Core Patch 1: "Arriving"

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

21 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

Please. Pleaseee give us the ability to edit the enemy ships in custom battles in this update. If we can save our designs, then the AI can simply use the designs we have saved. Why is it so hard?

 

I agree! Or at least be able to define their displacement. It's kinda underwhelming to make a Super Battleship and have your opponents be some 20,000 ton Battleships with 220mm thick armor

[Werwaz]

the only thing in this update that I don't like is the 10 percent armor weight increase

the weights are fine as they are, they don't need any buffs/nerfs

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, Werwaz said:

the only thing in this update that I don't like is the 10 percent armor weight increase

the weights are fine as they are, they don't need any buffs/nerfs

They should look at costs, as i assume that was the more defining reason half the time than weight alone. Also hope they add mod support so we can correct mistakes and add things we want too. (Plus it will skyrocket the games longevity for a good while too). 

[Skeksis]

AI designs still have to be tested, to flush out all the issues, the best way to continue this process is with enemy auto-designs. If so then I think once the team is happy with AI-Auto-Designer, I'm sure they'll release full player enemy builds. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by Skeksis

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

3 hours ago, Werwaz said:

the only thing in this update that I don't like is the 10 percent armor weight increase

the weights are fine as they are, they don't need any buffs/nerfs

 

Also agree with this.

 

I wouldn't say that they are fine, either: many components and bases are overwight... Try to make a historical ship, and you will see that most of the times, they are overweight by up to 10,000 tons.

 

I don't know what it is, but there's something  that is definitely overweight over here, and now it looks like armor will too...

[Lucyfire]

Any ETA on this core patch? like 1day, 1 week, 1 month, few months?

[Shiki]

50 minutes ago, Lucyfire said:

Any ETA on this core patch? like 1day, 1 week, 1 month, few months?

Usually these updates occur between 2 and 3 weeks after they post patch notes.

Usually.

[Speglord]

Last time I believe the patch came exactly 1 week after their announcement post; we'll see if the same holds true here. 

[Danvanthevacuumman]

2022 q4

[ColonelHenry]

2 hours ago, Skeksis said:

AI designs still have to be tested, to flush out all the issues, the best way to continue this process is with enemy auto-designs. If so then I think once the team is happy with AI-Auto-Designer, I'm sure they'll release full player enemy builds. 

So... has the AI ship designer got any better in the last year or is it still pumping out ships that even its own mother couldn't even bring herself to look at? I don't want to be THAT guy but throughout the entire development up to this point, EVERY SINGLE FEATURE requested about the PLAYER interaction with the game mechanics has been about AI designer UNABLE to do so and thus NOT to be given to the player. So in that sense, might as well give us a line of running code to look at and let us imagine the screen with ships we could build. We wanted to have a better ship builder: nope, ai can't handle it. We wanted to have better battle formations: well... yea the AI is hanging on for dear life trying to sort out every ship movements. We wanted to have fun in custom battle and test things out: no test the AI instead. Well, yea thanks, I'm glad I'm part of this testing phrase where I can barely test anything with repeatable and tangible results because it's a 20 dice roll every time I click "Play"

Edited August 18, 2021 by ColonelHenry

[Fishyfish]

"Arriving" 

[IshPR7777]

I'm so excited for the new update. And yeah, we can save our ship designs in the Custom Battles just like we did in the Naval Academy.

My question is that, I was going to talk about the carrier combats that happened in WW2 in the Pacific, such as Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway between USA and Japan. Speaking about Battle of Midway, it might be a crucial mission for both of these countries, but I hope we will play that mission if we either choose USA or Japan in the campaign in the future of UAD.

However, if we win the Battle of Midway as Japan, then we will able not only to occupy Midway Atoll but also taking a full control of the 50% of the Pacific Ocean from the USA and Allies.

Edited August 18, 2021 by IsmaelMolina2021

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

has the AI ship designer got any better in the last year

Yes.

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

or is it still pumping out ships that even its own mother couldn't even bring herself to look at?

WIP.

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

throughout the entire development up to this point, EVERY SINGLE FEATURE requested about the PLAYER interaction with the game mechanics has been about AI designer UNABLE to do so and thus NOT to be given to the player.......We wanted to have a better ship builder: nope, ai can't handle i........We wanted to have fun in custom battle and test things out: no test the AI instead. Well, yea thanks, I'm glad I'm part of this testing phrase where I can barely test anything with repeatable and tangible results because it's a 20 dice roll every time I click "Play".

The campaign will be about fighting the AI and its designs, so this has to be one of the areas to get right, wouldn't you say. 

WotS has fixed designed enemies, while this is good for a single campaign in a moment of time, it's impossible for developers to build multiple campaigns, for multiple time periods, encompassing six classes of ships resulting in thousands of ships. Meaning AI auto design for ships is the only option, it's here to stay and all the issues have to be resolved before release.

Keeping auto enemy design assigned, in task of getting it ready, and for us to encage in this task (if it's so), is the the right call, IMO. Calls for all designable have been around since birth, they know.

4 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

We wanted to have better battle formations: well... yea the AI is hanging on for dear life trying to sort out every ship movements.

My workaround is to split every capital ship up into single ship divisions, it works.

But remember Dev's have always said, and wanted, to get a working draft of the campaign out before addressing any other issues, they have done just that.

Edited August 19, 2021 by Skeksis

[ColonelHenry]

8 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

The campaign will be about fighting the AI and its designs, so this has to be one of the areas to get right, wouldn't you say. 

WotS has fixed designed enemies, while this is good for a single campaign in a moment of time, it's impossible for developers to build multiple campaigns, for multiple time periods, encompassing six classes of ships resulting in thousands of ships. Meaning AI auto design for ships is the only option, it's here to stay and all the all issues have to be resolved before release.

And keeping auto enemy design assigned, in task of getting it ready, and for us to encage in this task (if it's so), is the the right call, IMO. Calls for all designable have been around since birth, they know.

The problem is the AI does not work. It's not that it's working with flaws. It isn't. And when it does, it works as well as coding FPS AI to "If (player_detected == 1 && time == 100ms) { HeadShotPlayer (1); }".

How many times does it has to be said that the AI fails to give the player any challenge that resemble reality OR fairness (because reality of combat isn't very fair). Every time I boot up the game, all of my interesting designs i.e designs that have flaws like IRL I would face the challenge of getting the AI to design something that isn't YAMATO or TILLMAN or something that would instantly turn my ship into Swiss cheese. Great, there goes my interesting designs. Other time, I wanted to build a good battleship or two, I run into the Navy of the poorest nation on Earth who could not hope to afford more than 10 inches of belt armor in 1920 and instantly combust upon the slight touch of a 14'' heavy shell. Well, there goes my 20 mins adventure of design, watch ship goes boom in 2 mins, and quit. I have said it time and time again, that this is one of the main reason why people would boot up the game, play for like half an hour, and quit.

Now, about the AI ships designs flaws. They still put 6 triple guns on to the battleships and explode spectacularly as expected. They still put guns in the "Extended" belt armor area and again, explode spectacularly. They still build extremely under armored battleships although not as bad as before. They still build CL without a single torpedo launcher. They still build CA like they build their battleships... so many guns that you would think it would flip the damn ship if they fire a broadside. They still build ships that looks so terrible even the restricted ship building mechanic couldn't save it (put guns in the wrong places like I said, disgusting placement of secondary guns, wrong barbette usage, weird superstructure choices like very large and modern Tower in the front but tiny secondary tower). They still build destroyers with triple guns turret that looks not only ridiculous but broken as shit because in this game, more guns = always better.

These are the problems that has been in the game since the day I download the game. Sure, the AI sometimes gets it right and build a nice ship, oh wait it's undergunned. Yea. No. If you say the AI works, all I see is that it's working AGAINST having a good game.

So what's the solution? It has already been said before. Let us build the ships. Then the AI will modify those ships built by players for their own needs. That's when you can literally asks US, the PLAYERS to engage in helping YOU GUYS make this game FASTER and BETTER. That would also make throwing more hulls at the problem a good thing. We build, put things in place with an open, well designed ship builder. The AI takes those and remove or add according to their campaign modifiers.

 

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

The problem is the AI does not work. It's not that it's working with flaws. It isn't. And when it does, it works as well as coding FPS AI to "If (player_detected == 1 && time == 100ms) { HeadShotPlayer (1); }".

How many times does it has to be said that the AI fails to give the player any challenge that resemble reality OR fairness (because reality of combat isn't very fair). Every time I boot up the game, all of my interesting designs i.e designs that have flaws like IRL I would face the challenge of getting the AI to design something that isn't YAMATO or TILLMAN or something that would instantly turn my ship into Swiss cheese. Great, there goes my interesting designs. Other time, I wanted to build a good battleship or two, I run into the Navy of the poorest nation on Earth who could not hope to afford more than 10 inches of belt armor in 1920 and instantly combust upon the slight touch of a 14'' heavy shell. Well, there goes my 20 mins adventure of design, watch ship goes boom in 2 mins, and quit. I have said it time and time again, that this is one of the main reason why people would boot up the game, play for like half an hour, and quit.

Now, about the AI ships designs flaws. They still put 6 triple guns on to the battleships and explode spectacularly as expected. They still put guns in the "Extended" belt armor area and again, explode spectacularly. They still build extremely under armored battleships although not as bad as before. They still build CL without a single torpedo launcher. They still build CA like they build their battleships... so many guns that you would think it would flip the damn ship if they fire a broadside. They still build ships that looks so terrible even the restricted ship building mechanic couldn't save it (put guns in the wrong places like I said, disgusting placement of secondary guns, wrong barbette usage, weird superstructure choices like very large and modern Tower in the front but tiny secondary tower). They still build destroyers with triple guns turret that looks not only ridiculous but broken as shit because in this game, more guns = always better.

These are the problems that has been in the game since the day I download the game. Sure, the AI sometimes gets it right and build a nice ship, oh wait it's undergunned. Yea. No. If you say the AI works, all I see is that it's working AGAINST having a good game.

So what's the solution? It has already been said before. Let us build the ships. Then the AI will modify those ships built by players for their own needs. That's when you can literally asks US, the PLAYERS to engage in helping YOU GUYS make this game FASTER and BETTER. That would also make throwing more hulls at the problem a good thing. We build, put things in place with an open, well designed ship builder. The AI takes those and remove or add according to their campaign modifiers.

 

All almighty give the team strength, please!

[Draco]

8 hours ago, Skeksis said:

WotS has fixed designed enemies, while this is good for a single campaign in a moment of time, it's impossible for developers to build multiple campaigns, for multiple time periods, encompassing six classes of ships resulting in thousands of ships. Meaning AI auto design for ships is the only option, it's here to stay and all the issues have to be resolved before release.

If it is indeed the only option then this game is dead... pure and simple...

[Finnwolf88]

I really don't understand all these comments how the game is dead because of the AI designs. If they are too easy for you, how about not building super battleships with very limited range that cost your countries GDP and instead build something that is actually viable in the campaign.

I do admit the AI still builds some very questionable designs, but sometimes the designs are really good. The system isn't bad, it just needs some more work.

I just wish we had the system which lead me to buy this game, which is the modular system they advertised.

[Draco]

1 hour ago, Finnwolf88 said:

I really don't understand all these comments how the game is dead because of the AI designs. If they are too easy for you, how about not building super battleships with very limited range that cost your countries GDP and instead build something that is actually viable in the campaign.

I do admit the AI still builds some very questionable designs, but sometimes the designs are really good. The system isn't bad, it just needs some more work.

I just wish we had the system which lead me to buy this game, which is the modular system they advertised.

As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem.

And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical.

Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they have 16+ main gun barrels to make up for it.

If you look at the stats during any custom battle, you'll notice AI ships are already receiving artificial accuracy bonuses that don't correspond with their tech, towers, rangefinders ect. To make up for their inneficiencies, and this is symptomatic of the whole game RN.

All the last 3-4 updates have had all their balancing tweaks focused on forcing the AI to make better designs, to the point of appeasing a faulty programme to the detriment of the players and the realism.

As has been mentioned, realistic designs consequently come in thousands of tonnes overwheight when compared to real life counterparts, which is a direct result of pandering to the faulty AI over the players.

Gun vs. Armor pen values are also sliding away from realism as the devs attempt to balance these calculations to work with the AI's faulty tactics rather than fixing said tactics.

From my point of view, when I open the game to try a new design, I'll usually have to restart the fight at least 7 or 8 times before the AI builds something half-decent, which means I'll spend 15-30 minutes staring at a loading screen before I actually get to test my idea, and if this is and indication of how the AI will be designing ships in the upcoming campaign, then honestly what's the point?

Will I have to restart the campaign just as often whenever the AI builds a meme ship just to not kill the immersion?

In my opinion, all work on further hulls should be dropped and replaced by machine learning efforts to try and teach the AI to begin making logical designs out of the hulls we already have, and all balance tweaks should be returned to their non-AI pandering values so the devs aren't teaching the AI to build "logical" ships on illogical physics values.

That might save the "AI designs are here to stay" standpoint.

Of course all that work could be avoided if the devs allowed us to build said designs ourselves.

We'd be happy to.

We've already literally paid them to give us the opportunity to complete this task for them.

So yeah, we're just really frustrated. Bear in mind some of us have been doing this for years now...

At some point the patience just begins to run out...

[Finnwolf88]

28 minutes ago, Draco said:

As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem.

And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical.

Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they have 16+ main gun barrels to make up for it.

If you look at the stats during any custom battle, you'll notice AI ships are already receiving artificial accuracy bonuses that don't correspond with their tech, towers, rangefinders ect. To make up for their inneficiencies, and this is symptomatic of the whole game RN.

All the last 3-4 updates have had all their balancing tweaks focused on forcing the AI to make better designs, to the point of appeasing a faulty programme to the detriment of the players and the realism.

As has been mentioned, realistic designs consequently come in thousands of tonnes overwheight when compared to real life counterparts, which is a direct result of pandering to the faulty AI over the players.

Gun vs. Armor pen values are also sliding away from realism as the devs attempt to balance these calculations to work with the AI's faulty tactics rather than fixing said tactics.

From my point of view, when I open the game to try a new design, I'll usually have to restart the fight at least 7 or 8 times before the AI builds something half-decent, which means I'll spend 15-30 minutes staring at a loading screen before I actually get to test my idea, and if this is and indication of how the AI will be designing ships in the upcoming campaign, then honestly what's the point?

Will I have to restart the campaign just as often whenever the AI builds a meme ship just to not kill the immersion?

In my opinion, all work on further hulls should be dropped and replaced by machine learning efforts to try and teach the AI to begin making logical designs out of the hulls we already have, and all balance tweaks should be returned to their non-AI pandering values so the devs aren't teaching the AI to build "logical" ships on illogical physics values.

That might save the "AI designs are here to stay" standpoint.

Of course all that work could be avoided if the devs allowed us to build said designs ourselves.

We'd be happy to.

We've already literally paid them to give us the opportunity to complete this task for them.

So yeah, we're just really frustrated. Bear in mind some of us have been doing this for years now...

At some point the patience just begins to run out...

Thank you for your in-depth response. Can't really argue with your points. I don't see AI designs being removed, but like you said, machine learning from player designs might be just the way to go. Or maybe use designs made by alpha players as to not over saturate the system. That way the devs could determine what kind of designs we should make. I'd be glad to design several ships for campaign/AI learning.

Been playing ever since the first playable alpha (though on and off) and I think the AI is the way to go, but the dumb designs need to be addressed. 117000t superbattleship with 3x3 14" is just useless. The system isn't as bad as some seem to think as I've had some 10 or so custom battles in a row with good or really good designs. Though I generally play in the 1900-1925 area.

[Werwaz]

52 minutes ago, Draco said:

As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem.

And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical.

Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they have 16+ main gun barrels to make up for it.

If you look at the stats during any custom battle, you'll notice AI ships are already receiving artificial accuracy bonuses that don't correspond with their tech, towers, rangefinders ect. To make up for their inneficiencies, and this is symptomatic of the whole game RN.

All the last 3-4 updates have had all their balancing tweaks focused on forcing the AI to make better designs, to the point of appeasing a faulty programme to the detriment of the players and the realism.

As has been mentioned, realistic designs consequently come in thousands of tonnes overwheight when compared to real life counterparts, which is a direct result of pandering to the faulty AI over the players.

Gun vs. Armor pen values are also sliding away from realism as the devs attempt to balance these calculations to work with the AI's faulty tactics rather than fixing said tactics.

From my point of view, when I open the game to try a new design, I'll usually have to restart the fight at least 7 or 8 times before the AI builds something half-decent, which means I'll spend 15-30 minutes staring at a loading screen before I actually get to test my idea, and if this is and indication of how the AI will be designing ships in the upcoming campaign, then honestly what's the point?

Will I have to restart the campaign just as often whenever the AI builds a meme ship just to not kill the immersion?

In my opinion, all work on further hulls should be dropped and replaced by machine learning efforts to try and teach the AI to begin making logical designs out of the hulls we already have, and all balance tweaks should be returned to their non-AI pandering values so the devs aren't teaching the AI to build "logical" ships on illogical physics values.

That might save the "AI designs are here to stay" standpoint.

Of course all that work could be avoided if the devs allowed us to build said designs ourselves.

We'd be happy to.

We've already literally paid them to give us the opportunity to complete this task for them.

So yeah, we're just really frustrated. Bear in mind some of us have been doing this for years now...

At some point the patience just begins to run out...

I think the ideal solution is to implement some sort of machine learning where it can analyze a given encounter against a player, where it can learn from the loser's ship and the design flaw or flaws that ultimately lost them the battle, be it thin barbettes, no bulkheads, or bad anti torpedo belts. If the AI isn't ready to produce competent designs, make it choose from a library of player built ships. In the meantime, there should be no changes from current alpha-12 weights to allow some consistency for the AI to train.

 

[Draco]

2 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

I think the ideal solution is to implement some sort of machine learning where it can analyze a given encounter against a player, where it can learn from the loser's ship and the design flaw or flaws that ultimately lost them the battle, be it thin barbettes, no bulkheads, or bad anti torpedo belts. If the AI isn't ready to produce competent designs, make it choose from a library of player built ships. In the meantime, there should be no changes from current alpha-12 weights to allow some consistency for the AI to train.

 

Yeah, just set up some base criterias to evaluate the efficacy of a given design. How many hits and pens did a given ship achieve vs how many hits and pens did it take, how much damage did it do, how much did it suffer, and could the AI have achieved similar results with a cheaper and/or smaller ship.

That kind of thing.

I do however disagree that weights should remain as they are. Try replicating basically any treaty era CA or BB within their real world displacement limits...

It can't be done, because all modules are currently slightly overweight to prevent the AI from going completely ham with their designs, again sacrificing realism to patch the AI. If they do take up machine learning, I'd rather they taught the AI to build ships based on real world values than the ones we have now.

[SPANISH_AVENGER]

31 minutes ago, Draco said:

again sacrificing realism to patch the AI.

I feel like this game is sacrificing lots of realism (like modules and bases being overweight) and ship design features and mechanics just to patch the yet flawed AI, all in vain... it's kinda sad when you think about it.

Edited August 19, 2021 by SPANISH_AVENGER

[admiralsnackbar]

My recommended solution would be something that was done by the game 'Airships: Conquer the skies' which is similar in principle to UAD (Custom ship builder with a campaign and tech tree)

1. AI designs are pulled from a roster 
2. Players can create custom designs and share them with eachother that the AI can also use in the campaigns

If UAD team created a way to export designs they could outsource this work to the Alpha team in advance of release, and select the designs that they like. Limits on cost and displacement can be specified. 

In fact it should be relatively easy in the sense that the academy missions already does have you 'create' designs subject to certain limitation, it's just a matter of building these missions specifically to get designs from players to be handed off to the AI. 

or....

I know nothing about the coding of the game, but how feasible would it be to code something like this:

1. Start with a given hull form and create a template where:

a. Turrets are permitted to be placed (so turret location is  not up to the AI
b. Maximum and minimum speed and armor are set 

2. Each of the tech upgrades is associated with 'Protection' 'Firepower' 'Speed' 

a. AI is set to allocate the remaining cost and displacement in accordance with the relative importance that is placed into one of those 3 buckets. 
b. So a ship with more "weight" given to protection will have thicker armor. 

____________

Someone mentioned CL's not having torpedoes. WWII US Cruisers didn't have torpedoes [with some exceptions] and in hindsight that was a good call. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by admiralsnackbar

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, Draco said:

As far as I'm aware the modular design was dropped because the AI couldn't handle it, which Leads us back to the same problem.

And no they are not too easy for us, they are just consistently illogical.

Don't get us wrong, it's not that we don't believe the AI can never ever be taught to produce decent designs, but with the current rate of progress it's going to take at least another two years before they start to design functional immunity zones or stop giving their ships completely ridiculously unstable vessels with horrible fire control systems that only pose a threat because they have 16+ main gun barrels to make up for it.

If you look at the stats during any custom battle, you'll notice AI ships are already receiving artificial accuracy bonuses that don't correspond with their tech, towers, rangefinders ect. To make up for their inneficiencies, and this is symptomatic of the whole game RN.

All the last 3-4 updates have had all their balancing tweaks focused on forcing the AI to make better designs, to the point of appeasing a faulty programme to the detriment of the players and the realism.

As has been mentioned, realistic designs consequently come in thousands of tonnes overwheight when compared to real life counterparts, which is a direct result of pandering to the faulty AI over the players.

Gun vs. Armor pen values are also sliding away from realism as the devs attempt to balance these calculations to work with the AI's faulty tactics rather than fixing said tactics.

From my point of view, when I open the game to try a new design, I'll usually have to restart the fight at least 7 or 8 times before the AI builds something half-decent, which means I'll spend 15-30 minutes staring at a loading screen before I actually get to test my idea, and if this is and indication of how the AI will be designing ships in the upcoming campaign, then honestly what's the point?

Will I have to restart the campaign just as often whenever the AI builds a meme ship just to not kill the immersion?

In my opinion, all work on further hulls should be dropped and replaced by machine learning efforts to try and teach the AI to begin making logical designs out of the hulls we already have, and all balance tweaks should be returned to their non-AI pandering values so the devs aren't teaching the AI to build "logical" ships on illogical physics values.

That might save the "AI designs are here to stay" standpoint.

Of course all that work could be avoided if the devs allowed us to build said designs ourselves.

We'd be happy to.

We've already literally paid them to give us the opportunity to complete this task for them.

So yeah, we're just really frustrated. Bear in mind some of us have been doing this for years now...

At some point the patience just begins to run out...

Again, a working draft of the campaign took up all their attention. It make's sense to do so, to have the campaign and to see all the systems working through this core and to flush out any issues thereafter.

What we had so far was a stable version for Academy Missions, all to test controlled AI and also general mechanics, with very few issues. Custom Battles is somewhat uncontrollable (for now). 

With a limited campaign and like Academy Missions, we can put through the volume of gaming hours that in-house testers could never do, this is where we'll find out the true nature of AI designs. I suspect this is the period where we'll see the AI auto-design improve the most, even dramatically. Cause it's going to effect the core/campaign, i.e. campaign stability.

IMO these re-irritations of feedback is premature, we haven't even got the improvements for the campaign yet, let alone identifying any issues that have pasted into this version. We kinda have to unlearn what was and move the game forwards to what it will be (from our perspective that is). 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Skeksis

[Draco]

I hope you're right Skek, I absolutely do.

We'll just have to wait and see for now.