Several new pics at Gamespot (May 16)

[Vlad The Impala]

http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/131/931592_20060512_screen001.jpg

Very colourful, I live the different types of flags, shields and insignia visible in the picture.


http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/131/931592_20060512_screen002.jpg

French gothic (?) knights, looking very impressive...


http://i.i.com.com/cnet.g2/images/2006/131/931592_20060512_screen003.jpg

City in the desert. The sand dunes look awesome, although I miss the tracks made by the advancing troops. Would it be possible to implement such a feature in the game anyway?

[Basileus]

I realy like the new feature with the units looking diffrently, anyways very nice pics.

[Lorenzo_H]

Those pics look brill!

[Joshwa]

That looks sweeeeet! I really hope they do the political map as well as the battle map

[Watchman]

Nice enough, but why isn't anyone using stirrups...?

[Peasant Phill]

The new pics look really great but I have two remarks.

1. The horses in the desert are hovering over the sand. Someone else noticed this too in another picture. It ruins an otherwise fantastic picture but it does explain why there are no footprints in the sand.

2. I do hope that you can't just charge your cavalry through your own infantry without problems or penalties. There are just so much men and horses in one place that it's bound to go wrong if the horses move to fast. The same goes for a crowding penalty, soldiers just can't fight to their full potential when you have be careful not to trample/be trampled by a fellow countryman.

[IceTorque]

The terrain looks good, the units don't blend into the terrain and that castle looks amazing. Me thinks that for the first time I will actually enjoy playing siege battles.

[Geoffrey S]

City in the desert. The sand dunes look awesome, although I miss the tracks made by the advancing troops. Would it be possible to implement such a feature in the game anyway?
Something like that would be nice. As an almost related aside, I noticed the great little detail of siege engines flattening grass in RTW for the first time the other day. For some reason, I really liked it and would love to see more of such changes to the battlefield such as long clashes churning the ground to sludge and hampering movement.

[paullus]

These things may have been noted earlier, but:
1)the castle has two inner walls before you get to the citadel
2)it looks like in sally battles the army has already marched out of the castle before the battle, rather than having to get out the doors to go fight. I think that would be a good improvement.

[edyzmedieval]

I love the city. I love it. :smitten:

[Orda Khan]

Enough of this armour, yes we all know it looks cool, let's see some Mongols

........Orda

[ShadesWolf]

Image one is interesting.


- The shields have at least 6 different coat of arms on them.
- I can see at least three different types of archer uniforms....
- The cavalry seem to have a number of different banners......

[Furious Mental]

Damn that is a bad arse castle

[Lord Adherbal]

I do hope that you can't just charge your cavalry through your own infantry without problems or penalties. There are just so much men and horses in one place that it's bound to go wrong if the horses move to fast. The same goes for a crowding penalty, soldiers just can't fight to their full potential when you have be careful not to trample/be trampled by a fellow countryman.

exactly, if these MTW features do not make it back in MTW2 then RTW/BI will probably have been my last TW game. Without crowding and envelopment combat penalties (and not just a slight morale penalty like in RTW) there is hardly any tactics involved.

[Zenicetus]

Notice how steep that one hill is, in the background of the first image. I hope the actual (randomly generated) terrain is that varied, and this isn't just a pretty backdrop outside the battle area. Naturally we'd want most of the big battles in fairly open areas, but a few steep hills or cliffs here and there, would make things more tactically interesting. I get bored with the "gently rolling" terrain in RTW battles. Let's have some real terrain obstacles and opportunities. I see a hill like that, and I want to hide some archers or cannon up there!

[Sir Robin]

Nice find, those are some pretty pictures.

Been a while, but didn't RTW have tracks in desert and snow?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

that castle looks like a mighty obstacle... it has multipul walls and everything and being in the desert gives it a great touch

[Ibn Munqidh]

Nice enough, but why isn't anyone using stirrups...?


There is alot of detail missing, stirrups, sword hilts....:inquisitive:

[Ibn Munqidh]

that castle looks like a mighty obstacle... it has multipul walls and everything and being in the desert gives it a great touch

Exactly, Im glad to see castles as good as this one back in MTW2, RTW sucked without them, plain and simple, you can justify that by saying that the Roman era did not witness alot of castle building,.... oh well :juggle2:

[Viking]

I`m beginning to look foraward to this game..

[Watchman]

2. I do hope that you can't just charge your cavalry through your own infantry without problems or penalties. There are just so much men and horses in one place that it's bound to go wrong if the horses move to fast. The same goes for a crowding penalty, soldiers just can't fight to their full potential when you have be careful not to trample/be trampled by a fellow countryman.To be fair, mixed cavalry-infantry formations were sometimes used. Not all that often, and obviously the whole bunch had to move at infantry speeds, but they had their uses.

Also, in a cavalry fight if one side could also pitch in some infantry they tended to gain a noticeable advantage. I understand it's based on the greater agility of men on foot, and their ability to cheerfully disembowel and hamstring horses whose riders are preoccupied with their peers, and generally make a nuisance out of themselves. That trick in any case goes back at least to ancient Greece if not some earlier period (the elite "chariot runners" of high Bronze Age spring to mind as a similar practice).

[O'ETAIPOS]

There is alot of detail missing, stirrups, sword hilts....:inquisitive:

more detail you add the bigger the model is and it is slowing graphics down. On some low-end machines it may be the difference between game and slide(sp?) show.

[Pras the Reaper]

@ ibn - no sword hilts?!

are we looking at the same pictures? french knights on the bottom of second pic...

[Zalmoxis]

Yipee, even more pics! Still wish they showed more of the units.

[edyzmedieval]

@ ibn - no sword hilts?!

are we looking at the same pictures? french knights on the bottom of second pic...

Pras, since you're from Brisbane, are we allowed to visit the CA studios?

I sent you an e-mail(well for the UK). No response. :embarassed:

:cry:

I'll bombard your offices if I don't get an answer. :skull:

[Ibn Munqidh]

@ ibn - no sword hilts?!

are we looking at the same pictures? french knights on the bottom of second pic...

Oh, ok, now they've been added. With the previous pics, they were not there.

But still, there is no stirrups.

[edyzmedieval]

But still, there is no stirrups.

What are they? Huns?

[Ibn Munqidh]

What are they? Huns?

what are you talking about:dizzy2:

[screwtype]

Yep, nice pic, but since some guy pointed out how the shadows were going in the wrong direction in another pic, I can't help looking at the shadows critically now. And the shadows in the desert pic don't look either nearly long enough or in quite the right direction.

And yeah, the castle looks good, but then I remember how fantastic the cities looked in publicity pics for RTW and how the reality did not nearly live up to those pics.

While I'm on the subject of castles - it would be cool if you could design and build your own castles in this game, as you could in Lords of the Realm II (Amiga version).

[Divinus Arma]

Somebody commented on footprints. Now that would be a major graphical improvement, even if they were temporary and faded like the snow footprints in Metal Gear for PS2.

How can they march through sand (which looks great; very realistic) without leaving footprints? That is a major immersion killer since the sand looks so realistic. Either dump the sand or add footprints. A good floor template is just not worth the immersion spoiler.

[Lord Adherbal]

you ppl can't be serious. Who cares about such a detail that doesnt improve the gameplay at all - and puts even more pressure on CPU/GPU.
Age of Mythology had footprints, and it made the game unplayables on my comp once large armies populated the map. With footsteps off, there was no problem.

[Furious Mental]

I suppose it would be good to have as an option, but it doesn't really bother me.

[Divinus Arma]

I hear ya on the graphics, but CA has done a great job so far in providing their customers with a variety of solutions in adpating to the various levels of processing power. I assume that this would remain.

Options should be either:

(a) the terrific looking floor template + footprints.

(b) toned-down flooring + no footprints


Sand with no footprints just looks too weird.

[Orda Khan]

I would go further and remove the shadows, they seem nice but they are so dark they give the impression that every day is blisteringly hot

......Orda

[Rodion Romanovich]

Most games with footprints have relatively few soldiers, seldom more than 50 or 100. TW games have over 1000, sometimes 10000, soldiers! It would be so heavy for the computers to handle that it'd lag like nothing you've ever seen in any game before. While a good feature in theory, it can't be implemented even with the upcoming technology MTW2 will be made for.

[Divinus Arma]

Then the only answer is to remove the sand. As pretty as it may look, it becomes artifical and experience-spoiling without foot prints.


This seems to be a major technical challenge: ground interaction. We should have mud, and puddles, and snow, and sand. The snow in RTW also looked ridiculous. This will be a major advancemtn in immersion once they solve for it.

Hmmph. I just may wait until then. :no:

[econ21]

Adherbal']you ppl can't be serious. Who cares about such a detail that doesnt improve the gameplay at all - and puts even more pressure on CPU/GPU.

I agree. It does kinda remind me of Dr Cox in the TV series Scrubs and his "things I care as little about" speech:


I don't really have one ready, but I suppose I could riff a list of things I care as little about ... Let's see: low-carb diets, Michael Moore, the Republican National Convention, Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products, high definition TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, The O. C., the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans; the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys, Jeff the Wiggle that sleeps a lot, the Yankees payroll, the red states, the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host, everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, and everything that exists, past, present and future in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh, and Hugh Jackman.

[Viking]

Most games with footprints have relatively few soldiers, seldom more than 50 or 100. TW games have over 1000, sometimes 10000, soldiers! It would be so heavy for the computers to handle that it'd lag like nothing you've ever seen in any game before. While a good feature in theory, it can't be implemented even with the upcoming technology MTW2 will be made for.


Try putting 29 000 soldiers on the field in a custom battle might give you an idea of what it would be like..

Edit: if you made the tracks fade, away as mentioned by DA, I don`t think it would require too much of the computer.

[Bar Kochba]

i saw a custom battle with 65000 units so cool!!!!!1

[IceTorque]

Footprints !!! Oh great, now the next TW game won't increase army size either.... but will feature 'footprints' coz no footprints was a major complaint about MTW II. :dizzy2:

[lancelot]

Then the only answer is to remove the sand. As pretty as it may look, it becomes artifical and experience-spoiling without foot prints.


What are they gonna put in the desert then???



agree. It does kinda remind me of Dr Cox in the TV series Scrubs and his "things I care as little about" speech:




I don't really have one ready, but I suppose I could riff a list of things I care as little about ... Let's see: low-carb diets, Michael Moore, the Republican National Convention, Kabbalah and all Kabbalah-related products, high definition TV, the Bush daughters, wireless hot spots, The O. C., the U.N., recycling, getting Punk'd, Danny Gans; the Latin Grammys, the real Grammys, Jeff the Wiggle that sleeps a lot, the Yankees payroll, the red states, the blue states, every hybrid car, every talk show host, everything on the planet, everything in the solar system, and everything that exists, past, present and future in all discovered and undiscovered dimensions. Oh, and Hugh Jackman.


Ha ha ha classic! if I may respond in kind....


But Hugh Jackman is Wolverine....

[Lord Adherbal]

Edit: if you made the tracks fade, away as mentioned by DA, I don`t think it would require too much of the computer.

even if they fade out fast enough for a single soldier to leave just 10 footprints behind, that's still 10000's of footprints if a whole army marches. Anyway, possible or not, I can't even believe we're discussing this. No wonder CA puts graphics above gameplay if they read stuff like this.

[Ibn Munqidh]

The proposition of footprints is needless, as adherbal and others have said, it only creates more pressure on the CPU, needlessly, as they would not add to the visual beauty of a battle (in my opinion).

Improving the visual effects such as explosions and bombardments (e.g. trebuchet stones on walls), would make the game more beautiful, but hey, at the level we saw in the movies released by CA, those visual effects are much more than OUTSTANDING!!! I especially liked the way walls were battered, and the principle of "What you hit, you crush" thing. The graphics at this stage is top notch, and nothing more can be added to it I think, I just hope that they pulled off the same trick with the gameplay, especially the AI....

[screwtype]

I would go further and remove the shadows, they seem nice but they are so dark they give the impression that every day is blisteringly hot

......Orda

Yes, I agree, the shadows often are too dark.

Perhaps they've just got them turned up to ultra-dark in the promo screenshots to show off the feature. Maybe with the final release shadows won't always be so obvious.

[Vlad The Impala]

While I agree that footprints will put a lot of extra strain on the system requirements, I don't think they don't add to gameplay: if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

[econ21]

While I agree that footprints will put a lot of extra strain on the system requirements, I don't think they don't add to gameplay: if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

Nice idea, but in practice I think it would be better applied to the strategic map. It would be fun if armies led "trails", depending on their size and your army's scouting ability. Mount and Blade has this feature.

I'd like to see a little more blundering about on the campaign map. Ambushes are a step in the right direction, but still rather rare.

[edyzmedieval]

Nice idea, but in practice I think it would be better applied to the strategic map. It would be fun if armies led "trails", depending on their size and your army's scouting ability. Mount and Blade has this feature.

I'd like to see a little more blundering about on the campaign map. Ambushes are a step in the right direction, but still rather rare.

Hmmm...I doubt the track system of Mount&Blade would be gameplay wise. :inquisitive:

[Lord Adherbal]

if you're going to try ambushes and such, you have to be careful you don't give your position and/or plans away to your opponent by having a large numbers of tracks leading into the nearby forest, or to the far side of the hill where your opponent can't see your reinforcements.

aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.

[x-dANGEr]

Adherbal']aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.
Agreed.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Adherbal']aslong as the TW series don't get real line-of-sight, ambushing or surprise attacks will be almost inexistant.

How do you mean with real LOS? Do you mean on the battlefield?

[Lord Adherbal]

yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

that might even make the AI feel less predictable.

[econ21]

Adherbal']yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

[edyzmedieval]

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

They can see them. But the hiding stuff in RTW really got on my nerves sometimes....

[Gregoshi]

I remember the birds flying over a wooded area in STW often meant there was an ambush within the trees. I can't say I remember anything with birds in MTW or RTW, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention enough.

[Ibn Munqidh]

Adherbal']yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

that might even make the AI feel less predictable.

You can restrict cam, but still the battle map will show unhidden units the you should not see in reality.

[screwtype]

I thought LOS has always been implemented in TW. Can the player really see enemies not in the LOS of his units?

Yes, you can see them. "LOS" in TW seems to be calculated just on proximity (and whether or not units are tagged as "hidden". For example, you can see all the units inside a city, even if they are in the city square, when you're still outside!

Now that this subject has come up - yes I think it could add quite a bit to gameplay if real LOS was implemented - so you couldn't see over that hill or wall to see what's behind it. Until your units are actually in a position to see for themselves.

And while I'm on the subject - why the pre-battle screen when you're told exactly what you're facing in terms of opposition? Isn't this incredibly unrealistic? Wouldn't it add a lot of excitement - and help to even up the game considerably - if you didn't actually know what you were facing until you got to the battlefield, but rather only had a rough approximation?

I know this is sort of included in the game now - but perhaps they haven't gone far enough. I mean, you always know exactly how many units the enemy has got, even if you don't know exactly what they are. And then when you get to the battlefield, you are told in the opening screen exactly what you're facing.

The game might actually become a lot more interesting if your "spies" got it wrong quite a bit - so that they either underestimated or overestimated the foe before you went to battle. And maybe the pre-battle screen should be scrubbed altogether, with you only finding out exactly what you're facing when you espy them via line of sight on the map.

Now that could add tension to a battle. Not to mention evening up the score somewhat in regards to the AI...

[Martok]

Yes, you can see them. "LOS" in TW seems to be calculated just on proximity (and whether or not units are tagged as "hidden". For example, you can see all the units inside a city, even if they are in the city square, when you're still outside!

Now that this subject has come up - yes I think it could add quite a bit to gameplay if real LOS was implemented - so you couldn't see over that hill or wall to see what's behind it. Until your units are actually in a position to see for themselves.

And while I'm on the subject - why the pre-battle screen when you're told exactly what you're facing in terms of opposition? Isn't this incredibly unrealistic? Wouldn't it add a lot of excitement - and help to even up the game considerably - if you didn't actually know what you were facing until you got to the battlefield, but rather only had a rough approximation?

I know this is sort of included in the game now - but perhaps they haven't gone far enough. I mean, you always know exactly how many units the enemy has got, even if you don't know exactly what they are. And then when you get to the battlefield, you are told in the opening screen exactly what you're facing.

The game might actually become a lot more interesting if your "spies" got it wrong quite a bit - so that they either underestimated or overestimated the foe before you went to battle. And maybe the pre-battle screen should be scrubbed altogether, with you only finding out exactly what you're facing when you espy them via line of sight on the map.

Now that could add tension to a battle. Not to mention evening up the score somewhat in regards to the AI...

I agree with your entire post 100%, screwtype, and the second part in particular (about being able to see the exact composition of the enemy's army). I always preferred the way Shogun and vanilla MTW did it--by only showing the approximate numbers you were facing, and no more than that. For as nice as the feature is sometimes, I admit it actually bugs me a lot that I can see precisely what the enemy has. Unless you have an absolutely ridiculous number of spies hanging around, it simply isn't realistic.

[The Stranger]

The new pics look really great but I have two remarks.

1. The horses in the desert are hovering over the sand. Someone else noticed this too in another picture. It ruins an otherwise fantastic picture but it does explain why there are no footprints in the sand.

2. I do hope that you can't just charge your cavalry through your own infantry without problems or penalties. There are just so much men and horses in one place that it's bound to go wrong if the horses move to fast. The same goes for a crowding penalty, soldiers just can't fight to their full potential when you have be careful not to trample/be trampled by a fellow countryman.

that hover thing was the first thing i noticed. and it does ruin the picture. but the first 2 look fantastic

[Krauser]

I really like the shadows of the clouds over the desert sands. Great detail, and I love the fact that each person will be unique. Different face, size, weapons, shield.

[Duke John]

I really like the shadows of the clouds over the desert sands.
Where?There shouldn't be any since you can clearly see the sun and any other shadows are selfshadowing of the terrain.


I remember the birds flying over a wooded area in STW often meant there was an ambush within the trees.
How such a simple game had so many more details.

[Kralizec]

Next: a proper couched lance grip?

[Ibn Munqidh]

I dont understand, weren't knightly lances "single use", I mean after a charge, the lance breaks and its head impales the enemy soldier. The night then draws his sword or mace and starts working. In the 97mn video we saw,, it shows knights actually using their lances, trying to stab enemy footsoldiers, which looks totally lame.

[Watchman]

Well, it's a long pointy stick so if it doesn't snap or get stuck in something during the charge there's no particular reason as such why it couldn't be used as a sort-of cavalry spear (particularly when dealing with obstinate spear-walls). Although I'm under the impression this wasn't a terribly common practice as the European-style cavalry lance, once fully derived into its own weapon from the spear base, was frankly a bit long for one-handed use (and they were never used two-handed).

Personally I'd kinda like if they added a few extra horseman animation skeles to show the straight-legged long-stirrup riding style of European heavy cavalry. I mean, it wouldn't exactly add much in the way of file size or anything, and if the general attitude is "appereances are important"...

[AwesomeArcher]

even without the footprints those pics are awesome.

[Blodrast]

ok, come on, let's keep things in perspective here.
These are pictures, ok - they don't say anything about AI, suicide generals, running/killing speeds, flanking or anything.
We all (or most of us anyway) agree that the eye-candy is NOT the first and foremost thing we're looking for in TW games.

As pictures, I think they look friggin' great. Sure, maybe the lance isn't held properly, and maybe the knight visors are shaped a tiny bit differently, and so on - heck, we'll always be able to find tiny little things that are not exactly quite like we'd like them to be.
But that's not the main point, ok ?

I agree with shadows being a rather big thing - however, I strongly believe that they should be optional, if at all. Several people have rightfully pointed out that this may make a huge difference in performance. If we had the damn shadows, then we'd all scream bloody murder 'cause you require a mainframe to run the game at >5 fps.

Given a choice between a 10k army on the field, with shadows, and a 30k (or more) army, without shadows, I wouldn't hesitate a picosecond to choose the latter.
Come on, TW is all about epic battles, not about my 100 archers vs your 100 archers, all of whom are extremely detailed in their equipment and perform perfectly realistic moves.
There is ALWAYS the tradeoff between more detail (closing to absurd levels), and performance, and scale on the other hand. You want a lot of scale, with good performance - give up a bit of the eye-candy and some of the (less important, imho) detail.

And for eye-candy, I'm more than happy with what I'm seeing, so now let's focus on the really important stuff :2thumbsup:

[Duke John]

R:TW already had shadows for units and it was working properly. If anything it shows that CA is indeed rebuilding the engine almost from scratch and the shadowsystem was not finished yet when certain screenshots were taken.

[_Maximus_]

I agree! But I still think that Barbarion Invasion was aufull! To many bugs! As it looks like they were in a hurry to publish it!

[Simmons]

Adherbal']yeah, as in you cannot see enemy units that are behind a hill (or in a dense forest, moving or not) unless they are in the LOS of one of your own units.

that might even make the AI feel less predictable.
And make scouting really important. :juggle2: there would actually be a reason to have light cavalry in an army sounds like fun to me :2thumbsup:

[_Maximus_]

OR they can be used to kill archers or minor troops! Of course they can be also usefull for ambushing!

[Dead Knight of the Living]

So, you guys going to be embarking on Jihad or a Crusade when this game comes out. I think I'm going to play the villain first and wage Jihad.

[Rodion Romanovich]

So, you guys going to be embarking on Jihad or a Crusade when this game comes out. I think I'm going to play the villain first and wage Jihad.
Eh? Why would Saladin's Jihad be the villain side? Wouldn't rather crusaders like Reynald the Chatillon and his friends be the villain side?

[Martok]

Personally, I'm torn as to which faction I want to play first. Crusading should be fun, but I also kind of want my first faction be one that *doesn't* have to deal with the Pope! (One of the reasons I'm not sure I want to play the Scots right away.) And given the my fondness of the Eggies in MTW, I think I may very well take them out for a spin in Medieval 2 straightaway. Heck, I might even try the Turks if they get them balanced better. ~:rolleyes:


Um, could we maybe not label either side as the villian? Please? We really don't need to go there....

[Dead Knight of the Living]

Eh? Why would Saladin's Jihad be the villain side? Wouldn't rather crusaders like Reynald the Chatillon and his friends be the villain side?


I knew as soon as I hit the submit button on that post someone was going to say that. I was going to delete it. But I wanted to see if my prediction would come true. It did.

You're right. Looking at history from the perspective of a Christian, which I am, I view the Moslems (in general) as the bad guys. Yes, scumbag Christians like Reynald de Chatillon were as vile as any man ever set foot on this planet.

And really both sides were fighting for wealth and power. Religion was just the excuse they needed to seek it.

So, for the effects of drama I call the Moslems the villains. But realistically, I'm not dumb enough to presume the Christians were well intentioned. Were Jesus alive when the First Crusade was launched no way would he have endorsed it.

[IrishArmenian]

Looks, delicious! I am hungry now.

[Tahanaman]

I could easily see how a tapestry could be made from the first pic with all of the English Knights enter mingled with foot soldiers.

[screwtype]

I could easily see how a tapestry could be made from the first pic with all of the English Knights enter mingled with foot soldiers.

Yes, I too have noticed how amazingly pictorial some of the screenshots look. I thought one of the pics - probably the one you are describing - looked remarkably like a medieval painting. Incredible, really, to think that you are not looking at a painting but rather a snapshot of a complex 3D world!

I guess it shows just how sophisticated game graphics are getting...can photorealism be far away? It's almost scary to think about, LOL.