We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 265
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Whart View Post
    I just level up alts with landscape quests now, make new ones when the old ones hit cap, and when my slots fill up I'll delete and start again. Just killing time, because it's hard for me to get interested in something not based in Middle-earth. Hopefully at some point I'll find something with a little more life in it.
    This just sounds terrible (in the sad way, no offense). I know for myself that I'm not capable of creating such time sink. If I level a char, I'd like to keep it and do stuff with it - otherwise what is the point?

    It seems you like M-E pretty much. Nothing wrong with that but M-E, regardless of its popularity, is just another world/creation/franchise that is either liked, disliked or ignored by people. There is no 'extra uniqueness' to it as the hardcore fans try to convince themselves and the others. You like it a lot and that's OK, but I think it is damaging to get obsessed in such a way. Not only you are forcefully restricting yourself and develop a certain 'blindness' for (and fear from) many other possibilities, but you are also giving a purely commercial company the perfect excuse to push your patience to the limits.

    This is nothing but a friendly advice - don't restrict yourself on the basis that ''I couldn't possibly like something else''. Of course you could. If your relation with LOTRO doesn't provide fun to you, then keeping yourself 'chained' to it just because it's LOTR-based is of no help. Your passion is a virtue for you but can be exploited by others. Trust me, there is what to like out there. There is choice, there is fun, there is everything. And this is not an attempt to drive you away from this game, this is just a simple truth.

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaniemooch View Post
    I believe Sapience is using some form of new math...
    Remember, he's talking percentages. So if raiders are down by 2/3, so are the non-raiders (accounting for far more "losses" number-wise). I'm not sure exactly what the numbers are, but it's quite a lot on my server - even as recently as last winter, I was seeing /who counts and glff counts which were 3X what they've been the last several months. It's normal to have the deepest "lull" come in the few months before a new content drop, but this trough seems deeper than it's been in past years.

    Khafar

  3. #203
    Surely the percentage of money contributed by different play styles is more important than the percentage of people in that playing style. If raiders make up less than 10% of players but were to contribute 15% of income the game generates would it not be better to keep these players onside and give then the content they like. The same applies to PvMP where to play as a freep you need to pay.

    Also does Turbine include 12 man skirmishes as raids? I ask as you almost never see people looking for groups to does these other then in 12 man form.

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by cossieuk View Post
    Surely the percentage of money contributed by different play styles is more important than the percentage of people in that playing style. If raiders make up less than 10% of players but were to contribute 15% of income the game generates would it not be better to keep these players onside and give then the content they like. The same applies to PvMP where to play as a freep you need to pay.

    Also does Turbine include 12 man skirmishes as raids? I ask as you almost never see people looking for groups to does these other then in 12 man form.
    Yeah monetary contribution would matter more to Turbine than actual number of players, same logic applies though. There's no actual proof or even evidence that raiders spend more money than other players, nor is there any proof or evidence that they don't.


    And seriously how many 12 man skirms did you see pop up in GLFF after the teal jewellry and symbols were not exclusive to them anymore. During the time i spent in GLFF(Yeah i do that sometimes) i can probably count them on one hand.
    And the two i happened to join were actually 6 manned.(Which was an experience i could have lived without, oh well)
    Nothing here matters.

  5. #205
    Quote Originally Posted by whheydt View Post
    Except for one thing...Sapience also said that the percentage of raiders has been, essentially, constant. So in your idealized past, there weren't (proportionally) any more raiders then than there are now. Is it any wonder that Turbine looked at that data and cut back on spending a big chunk of the development budget on raids?
    Not only on raid, my friend. They have cut back on any kind of development .. except maybe the lord of the rings online-store.
    [IMG]http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii500/supermaco/2800703.png[/IMG]

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorwyn99 View Post
    That's not how i read it, it seemed like bigger group sizes give you a bonus to acquisition rate not higher medal qualities.
    It'd be nice to get a clarification on that.
    Jwbarry did say that you can't upconvert your earnings to gold and platinum medals, and that platinum could only be earned from "objectives at platinum".
    Next question he answered "The intent is that getting platinum on raid objectives is roughly the equivalent of tier 2 challenge from the mid to higher difficulty OD or ToO boss fights."

    Earlier 20 questions stated that there will also be marks/medallions/seals for the rewards. Since today you can not get seals solo I would presume that carries over.

    Earlier Jwbarry also said, in response to a question directly about grouping with level 10s:
    That's why we're introducing the medal system. What we're doing is basically grading you and your group every time you play the space. Each action you take, or don't take, thing you defend or don't, objective you succeed at or fail will add or remove points from your score. I would expect most level 10s, on their own without having many Promotions, to get a grade of D, a bronze medal. Enough to pass and get some measure of reward but not really anything to brag about. While the top end level 95 players who are kitted out and have a lot of Promotions are pushing the boundaries and attempting to get As, platinum medals and the best rewards the system has to offer.
    So it's not specifically about grouping but is in the context of grouping, and I don't think he switched up the question to mean that you can get best rewards from soloing. The game has never given the best gear rewards from soloing and if they changed that now it would be a far bigger change than the epic quests not being free. It also says better rewards, not the same rewards earned more quickly.

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,698
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorwyn99 View Post
    I guess during SOA and Moria it was also problematic that people stopped running the epic instances after getting what they want so newer people that came in late had a hard time finishing them,
    The irony I think is that they added bribes to help people out with the group epic quests, both in SoA and Moria (those quest givers at reflecting pools that gave marks). The result however was very often that groups full of people who had all done it before would get together to farm those marks, rather than grouping with players who needed it done. Early on quite a lot of players had no patience helping others out even with the epics, even in my own casual kinship I knew some players who just refused to group with someone they didn't know. Sort of ridiculous given that there is no penalty at all for failure.

  8. #208
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Quote Originally Posted by DaMac View Post
    Not only on raid, my friend. They have cut back on any kind of development .. except maybe the lord of the rings online-store.
    I'm certainly not going to attempt to argue that you're wrong on that point. Indeed, as a game ages and overall population declines, a decrease in development budget is what one would expect.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Nefarioux View Post
    the main raid kins have already left this game.

    medium raid kins have mostly left.

    all other raid kins (casual - interested in raiding) arent doing any raiding as they have nobody to raid with now since the main raiders/leaders/kins have gone.

    raiding is done people have already gone.
    In our casual kindred, where activity usually spikes in the half years after the expansions, we have had raids where there are no less than seven of those "who know how to lead raids" out of the twelve involved. Its just that we dont play 24/7. Your statement is nonsense. Kins that are casually interested in raiding do not need "main raiding kinds" to raid. All they need is a group of people who want to raid, say once a week, or once every two weeks, and someone who knows how to lead raids and who is part of their kin.
    Roses are red, Polar bears are white, if you meet one at night you'll get quite a fright.

  10. #210
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by Lohi View Post
    Jwbarry did say that you can't upconvert your earnings to gold and platinum medals, and that platinum could only be earned from "objectives at platinum".
    Next question he answered "The intent is that getting platinum on raid objectives is roughly the equivalent of tier 2 challenge from the mid to higher difficulty OD or ToO boss fights."

    Earlier 20 questions stated that there will also be marks/medallions/seals for the rewards. Since today you can not get seals solo I would presume that carries over.

    Earlier Jwbarry also said, in response to a question directly about grouping with level 10s:

    So it's not specifically about grouping but is in the context of grouping, and I don't think he switched up the question to mean that you can get best rewards from soloing. The game has never given the best gear rewards from soloing and if they changed that now it would be a far bigger change than the epic quests not being free. It also says better rewards, not the same rewards earned more quickly.
    Well my reading comes from Jwbarry's post on the first 20 Questions about Big Battles:
    The primary reward system does have a method for 'trading up' where we allow you to choose whether you're going to get a random bronze medal quality class specific item or instead get a little more progress towards getting a silver item. So you can either cash out or turn your pennies into dollars, in a manner of speaking. As of now you can turn bronze into silver progress, and silver into gold, but you cannot turn gold into platinum. The best rewards must be earned by doing the hardest tasks, not grinding and saving up a lot of the easier ones.

    Also as of now, a platinum is a platinum is a platinum, doesn't matter where you got it for it all counts the same. Numbers are being watched through playtest and iteration to see if that needs to have a slide based on group size but at the moment it doesn't feel like it does.
    Also it says a bonus for group size, main objective and first time completion. Since they say in the same sentence medallions will be earned till a bar is filled i figured it means bonus to amount of medals, not to quality.
    I figured since the second question is about raid difficulty he used raid size as an example.
    Gear equality is a pretty important point to me, also not being able to get plat on solo would mean solo does not have a higher difficulty setting, which i would find pretty disappointing too. So i would like to get a clarification on that if a dev is reading :P
    Nothing here matters.

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrossbow View Post
    It doesn't matter what their metric is. We do not know enough to adequately quote Sapience IN CONTEXT. I'm sure you are educated enough to know that the *context* of information is just as important.

    Yet, people (like you) keep trying to use it as a way to say that "the raiding community is too small to bother with." So, you would rather turn away a "minority" in which exists the greatest incentive to spend money on the game (translate... provide repeat customers)? I'm pretty sure that would be a dumb move. Even if raiders are a minority... if they are repeat customers, wouldn't it be smart to keep enough of that product (in good quality) on the shelf to keep them coming back?

    However, I think there is greater evidence that the number of people who participate in any grouping/raiding/instances at all is far greater than the 10% classified as part of the "raiding community." There are a large number of people who don't raid as much as the "raiding community" but they participate enough to enjoy the raiding they do.

    You assume that the people at Turbine do not want to make money. You also assume that their metric of measuring is so stupid, they are all half wits anyway. Why would this be the case? Why would anyone in charge of a company that's been catering MMO's for a decade not have an appropriate idea of the metrics involved? Why would Turbine not have proper metrics? They would be out of money already, thats why.

    Think all you want about evidence, but unless you show it ( And you cant) theres no way why your word is better than Turbine's. Apart from the fact that the basic assumptions about Turbine ( company, will go where the money is at) are known, and any basic assumptions about you fall short because we dont know you at all, nor your motivations ;-)...
    Roses are red, Polar bears are white, if you meet one at night you'll get quite a fright.

  12. #212
    I am in favor of more solo/small group content ... LOTS of it. Removing lock-outs was a big plus for raids, but in the end ... raids are losing their luster for many people across MMOs. Raiding has had more negative impact on communities than positive. Big Battles seem, like skirmishes, a nice method to allow people to alter the gameplay to their desired styles. Like old Table Top, adventuring with a handful of your friends was ALWAYS more enjoyable to dealing with 12-40 people to advance story or character. LOTRO was/is always at its best with solo-6-man content ...
    "I swear to God, if this thing turns into a zombie attack, I am quitting." - Jack Carter

  13. #213
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Everywhere
    Posts
    1,693
    Quote Originally Posted by Barrynor View Post
    You assume that the people at Turbine do not want to make money. You also assume that their metric of measuring is so stupid, they are all half wits anyway. Why would this be the case? Why would anyone in charge of a company that's been catering MMO's for a decade not have an appropriate idea of the metrics involved? Why would Turbine not have proper metrics? They would be out of money already, thats why.

    Think all you want about evidence, but unless you show it ( And you cant) theres no way why your word is better than Turbine's. Apart from the fact that the basic assumptions about Turbine ( company, will go where the money is at) are known, and any basic assumptions about you fall short because we dont know you at all, nor your motivations ;-)...
    I'm not calling their metrics stupid or anything. I am calling into question the people who quote Sapience as a way to defend their stance of being anti-raids or not wanting more raids. Anyone can quote Sapience but the lack of context makes what he said fail to be evidence/support for anything other than that "raiders" tend to be about 10% of the player base.
    Dagranhad - Burglar | Aldgarea - Loremaster | Barathrothir - Hunter | Golladhar - Captain

  14. #214
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,648
    Quote Originally Posted by warriorpoetex View Post
    I am in favor of more solo/small group content ... LOTS of it. Removing lock-outs was a big plus for raids, but in the end ... raids are losing their luster for many people across MMOs. Raiding has had more negative impact on communities than positive. Big Battles seem, like skirmishes, a nice method to allow people to alter the gameplay to their desired styles. Like old Table Top, adventuring with a handful of your friends was ALWAYS more enjoyable to dealing with 12-40 people to advance story or character. LOTRO was/is always at its best with solo-6-man content ...
    It may be worth noting that the biggest MMOs around haven't felt the need to do away with raiding. Your statement is complete personal opinion that you're trying to represent as some momentous status quo.
    If you can't seem to function in an environment with more than 6 people, that's fine. There is content for you - and best of all, future LotRO should be right up your alley. But claiming that raiding is "losing its luster" when the games most comparable to LotRO (genre-wise) keep releasing new ones, just makes you look like you have no idea what you're talking about. Rift and TOR have just released new raids in the past few weeks. Guess they didn't get your memo... Both of those games are doing much better than LotRO, BTW.

    This is a LotRO thing, not an MMO thing. Realize that much. The way you misrepresent raiding in general, it's no wonder you have a hard time coping with its very existence. I would too if it was actually as you bluntly describe.
    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1][COLOR=White]The [/COLOR][/SIZE][URL="http://thenoldor.guildlaunch.com"][SIZE=3][B]NOLDOR[/B][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=1][COLOR=White] of Arkenstone[/COLOR][/SIZE]
    [/CENTER]

  15. #215
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    4,415
    Quote Originally Posted by warriorpoetex View Post
    I am in favor of more solo/small group content ... LOTS of it. Removing lock-outs was a big plus for raids, but in the end ... raids are losing their luster for many people across MMOs. Raiding has had more negative impact on communities than positive. Big Battles seem, like skirmishes, a nice method to allow people to alter the gameplay to their desired styles. Like old Table Top, adventuring with a handful of your friends was ALWAYS more enjoyable to dealing with 12-40 people to advance story or character. LOTRO was/is always at its best with solo-6-man content ...
    I disagree. Lotro was/is always at its best in challenging 12 man content. As in raids.

    I don't like skirms, I don't do them often and only as 12 mans. I don't want more skirms.

    I do 3/6 man content if there is something in there I want, or because I have 2 friends I run with constantly and we do 3 mans.

    And if I wanted to play solo for everything I'd play Skyrim.

    The only reason raids are losing their luster is the quality of raids released by Turbine has gone downhill over the past couple years. Way downhill.
    I'd explain it to you, but I'm all out of Puppets and Crayons.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    GLADDEN: Moochy, 105 Minstrel R10 + alts CRICKHOLLOW: Moochy, 21 Minstrel

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrossbow View Post
    instead of forcing your anti-raiding play style on the rest? Otherwise, you will have Turbine driving away the people who (IMHO) have the most incentive to spend [real] money on the game.
    Raiders spend the most money on the game? How so, via the Store? I thought raiders were against pay-to-win. Or is that just the Moors players?

    If raiders truly spent the most money on the game, don't you think Turbine's datamining would have noticed that? If it had, don't you think they would be spending more resources on raid development? Since they aren't spending more resources on raid development, I think the correct conclusion is that raiders don't spend the most money on the game. IMHO.
    I like ice cream.

  17. #217
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    4,415
    Again, to determine that they do or do not spend the most money, you have to determine what makes a raider. And turbine hasn't divulged their definition.

    Somebody who raids once in their life?
    Somebody who raids once in awhile?
    Somebody who raids once a week regularly?
    Somebody who raids 2-3 times a week regularly?
    Somebody who raids 5+ times a week?

    And as a raider, I spend store points on LI legacies, scrolls, consumables, crystals, you-name-it, stat boosters, deed accelerators, XP accelerators.... on multiple characters. Even though my time raiding is small (because raids in the past had locks and raids now are *yawn*) I spend most of my in-game time actually getting my characters ready for raiding.

    And I have 3 accounts to buy expansions on. And extra Turbine Points.

    So again.... how do you determine percentage of raiders?
    I'd explain it to you, but I'm all out of Puppets and Crayons.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    GLADDEN: Moochy, 105 Minstrel R10 + alts CRICKHOLLOW: Moochy, 21 Minstrel

  18. #218
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    12,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaniemooch View Post
    Again, to determine that they do or do not spend the most money, you have to determine what makes a raider. And turbine hasn't divulged their definition.
    Nor will they, because no matter what they say, people will nitpick them to death over it. Back when PlayOn released its data for WoW (where only 1 in 6 level-capped characters had done even a single raid in an entire month), many people refused to believe what it said quite plainly... they didn't like its implications, and it didn't line up with their own personal experiences. Why not? Because people who share a passion for something tend to hang out together, and think their own little clique is the "norm".

    So even with the raw data being released, a great many didn't believe it. They thought the collection had to be flawed, they weren't collecting from the "right" servers, there must have been a bug in the /who data supplied by WoW, etc. Turbine will never release raw data, and they won't release their detailed analysis of it either... it's too useful for competitors, and it will only add fuel to the fire going on between different player groups.

    They have far more at stake here than we do. If they get it wrong, worst case is that some or all of us go find some other way to spend some of our leisure time. But they lose their jobs in a tough economy, and an especially tough economy for game developers. You'd better believe that they want to make the right calls here, using the right data, with the right analysis. None of these decisions are made lightly.

    Khafar

  19. #219
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,510
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCrossbow View Post
    I'm not calling their metrics stupid or anything. I am calling into question the people who quote Sapience as a way to defend their stance of being anti-raids or not wanting more raids. Anyone can quote Sapience but the lack of context makes what he said fail to be evidence/support for anything other than that "raiders" tend to be about 10% of the player base.
    There is a difference between saying "there shouldn't be any more raids developed" (which, so far as I can tell, no one actually is saying) and "it is likely that there won't be any new raids for a while, and here are some reasons why". You are mistaking analysis of present situation and likely future trends based on limited available data with antagonism to your pet cause. You may feel that the analyses are flawed, and even be right on that, but misreading an analytical argument as one against raids is an error on your part.

    I cordially invite you to show why the analyses are in error and that new raids are likely in the near term future.

  20. #220
    Quote Originally Posted by whheydt View Post
    There is a difference between saying "there shouldn't be any more raids developed" (which, so far as I can tell, no one actually is saying) and "it is likely that there won't be any new raids for a while, and here are some reasons why". You are mistaking analysis of present situation and likely future trends based on limited available data with antagonism to your pet cause. You may feel that the analyses are flawed, and even be right on that, but misreading an analytical argument as one against raids is an error on your part.

    I cordially invite you to show why the analyses are in error and that new raids are likely in the near term future.
    Probably because the majority of the raider community has already departed witch is merely going to reinforce the self fulfilling prophecy. Add that to the fact the departed community has been pretty vocal on a wide variety external media; there won't be masses of aspiring raiders waiting in the wings. Raiding is dead in this game whatever the original/future intent. It simply isn't a viable or profitable demographic for LOTRO anymore. That bridge is burned.
    Last edited by Bendin; Oct 10 2013 at 02:48 AM.

  21. #221
    Quote Originally Posted by Feraxks View Post
    Raiders spend the most money on the game? How so, via the Store? I thought raiders were against pay-to-win. Or is that just the Moors players?

    If raiders truly spent the most money on the game, don't you think Turbine's datamining would have noticed that? If it had, don't you think they would be spending more resources on raid development? Since they aren't spending more resources on raid development, I think the correct conclusion is that raiders don't spend the most money on the game. IMHO.
    I am a part of a serious raiding kin and i can say, 99% of my kin mates have at least spent more than 100+ dollars per annum. I personally have spent a little shy of 1000 usd on this game(what a shame how this game has turned out) and i know my kin leader has spent 5000 usd on this game too(rich kid). All the other players have spent a great deal of $$ over the years. A few have been lifetimers since SoA days so i dont think thats the way turbine repays them? Think of Lotro as a startup venture in the beginning requiring initial capital.

    What do other players contribute? I dont think bringing in a crowd of players eager to purchase HD expansion so that you can participate in EPIC battles would interest them very much. As others said, this game is degenerating into an ezmode casual game with the trait tree being made more easy and appealing to the casual gamer. Period.

  22. #222
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    921
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneTan View Post
    I am a part of a serious raiding kin and i can say, 99% of my kin mates have at least spent more than 100+ dollars per annum. I personally have spent a little shy of 1000 usd on this game(what a shame how this game has turned out) and i know my kin leader has spent 5000 usd on this game too(rich kid). All the other players have spent a great deal of $$ over the years. A few have been lifetimers since SoA days so i dont think thats the way turbine repays them? Think of Lotro as a startup venture in the beginning requiring initial capital.

    What do other players contribute? I dont think bringing in a crowd of players eager to purchase HD expansion so that you can participate in EPIC battles would interest them very much. As others said, this game is degenerating into an ezmode casual game with the trait tree being made more easy and appealing to the casual gamer. Period.
    Eh i know someone that buys nearly every mount for every character, tons of cosmetics, crafting boost etc.. Might have beat the 5 k of your buddy. That person hasn't even stepped into a 6 man. I personally spend more than the 100 per annum easily and i have done exactly 2 Skirmish raids and a handful of 6 mans.
    What does that tell us ? Well actually absolutely nothing except that anecdotal evidence is anecdotal.
    Nothing here matters.

  23. #223
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by WayneTan View Post
    As others said, this game is degenerating into an ezmode casual game with the trait tree being made more easy and appealing to the casual gamer. Period.
    What do you suggest? To keep LOTRO for elite players only?
    Try to mix easy mode with hard mode which would appeal to elite players?

    That sounds so easy that I'm sure that Turbine knows about it. Why do they chose to go another road?
    That is the question worthy to search the answer for.

  24. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by evguenil View Post
    What do you suggest? To keep LOTRO for elite players only?
    Try to mix easy mode with hard mode which would appeal to elite players?

    That sounds so easy that I'm sure that Turbine knows about it. Why do they chose to go another road?
    That is the question worthy to search the answer for.
    Why do Turbine choose to cater to the casual easymode crowd? They will be the majority and the easiest to milk for all they're worth.

  25. #225
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilkor View Post
    Why do Turbine choose to cater to the casual easymode crowd? They will be the majority and the easiest to milk for all they're worth.
    Yes. And what's wrong with it?
    More customers, more money, more happy faces. There'll be some unhappy faces because of this or that, but you always have few unhappy faces around. You can't please everyone. So, just keep to the basic rule: more customers, more money, more happy faces.

 

 
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload