EVE Search - They won't stop at nerfing the Drake...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

They won't stop at nerfing the Drake...

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1608	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:35:00 - [61] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Under this goon/testie supported CSM, the Eve Online sandbox is slowly turning into a 0.0 napfest swarm alliance favored, no-PvE sandfort box game focused on 1 thing only. Sub cap PvP in blobs with Caldari being the new minmatar, while caps and supers are reduced to useless doorstops. This drake nerf is only the tip of the ice berg. Watch this space. yep nah you're right you're definitely not a ******** aspie at all
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 146	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:36:00 - [62] - Quote Ursula LeGuinn wrote: Cannibal Kane wrote: Your a moron... I love it when people do this. He just ran statistics on that poster last 100 threads.
Jerick Ludhowe The Green Cross Controlled Chaos 41	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:36:00 - [63] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Lili Lu wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? I do hope it will not One nerf that was mentioned about a year ago is an overall reduction in HM range. This could be why the new Drake was hinted at having a velocity bonus. As a missile user I think range reduction is a huge buff since it alone will make the game much more interesting, plus players would have to actually make some trade-offs in their setups. Missile velocity rigs will become useful! That's awesome. Pre-fitted ships are boring. At the moment there's just too much long-range weapons around. I hope TE fix fill follow as well. Fon can you do me a huge favor and please stop being reasonable? On a more serious note... Balance in this game is pretty god awful and it always has been... With any luck ccp is using a bit more of their work force to do some general research on what works and what does not in the game. The drake "change" is a good start however I do not see this as a direct nerf sadly. The dps/ehp ratio may have shrunk when using kinetic missiles but when using any other type of missile it has actually improved, so has the ability for it to apply dmg through faster flight time (buff to fleet work). With any luck ccp will continue to address the trivializing nature of some of the op pve/pvp ships and I would keep my eye on the tengu as it will probably be the next target on the balancing teams list.... The other major issue I see as far as balance is concerned is Command Ships, both fleet and field. Now I've been rather vocal about this specific issue in multiple other threads so I'll save you all the "deets"... Essentially Fleet Commands need the 5% bonus instead of t3 and Field Commands need a rather serious looking at, specifically at their performance through fitting and slots compared to tier 2 BCs. Prime example is NH vs Drake.... Drake has 1 more slot and 1 more rig for 1/8 the cost.... Pretty obvious someone ****** up when balancing these ships...
ShardowRhino Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 1	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:36:00 - [64] - Quote When the hell did the drake become a FOTM and solo pwnmobile that needed to be changed? Was it when all the gate camping battles got moved into an arena where both sides start out at 200+km from each other and the speeds on mwd were nerfed? The only reason to use a drake was due to its durability, the dps never hit anything considered respectable when compared to those races of ships that were really designed for pvp. For those that want to talk about doing L4s in a drake, against or for it, thats what ravens are for. The frak does anyone want to do L4s in a drake for other then to say that it is theoretically possible, yet so freaking inefficient that it would be easier to make isk doing L3s instead. Someone posted an almost 20k effective hps difference for a slight bump in dps and that is somehow considered good? At least good enough to flame those that think the hit to the hp is not justified by the slight bump in damage. I'm gone for 8 months and I see a thread about nerfing the useless pvp drake so that it cannot do even its half baked job right anymore. Makes me wonder about this game....then again..it is eve.
Vaerah Vahrokha Vahrokh Consulting 146	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:46:00 - [65] - Quote Hanoch Wheel wrote: What you call "stat inflation", I would call progress. In a far future simulation with a wartime economy our ships should be getting better over time. This is a mistake I read on the forums of other MMOs too, almost every day. MMOs are NOT based on progress and CANNOT simulate progress either. In RL the faction / groups that begins to win more than others, creates a gap that makes them win more and more often till they technically "win" and the war is over. You cannot do that in a MMO, it has to last years with no apparent winner otherwise everyone jump on the winning ship and the game (if PvP based) tanks. Just look at those atrocious 2 faction based MMOs (Warhammer / SW:Tor come to mind), where factions get totally imbalanced because everyone rerolls to the "FOTM", in some cases whole servers die because after everyone jumped faction, there's no one left to kill therefore the winners get bored (they won!) and quits. In EvE it's not so nasty but see how FW "cycles", see how people want to re-train Amarr (and lately Minmatar). It imbalances the game. Also, other games like WoW come with the so called "gear reset". That is once a year or two, expansions are created and everyone's progress get reset to zero with the excuse of new levels being added. EvE does not have that, EvE global progress is static and cannot be reset. Else whole classes of ships immediately become useless (see the cruisers).
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 157	Posted - 2012.01.21 17:19:00 - [66] - Quote Xolve wrote: Lyrrashae wrote: Going by the classic definition of that gratingly stupid word, you're as much a pubbie as those you're trying to insult, pubbie. So why don't you just like, close that second ***** in your face? Pubbie. Going by the classic definition, yes I am a member on the SomethingAwful Forums, therefore your argument is invalid. Have a nice day! Pubbie. Ah, so in other words, you're just another generic Internet a-hole who thinks it matters. Right then, gotcha. Prat. NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." ** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Jovan Geldon SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353 287	Posted - 2012.01.21 17:20:00 - [67] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: They won't stop at nerfing the Drake... GOOD
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 157	Posted - 2012.01.21 17:29:00 - [68] - Quote Jovan Geldon wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: They won't stop at nerfing the Drake... GOOD Because nerfing everything into bland, generic uselessness is so much easier than fixing what's broken amirite? Hey, I know! Let's fix the Nighthawk! And we can do that by...nerfing a completely different ship. Now this...this is the sheer brilliance I've come to expect from CCP. They'd hit a bump in the road with Crucible--gotta throw those pissed off paying subscribers a token bone eventually--but now, back to business as usual, it would seem. NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." **** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 718	Posted - 2012.01.21 18:31:00 - [69] - Quote Lyrrashae Because nerfing everything into bland, generic uselessness is so much easier than fixing what's broken amirite? Hey, I know! Let's fix the Nighthawk! And we can do that by...[i wrote: nerfing a completely different ship. [/i] Now this...this is the sheer MENSA-calibre brilliance I've come to expect from CCP. They'd hit a bump in the road with Crucible--gotta throw those pissed off paying subscribers a token bone eventually--but now, back to business as usual, it would seem. Next-up, the return of the....errrm...new and improved (and NEx-only, 'natch)...Gold Scorpion? E: Now with extra sarcasm and cynicism. The rage is strong within this one. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Sarpadeon Rebirth Industries 0	Posted - 2012.01.21 18:41:00 - [70] - Quote Please nerf it as proposed to ROF/missile speed HAM Drake GO! fyi [Drake, HAM post change] Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile Heavy Assault Missile Launcher II, Caldari Navy Hellfire Assault Missile [Empty High slot] Y-T8 Overcharged Hydrocarbon Microwarpdrive Invulnerability Field II Photon Scattering Field II Large Shield Extender II X5 Prototype Engine Enervator Warp Scrambler II Damage Control II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Ballistic Control System II Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I Medium Core Defence Field Extender I 5x Warrior II "Squire" PG3 63k omni EHP, 54k vs weakest resist(thermal) 633/730 dps normal/OH Faction, 27km range 697/808 dps normal/OH Rage, 25km range 1038ms/1470ms MWD 71% cap stable with MWD off, 4m40s with MWD on

Hungry Eyes Ministry of War Amarr Empire 349	Posted - 2012.01.21 18:51:00 - [71] - Quote Cannibal Kane wrote: You're a moron... That is all that needs to be said. this, and Tengu is the most OP ship in the game. facerolling 700dps from 60km+ with ridiculous EHP, and sig/speed tank via the 100mn AB. Cynabal is close behind. so if the Drake is getting nerfed, they better bring the Tengu down as well.
Shad0wsFury Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 49	Posted - 2012.01.21 18:56:00 - [72] - Quote Losing the kinetic bonus and getting a ROF bonus is maybe worth losing the resist bonus, especially for PvP. It's going to make drake fleets harder to counter because you truly have to omni-tank instead of cheating and fitting kinetic hardeners. Shield resists are also something you can increase with fittings, where there is no mod allowing you to do more damage with un-bonused missile types. And to think the tengu, or any other ship mentioned in this thread is going to get nerfed too is just ridiculous. Tengus cost close to 500m or more when fully fitted out, compared to a 50m drake. They should and do have far more ability than a drake does. Same goes for the Nighthawk and Vulture.
Mussaschi No Wise Guy's Stellar Economy Experts 3	Posted - 2012.01.21 19:31:00 - [73] - Quote We had a 1st class pve (specially for low and wh) ship and a 3rd class pvp ship. Now we get a 2nd class pve ship and a 2nd class pvp ship. Well done CCP
Jerick Ludhowe The Green Cross Controlled Chaos 42	Posted - 2012.01.21 20:11:00 - [74] - Quote Hungry Eyes wrote: Cannibal Kane wrote: You're a moron... That is all that needs to be said. this, and Tengu is the most OP ship in the game. facerolling 700dps from 60km+ with ridiculous EHP, and sig/speed tank via the 100mn AB. Cynabal is close behind. so if the Drake is getting nerfed, they better bring the Tengu down as well. Problem has more to do with fitting over sized prop mods and less the tengu being broke, although it still is. Removing over sized prop mods would solve allot of issues imho.
Hicksimus Xion Limited 89	Posted - 2012.01.21 20:45:00 - [75] - Quote This one time I was shooting a drake with my armor fit astarte when I realized it had 40k more ehp, a passive tank I could not break, a higher top speed,15x my range with no tracking worries and that without my ecm drones I would certainly have lost my ship. I'll admit I had roughly double the DPS but a 30m hull should not be better in almost every way than a 190m hull. I could have been in a sleipner and the situation would have still ended with me running away from the damn thing because of its tank. Stop moaning about your cheap battlecruiser receiving a small setback. It is supremely overpowered, it even has light drones to eat frigates. After the buff(imo) it will simply tank a bit less to stop you from drooling on yourself while spamming F1. Things I have realized from the EvE forums: Many people beleive cost means money and only money
Rastigan Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2012.01.21 22:29:00 - [76] - Quote ShardowRhino wrote: When the hell did the drake become a FOTM and solo pwnmobile that needed to be changed? Was it when all the gate camping battles got moved into an arena where both sides start out at 200+km from each other and the speeds on mwd were nerfed? Ironically enough the Hurricane is the BC that tops the PvP charts. This will also encourage crazy fits like armor tanked x5 tracking disruptor / remote sensor dampener support Drakes... For PVE not sure if its too bad either since Drakes will be able to kite at 120km Of course now the Drake will be even closer DPS-wise to the Nighthawk which is a little sad.. To the guy above me, its very easy to beat any Drake 1 on 1 now, just be able to Tank 400 kinetic dps and you are golden.. Any dual MAR Blaster Astarte would have done it...
Shenra Twrin Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2012.01.21 23:20:00 - [77] - Quote Mussaschi wrote: We had a 1st class pve (specially for low and wh) ship and a 3rd class pvp ship. Now we get a 2nd class pve ship and a 2nd class pvp ship. Well done CCP hahahahah oh god my side hahahahahahahahah whats a nice one 1st class pve ship and drake in one sentence hahahahahah also wtf drake good for WH farming :D ? loool only a carebear can say that do you know what ewar is ?
Lili Lu 142	Posted - 2012.01.21 23:36:00 - [78] - Quote Rastigan wrote: Ironically enough the Hurricane is the BC that tops the PvP charts. No, it's still the Drake http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20 Rastigan wrote: This will also encourage crazy fits like armor tanked x5 tracking disruptor / remote sensor dampener support Drakes... Are you so certain? Rastigan wrote: For PVE not sure if its too bad either since Drakes will be able to kite at 120km Heavy missiles may be getting a range nerf at the same time, soz we'll have to wait and see. Rastigan wrote: Of course now the Drake will be even closer DPS-wise to the Nighthawk which is a little sad.. Again, remains to be seen. Commands in general appear to be going to receive some buffs Rastigan wrote: To the guy above me, its very easy to beat any Drake 1 on 1 now, just be able to Tank 400 kinetic dps and you are golden.. Any dual MAR Blaster Astarte would have done it... OK, set up another BC to tank a Drake but then no where near enough dps to overcome the Drakes regen. Set a ship up to deal enouigh damage to break the Drake regen, and you won't have enough tank to not be the first to pop. Regardless, we are talking a tech II combat BC v a tech I BC. Maybe after the upcoming balance changes the sp and isk investment will matter. I would like to see overall BC shield regen nerfed some. It's been out of balance for a long time. Part of the problem with Drakes. Looking forward to see what hits the test server. However, we probably won't get the kind of harsh nerfs that Gallente ships got with the Myrm and damp nerfs. It seems every time CCP goes to nerf a Caldari ship they simultaneously buff it in another way. Happened with ECM boats multiple times now. Never saw a rebuff for Minmatar recons with the web nerf, nor with Gallente for the damp nerf. One of the benfits of being the majority population in EVE I guess. So, don't worry though Drake addicts.
Rastigan Ars ex Discordia Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2012.01.22 02:03:00 - [79] - Quote Those kills also count pos modules (I really dont see Maelstroms terrorizing in a solo/small gang role) and yes (the Drake), is the go to fleet ship because of cost / sp reasons. They already nerfed BC shield regen, they shouldnt do a blanket overnerf just because players dont know how to fit their ships. And like any ship, you have to choose between speed/tackle/dps/and tank, its not like you can have 500 dps / a 700 dps tank while having double webs and a scram.
Lili Lu 143	Posted - 2012.01.22 02:34:00 - [80] - Quote Rastigan wrote: They already nerfed BC shield regen, they shouldnt do a blanket overnerf just because players dont know how to fit their ships. The Cruiser with the most shield hp is the Moa iirc, with 1875 hp. BS shield hp ranges from a geddon's 5489 to a Rokh's 8500. The Drake has the most shield hp of BCs, at gues what, 5489. So there is the Drake sitting with a BS's shield hp (so what that the geddon armor tanks and has more armor hp). The "nerf" to regen was only from a cruiser's 1250 s to 1400 s. Meanwhile, a BS has a 2500 s regen time. The BC shield regen time is still essentially that of a Cruiser. So combine a BS sized shield with a Cruiser shield regen and you get the stupid op BC pve passive shield regen. Yeah yeah who cares about pve blah blah blah. But it does matter because Drakes have been the quickest route to level 4s since they have a BS tank and a range abiltiy to put out just enough damage to get them done (yes there are more efficient ships, but none so cheap and easy to skill into). If you train any other race's ships as a new character you have to train BS and large weapons. Regardless, having a BS sized shield and the resist bonus, and the ability to project that unremarkabale but sufficent damage to 70-80km is what has made the Drake essentially a BS for pvp. You don't see Harby fleets, limited range, cap worries, and armor tanking conflicting with damage mods and plates making them bricks. You don't see Myrmidon fleets, Drones don't lend themselves to sustained damage projection in fleet warfare where that dps is one bomb away from 0, not to mention the nerf the Myrm got very quickly from 125m3 all the way to 75m3 bandwidth. You do see some hurricance fleets, but the role is different, and oh yeah look at the link I posted above, not anymore near the utilation of drakes. Simply can't get the BS tank on the hurricane. Regen (pve) and buffer (pvp) due to the numbers CCP assigned to each added to the resist bonus simply has been too good on the Drake for way too long. They gave it a BS tank. With the Hybrid buff and the new tier 3 BCs Caldari fleet ships now include the Rokh and Naga. Time for a Drake nerf finally. Been a long time coming, too long. Even so, it doesn't look like it will nerfed into the bottom rung as so many other ships have been. Nobody should be crying. The ship has lead quite a charmed life so far.

Apollo Gabriel Mercatoris Etherium Cartel 427	Posted - 2012.01.22 04:41:00 - [81] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Max Von Sydow wrote: NERF? I'd almost call that a buff. Without the tank the drake is useless. A bit of extra range wont help when your expensive BC hull is instapopped by a small alpha fleet. Mise well fly a BS cruiser to get through the CTA and then go puke in some belt in frustration while an alliance leader counts this months moon goo production. I disagree totally, I run ewar on my drake, since no one bothers shooting you till your buddies are dead. The NERF is a boost for sure. Always ... Never ... Forget to check your references.-áPeace out Zulu! Hope you land well!
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 162	Posted - 2012.01.23 22:05:00 - [82] - Quote Xolve wrote: The rage is strong within this one. The overused infantile meme-idiocy is even stronger with ^^that^^ one. NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." **** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 5557	Posted - 2012.01.24 00:08:00 - [83] - Quote Lyrrashae wrote: Xolve wrote: The rage is strong within this one. The overused infantile meme-idiocy is even stronger with ^^that^^ one. Got a rise out of you though, so it worked quite nicely. CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Gazmin VanBurin The Tower Of Nevaurus The 99 Percent 55	Posted - 2012.01.24 00:19:00 - [84] - Quote I rather happy with this perspective change for the drake, i have never been a fan of the kinetic damamge focus when missles actualy get to normaly chose their damage type. Oh and you can still pull of a far better tank than a cain, and with 30k hams hit them while their using baradge. U mad at theory crafting thats not even on sisi or official bro?
Kietay Ayari Rogue Elements. 320	Posted - 2012.01.24 00:32:00 - [85] - Quote Hungry Eyes wrote: Cannibal Kane wrote: You're a moron... That is all that needs to be said. this, and Tengu is the most OP ship in the game. facerolling 700dps from 60km+ with ridiculous EHP, and sig/speed tank via the 100mn AB. Cynabal is close behind. so if the Drake is getting nerfed, they better bring the Tengu down as well. I don't care what they do to the Drake but don't touch the Tengu! The only thing I would accept is a reduction in HML range :[ It is too pretty to be nerfed. Stop being rude please! Also! Maybe the drake won't have its 90k EHP anymore, but no one should be wasting time doing L4 missions in them, and the ability to switch damages types just makes it better for L3 missions. So highsec missioners should be happy. As for people who solo in a drake because it has high EHP :\| sorry? I dont think the difference between 70kEHP or 90k is going to make a difference if you will live or not against a blob. Plus when you do find a target to fight 1v1 you will be able to use HAMs for quicker asplosions! Ferox #1
Herzog Wolfhammer Sigma Special Tactics Group 1158	Posted - 2012.01.24 00:42:00 - [86] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Max Von Sydow wrote: NERF? I'd almost call that a buff. Without the tank the drake is useless. A bit of extra range wont help when your expensive BC hull is instapopped by a small alpha fleet. Mise well fly a BS cruiser to get through the CTA and then go puke in some belt in frustration while an alliance leader counts this months moon goo production. Big deal. I speed tank my Drake and kite like a fiend anyway and I even fit drone modules because I can. So there. By the way, you ready to join the dark side and join those anti-mom fleets? Still got your cookies I offered you last week but I have to keep them warm in my ass crack.
Novinya Perkone Caldari State 7	Posted - 2012.01.24 01:00:00 - [87] - Quote Is there a link to what the OP is talking about? Is this fact or just speculation? Exchanging a kinetic bonus for an ROF bonus would be a minor buff. Exchanging shield resistance for missile velocity bonus would be a tremendous nerf. Missile velocity bonuses are across the board useless, because missile sniping just doesn't work. Make it an explosion velocity bonus or explosion radius bonus or something instead.
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 163	Posted - 2012.01.24 10:44:00 - [88] - Quote Mag's wrote: Lyrrashae wrote: Xolve wrote: The rage is strong within this one. The overused infantile meme-idiocy is even stronger with ^^that^^ one. Got a rise out of you though, so it worked quite nicely. So why is a lack of tolerance for infantile kid-ults with delusions of adequacy so wrong? Maybe there's a fundamental disconnect here between the 1337 PvP!!!!111!!!oneoeneone!! crowd, and those of us who remember the days before Internet? Hell, that seems as good a reason as any, I mean, who really even knows any more... [/cynicism] NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." **** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Slokman 1	Posted - 2012.01.24 10:46:00 - [89] - Quote Cannibal Kane wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? Under this new return to the Incarna mindset in my opinion. It is not about fixing lower tier or higher class craft so they actually get used in fleet battles. It is about nuking anything that is actually useable for a solo pilot or small group. The Tengu will coming if you sit back and let this Drake nerf go on without protest. This is a "misery loves company" approach and should be protested against. Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. You're a moron... That is all that needs to be said. ^^this
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 726	Posted - 2012.01.24 13:51:00 - [90] - Quote Lyrrashae wrote: Maybe there's a fundamental disconnect here between the 1337 PvP!!!!111!!!oneoeneone!! crowd, and those of us who remember the days before Internet? Cool Ad Hominem Bro. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: 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.