels

Market Discussions

Trade Embargos : New Idea for Eve

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Perdurabo	Posted - 2007.04.17 20:29:00 - [1] The story: I would like to suggest an game improvement, that came to me after many weeks of being in an war, my corporation just shouldn't fight, for we aren't a fighter corporation, nor pvp ectra, our power lies on the market. It's tobad i can't tell my broker that i do not wanto trade in anyway with an specific alliance/corporation my goods. I think it is ironic that i get killed by what i make and sell, without being able to raise an finger to stop my enemys from buying offof me. Help us fight back these griefers that live of other player corpses.. The idea: Let me/us or my/our corporation/alliance be able to issue trade embargos. Ask you're self, does an country in war with it's neighbour sell them bombs? The basic: An trade embargo is simply to hinder and delay trade. Let me hear what you think, and if i could make this any clearer. Sir Dragon.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2007.04.17 20:33:00 - [2] I like and support this idea... would add another dimension to alliance combat and open up new avenues of trade for clever traders.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.17 20:53:00 - [3] Arms trading is extremely profitable. IMO selling things for a massive markup to your enemies is the best way to beat them. For example if they are paying even 10% markup on ships you make then you can build a free ship for yourself for every 10 they pay for. Or in other words if you both invest the same amount of money you will get 11 ships and they will get 10. This seems like an extremely good way to win a war to me. If they are buying from you then they arn't building themselves, which is good. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Tradewar Chaven Trade Consortium	Posted - 2007.04.17 22:18:00 - [4] Originally by: Shadarle Arms trading is extremely profitable. IMO selling things for a massive markup to your enemies is the best way to beat them. For example if they are paying even 10% markup on ships you make then you can build a free ship for yourself for every 10 they pay for. Or in other words if you both invest the same amount of money you will get 11 ships and they will get 10. This seems like an extremely good way to win a war to me. If they are buying from you then they arn't building themselves, which is good. This only really applies in 0.0, where the enemies choice in market is as limited as yours. However if you are in a empire war with some of the biggest traders, you cut off their cheap supplies and force them to buy stuff from people who may cost them more. You cant really profit from a war you are in anyway. An empire one, at least. Always Looking To Buy Tech II In Bulk. Please Send Me a PRICELIST in a Eve-Mail.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.17 23:23:00 - [5] This used to happen back when the playerbase was tiny and the public markets weren't all they are today. While I didn't play eve at that time, I've been told that when battleships first came out, a lot of producers unilaterally refused to sell them to questionable characters and pirates. People had to smuggle them to these buyers and charged a lot for them. The reason trade embargos can't work in empire is that the public markets are flooded with every item availible and getting them to someone even under some kind of embargo game-mechanic wouldn't be hard at all using alts. Where this kind of thing DOES work is 0.0. Not trade embargos per se, but economic warfare is a major thing. During the IAC-ISS war, one member of ISS bought out their entire stock of minerals, ships and modules at every one of their outposts to deprive them of pvp-capability. It worked, but the timing was awful as it was over christmas and ISS couldn't get enough people together to force limits on trade. In short, they hauled in new supplies from empire using capital ships and ISS didn't attempt to stop them. For a large, rich alliance, economic warfare is very effective if used correctly. It's a nice idea that you can stop your enemies buying your alliance's goods on the public market but it's not feasible due to alts. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
DragonRiderTao	Posted - 2007.04.18 00:13:00 - [6] ALTS > this great suggestion. How many dragons can you slay? You cant slay mine.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.18 00:23:00 - [7] Originally by: Tradewar Originally by: Shadarle Arms trading is extremely profitable. IMO selling things for a massive markup to your enemies is the best way to beat them. For example if they are paying even 10% markup on ships you make then you can build a free ship for yourself for every 10 they pay for. Or in other words if you both invest the same amount of money you will get 11 ships and they will get 10. This seems like an extremely good way to win a war to me. If they are buying from you then they arn't building themselves, which is good. This only really applies in 0.0, where the enemies choice in market is as limited as yours. However if you are in a empire war with some of the biggest traders, you cut off their cheap supplies and force them to buy stuff from people who may cost them more. In this case I consider it even a bigger mistake to have an embargo. You're basically allowing another traders/manufacturer to make a profit instead of making that profit yourself. And because there are so many items on the market and the pricing is so competitive your enemy will get the item for probably within .1% or less of your price. So basically they have no negative impact and you would. The true economic warfare and embargo would be what Nyphur has just illustrated. To drive prices up for your enemies so they are forced to spend more. This doesn't work in empire no matter what though... it would only work in 0.0. I still think anything that makes you a profit normally is just as good if its your enemy buying from you. In facts it's even better as it's a direct transfer of his funds to you at a ratio of your own choosing. Whatever your markup is on the items is the ratio of ISK he is giving you. Imagine if every single item your enemy bought was from your corp. They'd be funding your war against them. To me the embargo would be more useful if it was the reverse. Basically a way to avoid buying from certain corps/alliances/players. Now THIS would rock. A way to blacklist certain players who scam often or who grief... or corps you're at war with in order to remove any profit you'd otherwise give them. I'd personally rather give someone I'm not at war with a 10-20% profit then someone I'm trying to kill. I think you've got the embargo thing backwards. The trader benefits from selling to the enemy, the enemy loses by buying from them. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2007.04.18 04:16:00 - [8] Originally by: DragonRiderTao ALTS > this great suggestion. Any trader worth their salt tracks their purchases and keeps tabs on the heaviest buyers. At least I know I do anyway. It would be pretty easy to find a smuggler (read alt) and embargo that character as well. Idea still has merit.
DragonRiderTao	Posted - 2007.04.18 04:52:00 - [9] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Originally by: DragonRiderTao ALTS > this great suggestion. Any trader worth their salt tracks their purchases and keeps tabs on the heaviest buyers. At least I know I do anyway. It would be pretty easy to find a smuggler (read alt) and embargo that character as well. Idea still has merit. disposable alts to buy, different alts to haul How many dragons can you slay? You cant slay mine.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.18 05:13:00 - [10] Originally by: DragonRiderTao disposable alts to buy, different alts to haul Exactly. You'll come up against this every time alts are the reason an idea won't work. No matter what reasonable solution you come up with to defeat the "alts" point, the answer is always "more alts". This stems from the fact that you and your alt are indistinguishable from two unrelated players. Even if CCP decided to link alts to their mains, they couldn't accomplish it. If they link characters on an account, people will make better use of alt accounts. If they link them by accessing from the same client and thus the same computer or by heavy IP-crossovers, suddenly my brother is flagged as being me and the system has failed. Alts will always work. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Kylar Renpurs	Posted - 2007.04.18 05:14:00 - [11] Perhaps you could restrict sales to NPC corps too. This'd also have the effect of encouraging people to join player corps in order to go about their PvE lives.
Jimmae	Posted - 2007.04.18 08:38:00 - [12] Embargos would only have an effect if there are reasonable cartells having market influence. In EVE basicly everybody is able to manufacture anything. If you don't sell Battleships, then someone else will! Beside that you'd have emarbgo breakers anyways. There is always someone willing to do a hauling job for your enemies when they can't. It's just a question of money. I haul for certain parties too because they are at war and can't do it themselves. I don't care who I work for... I don't take sides. My side is the isk side, the only exception being when people decide to shoot me afterwards. Then they can be sure I'll never again do business with them.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2007.04.18 14:06:00 - [13] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: DragonRiderTao disposable alts to buy, different alts to haul Exactly. You'll come up against this every time alts are the reason an idea won't work. No matter what reasonable solution you come up with to defeat the "alts" point, the answer is always "more alts". This stems from the fact that you and your alt are indistinguishable from two unrelated players. Even if CCP decided to link alts to their mains, they couldn't accomplish it. If they link characters on an account, people will make better use of alt accounts. If they link them by accessing from the same client and thus the same computer or by heavy IP-crossovers, suddenly my brother is flagged as being me and the system has failed. Alts will always work. Limit new characters for 30 days regarding contracts, isk giving, etc... preventing them from being disposable smugglers. Make the tape thick enough and most people won't bother taking the effort to get around the system.
Alewin Venus Research Initiative Empire Research	Posted - 2007.04.18 15:45:00 - [14] This is something that could be tied in with the standings system pretty nicely. Have market options that would apply per character and/or per corp where you could set a minimum standing to buy from you, and discounts/surcharges based on standings as well - Much like lab slot configurations. Then you could make it so that you never sell to anyone you view as -10, and charge that -9 player double the regular price, etc. Plus you could also give those +10 players you like a nice discount on the prices as well. I think this would create a lot more depth to the market, and even with needing to deal with alts, there is still a lot more control. This could also go a long ways in combating the 0.l isk wars that everyone seems to dislike so much too - its harder to undercut by .1 when you can't be sure of what true prices are as easily.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.18 16:49:00 - [15] You're all completely missing the point though. Embargoes hurt you and wouldn't hurt the person you embargo. There is no way (in empire space) to get enough people to embargo your enemies. There are just too many producers/resellers/alts/alts of alts/GTC's to make alt accounts real accounts/etc. The embargo idea is just flawed from every aspect. Think about what you're trying to accomplish with the embargo (hurting your enemy) and then think about what you're trying to accomplish by trading/manufacturing (making money). An embargo does not accomplish the first and it actually goes against the second. If you're trading or selling an item you should be making a profit on it... this means you want it to sell as it is making you money. Manufacturers make their livelihood on selling their items. If your enemies buy your items they are funding your war! They are giving you more isk for the item than it costs you to produce it... thus there is cash flow leaving your enemy and coming to you. This is a GOOD thing. The goal is to stop your cash from flowing back to your enemy. How? By not buying their products they are selling. You can't do this easily currently... you have no idea who is selling until you've bought it. That is why a reverse embargo actually works. And to top it all off the seller would have no idea you're embargoing them so they wouldn't know to make an alt to get around the solution. Plus an alt would cost them higher taxes & fees making it less profitable for them. Embargo = Bad Idea Reverse Embargo = Possible Solution Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Pang Grohl Gallente	Posted - 2007.04.18 17:20:00 - [16] The trouble with an embargo is that it's an action taken by a sovereign state against another sovereign state. An embargo also requires the ability to blockade the embargoed state. Embargoes are also enacted against a place rather than a person. For example: Restricting the export of war materials to a market your enemies have access to. There is currently a weapons embargo against Somalia to inhibit the creation of private militias. That said, most embargoes are terribly ineffective. There has to be a high degree of military superiority to enforce the embargo, and the embargo will only be effective if, there is no indigenous capacity to produce the embargoed items. Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting)
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.18 17:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Pang Grohl The trouble with an embargo is that it's an action taken by a sovereign state against another sovereign state. An embargo also requires the ability to blockade the embargoed state. Embargoes are also enacted against a place rather than a person. For example: Restricting the export of war materials to a market your enemies have access to. There is currently a weapons embargo against Somalia to inhibit the creation of private militias. That said, most embargoes are terribly ineffective. There has to be a high degree of military superiority to enforce the embargo, and the embargo will only be effective if, there is no indigenous capacity to produce the embargoed items. Well said reasons an embargo is not helpful. In EVE the best "embargo" is gate camping all the ways in/out of your enemies space to stop them from getting important shipments of goods. As Nyphur said, ISSO attempted to do this but could not mobilize its navy well enough to enforce their self imposed embargo. Thus it failed. In empire it's just impossible to embargo, there are too many people selling items. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2007.04.18 17:57:00 - [18] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Limit new characters for 30 days regarding contracts, isk giving, etc... preventing them from being disposable smugglers. The solution to this is... more alts. Even in this case, alts over 30 days old in player corps are indistinguishable from legitimate players. Eve-Tanking.com - For tanking spreadsheet and resources.
Sortiario Fair Trade Organization	Posted - 2007.04.18 18:15:00 - [19] Edited by: Sortiario on 18/04/2007 18:18:05 I think Shadarle is making a good point. In EvE, there is no supercorporation or -alliance able to control major parts of the market galaxy-wide, and especially not in empire space (as this is, NPC sovereign states). An embargo against an enemy, preventing him from buying your goods, only hurts you, thus the only logical embargo seems to be the reverse one described previously - preventing you from buying his goods. A trade embargo is also a symbolic action, usually. In 2006, lots of countries buycut danish goods because of the Muhammed drawings. Although many millions of people refused to buy danish wares, a report on the economic consequenses states that Denmark actually earned on the crisis - the brand "danish" were simply much more worth than before, because of the media exposure (a bad commercial is better than no commercial). In this case, the symbolic gesture was the driving factor behind the buycutting, rather than the economical. The only effective way to make non-reverse embargos profitable, is to remove the enemys ability to produce the specific item in which you wish to cut him short, or to convince his main suppliers (if the enemy has no production ability) to cut their supplies to the enemy. None of these ways seems practical though; 1) Usually, at the level where one could consider embargos, the corporations have the ability to produce their own items. Destroying enemy production abilities 100% would be nearly impossible. 2) If the enemy, most unlikely, would have a main supplier, he'd probably not be fond of losing a profitable business. 3) Should you convince the supplier, the enemy wouldn't spend many hours on searching for a new one, or simply browsing markets. 4) It doesn't works on high-avaiability items. There are simply too many sellers. Thus impractical. Stick with reverse embargos. ___________________ Sortiario Communication Consulting - SCConsult Communication advisory service.
Syath Caldari Inter-Stellar Knowledge Inc.	Posted - 2007.04.18 20:43:00 - [20] Quote: Well said reasons an embargo is not helpful. In EVE the best "embargo" is gate camping all the ways in/out of your enemies space to stop them from getting important shipments of goods. in which case all you have to do is carrier jump your items over the gate camp, you never even need to go through the gate! nowadays nothing of importance is ever hauled in freighters its all carriers.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.18 22:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Syath Quote: Well said reasons an embargo is not helpful. In EVE the best "embargo" is gate camping all the ways in/out of your enemies space to stop them from getting important shipments of goods. in which case all you have to do is carrier jump your items over the gate camp, you never even need to go through the gate! nowadays nothing of importance is ever hauled in freighters its all carriers. Exactly. Just another reason why the entire embargo idea doesn't really work. The physical embargo is very hard to pull off... but you may be able to intercept a few loads if you try hard enough and have a big enough armada spread across lots of gates. Or at least stop the smaller loads that regular traders are trying to bring in themselves. But in general the embargo is just not viable... which is actually a bit of a problem imo. In warfare the strategy of cutting enemy supply lines is a very good one but that is hard to do with the way Carriers work. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2007.04.19 00:12:00 - [22] Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: Syath Quote: Well said reasons an embargo is not helpful. In EVE the best "embargo" is gate camping all the ways in/out of your enemies space to stop them from getting important shipments of goods. in which case all you have to do is carrier jump your items over the gate camp, you never even need to go through the gate! nowadays nothing of importance is ever hauled in freighters its all carriers. Exactly. Just another reason why the entire embargo idea doesn't really work. The physical embargo is very hard to pull off... but you may be able to intercept a few loads if you try hard enough and have a big enough armada spread across lots of gates. Or at least stop the smaller loads that regular traders are trying to bring in themselves. But in general the embargo is just not viable... which is actually a bit of a problem imo. In warfare the strategy of cutting enemy supply lines is a very good one but that is hard to do with the way Carriers work. Reason number one why carriers need tweaking
PaPaDesAster	Posted - 2007.04.20 13:28:00 - [23] Originally by: Perdurabo I think it is ironic that i get killed by what i make and sell, without being able to raise an finger to stop my enemys from buying offof me. Case 1: the enemy buys from you, you make profit, you loose your ship. Case 2: the enemy buys from some1 else, you get nothing, you loose your ship. Now choose plz.
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.20 16:38:00 - [24] Originally by: PaPaDesAster Originally by: Perdurabo I think it is ironic that i get killed by what i make and sell, without being able to raise an finger to stop my enemys from buying offof me. Case 1: the enemy buys from you, you make profit, you loose your ship. Case 2: the enemy buys from some1 else, you get nothing, you loose your ship. Now choose plz. I wish I was able to make my point as quickly as Papa just did Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Sortiario Fair Trade Organization	Posted - 2007.04.20 16:49:00 - [25] Edited by: Sortiario on 20/04/2007 16:45:42 Originally by: Shadarle Originally by: PaPaDesAster Originally by: Perdurabo I think it is ironic that i get killed by what i make and sell, without being able to raise an finger to stop my enemys from buying offof me. Case 1: the enemy buys from you, you make profit, you loose your ship. Case 2: the enemy buys from some1 else, you get nothing, you loose your ship. Now choose plz. I wish I was able to make my point as quickly as Papa just did Yup, quite good. Same thread appeared in FI-forum. I have given myself the permission to link some quotes from this thread in there. Check it out if you want, some other ideas in that thread. ___________________ Sortiario Communication Consulting - SCConsult Communication advisory service.
Perdurabo	Posted - 2007.04.23 17:48:00 - [26] I¦ll quote an buddy of mine from another discution elsewere about the same thing _____________________________ http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=507842 ----------------------------- Posted - 2007.04.20 15:34:00 - [4] - Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All great ideas there but they all lead to lag, My idea of trade embargos is an simpler one, it would be an simple process of checking if that pilot is in an banned corp/alliance. And if so an simple market restriction warning would appear. No fuss, no new marketing subsystems waiting for bug hunts. simple As for them making an alternative charecter to aquire the goods, we shouldn¦t forget an alt is another charecter, and free todo what ever it wants. It¦s allso more of an bother for my enemys to use alts to aquire thier restriceted goods. You have to be in an marketing corporation to understand what i am on about, naturally you don¦t wanto sell you¦re enemys compnents for dreads bs¦s ect ect capital ships, AMMO, missils ectra, if all they will do is turn there guns on you. HENCH allow us todo trade embargos, it is an logical option to have. ----------------------------------------------------- We keep salting new ideas with quotes like.. "OMFG! the alts are here!!! therre taking over the universe!! run run RUN!!!!! omfg!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Trade Embargo = I don¦t wanto trade with my enemy.
Sortiario Fair Trade Organization	Posted - 2007.04.23 18:36:00 - [27] Originally by: Perdurabo As for them making an alternative charecter to aquire the goods, we shouldn¦t forget an alt is another charecter, and free todo what ever it wants. It¦s allso more of an bother for my enemys to use alts to aquire thier restriceted goods. You have to be in an marketing corporation to understand what i am on about, naturally you don¦t wanto sell you¦re enemys compnents for dreads bs¦s ect ect capital ships, AMMO, missils ectra, if all they will do is turn there guns on you. I don't see spending about 30 seconds changing character to bee that much a bother. Espcially not if I'm a part of a 2k people alliance, all having 2 alts + other accounts, free to spread them over the numerous regions. If you sell items to your enemy, which they then will use on you, then you'll (of course) face the potential of fighting an enemy that you equipped. But, on the other hand as we have already discussed, the alternative is that someone else is going to fit him and earn the profit. Hence, it is unwise not to earn on your enemies. Look at it this way; each enemy has a module/ammo/ship usage equal to 100%. For simplicitys sake, they only have 5 suppliers, each providing 20% of the enemy armament. Without the embargo, one of these suppliers is you. In other words, you have a market control equal to 20% of all the profit people are making, selling to your enemy. If you then embargos them, you'll drop out as supplier, and there'll only be 4 suppliers. They'll then share the 100% equally, each one providing 25% of the armament. The enemy will still be equipped, but you have lost a lucrative market. As a matter of fact, you might even use wars to speed up your trades. If your enemy is in war with you, they demand more armaments. Hence, you can sell them more, and thus earn higher profit. Simple? ___________________ Sortiario Communication Consulting - SCConsult Communication advisory service
Shadarle	Posted - 2007.04.23 21:16:00 - [28] Originally by: Sortiario As a matter of fact, you might even use wars to speed up your trades. If your enemy is in war with you, they demand more armaments. Hence, you can sell them more, and thus earn higher profit. This is a very good way to make a lot of money. Selling to your enemies in EVE is perhaps the best way to WIN the war. It's a direct ISK transfer from them to you at a ratio of your choosing. They are basically handing you 1.1 or 1.2 isk for every 1 isk you spend supplying them on low end goods. On high-end/t2 goods you can be making a 5 or 10:1 ratio. How is this possibly a bad thing? In real life we don't sell complex technological devices to enemies. We don't sell them nuclear weapons. Why? Because we can, in theory, enforce a blockade against these countries. We know they have no other access to these items, thus if we embargo them they will never get them. That is why it works. In EVE if you embargo your enemy they can buy the same item from any number of other people. Thus the embargo has no positive effect whatsoever. If someone doesn't get this simple concept then I don't know what else to say but they deserve to suffer from their own stupidity and perhaps this should be implemented just so they can screw themselves over. Tanking Setups Compared Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2007.04.24 13:31:00 - [29] Been thinking about this and I still think the idea has a little merit. How about this.. The price the consumer pays is based on his standings with the seller of the product. That way if the seller wants he can put certain corporations or what not into higher standings and give them discounts and breaks, or if in a lower standing penalize them, etc.... Ie I see everything on the market priced as is, but on purchase confirmation I am informed of either a discount or surcharge based on my standings with the seller. Perhaps only apply this to sell and but orders placed through the corporate wallet. This way with some careful planning you can still control a market and penalize your enemies even more.
Alewin Venus Research Initiative Empire Research	Posted - 2007.04.24 14:11:00 - [30] I do like the idea of having a discount/surcharge based on intercorp standings, but I think it needs to be reflected in the prices you visibly see on the market. In the end, this has two effects: 1: Its probably going to cost that enemy more money for his supplies - especially as standings become more widely used for these effects. 2: It makes it extremely difficult to play the 0.1 isk game - you can only undercut the prices that you see, which may or may not be the true prices or the prices everyone else sees. This does have the additional effect of making standings more valuable as well. Ultimately, it would be nice to have something where the standings work as a chain too, although the effective standings calculations would need to be offloaded to something outside the game cluster environment and cached. Basically, if corp A sets corp B to +10, and corp B sets corp C to +5, then Corp A would see Corp C as +5 as well. If corp A had corp B set to +5, then Corp A would see corp C at +2.5. - Basically a weighted chain of standings. It would need to be limited in length of course - either 1 or 2 deep at most. If a corp shows up multiple times in the tree, then the effective standing would be a weighted average of all the views of it. Of course the chances of something like this actually happening are pretty slim - it would take a couple pretty hefty machines with a view of the standings to calculate a standings web like that, but combined with price modification based on standings, it would bring new life to intercorp standings. Highsec POS labs with no risk of scamming

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.