1
AI War / Exo wave costs and strength list
« on: June 14, 2013, 03:16:22 PM »
Hey Keith. Mind doing another exo wave cost and strength value cost and/or telling me how to get the game to dump it and/or add a way for the game to dump it?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
AI War / Very Early Game Wave Starships not fun?
« on: June 12, 2013, 11:43:57 PM »
Has anyone else noticed that starships in very early game waves (1st and maybe 2nd) aren't very fun? They don't do all that much damage (except for the plasma siege starships), but they take FOREVER to kill given the small-ish amount of ships you can afford (energy wise) during this time, especially before the first planet. Even a half cap of bombers (which is rather stressful on a single planet energy "grid") take forever to take out even a Mk. I fleet starship. With plasma siege starships, this is even worse, as then they can take out your docks (and thus your queues and rally points) long before your ships (even your bomber ships) can "scratch it to death", but not really pose any true threat to you (one plasma siege starship can't really take out a home command station under a forcefield in any reasonable amount of time). Even adding a bomber starship or PSS or both doesn't really speed up the process enough to bring it out of "grind" territory (again, for very early game only)
Not really sure what to do about this though, as starship durability, while rather high, seems about right for mid to late game. (though I do think they could use a bit of a HP nerf anyways)
Maybe disallow starships in the very first wave? (Except for starship commander, which should get what other AIs get starship wise in waves for their first wave)
Not really sure what to do about this though, as starship durability, while rather high, seems about right for mid to late game. (though I do think they could use a bit of a HP nerf anyways)
Maybe disallow starships in the very first wave? (Except for starship commander, which should get what other AIs get starship wise in waves for their first wave)
3
Game Development / How did you do it? (The community that is)
« on: May 10, 2013, 12:34:14 PM »
How did you guys make such a great community?
There are very few places here on "teh internets", especially with users communicating with devs, where this sort of community is present.
How did you guys pull this off? It would be great if this sort of general culture for internet communities could be more widespread.
- The people are friendly and respectful.
- People on it are reasonable.
- Grammar and spelling is mostly good, especially by internet standards.
- Low amounts of moderation needed because most people follow the rules well and are respectful. (excluding spam bots)
- Generally helpful to noobs and generally noob friendly.
- People generally present well thought and fleshed out posts and ideas, instead of just saying "OMG, Zombard so OP. NERFS NOW!!!" or "TIHS GAME SUXORS!!!" or something similar for the entirety of the post.
- When there is criticism, it is almost always constructive, even if they don't have ideas for a solution yet, and oftentimes admitting they haven't thought of a "better idea" yet.
- And amazingly, we actually ask the game to be harder (in fair ways), and complain when it is too easy. (AI war is where this is most prevelant, but it certainly exists in the other games as well)
There are very few places here on "teh internets", especially with users communicating with devs, where this sort of community is present.
How did you guys pull this off? It would be great if this sort of general culture for internet communities could be more widespread.
4
AI War / About 'dem spawner ships, especially in AI hands
« on: May 02, 2013, 01:29:54 PM »
So, I have heard many complaints about spawner ships in AI hands being a bit...crazy, despite when in human hands, they don't seem to be too unreasonable. (Spawner ships being Spire blade launchers and Tackle drone launchers)
Aside from a possible bug in the game seed logic letting them get too many at game start (see linked thread below),
the AI is paying for them properly based on their low caps, so why is this?
Reposting from another thread
Yes, this "acceleration" of utility over ship count can happen with any ship type, but tends to come earlier with lower cap ships, and even earlier still with spawner type ships.
So, in addition to the change I mentioned above (increase the costs to the AI), I wonder if some sort of per-planet cap needs to be reintroduced for the ultra-low ship count ships (those with <=5 cap).
Even though the AI is paying properly for them (in terms of ship cap costs), thanks to the planet "specialization" logic, it is still very possible (and in practice, likely) for them to get an unreasonable number of them on one planet, way past that "acceleration of utility" point. This is especially true because the AI is "forgiven" of "reinforcement point debt" between galactic reinforcement cycles. (Within a galactic reinforcement cycle, the AI thankfully must deal with "debt".) Either that per-planet cap idea, or have the AI's "reinforcement debt" persisted between each galactic cycle, not just within. Maybe both?
As for the Tackle Drone Launcher (TDL) iself:
I think the "annoyance factor" of TDLs hasn't really been factored into their balance. Sadly, this is tricky to balance for, as the AI doesn't get annoyed, but humans want it to be effective, but being effective means doing something that is annoying to fight, which is what happens if it gets into AI hands.
Maybe no good balance can be reached, because maybe the idea of TDL fundamentally flawed for a PvE type game? I don't know...
Aside from a possible bug in the game seed logic letting them get too many at game start (see linked thread below),
the AI is paying for them properly based on their low caps, so why is this?
Reposting from another thread
Anyways, I have been wondering about these "spawner" units, and I think I realized something. Due to the nature of spawner units (Spire blade spawners and Tackle Drone Launchers), their net "utility" goes up faster than linear over the number of spawners. This means that the AI paying the properly scaled costs due to their low ship cap, especially past normal cap, still isn't enough; it would still be giving the AI too much and making it pay to little as they get over cap, as each additional "spawner" over cap gives even more return for their cost.
Maybe do something like what was done for the Zombard, increase the "cost" of spawner units for the AI? Yea, that won't fix it truly, as that point where they get increasingly "more bang for their buck" would still happen (it will always happen eventually so long as their count isn't capped AND their cost is constant), but it may delay it to the point where you have a chance to reasonably fight it in the early to mid game if the AI decides to "specialize" lots of planets to use them.
Yes, this "acceleration" of utility over ship count can happen with any ship type, but tends to come earlier with lower cap ships, and even earlier still with spawner type ships.
So, in addition to the change I mentioned above (increase the costs to the AI), I wonder if some sort of per-planet cap needs to be reintroduced for the ultra-low ship count ships (those with <=5 cap).
Even though the AI is paying properly for them (in terms of ship cap costs), thanks to the planet "specialization" logic, it is still very possible (and in practice, likely) for them to get an unreasonable number of them on one planet, way past that "acceleration of utility" point. This is especially true because the AI is "forgiven" of "reinforcement point debt" between galactic reinforcement cycles. (Within a galactic reinforcement cycle, the AI thankfully must deal with "debt".) Either that per-planet cap idea, or have the AI's "reinforcement debt" persisted between each galactic cycle, not just within. Maybe both?
As for the Tackle Drone Launcher (TDL) iself:
I think the "annoyance factor" of TDLs hasn't really been factored into their balance. Sadly, this is tricky to balance for, as the AI doesn't get annoyed, but humans want it to be effective, but being effective means doing something that is annoying to fight, which is what happens if it gets into AI hands.
Maybe no good balance can be reached, because maybe the idea of TDL fundamentally flawed for a PvE type game? I don't know...
5
AI War Strategy Discussion / Good examples of ship combinations
« on: April 29, 2013, 10:43:29 PM »
This thread is just going to be some good ship combinations, whose mechanics or complementary stats or whatnot work together to produce more than their sum, so to speak.
This could be in either AI or human hands.
This can include bonus ships, experimental ship stuff, starships, human exclusive or AI exclusive stuff, whatever.
Here is one the AI in my game just sprung on me.
Saboteurs (the ones that will inflict "will explode and cause damage to nearby ships" damage) and decoy drones (I am fighting an experimentalist AI). So basically, the saboteurs can rack up the "explosion damage" on my ships, while even if I focus fire them, the decoy drones will buy them some extra seconds to rack up even more potential "explosion damage". Not terrifying (like, say, sheild bearers + saboteurs could be), but it is proving to be tricky as it basically multiplies the damage my losses on the field, with the direct way to avoid it (shoot at them before they can shoot at me) partially countered.
This could be in either AI or human hands.
This can include bonus ships, experimental ship stuff, starships, human exclusive or AI exclusive stuff, whatever.
Here is one the AI in my game just sprung on me.
Saboteurs (the ones that will inflict "will explode and cause damage to nearby ships" damage) and decoy drones (I am fighting an experimentalist AI). So basically, the saboteurs can rack up the "explosion damage" on my ships, while even if I focus fire them, the decoy drones will buy them some extra seconds to rack up even more potential "explosion damage". Not terrifying (like, say, sheild bearers + saboteurs could be), but it is proving to be tricky as it basically multiplies the damage my losses on the field, with the direct way to avoid it (shoot at them before they can shoot at me) partially countered.
6
Off Topic / What happened to the Archive board?
« on: April 24, 2013, 01:05:01 PM »
There used to be a board that really, really old posts were moved to. What happened to it?
7
AI War / So, were combat starships overbuffed? (v. 6.019)
« on: April 15, 2013, 09:54:56 AM »
Basically, the title.
I've seen a few places that some people think that the starship buffs went a bit...too far.
So, I am gathering some feedback.
This is about the balance of beta version 6.019.
This covers both human usage and AI usage (sans exo waves).
Please ignore exo waves in your consideration; exo wave costs for ships are sort of up in the air right now.
A post describing why you feel the way you do and/or ideas about what to do about (if any are needed) are optional, but appreciated.
Also, backing up your opinions with numbers would also be appreciated, but also optional (as getting those numbers can be a pain
)
If you feel that the current options don't cover your opinion, then go ahead and post your opinion. If enough people share that opinion, I will add it as an option.
EDIT: Oops, listed wrong version number. Fixed.
EDIT2: Updated version number to latest version, as no starship changes were in that version.
I've seen a few places that some people think that the starship buffs went a bit...too far.
So, I am gathering some feedback.
This is about the balance of beta version 6.019.
This covers both human usage and AI usage (sans exo waves).
Please ignore exo waves in your consideration; exo wave costs for ships are sort of up in the air right now.
A post describing why you feel the way you do and/or ideas about what to do about (if any are needed) are optional, but appreciated.
Also, backing up your opinions with numbers would also be appreciated, but also optional (as getting those numbers can be a pain
)If you feel that the current options don't cover your opinion, then go ahead and post your opinion. If enough people share that opinion, I will add it as an option.
EDIT: Oops, listed wrong version number. Fixed.
EDIT2: Updated version number to latest version, as no starship changes were in that version.
8
AI War / So, about 'dem turrets
« on: April 10, 2013, 03:23:54 PM »
How are people feeling about the balance of the turrets right now? Both the Mk. I versions and the knowledge costs of the higher marks?
Keep in mind, not only things like range, dps, and health are important, both individually and cap wise, but also metal, crystal, and energy costs (which are very important in the early game, where often times you need turrets the most), and caps.
My thoughts?
The knowledge costs for the higher marks just seem weird and all over the place. I don't see that much rhyme or reason to it. I get that some turrets have more strategic value than others (which is why things like missile turrets Mk. II have a higher knowledge cost than Mk. II basic turrets), but a lot of times not even that seems to line up.
The flak turret seems underpowered. It dies way too easily thanks to its range. What's that you say? The flak turret has one of if not the top cap HP of the turrets? True. And yet, not even that huge amount of extra health is enough to offset the severe "curse" of its low range. I might accept a "glass cannon" type thing if it did good damage, but it doesn't really. Even against a close-combat or swarmer ship (its intended role to counter, and what they have bonuses against), it barely scratches the paint of these. I know that they are intended against groups of units thanks to splash, but this is almost nullified by their small splash radius and there low number of targets they can hit per explosion. Granted, in those few cases where it does manage to hit a lot of stuff, flak turrets lay on the pain. However, these severe restrictions to their splash effect make this too rare to be worth their current single target DPS.
So can they either get enough cap HP to offset their low range or enough DPS to offset this effectively low cap HP? Or a little bit of both?
I wouldn't be opposed to a slight range buff, but I do like their place as the "short ranged" turret. It gives them character.
Finally, why do all the turrets have a .1 or whatever multiplier to command-grade? Is this even nessecary anymore? It just feels cheap when the AI sends hunter killers at ya.
I guess a better question is, why do hunter/killers (and astro-trains for that matter) have command grade hull type? Shouldn't something like, IDK, "heroric" hull type, which no turret (and no ship for that matter) gets a bonus or a penalty to? (This would also help spire rams and mini-rams, though in those cases, they may need a .5 or something to "heroric").
Keep in mind, not only things like range, dps, and health are important, both individually and cap wise, but also metal, crystal, and energy costs (which are very important in the early game, where often times you need turrets the most), and caps.
My thoughts?
The knowledge costs for the higher marks just seem weird and all over the place. I don't see that much rhyme or reason to it. I get that some turrets have more strategic value than others (which is why things like missile turrets Mk. II have a higher knowledge cost than Mk. II basic turrets), but a lot of times not even that seems to line up.
The flak turret seems underpowered. It dies way too easily thanks to its range. What's that you say? The flak turret has one of if not the top cap HP of the turrets? True. And yet, not even that huge amount of extra health is enough to offset the severe "curse" of its low range. I might accept a "glass cannon" type thing if it did good damage, but it doesn't really. Even against a close-combat or swarmer ship (its intended role to counter, and what they have bonuses against), it barely scratches the paint of these. I know that they are intended against groups of units thanks to splash, but this is almost nullified by their small splash radius and there low number of targets they can hit per explosion. Granted, in those few cases where it does manage to hit a lot of stuff, flak turrets lay on the pain. However, these severe restrictions to their splash effect make this too rare to be worth their current single target DPS.
So can they either get enough cap HP to offset their low range or enough DPS to offset this effectively low cap HP? Or a little bit of both?
I wouldn't be opposed to a slight range buff, but I do like their place as the "short ranged" turret. It gives them character.
Finally, why do all the turrets have a .1 or whatever multiplier to command-grade? Is this even nessecary anymore? It just feels cheap when the AI sends hunter killers at ya.
I guess a better question is, why do hunter/killers (and astro-trains for that matter) have command grade hull type? Shouldn't something like, IDK, "heroric" hull type, which no turret (and no ship for that matter) gets a bonus or a penalty to? (This would also help spire rams and mini-rams, though in those cases, they may need a .5 or something to "heroric").
9
AI War / Does AI strength to AIP need adjustment? (aka, is AIP too restrictive?)
« on: April 04, 2013, 12:51:58 AM »
Based on some feedback, there seems to be a feeling among some players that the AI is still too much of a wimp at low AIPs, that there isn't much to discourage ultra low AIP games (short of Core Shield Generators, but I will get back to those in a moment), there isn't enough to encourage taking the risk to raise AIP to get new planets, and, on high difficulties at least, the increased danger of raising AIP very quickly overshadows almost any benefit you can get from it.
Relevant quote:
This I think would help with the issue of this style of play being dominant in the metagame (this sort of minimalistic strat being viable is fine, but it becomes degenerate when in most setups it becomes the most competitively "optimal" way to play).
It would also make players feel less hesitant about taking a planet for a capturable.
It would also feel a much more natural way to "smooth" pacing than the currrent core shield generators do, which I still contend feels like an artificial barrier "band-aid" for a deeper pacing issue.
Also, I would like to see the >8 AIP to strength relationship go from exponential to polynomial. I think this is one of the biggest factors making ultra-low AIP games at high difficulties often times the only viable way to play, in often un-fun ways.
The <= 8 curve should stay linear.
Relevant quote:
And finally, AIP plays into this. I would vote for making the "base" AI strength stronger (aka, the AI puts up more of a fight at low AIPs), but doesn't grow quite at strong as fast as AIP goes up (both the linear of <=8 and the exponential of >8). This should hopefully encourage people to be more willing to take stuff (both because they won't be punished for it quite so hard and because if they stay with low planet strats they will now be further behind due to the base strength increase)
However, the topic of AIP is big enough for its own forum post. (that is this thread)
This I think would help with the issue of this style of play being dominant in the metagame (this sort of minimalistic strat being viable is fine, but it becomes degenerate when in most setups it becomes the most competitively "optimal" way to play).
It would also make players feel less hesitant about taking a planet for a capturable.
It would also feel a much more natural way to "smooth" pacing than the currrent core shield generators do, which I still contend feels like an artificial barrier "band-aid" for a deeper pacing issue.
Also, I would like to see the >8 AIP to strength relationship go from exponential to polynomial. I think this is one of the biggest factors making ultra-low AIP games at high difficulties often times the only viable way to play, in often un-fun ways.
The <= 8 curve should stay linear.
10
AI War / Allied Neinzul Enclave Annoyances
« on: April 02, 2013, 11:58:13 AM »
I may write up individual Mantis issues on these, but I thought I would put them here first, and then post them if requested.
1. They push around stuff, especially Spirecraft Shieldbearers. I guess the issue is that the Shieldbearer push priority needs to go up some (harder to push them around), and the friendly enclave push priority needs to go down some (so they won't push away things you have strategically placed)
2. They frequently move around when defending a planet (jumping from shield to shield in a random fashion), which doesn't help much, and just wastes CPU cycles. Can you have it be like the auto-knowledge gather shield seeking behavior, prioritize shield that contains the command station first, and as long as the shield they are under (if any) continues to satisfy that, they won't try to move to another shield?
3. They are too timid. Yea, I know they won't charge into a battle they feel they aren't safe to go into, but right now, that threshold is too low. They are pretty durable units, and can very likely retreat successfully unless very, very out-gunned. Can the ratio of "am I too out-gunned?" for them be brought up some, considering that they are tough enough to retreat successfully in most circumstances?
4. When the "prioritize homeworld" flag is turned on, they seem to prioritize it even if there is nothing threatening it and nothing nearby threatening it, to the exclusion of other behaviors at many times. (This one I have not put as much effort into verifying, it may just be due to #3, but this point isn't an issue at all directly)
1. They push around stuff, especially Spirecraft Shieldbearers. I guess the issue is that the Shieldbearer push priority needs to go up some (harder to push them around), and the friendly enclave push priority needs to go down some (so they won't push away things you have strategically placed)
2. They frequently move around when defending a planet (jumping from shield to shield in a random fashion), which doesn't help much, and just wastes CPU cycles. Can you have it be like the auto-knowledge gather shield seeking behavior, prioritize shield that contains the command station first, and as long as the shield they are under (if any) continues to satisfy that, they won't try to move to another shield?
3. They are too timid. Yea, I know they won't charge into a battle they feel they aren't safe to go into, but right now, that threshold is too low. They are pretty durable units, and can very likely retreat successfully unless very, very out-gunned. Can the ratio of "am I too out-gunned?" for them be brought up some, considering that they are tough enough to retreat successfully in most circumstances?
4. When the "prioritize homeworld" flag is turned on, they seem to prioritize it even if there is nothing threatening it and nothing nearby threatening it, to the exclusion of other behaviors at many times. (This one I have not put as much effort into verifying, it may just be due to #3, but this point isn't an issue at all directly)
11
AI War Technical Support / Crash Bug
« on: March 23, 2013, 04:14:03 PM »
New crash bug alert.
10996: Consistent Crash-to-Desktop on All Player Simultaneously
Not reported by me, but crash bugs seem severe enough to deserve additional attention.
10996: Consistent Crash-to-Desktop on All Player Simultaneously
Not reported by me, but crash bugs seem severe enough to deserve additional attention.
12
AI War / Expermentalist AI and Hybrids
« on: March 23, 2013, 12:05:30 AM »
OK. I started a game with the expermentalist AI with hybrids, thinking it would be interesting seeing some experimental units being "hauled around", which actually sounds really dangerous in a fun way, especially that it gives hybrids an indirect way to "support".
However, so far, only the Mk. V engineers have been added as hybrid escorts. Are the others (like decoy drones, speed boosters, etc) ineligible to be hybrid escorts?
If so, how would people feel about making them eligible?
EDIT: And speaking of speed boosters. 10966: AI should not put speed boosters (the unit) into stand down mode (or instead, they should speed boost even in stand down mode)
However, so far, only the Mk. V engineers have been added as hybrid escorts. Are the others (like decoy drones, speed boosters, etc) ineligible to be hybrid escorts?
If so, how would people feel about making them eligible?
EDIT: And speaking of speed boosters. 10966: AI should not put speed boosters (the unit) into stand down mode (or instead, they should speed boost even in stand down mode)
13
AI War / Quick, Dumb Technical Question
« on: March 20, 2013, 11:54:35 PM »
Man, it's been a while since I have asked something like this.
I know that the AI runs on a different thread than the main engine simulation, but my question is whether there are 2 AI threads (one for each AI player), or just 1?
I know that the AI runs on a different thread than the main engine simulation, but my question is whether there are 2 AI threads (one for each AI player), or just 1?
14
AI War / Chokepoint Balance
« on: March 18, 2013, 07:08:08 PM »
There seems to be a general feeling that chokepoints are a bit too "useful" in the current balance. Or possibly, it is that "distributed" defenses are underpowered at the moment.
If this is true, this would be messing with the balance of things like exos, capturables, defensive structures, threat, threat-fleet, and a whole host of other things. Complicating matters is that some aspects of those "other things" are pushing towards having a few chokepoints.
Now some good work has been done on this. The mini-forts and the wave time/size adjustments based on "in-points" have made multi-chokepoint and no-chokepoint style strategies finally viable (note, not necessarily balanced, but viable) . However, when using such a strat, things like exos and defending capturables still push one towards a more chokepoint style gameplay. The argument being that this "push" is too much, to the point of making it impractical not to if you want those other things in play. (Yea, I'm not expressing myself very well)
So, what do you guys think? Do you think single-chokepoint is OP? Or do you think single-chokepoint is fine balance wise, but multi-chokepoint is UP? What about no-chokepoint?
Also tying in this discussion is whether "defense in depth" is sufficiently rewarded, beyond merely having some stuff on the homeworld just in case the worst happens.
My position? I don't know yet. I do think that more options like the mini-fort may be worth pursuing, and maybe nerfing exo size when they are going after a capturable rather than the HW, or possibly even nerfing exo sizes overall. Or even applying some sort of "inpoint" tradeoff style thing to exos. However, I don't have enough hands on experience with >2 chokepoint or no chokepoint style strategies to really give an informed opinion on their current balance.
If this is true, this would be messing with the balance of things like exos, capturables, defensive structures, threat, threat-fleet, and a whole host of other things. Complicating matters is that some aspects of those "other things" are pushing towards having a few chokepoints.
Now some good work has been done on this. The mini-forts and the wave time/size adjustments based on "in-points" have made multi-chokepoint and no-chokepoint style strategies finally viable (note, not necessarily balanced, but viable) . However, when using such a strat, things like exos and defending capturables still push one towards a more chokepoint style gameplay. The argument being that this "push" is too much, to the point of making it impractical not to if you want those other things in play. (Yea, I'm not expressing myself very well)
So, what do you guys think? Do you think single-chokepoint is OP? Or do you think single-chokepoint is fine balance wise, but multi-chokepoint is UP? What about no-chokepoint?
Also tying in this discussion is whether "defense in depth" is sufficiently rewarded, beyond merely having some stuff on the homeworld just in case the worst happens.
My position? I don't know yet. I do think that more options like the mini-fort may be worth pursuing, and maybe nerfing exo size when they are going after a capturable rather than the HW, or possibly even nerfing exo sizes overall. Or even applying some sort of "inpoint" tradeoff style thing to exos. However, I don't have enough hands on experience with >2 chokepoint or no chokepoint style strategies to really give an informed opinion on their current balance.
15
AI War / Energy System Balance
« on: March 11, 2013, 04:05:49 PM »
Now that we have had a few months to think it over, what do people think of the current energy balance?
Personally, I think it is OP for the players (too much energy), but not absurdly so.
My reasoning for not hyper OP? If the AI takes out even 1 planet, that is quite a bit of energy lost. Your huge energy buffers are not as huge as you might think when you remember that losing one planet means losing at least 150000 energy, so it is partially a perception issue.
Though one could also point out the extreme disparity between base energy per planet provisions and average unit costs as being a balance issue.Perhaps one "trail" to follow would be looking into ways to reduce this disparity. Possibly by reducing the amount of base energy per planet, but decreasing the costs of getting additional energy on a planet. This would make the difference between buffer for extra units and buffer for planet loss closer to each other (on average), and thus be more visible how much excess and buffer a player really has.
EDIT: Oh, and this is a complicated enough issue that I don't expect resolution by 6.012, or even 6.013 or 6.014.
Personally, I think it is OP for the players (too much energy), but not absurdly so.
My reasoning for not hyper OP? If the AI takes out even 1 planet, that is quite a bit of energy lost. Your huge energy buffers are not as huge as you might think when you remember that losing one planet means losing at least 150000 energy, so it is partially a perception issue.
Though one could also point out the extreme disparity between base energy per planet provisions and average unit costs as being a balance issue.Perhaps one "trail" to follow would be looking into ways to reduce this disparity. Possibly by reducing the amount of base energy per planet, but decreasing the costs of getting additional energy on a planet. This would make the difference between buffer for extra units and buffer for planet loss closer to each other (on average), and thus be more visible how much excess and buffer a player really has.
EDIT: Oh, and this is a complicated enough issue that I don't expect resolution by 6.012, or even 6.013 or 6.014.