 |
|
|
|
Monday, November 1, 2010 - 03:50 pm  [15:06] (~Laguna) Hello, Jozi. Since the last Jozi Chat, a new world should have been introduced into the game. [15:07] (~Laguna) It hasn't happened so. What happened? [15:07] (@Jozi) ha ha. did I promise that? [15:07] (@Jozi) it will be added. [15:07] (@Jozi) There are several things we need to prepare and the war update got in between. [15:08] (@Jozi) done [15:08] (~Laguna) Yes... what is the state of affairs for other updates? [15:09] (@Jozi) do you have anything specific in mind? [15:09] (~Laguna) Whichever ones you feel are the most important. [15:10] * Laguna changes topic to 'PM Laguna to voice' [15:11] (@Jozi) There will be more updates to the war game. We have promissed more war levels and even war levels where the attacked C3 country is fighting back and some levels with gold coins awards. [15:12] (@Jozi) we have also said that there will be a posibility to play for free. This will be added ASAP, not in a single world but as an option everywhere with a small number of limitations. [15:12] (@Jozi) we want to implement it very soon [15:14] (@Jozi) done for now. I will also look into our top list and come back with more a little later. [15:14] (~Laguna) Thank you. [15:14] * Laguna sets mode: +v {Ru}Victim [15:14] (+{Ru}Victim) Hi Jozi [15:15] (+{Ru}Victim) and Jonni [15:16] (+{Ru}Victim) I have a request about Blackouts, I wish for victims of aggressors to be able to view the opponents blackout period [15:16] (@Jozi) never thought of it. Any support for this? is it voted on? [15:17] (+{Ru}Victim) The point of blackouts were to save presidents from fighting when not available, but I think they are being used in a way where someone can launch a big offensive right as the war begins, shortly after their black out kicks in [15:17] (+{Ru}Victim) and no no vote [15:17] (+{Ru}Victim) just wondering what you thought of it. [15:18] (+{Ru}Victim) I was attacked by serpent and ran right ionto this situation [15:18] (@Jozi) I see no reason why the blackout period should be secret. let me discuss here. [15:19] (+{Ru}Victim) Ok. [15:19] (@Jozi) I don't think it should be known before the war declaration. [15:19] (@Jozi) but why not when the war starts. [15:20] (@Jozi) I will get back to this point this week on the forum. [15:20] (+{Ru}Victim) Agreed. That is a reasonable medium. [15:20] (+{Ru}Victim) Ok, my only other issue is with some automation of some functions of cargo shuttels [15:20] (+{Ru}Victim) oops, typos [15:21] (~Laguna) Because a drop of sand in a perfect mechanism adds inpredictability. [15:21] (+{Ru}Victim) I have almost 20 shuttles, I have to load and unload, and direct their destinations manually. [15:21] (~Laguna) A war with no inpredictability is simply an exchange of weaponry. [15:22] (+{Ru}Victim) I would like the ability to have them perform tasks, with a bulk actions option. For example, if I have 5000 weapons that I want sent from a space center, to a space station, I have to do it all manually, then unload them all manually [15:22] (@Jozi) on the blackout Laguna: when the war starts, you always experiment and try to find out when the blackout periods are. why not just publish it and everybody knows when to fight. [15:23] (~Laguna) So? [15:23] (~Laguna) You try to find out. [15:24] (~Laguna) You think. You guess. You try. You know. [15:24] (@Jozi) on the shuttles: our idea from the start was to allow for a plan to be prepared for the shuttles and then allow them to loop repeatedly. This is being developed but the person is only partially available. [15:24] (~Laguna) Where's the fun in simply knowing? [15:24] (+{Ru}Victim) I want to be able to say send 500 weapons to my space station, and then have the shuttle perform the action until the taks is completed, similar to how relief supplies are transported to earthquake vicctims [15:24] (+{Ru}Victim) okay I think we agree on the shuttle function Jozi. [15:24] (~Laguna) Work is what gives value to our fun around here. [15:25] (@Jozi) some more issues we now work on: [15:25] (+{Ru}Victim) With the war LG, I think its sad if I am being attacked and already half unpreppared, that I can waste a large amount of weapons trying to counter attack and defend my country, then bam balckout hits, and everything resets [15:25] (@Jozi) More direct trading and some shifting of trade to the space markets. [15:25] (@Jozi) reduced clicking, mainly when creating military units [15:26] (@Jozi) purchasing of weapons and ammunition and other materials. [15:26] (~Laguna) That is an exceptional situation in the whole. [15:26] (@Jozi) simply ask for the units and wait for them to be created with automatic orders of everything needed. [15:27] (+{Ru}Victim) True, LG, that is why I said, agressors. Obviously, they are prepared to fight, so their blaackout should not then be secret after they declare war, agreed? [15:27] (@Jozi) we have addeed two info pages on the war. we will add more such pages on other functions to make them more transparent. [15:27] (@Jozi) last for now: loans. [15:27] (+{Ru}Victim) lol, okay, I'm good on my end jozi, just wanted to discuss those two things. [15:27] (~Laguna) You can ask why they should be intitled to blackouts to begin with. [15:28] (@Jozi) we have found some loop holes that allowed for unlimited buying and ended up with countries being bankrupted. this will be fixed ASAP. [15:28] (+{Ru}Victim) Now we are getting somewhere LG, I think they stink completely [15:28] (+{Ru}Victim) But I wanted to find a balance [15:28] (~Laguna) I think the whole war engine stinks. [15:28] (~Laguna) Before, now and in the future. [15:29] (+{Ru}Victim) I want star wars. Any words on attack ships in space? [15:30] (@Jozi) we promised to add this but don't hold your breath. It will take some time. We have created the weapons already but need to build the war process, or add these weapons to the existing one. [15:30] (@Jozi) also, the war process does not run yet on the portal. [15:30] (@Jozi) the blackout periods: [15:31] (@Jozi) we have introduced them to prevent wars while you are asleep. [15:31] (+{Ru}Victim) Indeed [15:31] (@Jozi) the idea was that is everyone will lockout some hours, the chance that both are fighting at the same time will increase. [15:32] (@Jozi) to achieve that, they should know when they can fight. [15:32] (~Laguna) Wait... what? [15:32] (~Laguna) Are you sure about that? [15:32] (~Laguna) If I know when someone is active to fight, I will search to fight with him at those hours? [15:33] (~Laguna) I think it's the other way around. [15:33] (@Jozi) and you think it is the best way? [15:33] (~Laguna) The best to make them fight at the same time? [15:34] (+{Ru}Victim) The best warrior would win, no? [15:35] (@Jozi) We could go even further and ask that both are available at the same time and agree to start the war now. [15:35] (@Jozi) what do you think? [15:35] (+{Ru}Victim) that sounds good, but would probably really limit the war [15:36] (~Laguna) Blackouts did this: they subtracted hours from a day. To win a war, you have to employ a certain number of hours. The less hours a day has, the greater the probability the time both players fight at the same time. [15:36] (~Laguna) That sounds good to me. [15:36] (+{Ru}Victim) What if bot5h players never agree at the same time? [15:37] (+{Ru}Victim) Ya know. [15:37] (@Jozi) That is what we hoped will happen. forcing both to be available 100% of the time will indeed limit the war possibilities. [15:37] (~Laguna) What if there are more than two players? [15:37] (+{Ru}Victim) But to consenting adults, yeah that works. [15:38] (@Jozi) so the way we have it now is probably the best we can do to increase the chance that they are there at the same time. [15:39] (~Laguna) I agree to change the way blackouts operate. [15:39] (+{Ru}Victim) Jozi, I agree with you on people being available at the same time. I meant players agreeing at the same time to start the war, that would limit wars. Maybe someone would never agree in order to avoid the war altogether. [15:39] (@Jozi) I agree. wars will get stuck [15:40] (@Jozi) if someone is losing, he will not show up. [15:40] (@Jozi) more developments: [15:41] (@Jozi) we have published before that we will add natural resources and with it more game assets and mainly, game missions. [15:41] (@Jozi) done [15:41] (~Laguna) I'll pass the word to SSRCP. [15:41] * Laguna sets mode: -v {Ru}Victim [15:41] * Laguna sets mode: +v SSRCP [15:41] (+SSRCP) Hello again Jozi [15:41] (@Jozi) hi [15:41] (+SSRCP) how you doing? [15:42] (@Jozi) too busy but except for that I am doing great. (80 hours + a week). [15:43] (+SSRCP) lol ill be quick then [15:43] (+SSRCP) Question on the fourm [15:44] (+SSRCP) Scarlet asked....If anyone has the time, could you mention that AQU and WQU order strategies still don't work. Thanks. [15:44] (+SSRCP) anything you can do about that [15:45] (~Laguna) You expecting he knows what that means? [15:45] (@Jozi) I got this yesterday but I don't understand what does not work. You can purchase them? they are not used? weapons are not being upgraded? [15:46] (+SSRCP) idk honestly i was trying to be polite and as a question for those not here lol [15:46] (~Laguna) Is quality being factored into the weapons when attacking or defending? [15:47] (@Jozi) OK. I will have it checked on Monday and place a detailed answer on the forum Moday or Tuesday. [15:48] (+SSRCP) Ok thanks jozi for my questions...Do you by chance remember my last question on nukes? [15:48] (@Jozi) quality is factored into both. Q 150 increases the effect of the weapons by 1.5 [15:48] (@Jozi) about nukes being more destructive? [15:49] (+SSRCP) yes [15:49] (~Laguna) Well, my units are being upgraded automatically. [15:49] (+SSRCP) i would like to get something fixed but not to them being more destructive [15:49] (@Jozi) I am sorry. I don't know what happened to it. It fell between the cracks? Will resond with the other issues, this week. [15:50] (@Jozi) what should be fixed. [15:50] (+SSRCP) i was hoping we could fix tactical nukes and chemical missles to where we can use them in C3 and change the roles of tactical nukes [15:51] (+SSRCP) as it stands it cost 8B to make a tact and takes 2-3 to destory a base and they only destroy bases [15:51] (~Laguna) The correct verb for that is "change" and not "fix". [15:51] (+SSRCP) change im sorry [15:52] (@Jozi) I will check it and promise to get you an answr and what we are going to do about it, this week. [15:53] (+SSRCP) thanks jozi... another question brought up in the forum n the voting section [15:53] (+SSRCP) removing the investment fund limit [15:54] (+SSRCP) can anything be done about that [15:54] (@Jozi) Yes I know about it. We think that the percentage can be increased but we do not want to see a majority share. [15:55] (~Laguna) Are you two on the same page? [15:55] (+SSRCP) i dont think so lol [15:55] (@Jozi) funds cannot run companies and our aim is to have more corporations that have many shareholders. The largest shareholder [15:55] (~Laguna) I don't think so either. [15:55] (@Jozi) should be small like real public corporations are. [15:56] (~Laguna) Jozi, the limit SSRCP is talking about is another. [15:57] (@Jozi) educate me please [15:57] (~Laguna) Perhaps intended or not, there is a limit to how many corps an investment fund can hold shares of. [15:57] (~Laguna) Enterprises too, for that matter. [15:57] (~Laguna) For instance, I can only have shares of 654 (or something around that) of diferent corps in my enterprise. [15:58] (@Jozi) oh, I got that wrong then. we will increase the number. maybe today, it is an external property we can change instantly. [15:58] (~Laguna) Are you really, really sure on that? [15:59] (@Jozi) The amount of money in the funds is growing. The percentage they can hold is limited where can the money go? [16:00] (~Laguna) Nevermind my question. SSRCP do you have anything to add? [16:00] (+SSRCP) i have a few more questions but throw the mic if someone has something they wanna ask [16:01] (~Laguna) The chat will have to end in an hour, just so everyone knows. [16:02] * Laguna sets mode: -v SSRCP [16:02] * Laguna sets mode: +v BrokenAmbitions [16:02] (@Jozi) On the nukes: [16:02] (@Jozi) and checmichal weapons: [16:02] (@Jozi) chemical it is. [16:03] (+BrokenAmbitions) Good morning/evening Jozi, I have a few quesitons/ideas that I and a few others have discussed in SC chat, recent game news from the last 2 months have mentioned a new world emerging on SC, with GR and KB currently full of inactive players, why not merge the two worlds into one and then add new areas.. [16:04] (@Jozi) I checked and indeed, the tactical weapons can attack only bases. We should add cities and fortifications. [16:04] (@Jozi) chemical weapons are the same but with the addition of cities. This too should be extended. [16:04] (@Jozi) more details this week. [16:04] (@Jozi) done [16:04] (@Jozi) hi BrokenAmbitions [16:05] (+BrokenAmbitions) It would greatly consolidate the game play, rather then keeping so many players spread thinly across 5 worlds, why not consolidate them to 3 worlds as GR and KB have the same settings and it wouldn't change much, except perhaps what peoples countries would look like on the map. [16:05] (+BrokenAmbitions) hiya jozi :D [16:06] (@Jozi) Merging worlds is very hard. You cannot move countries and forcing people out is not very nice. We think that [16:06] (@Jozi) we should have all 5 and shortly 6 worlds very crowded. [16:07] (~Laguna) What astonishing marketing move is in the works then? [16:07] (+BrokenAmbitions) So then why not start this 6th world with an option to move KB and GR countries population/assets/corps etc.. to this new world? it would be less work and optional, plus it would start the development of this new world much quicker, and with active players [16:08] (+BrokenAmbitions) Just a thought..  [16:09] (@Jozi) There is no technical way to move them. We have done so in the past but it was very complex and caused many problems. [16:10] (+BrokenAmbitions) ah okay, I thought it was an easier process, sorry! Okay LG you can pass the mic for now thanks jozi. [16:10] (@Jozi) moving assets should become easier. [16:11] (@Jozi) once we can move assets within the game, this concept may become an option. [16:12] * Laguna sets mode: -v BrokenAmbitions [16:12] (~Laguna) I'm awaiting requests. [16:13] * Laguna sets mode: +v SSRCP [16:13] * Laguna sets mode: +v snozzled [16:13] * Laguna sets mode: -v SSRCP [16:14] (+snozzled) hi Jozi [16:14] (@Jozi) Hi snozzled [16:14] (+snozzled) just back to simc after 4+ years playing eveonline. I'm impressed by their support for 3rd party devs, like http://www.eveonline.com/api/doc/ [16:15] (+snozzled) which leads to e.g. http://www.eve-metrics.com/ built by players [16:15] (+snozzled) any plans for similar support? [16:16] (@Jozi) you probably many in house developers to prepare for this. We had plans to publish interfaces to some of our objects and allow [16:16] (@Jozi) people to make a school, hospital, and corporate simulations in many more details, and plug them into the current object base. [16:17] (@Jozi) not possible in the current setup. [16:17] (@Jozi) done [16:17] (~Laguna) "you probably many in house developers to prepare for this." - What? [16:18] (+snozzled) i'm not talking about running a new sim on your system, just exposing data from the existing running worlds in e.g. xml rather than html - should just need new page templates not new code. [16:18] (@Jozi) need [16:18] (~Laguna) I see it now. [16:18] (@Jozi) exporting xml is easy. Then what? [16:20] (+snozzled) ahh, that's the nice bit - it's limited only be the imagination and (free) time of the players, not just your own (paid) dev team. [16:20] (+snozzled) if it's easy give it a try and see what they come up with [16:21] (@Jozi) we just need an example or two to understand what kind of data should be made available. [16:21] (@Jozi) if you have any specific idea, I am interested in discussing it. [16:21] (~Laguna) You need to start playing other games, Jozi. [16:22] (~Laguna) You need to know what the competition is doing to beat them. [16:22] (+snozzled) ok, I'll put some ideas on the forum. [16:22] (@Jozi) thanks Laguna. You have no idea what the guys here are on are not doing. [16:22] (@Jozi) thanks snozzled. We will be there. [16:23] (+snozzled) done, thanks. [16:23] (~Laguna) I'm guessing not playing games. [16:23] * Laguna sets mode: +v SSRCP [16:23] * Laguna sets mode: -v snozzled [16:24] (+SSRCP) Hi again Jozi, Follow up question when can see see the fin services removed [16:24] (+SSRCP) its still a pain [16:25] (@Jozi) I don't want to remove them. They do a great job in moving assets either into being productive or into the bank [16:25] (~Laguna) I demand a liquidity trap. [16:25] (+SSRCP) can re raise the limit 14T is a little low [16:25] (@Jozi) I think that the direct trading and money on the account has largely reduced the effect of the fin services. [16:27] (+SSRCP) yes but when i have loans out i get large sums back [16:27] (@Jozi) Laguna, any constructive idea? [16:27] (+SSRCP) n i loose chunks of change [16:27] (+SSRCP) possiably base it on the amount of assest a player has? [16:27] (@Jozi) I know, and you offer new loans or you move the money into the account. [16:27] (@Jozi) 14T is a huge amount of money to keep in cash [16:28] (~Laguna) On this? I'm indifferent. [16:28] (@Jozi) In general. [16:28] * Laguna sets mode: +v BrokenAmbitions [16:28] (~Laguna) Maybe later. [16:29] (+SSRCP) do i have time for another Question [16:29] (+BrokenAmbitions) Jozi my constructive idea, is that you add an automation setting for loans such as when country cash avaliable is more than 3T, put that amount out in loans for x amount of game months where as you can set the amount base of the country, and the months it goes out for in loans. [16:30] (@Jozi) yes. I will be here for another 30 min. [16:30] (+BrokenAmbitions) and be able to toggle it off and on of course.. [16:30] (+BrokenAmbitions) would keep those with high amount of loans happy, inactives happy, and new players indifferent, also will keep countries from going into huge debt or losing mass amounts to financial services. [16:31] (@Jozi) now you are talking. we will look into it and respons this week. [16:31] (+SSRCP) *high fives BA* [16:32] (+BrokenAmbitions) speaking of automation..while we are on it. [16:32] (@Jozi) I mean response [16:32] (+BrokenAmbitions) Why not have an automate what your shuttles are moving from and to space centers? rather then having the long process of 10,000 clicks to move 25000 missles? [16:32] (+BrokenAmbitions) automated* [16:33] (+BrokenAmbitions) thanks jozi [16:34] (@Jozi) we talked about this an hour ago. we are working on it. We want to introduce the ability to create a complete shuttle mission and then run it many times. [16:34] (+BrokenAmbitions) Ahh sorry i wasnt here for it. [16:34] (+BrokenAmbitions) K im done for now..thanks jozi. [16:34] (~Laguna) And it won't damage the military spending limit? [16:34] (+BrokenAmbitions) will come up with a few more before time runs out [16:35] (+BrokenAmbitions) LG space hasnt over ran milli spending yet, why should that start now? lol its the same concept as consolidating/stripping countries, in my book. :P [16:35] (@Jozi) how does in influence the mil. spending? [16:35] (+BrokenAmbitions) it doesnt presently. [16:36] (+BrokenAmbitions) sorry guess LG thought it did. [16:36] (~Laguna) It doesn't, but it should because of: [16:36] (~Laguna) [16:34] (@Jozi) we talked about this an hour ago. we are working on it. We want to introduce the ability to create a complete shuttle mission and then run it many times. [16:36] (@Jozi) no it does not. [16:36] (~Laguna) If you don't see the problem, I won't argue it. [16:36] (~Laguna) I'll let someone argue for me after that has been done. [16:36] (+BrokenAmbitions) lol LG [16:37] (+BrokenAmbitions) k take my voice im going for a smoke [16:37] * Laguna sets mode: -v BrokenAmbitions [16:37] * Laguna sets mode: -v SSRCP [16:37] (~Laguna) I'm awaiting requests. [16:37] (~Laguna) Besides SSRCP [16:39] (~Laguna) You asked if I had anything constructive to say. I'll repeat a quote from Saint-Exupery that Scarlet posted on the forum: [16:39] (~Laguna) A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away. [16:40] (~Laguna) If I have anything constructive to say, it will have to be deconsctrutive. [16:40] (~Laguna) The game is to full of useless and untangled and incomplete features. [16:40] (~Laguna) Less is beautiful. [16:40] * Laguna sets mode: +v SSRCP [16:41] (+SSRCP) Jozi something asked for last chat but no word [16:41] (+SSRCP) can we get trade strategys for local and common markets [16:42] (+SSRCP) so i can sell best price to local n common markets but the highest to international? [16:43] (@Jozi) This is indeed a problem and we know of it. It will be done immediately after we finish another round of war updates and additional war levels and the free playing feature. there are several bugs to fix and some features to complete. [16:44] (+SSRCP) thanks and one more question and im done [16:44] (+SSRCP) might be becuase in terms of the game i am young but can trasnfering weapons between an empire not count againt the monthly spending [16:44] (+SSRCP) or is this done for a reason? [16:45] (+SSRCP) seems weird id pay for weapons more then once you know [16:45] (@Jozi) This is an old limitation, same as with the impossibility to move money between countries that disappeared with the direct trading. [16:46] (@Jozi) we intend to allow weapons transfers to your account and you will be able to move them back to another country. [16:46] (@Jozi) this will make the direct transfer between countries in the empire obsolete. [16:47] (+SSRCP) ok thanks im good laguna you can pass the mic [16:48] * Laguna sets mode: +v BrokenAmbitions [16:48] (+BrokenAmbitions) Okay, biggest issue with the new war game, is the losses of Bombers to ints and nfp to ints, bombers use around 280 to take out 1200 ints, and it takes 10,000 nfp to take out 3000 interceptors (havent tested it with the smaller units.) if nfp have become this ineffective and bombers have become god of SC war, why not give nfp drones or something to help [16:48] * Laguna sets mode: -v SSRCP [16:48] (+BrokenAmbitions) (these results arent from personal trials) others mentioning it on MSN lol [16:49] (+BrokenAmbitions) It just seems from all the testing results ive read/heard about, navys are useless, without bombers in range..which shouldnt be right. [16:50] (@Jozi) the new war features with the new C3 countries and war levels have nothing to do with the numbers of casualties or destroyed weapons in fighting. we have not changed this at all. we have in fact run many tests to measure the numbers and we think they are OK. [16:50] (@Jozi) we do think that all the numbers of destroyed weapons are too high and we would like to reduce these numbers on both sides. [16:51] (+BrokenAmbitions) well i know i didnt used to lose 400 nfp to take out 50 interceptors. [16:51] (+BrokenAmbitions) Lol [16:51] (@Jozi) hence the reduction in the size of all military units. [16:51] (@Jozi) done [16:51] (+BrokenAmbitions) ahh okay thanks! [16:51] (@Jozi) what about quality? [16:52] (@Jozi) C3s in war level 5,6,7 have mil. units of higher quality. [16:52] (+BrokenAmbitions) ammo/weapon quality upgrades need to be expanded to navys then [16:52] (@Jozi) they fight harder and are harder to destroy. [16:52] (@Jozi) this is an effect of high quality units. [16:52] (@Jozi) create some at Q level 180 and the results will be very different. [16:52] (+BrokenAmbitions) otherwise unless ordered at 250 quality..when purchasing them (which is highly expensive).. [16:53] (+BrokenAmbitions) Eh maybe im just confused on what works and doesnt work anymore...so many changes, such short period of time haha.. thanks jozi [16:53] (@Jozi) yes. We need to do it. However, navies are allowed many weapons. Many more than a regular unit. [16:54] (+BrokenAmbitions) yeah but losing 800 of them to take out 100 ints isnt exactly proportional [16:54] (~Laguna) Closing time is drawing near. [16:54] (+BrokenAmbitions) even having 20K nfp on a boat..it would be worthless vs 38000 ints. [16:54] (@Jozi) I agree and proportionality is lost once you can upgrade the units and some have a better quality than others. [16:55] (+BrokenAmbitions) anyone else have another thing for jozi? im finished.. [16:55] (+BrokenAmbitions) ahh so you will be including the upgrades. [16:55] (+BrokenAmbitions) Gotcha! thanks! [16:55] (@Jozi) we will increase the max quality and make sure the quality products work. we also intend to allow for faster quality upgrading. [16:55] (@Jozi) it does make sense now to upgrade your units so that you will need smaller numbers. [16:57] * Laguna sets mode: -v BrokenAmbitions [16:57] (~Laguna) Any closing statements, Jozi? [16:58] (@Jozi) No speaches. thanks everybody for coming. Laguna, we can set a new date whenever you are up to it. [16:59] (~Laguna) My computer just freezed, but... [16:59] (~Laguna) 21 of Novemever sounds good? [17:00] (@Jozi) moving back to Sunday but 21st is busy. 28th? [17:01] (~Laguna) It can be a saturday too. [17:01] (@Jozi) 27th or 28th then. I wil get back to you ASAP. is it OK? [17:01] (~Laguna) Yes. [17:01] (@Jozi) good. Thanks Laguna. [17:03] (~Laguna) Thanks for coming. Session Close: Sat Oct 30 17:06:11 2010
| |
| Monday, November 1, 2010 - 03:52 pm Comment here, if you please.
|
