Ninjamestari

If they just brought in mana, they could utilize concepts like upkeep-spells ^^

If you don't want to '****ing' hear it, don't keep responding to it. I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about their affect on game-design. There is an underlying phenomenon here. If you can't have a discussion about it without getting triggered like that, then don't. If no one is truly interested in the subject, it will die out and be forgotten as people move on to discuss other things. You're the one keeping this issue on the surface. I you question my statements it is in my right to post an answer, and I'm absolutely not going to avoid a subject just because it might cause *you* to throw a temper tantrum. *You* are responsible for your own feelings, and while it is only reasonable to expect that people won't go out of their way just to mess with you, you do *not* have the authority to limit what others can and cannot speak about.

Only when applicable. Politics are deeply connected to these issues, and sadly the influence runs both ways. I'd love for games to exist in a political vacuum, but they do not. It's not a popular connection to make because politics are controversial, but then again, everything worth talking about usually is to some degree. Humans are political creatures, it runs deep within our instinctual understanding of group-dynamics, and our political beliefs are interconnected with ALL our beliefs, including our relationship with fantasy and games. Denying that connection is simply foolish. There is absolutely no *need* for equality, that is a completely subjective belief, much akin to a religion. The problem with equality is that the whole idea is fundamentally in conflict with reality; people are not equal, men and women are not equal, the rich and the poor are not equal, the smart and the dumb are not equal, the healthy and the sick are not equal, and most importantly, the strong and the weak are not equal. This causes discomfort in people who have built their world-view around the belief of equality, in the very same way that scientific world view causes discomfort in the highly conservative religious folks. When the abstract model representing the world in our heads is in conflict with reality, we always experience discomfort. Some people lash out, some people seek to adapt their views to better reflect what they see in the reality, while some people cling to certain points and try to build their new model around the same beliefs they cling to, and to rationalize their old beliefs in the new environment. In this context strong female warriors are liable to break the immersion of people, especially adults, who can no longer ignore the ludicrous idea of small women facing giant men in combat and winning, and whose own personal experiences with women have shown how utterly implausible the whole personality of the female warrior is. So, in order to get around that, you generate a fantasy world where your physical traits no longer define your ability, but physical strength turns from a concrete thing into some abstract attribute of one's soul. I'm just waiting what happens when people realize that female warriors leads to the death of the society as women are needed for reproductive purposes and dying in battle kinda goes against that fundamental purpose. What kind of concepts do they add to their fantasies then in an attempt to preserve their belief in equality.

Just to clarify "I think that the stat system detracts from the game" <- Important part "I think that a political agenda may have influenced the stat system" <- Not important ^^

Deflection and Accuracy don't act as simple modifiers, it doesn't matter if you have "double" the deflection compared to something, what matters is the actual difference between values. The effect of a 5 point difference in accuracy is exactly the same at 15 vs 20 as it is at 115 vs 120. How they work is just math, and I'd advice against forming opinions until you understand the specifics of the system. EDIT: so in other words, no this doesn't need to chance. The system is fine as is. What needs to change is the paladins having so much lower values than fighters ^^

That's actually another point of Obsidian not really having a clear picture of what they were doing. On paper they were not going for high fantasy, but then they add the incredibly strong soul-theme. I don't know if this is the case, but I got this really strong gut-feeling that the whole stat-system that is based on the properties of your soul was some weird way to justify gender equality in the melee department. This is why I brought up the social justice angle, many of the game's problems just have give off the feeling that the dev-team had been infiltrated by some feminist who thinks the game is secondary to her political agenda; kinda like what happened with the BG:EE team that "felt uncomfortable with the gender roles in Baldur's Gate". Damn I wish they would've just scrapped the soul angle altogether and created a more grittier approach to magic; would've fit the setting so much better. Even without political agendas, you really need to make a choice as a developer, whether or not you're going for the traditional high fantasy, and if the answer is no, then the traditional wizard/priest/druid - set of spellcasters is an incredibly bad idea. One of the reasons I had so much trouble immersing to this game was that the game seriously doesn't appear to know whether it is a traditional high fantasy or not, it's having some serious identity issues, which, I can't help but come to this again so sorry about that, is a clear indication of a bit too liberal approach to the design. The way they handled crowd-funding might be at the core of the issue, promising all sorts of things to attract donors. This is why I think they should've just gone with tradition as that was what they marketed and what people mostly expected, and left this experimental approach to a further project where they could focus on it properly without scramming in forced tradition that just gets in the way of the setting.

*Nothing* has *any* meaning without the context. Ideas are nothing without context, with context they become good and bad ideas. Good ideas being the ones that can be used to achieve a relevant goal in the said context and bad ones being the ones which cannot. Damn you're obsessed with picking apart words; your way of thinking is applicable, but what you don't realize is that from a different reference frame the very same concept can be expressed with very different choices in wording. Seriously, put some effort into actually thinking about what other people say, you might even occasionally realize that their way of thinking doesn't differ that much from yours despite their different usage of words. Ideas have no substance to them, you can form ideas at will when you have certain insights into the system in which you're working. There's no real difference in "throwing out" and "putting aside" when it comes to ideas. Sure some people are idiots and can't understand the fact that just because some implementation of an idea didn't work in some very specific circumstances, but I don't think one should go around assuming such idiocy until it is demonstrated. We don't truly disagree on the subject, you just have this weird obsession of turning the words a different way. Sure you can do that if it helps you keep your thoughts focused, but it isn't necessary in general.

A game designer that doesn't care about how people play his game, single player or otherwise, isn't a very good game designer.

Remind me to never play any game with you ever. I liked the "equality is disgusting" part, too. Okay I'm exaggerating, that's not exactly what he said... Spoken like someone who relies on enforced equality for validation. Don't you think one would get better results in an environment where ideas actually have to earn their validation? How do you even recognize bad ideas if you pretend that every idea is equal? You start out with every idea being equal, then weed out the ideas that don't fit your theme, don't fit your goals, don't achieve what you want in a reasonable time, etc. etc. Every idea being equal in theory doesn't equate to every idea being equally applicable to every situation at every moment. While I'm on a tangent here, if you don't listen to what your players want *nobody will want to play your game*. That's not really the "every idea is equal" -attitude problem I was referring to. What you describe is actually a part of a rather well defined and broadly used methodology called 'brainstorming'. I'm sure you've heard of it, and it is one of the few fancily named methodologies that actually does work when used properly. It is a widely accepted fact among the more successful business innovators that people don't really know what they want until they've tried it. This is why having a vision is so important, people generally don't have a very coherent idea about why they like the things they like, or even what they do like. Sure you must keep your ears open so that when the people ask you to kindly stop stabbing their eyes with a screwdriver, you can wake up to the fact that there just might be something wrong with your selected approach. There is an important distinction between the equality of sources and the equality of ideas. Equality of sources is important; a good idea is a good idea, no matter how reprehensible and murderous genocidal **** is behind it, and a bad idea is a bad idea, even if it comes directly from the lord almighty in the heavens. EDIT: sry for the double post :/

Jesus I need to stop discussing about so many separate subjects at once, but since I'm an idiot I'll try to compile every single point here anyway. Let's start with the politics and advanced communication as a side note; in order to understand the use of the word, you need to understand that the word itself isn't important, the concept it represents is important. Exchanging complicated ideas is impossible if one insists on using strict text-book definitions for the words, this is what causes problems when trying to communicate with the legal jargon for example. Strictly defined language is great when you're trying to argue and win the argument, not so great when you're trying to exchange ideas and actually communicate. A word such as politics can be used to communicate an abstract concept, which in turn can be used in a variety of different concepts. The word itself is just a 'key - name' that can be used as a reference for a more complicated concept, so that you can say for example 'politics' and anyone familiar with the concept to deduce the implications rather than you having to spell every detail out individually. If any of you have done any programming, you know that when a part of the program communicates with another it is more useful to simply send in a reference value that points into the areas of the memory where the necessary information is contained rather than sending the whole package of information from one method to another. The human exchange of ideas also benefits greatly from a similar approach to language, so that we can start communicating in concepts instead of mere words with strict definitions. Despite being a wikipedia article, this describes politics as a concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics The Social Justice comment I made was also more a reference to the overall manner of thinking that leads to these "everything must be equal" design policies, which I find to be quite detracting for the whole industry. This is another way political mindsets seep into the game development process; we think that our political beliefs and our design philosophies are completely separate, but our subconscious mind doesn't really draw a distinction, it just uses the learned and accepted pattern and uses it where-ever it is seemingly applicable. Guarding against this effect is possible, but it is also difficult and requires a rigorous mind for one to be able to guard against it reliably. And after witnessing my side note transform into a full blown rant, I'll just have to hope you'll forgive me that and move into the more interesting stuff. Damn I'll be ashamed if the actual game design stuff doesn't even grow as long as the side-rant ^^ As far as design goes, I don't think it is useful to just compare the end results of the systems; even the best of ideas can produce crap when implemented badly, and I think we can both agree that the AD&D system had some glaring flaws about it. The thing I'd like to point out though is that the concepts behind the ability scores (strength, dex, con yadda yadda) were by far superior to those in PoE. The D&D stat concepts are firmly rooted in reality, strength representing physical strength, constitution how healthy and fit you are and dexterity your overall ability to coordinate your physical movements. Then the mental stats of Wisdom representing willpower, perception and 'intuition', Intelligence your ability to reason and learn and Charisma representing the strength of your character. Very distinct concepts that provide a solid and intuitive connection between your character and the stats he/she has. Obsidian sacrificed this in order to pursue a philosophy of "no bad builds" and I think that was a major mistake. It certainly made me unable to truly connect with my character the way I could in 3rd edition D&D (Yeah, again, the AD&D system that was used in infinity engine games was just abhorrent, although I did prefer the AD&D way of handling multiclassing over 3rd ed). There even was a consequence for your characters lacking any of the 6 stats; a STR of 0 would mean your character doesn't have any capability for physical movement and is thus completely helpless. A DEX of 0 would mean that the character cannot direct his own movements and again as a result is helpless. A character with a CON of 0 is dead, and thus helpless (this had some interesting exceptions with magically animated undead, who would define their liveliness through their ability to distinct themselves from the world through their charisma score). A WIS of 0 meant that you had no ability to perceive your environment in any way, helpless again. INT of 0 meant that you didn't have a mind at all, again helpless (golems for example didn't have intelligence score at all I think), and a CHA of 0 would mean that you cannot distinct between what is you and what is the environment, meaning that you completely lack self-awareness, again, rendering your character unplayable. This all formed a really powerful connection between the actual fantasy, your character and the mechanics, because the mechanics were not made to serve the game first, they were made to represent the 'reality' of the fantasy your character lives in, and balancing was done afterwards. The sad part of this was that pretty much all computer-game representations of the system were pretty bad, due to the heavy emphasis on combat scenarios, and it was difficult to script in stuff so that the one-armed fighter of yours who has lousy physical stats but is smart as hell could utilize his vast intellect to overcome problems. I think the D&D concepts are the best basis for any stat system in a crpg, but they do require some tweaking and more defined roles outside the fantasy, purely from a mechanical perspective. Some stats are easier than others; strength for example is quite straight-forward to make useful, although compared to most games I would add more mechanics that force you to make strength checks; knockdown resistances being a good example, some spells might also be physically demanding, for example conjuring a ball of force might require sheer physical strength to keep it from releasing prematurely, thus creating non-fighter class concepts that do require strength and thus a way for non-melee characters to utilize a high strength score should they have one through one reason or another. Dexterity is also straightforward and easy to make useful but not essential to all classes, same goes with CON. The problems arise more when addressing the mental attributes. Wisdom is the easiest of them, like the D&D monk class perfectly demonstrates. A similar concept can easily be applied to other classes. INT I like to think should be the "versatility attribute", increasing the number of skills and feats you can perform, which is equally useful to all classes, and then there's the problem child of computer gaming, CHA. Charisma is the most difficult one for me. I can't really come up with any generic ways to utilize charisma in a meaningful manner with all classes that still would preserve the roots of the stat. The removal of CHA and WIS and replacing them with PER and RES wasn't a bad idea I think, but there's still something bothering me about those stats in PoE. Perception is *too* universally important, almost to the point where you just want to maximize it for every character that even considers acting offensively. The game might require a deeper stealth-dimension to it in order to separate the accuracy of your attacks from the stats and tie it to stealth/trap detection. Maybe some faint-attacks or something. Damn I went into rant mode again, the overall point is that you can have meaningful choice and allow for variety of interesting builds without sacrificing restrictions. Choices need to have consequences in order to be meaningful, and the mechanics need to have a connection with the reality they're representing in order to preserve immersion. In all 3rd edition D&D games I've played, the stat system strongly reinforced the immersion. You immediately and instinctively understood what it meant if your character suddenly gained +4 strength or lost the same amount, and you also instinctively understood the limits of that change and what it wouldn't affect. In PoE, when you gain more Might for your spellcaster you kinda feel weird and the whole stat feels wrong, which for me at least, had a very powerful and negative effect regarding my ability to immerse in the world. It was like the moment I thought of the stat Might, I was no longer in the world, I was dealing with a gaming system, where as in D&D, thinking of the mechanics actually reinforced the immersion. The problem with the PoE stat system is a big reason I brought up the whole politics angle; the whole system gave me the exact same feeling of dealing with an arbitrary system I get whenever I have to deal with politically motivated systems and practices in the real world. And man I *hate* politics. They disgust the **** out of me.

I liked that armor design too, especially the one Lovis wears. Fits incredibly neatly with those red lizard-eyes of his. I also agree that it would make a lot more sense to feature those kinds of armors in Tyranny II rather than the more down to earth art-style of PoE, that also happens to cover the renaissance era instead of medieval.

I miss the idea, but I don't miss the hassle they caused. The problem is that I don't know if one can have one without the other, which leaves me kinda conflicted on the whole issue. Maybe that's why I always go either magic on melee But on the topic, yeah, why not. Throwing weapons might be neat especially for some monk sub-classes. I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other on whether to go with the unlimited stack approach or a limited stack size, although for a game where combat forms the vast majority of the content, the unlimited stack might be a more reasonable solution. I have no personal stakes on it in the short term, as I already know that my first character will be a big-ass Paladin with a big-ass two handed sword. But now that I think about it, there could also be some sort of magical 'boomerang' ability that you can use to throw your melee weapon in order to perform a ranged attack. Not for paladins, but maybe for some multi-class Fighter/Wizards, maybe some spell like "Bob's bouncing boomerang - Throw your melee weapon at your enemies and magically guide it to perform x attacks, bouncing to y enemies before returning to your hand" or something.

I didn't backpedal into 'technically everything can be called political', politics is an umbrella term for all sorts of politics. And I *was* talking about real life politics, family politics, office politics and corporate politics *are* real life politics, they're just no state-level politics. I really don't see how people have such trouble making the distinction, the word politics is very commonly in use for all these contexts. Also, I really don't give a flying **** what you call the underlying phenomenon, I was trying to communicate an idea, and I expect it to be treated as such. Getting hung up over a word and refusing to see the context is not only dishonest, it's idiotic. I really have no interest in arguing about the meaning of a word, just accept the meaning that is given in the context and use it to familiarize yourself with the presented idea, then comment on that idea. If you think a word is being misused, you're free to mention that as a side note, but if that is the only thing you are willing to contribute to the discussion, you'd be doing everyone a favor by not responding at all. Language is a tool of communication, there is no other inherent truth to it. I used the word politics because I felt it conveyed the message. If you're confused about the idea, ask for clarification and I'll attempt to do so. So I'll ask you a question: are you interested in discussing how the company politics affect game design, or are you interested in arguing about the meaning of the word politics. If you're interested in the latter, go find some linguistics forum, otherwise, focus on the presented idea, and stop derailing the discussion into nitpicking about the meaning of an individual word. So I'll ask you a question, are you interested in discussing how the company politics affect game design, or are you interested in arguing about the meaning of the word politics. If you're interested in the latter, go find some linguistics forum, otherwise, focus on the presented idea.

Uh logical disconnect of the day here? Real life, and video games, have nothing to do with each other. "I want all player builds to be viable" is not on any level, by any ridiculous stretch of imagination, a political statement. It is a video game design choice. Considering the first game in this series opens up with a tree of people hung for literally no reason, and or crimes they did not commit, I think it is safe to say Obsidian understands that "all things aren't equal in the real world". Did you even try to understand what I was saying?

I use the word 'politics' because it describes the phenomenon quite accurately. "Everything should be equal" is a political belief, as it implies not only an assumption of what reality is like (all things aren't necessarily equal), but also that active measures are to be taken in order to affect that reality (make things more equal). In game-design context this is often referred to as "design philosophy", but it is also a policy (a principle or a set of principles through which decisions are made). I really wasn't expecting that I'd have to spell this out for anyone, but what the hell, I have the time now so no skin off my back. When you make a statement like "the problem with D&D is...", you make it based on the general assumed principles you believe in. This is politics. The term politics is quite broad and isn't restricted to matters of the state. Even families have internal politics, they're the inevitable consequence of a group of humans sharing common space. There are several assumptions you make with your beliefs for example that I very much disagree with. For example, you seem to operate under the belief that "more choice is always better than less choice", and I would point out that this is not true. Also you claim that in D&D you don't have a choice to make certain kinds of characters, but this isn't true either, you *can* make a fighter with a negative modifier in every physical stat, there just happens to be consequences of that choice, the character not being very good at what it is supposed to be doing (fighting) among them. So we disagree on a very fundamental level on what makes a game good, because where you see this as a lack of choice and thus a bad thing, I see it as a consequence to your choice, and I think that those consequences are what give those choices meaning. Having all the choice and no consequences is the same thing as having no choice at all since all choices lead to the same outcome. Now let's tackle this feedback problem, you know there is this gray area between the "only my ideas are good, **** you all and I'm not going to listen to anything you say, lalalalalalala!" and the "All your ideas are very good, none of them are better or worse than the others, so we will distribute our time equally among ALL of them without having any sort of priority because all the ideas are equally important" - extremes. My whole point revolves around the observation that these days people tend to fail in the latter manner way more often than the former. Neither extreme produces viable results in the long run. Perhaps I should have articulated that more clearly in the first place but here it is now. You can tell which problem is the more prevalent one due to the fact that the problems they produce are very different. The too authoritarian group can't learn from their mistakes and keep repeating them over and over and over and over again, trying the same failed approach until the earth is devoured by the dying sun, while the too liberal group keeps re-inventing the wheel and never being able to really build anything and will essentially produce an experiment after experiment after experiment. In essence the first group keeps banging their head against the wall while the latter group will just aimlessly wander around in circles without ever really getting anywhere. Now obviously neither of these problems exist here in these extreme forms, but the problems PoE does have clearly indicate the too liberal approach, the unwillingness to commit to a single idea and accept its flaws and start building around it, and everything I've heard about Deadfire sounds like an experiment rather than something solid. The first PoE suffers from the very same thing. Now I do have faith that even if Obsidian fails to deliver an outstanding game, at least their experiments will be interesting ones, so no real catastrophe is going to come that way. Damn I hope this made any sense. Feel free to ask for clarification if I didn't cover some point sufficiently.

Remind me to never play any game with you ever. I liked the "equality is disgusting" part, too. Okay I'm exaggerating, that's not exactly what he said... Spoken like someone who relies on enforced equality for validation. Don't you think one would get better results in an environment where ideas actually have to earn their validation? How do you even recognize bad ideas if you pretend that every idea is equal?

You suspect wrong, you definitely are not alone in thinking this ^^

Of the two proposed systems, neither of which I like, yes, I agree with you 100%. If you keep re-inventing the wheel, you'll not only waste time but you'll also end up with one seriously ****ty wheel.

Sorry, couldn't help myself, I just had to adjust that one minor detail ^^

I could kiss this guy. Seriously, thank you for writing that post; it needed to be written and seen. Every single word of it, as I can guarantee that you're not alone with your story, mine is quite similar. The biggest difference between our stories is that I recently reinstalled PoE with the "now I'm going to finish the game, if for nothing else then for being able to import a save to Deadfire", but what happened was that I found myself, *again*, quitting shortly after reaching Twin Elms. This time my save still exists, so I might eventually suffer through the rest of the game, but I can whole heartedly sign the notion that what I've realized about the game twice now is that I'm not having any fun playing it. My list of issues is a bit longer though, for example the stat system is too divorced from reality to forge any connection with my character. They butchered the extremely well formed interface between instinctive perception of reality and the fantasy of the game that was present in D&D, because they had this arbitrary political view of the "there should not be bad builds" and "every build is equal" - type, which I find to be a rather infantile mentality (it actually has an eerie resemblance with a Social Justice agenda, which just adds in another layer of disgusting). Make a system and let the nature of that system determine what works and what doesn't instead of forcing some ridiculous "anything goes" agenda. Unlimited freedom is the ultimate lack of freedom; you're free to make a choice that isn't interesting enough to make you even want to make a choice. I faced this issue especially when creating my character. Every single class felt uninspiring, the stats and abilities all felt arbitrary and I simply wasn't interested in making any of the choices the game presented me with, as none of those choices had any real meaning. I never felt like I was playing an actual game, I felt more like I was expected to play make-believe, and that definitely isn't my cup of tea. Hasn't been for a long time, I had enough of that when I was a child. Another gripe I have is with the spell design; especially with ciphers there are way too many weird spells that work in very unintuitive ways, and which are obviously made unnecessarily more complicated simply to make them appear fancy and different. When leveling up and picking up spells, I'd go through them and be like "I don't really want to take this one" with every single spell and ability, until I realized I didn't want to pick any of them, and then I just took the ones that were the most straight forward or mechanically powerful. There's one thing you said that I really have to criticize though, and it's this: The gaming industry is in a desperate need of strong ideas, weak and pathetic ideas that revolve around "communicating with the players to see what they want" and "working together to come up ideas" and "respecting every point of view as equals" have resulted in a steady stream of extremely uninspired and uninspiring games. You obviously have good vision for gaming, and what makes your ideas strong is that instead of being grounded in meaningless rhetoric like most people, your ideas are grounded in reality. Not everyone will like your ideas, but screw them. A good strong idea will win over everyone who is worth winning over in the long run if it receives the love and care it needs to grow into a practical implementation. The industry needs people like you, and I think you could bring a better type of passion for it. If you can't code for yourself, try to find people who can and try to learn these skills. You already have the gift of vision, that's all you really need, everything else, including those skills you feel you lack, you can build. Start small. A friend of mine has a saying that I sometimes have trouble implementing but really like the wisdom of: "How do you eat a whale?" -"With one piece at a time" EDIT: Oh, and don't listen to people who try to give you advice on 'how to enjoy something you don't like'. You're wise enough to know that it's simply not worth it.

So despite me clearly stating that the two aren't linked, and that I'm merely pointing out the fallacy in making blanket "most players" statements, you believe I did otherwise. If that is the level of your dishonesty, then there's really no point in continuing this conversation.

Not only Geralt is fatally wounded, but the fact *WHO* gives the killing blow is even more unbelievable. That reminds me of that bearded outlaw guy in 'Once Upon A Time In The West' that gets shot by the 'tsut tsut -man' in the end :D

Sounds a lot like a fatigue system I had envisioned. In my system you would have a 'stamina' bar, that would regenerate at x% of max stamina per y interval, and you would gain fatigue whenever you use stamina at the rate of 1 point of fatigue per 100 points of stamina spent or something like that, and this fatigue would then simply be a penalty to your maximum stamina. Of course your system gains fatigue through simply not resting and mine gains through tracking exertion, but the basic idea is similar. Your version would fit a PoE type game better I think. Oh, and there could be racial differences to these sleep patterns of yours, maybe elves need less sleep than humans, while orlans might tire more quickly, there could be spells that temporarily alleviate your fatigue and then there could be Tea and Coffee, which would fit the renaissance theme brilliantly ^^

Yes there is, and what you were doing is the former. No, it's not. You inferred something based on the fact that most of the people who bought Pillars didn't finish it. Doing so is illogical and irrational; the fact that most people who bought it didn't finish it is normal and typical and meaningless, both directly and indirectly. It's like saying "The sky is blue; now I know this doesn't mean anything directly about gun murders in Chicago, but...". It's a specific thing you said, which I isolated to comment on because it's wrong. That's all. Nope, you quoted the thing out of context. Here is the quote, *with* the context. Had you bothered to even read that very paragraph to its end with any thought, you would've noticed that you were arguing about a non issue we had no disagreements on. Dishonesty is the highest form of disrespect, and not bothering to try and understand the context of these very specific things people say is a form of dishonesty. A very minor form that is as often born out of fatigue and oversight as arrogance, but a form nonetheless. I didn't infer anything based on the fact that most people don't finish the game, I merely used the fact to point out the fallacy of the 'most people are like x' - argument.

The overall tone doesn't have to be light hearted. Monotonous means that there is only one tone, mono. A good story covers a wide variety of feelings, not just that one.