Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping
Comments
-
I would like to see the problem fixed. It was also two different tests btw.
What you're failing to consider is that the problem of camping is made up of a lot of facets that have to be considered and accounted for. Player behavior isn't going to just change, people who actually want to never change from its current state aren't easily discouraged from what they do. People who rely on it as their go to tactic would be willing to adjust if there was still some semblance of that exists. Defensive players' ability to play the game should be respected and so much of DBD already does the exact opposite in both killer design and balance. The players who don't camp are by far still the majority of killers, but if you create a punitive system that overly messes with general way the game plays then you actively hurt the play experience for the group of players you want others to be more in line with.
DBD is far from the most complex PVP game. How you've come to that conclusion is beyond me considering the wealth of PVP games in general even some of the games found in this specific genre. DBD's biggest strength is that it isn't super complex and it's also one of its worst weaknesses. Camping is an inherent design flaw, it hard to correct without making major changes. You're literally making adjustments to a cornerstone of the gameplay, it is literally the killer objective. The changes you make to it may seem small, but the consequences are usually much greater. The devs have had five years to workshop and test potential fixes, publicly we got to test some of those ideas. Who knows how many others didn't even make it out of the drafts that we won't hear about until some dev stream another two years from now?
To make a holistic solution to the problem you have to be willing to look a core gameplay element and say, "Maybe it is time to rethink how killers complete their object and how survivors and killers interact in general."
That is unlikely to happen as it would mean actually injecting more complexity into the core gameplay. Camping doesn't exist in a vacuum and is a symptom of larger issues that if the larger issues are addressed camping would naturally taper off and both sides would be better off for it.
1 -
I would like to see the problem fixed.
You say that, but you were one of two people to respond to the aforementioned thread suggesting a fix...
And your arguments against the fix, on both sides, boiled down to 'this would make camping difficult'. How is that a reasonable argument against an anti-camping suggestion?
To make a holistic solution to the problem you have to be willing to look a core gameplay element and say, "Maybe it is time to rethink how killers complete their object and how survivors and killers interact in general."
Sure, you could try to fish for a more complicated solution. But in the meantime, at least consider other options put forward instead of outright dismissing them with a 'can't be done' attitude.
Camping doesn't exist in a vacuum and is a symptom of larger issues that if the larger issues are addressed camping would naturally taper off and both sides would be better off for it.
I have a sneaking suspicion, but go on, what is the 'larger issue' that you think would fix camping if addressed?
0 -
It isn't a chicken or eggs situation. It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors. People want to be able to win, so either they adapt or leave. MMR system has not changed it, just makes it more visible.
You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.
3 -
It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors
Which is predominantly nerfs. Over time, survivors have become much weaker than they used to be, but people are more convinced than ever that the game is survivor-sided. That's not to say that it isn't, but it IS to say that it isn't causally linked to why camping is now considered as much of a problem.
The only thing that could be said for it is MMR, but I doubt that system's robust enough to actually function, considering how horribly lacking in nuance it is.
You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.
Sure, we could give killers a speed boost for X seconds after hooking, like Devour Hope does. But as long as camping is a low-effort strategy with good results, that's not going to dissuade people from camping, is it?
Look at the experiments done by @Munqaxus and... Was it @KayTwoAyy ? Averaging over a 3K. Sure, we can shoot for a balanced 2K with a non-camping playstyle, but that's still going to leave camping as the undisputed best strategy. And then we circle back around to 'let's just hope killers will be nice'.
I'd rather kneecap camping while buffing chase and/or nerfing gen speeds.
2 -
How to fix camping (And I may have posted this already):
- Remove hooks
- Make the Killer have to bring Survivors to special areas where they can drop them and perform a Mori. This allows for Flashlight & Pallet saves. Plus perks like DStrike still work, and so does wriggling free & body blocking to allow said wriggling free.
- Change 'self unhook' perks to 'escape the mori animation' perks.
- Make sure the kill animations take, on average, the same time, so there's no 'kill animation meta'.
- Allow Survivors to run around as a ghost. They do not see traps, killers, pallets, generators, or living Survivors. So no death-spectating.
- When a timer has ended (Say, oh, 60 seconds), the Survivor can now respawn where he/she is standing. But this is a choice; they can put it off and move elsewhere. They just have to wait 60 seconds before they CAN spawn.
- Survivors have 3 'deaths', same as 3 hooks.
This also fixes tunneling off the hook, since the Killer has no idea where or when a Survivor respawned. it also makes Moris more impactful, because they are used as the way to kill, not hooks.
So less tunneling, and 0 camping.
Hell, if you really wanted to go wild; add interactive shrines, where living Survivors can channel for a few seconds to cut down on dead Survivor's respawn timers. Basically; giving up gen time to bring back a friend & try to make it up in gen stacking.
Boom; Killers are a literal threat, camping can not exist, and tunneling is down. 😁
1 -
I had a 100% kill rate in my last 17 games of camping, and the survivors averaged 2.8 gens completed.
The skill floor for replicating my success is relatively low; have the right perks, know which add-ons are best for each killer, then just hope your first chase is under 2 minutes.
So here is my fear: If they provide a better alternative to camping, instead of just nerfing it/rendering it obsolete, what does that look like?
I'm already at a 100% kill rate. Soooo... what? The survivors only complete 1.8 gens on average?
That starts to sound miserable for the survivors. I mean, just imagining what that looks like as a killer is terrifying. That is so oppressive.
1 -
Basement mori counts as 2 kills, for the purposes of a Survivor's life pool?
I'm not completely sold on your thematic vision, but mechanically the respawn timer sounds worthwile.
Maybe even set it up so if all survivors are dead at the same time the Killer wins instantly. I know people are not in love with Slugging, but it suddenly makes slugging a viable strategy for winning quickly, rather than waiting for everyone's 4 minute bleedout timer to expire. And then perks revolving around anti-slug can circle into more use.
1 -
I'd say you could allow an insta-win if, and only if, Survivors could pick themselves back up. To prevent mass slugging & waiting for the Killer to kill you.
I mean, granted; a Survivor will probably respawn if the Killer has to carry people one at a time to designated sacrifice areas, then kill them one at a time, but we don't want to encourage slugging too much.
Maybe Survivors have to fill the bar, then hit 3 hard skillchecks when near walls or objects to pick themselves up? Every hit makes them stand up a little more, but a miss lowers them back 1 stage with a noise notification.
There can even be perks to make getting up faster a thing.
1 -
Also; I was stupid and did not remember your first question. I'd say...no.
Instead, basement kills add some extra time to the killed Survivor's respawn timer. And that perk for making Basement better could just add more time, too. Or speed up sacrifice animations in the basement.
1 -
You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.
Camping has always been in the game, even when as you stated survivors were even more powerful. Whether the game is more survivor favored or to what degree is irrelevant. The question is why is it increasing now? It is about where the tools and gameplay of survivors and the game in general to how viable certain strategies are for killers. If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease. Yet if the game decreases the options, you come across more and more the same ones and if you don't like them... you end up with this.
MMR is not to blame, it simply means that people face each other based on different criteria. It however is causing the issues and tactics that are viable to be made more visible.
You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what options I have mentioned as possible solutions which included your own. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.
4 -
This is purely speculation, but I think slugging is only detested because it isn't prominent enough for survivors to feel like they can aptly prepare against it.
I say that to mean that if slugging became a popular tactic, survivors would feel validated for bringing No Mither, Tenacity, Flip Flop, Boil Over, Soul Guard, Unbreakable, Power Struggle, We're Gonna Live Forever, Buckle Up, & Boon: Exponential.
These are all great perks as is. But they're great against a situation you see once every one hundred games. It's not practical to bring this build, so people don't use these perks. But then that one hundredth game rolls around, and people get frustrated because they can't do anything about it. ...and they're justified for not being prepared.
But create a meta shift towards slugging, and now survivors can say "we have 10 perks that can reliably help us overcome this problem. bring it on."
1 -
You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.
That doesn't matter for the argument though. Camping is still far too efficient a tactic to be fixed by making other tactics just as effective. Sure, you could remove CoH entirely, it doesn't suddenly make camping not an appealing strategy.
If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease.
And if a killer has a 10% chance to immediately kill a survivor on M1, and is then nerfed to a 5% chance, there's a decrease in the likelihood of an RNG driveby.
But it's still going to happen and it's still going to be a problem.
It COULD be that killers will gravitate to other playstyles. But there'll still be camping, with zero guarantee that camping will become less of a problem. And as Kay has illustrated in the post above yours: How powerful do these other strategies need to be to compete with camping?
You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what you state is one of the options I have mentioned. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.
No, it's not among your options. Because that is the fundamental disagreement you and I are having: I believe camping must be kneecapped in order to make any progress. You believe that camping will go away if killers just get buffed enough.
2 -
Fair enough. I always just hear Survivors yell about the Big 3 No-No's: Camping, Tunneling, and Slugging.
So my design philosophy would be to make them as unneeded as possible. Since Survivors do not want to 'spend 2 minutes on the hook', 'be tunneled out in 3 minutes' or 'spend 4 minutes bleeding out'.
Plus, being able to stand up on their own would encourage perks that make crawling faster, reduce groans of pain, and make standing up easier. Which, in turn, encourages Killers to not slug, which means more possible flashlight or pallet saves, or bodyblocking to help a wriggle-out.
1 -
camping is Punished for the solo queue players swf know and they just gen rush. even then its a hit or miss so camping does in general work 3/4th of the time.
0 -
It does matter for the argument, as to point out the obvious is that camping has always been in the game and has always been powerful this isn't something that changed overnight. Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue. It is not a question if killers will gravitate to other playstyles, because they did so previously and the problem is that those strategies are no longer viable. That caused many people to quit playing killer or adapt to the remaining options, for many that included camping. I am not claiming that every single person will not camp, but it will be less people overall in the pool and therefore the likelihood of encountering it will be significantly less if you provide other options to people. More options, mean more diversity and that means less encounters with camping killers.
People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter. We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.
How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.
You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."
"That is why I believe the better solution would be to elevate and provide tools to killers to make those other options more attractive or at least similar in viability"
1 -
Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue
It's not a bigger issue for me. It's always been a big issue.
And it still doesn't matter what its prevalence is. The fact that killers have a loaded gun trained on the game's head and can pull the trigger whenever they like is a fundamental problem. Every patch, if anything is changed in a way that a killer doesn't like, there'll be a topic cropping up titled 'X change happened, so now I'm just gonna camp'.
And your argument is based on the presupposition that camping has indeed increased in frequency, which isn't proven.
My argument is based on the idea that camping is a problem, in general.
People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter.
Swiffers are practically constantly complained about. And I suspect sabos aren't complained about because they're far more counterplayable than camping is.
We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.
And the quality of skill, and again, counterplay. Nurse and Spirit actually have somewhat similar powers, but Nurse receives far fewer complaints, because outplaying a Nurse buys you a ton of time, whereas outplaying a Spirit nets you absolutely none.
And, again, this is arguing on the assumption that camping has increased in frequency, or that complaints about camping have increased in frequency, neither of which are proven. Camping was very commonly complained about for as long as I've been on these forums.
How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.
I get your argument. I just disagree with the premise that killers will just swap to another, higher effort, lower reward strategy. And I also disagree with the idea that this will resolve the problem. Any changes you make will have to fit within the very narrow framework that is left by the one singular condition: It cannot buff camping in any way.
I think it's much, MUCH healthier for the game to cripple camping and free up design space to make killers more viable in its absence.
You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."
I don't consider 'And that isn't going to happen' to be the closing statement for a legitimately presented option.
1 -
My argument is based on the aspect that other strategies are made less effective by the introduction of aspects to the game like circle of healing, which you have not disputed at all. If you have less options, the remainder ones are more prevalent. There is logic behind what I am stating, rather than what you base your counter argument being namely your subjective opinion.
The fact of the matter is that people play for their enjoyment, results are just part of the equation and yes there are people that will adapt a more effort, lower result strategy is it is significantly more fun to do and yield enough rewards to be worth it. It is not a 100% conversion rate and I never claimed it was, yet if more people play those styles than that means the pool has a bigger diversity you encounter and therefore you come across campers less. This is all simple math, why do you still see blights aren't camping? According to your the stronger their other skills are the more powerful camping becomes and therefore they should all camp. Yet we get complaints about Blight using the tinkerer/ruin/undying build with their best add-ons to rush across the map. It is more difficult to do that than camping. The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.
I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.
0 -
The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.
How is it not based in reality? At every stage of this game, there's been camping. No matter the circumstances of the game and its balance, camping exists. That is the underlying problem.
I know what you are trying to argue, but there's no proof of your argument. You're arguing that 'Blights don't camp', but we don't know if that's actually true. By your reasoning, Nurses shouldn't camp, and I've seen that one happen.
There's no hardline, singular truth to this matter. It's not that people ONLY camp because they have no other alternative, and it's not that people will ONLY camp if that is the most effective strategy. But ultimately that matters little, because every balancing decision made will have to be considered from a perspective that includes and accounts for camping.
It is hamstringing the game's balance. It is bad for gameplay. The mere fact that it exists is hurting DBD (And not just Survivor's side, either).
It needs to be crippled.
I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.
This is an appeal to authority. The devs are not omniscient gods of game design, and I think -everyone- here knows that. It's not a good idea to reaffirm their stance by referring to them during a discussion about whether their stance is solid or not. Their opinion is not an argument.
2 -
My argument is that tactics are not always used and that you see other tactics used if they are viable. Having more options means you encounter different types of play and therefore diminishes the impact of one specific one. That is just how numbers work.
Camping is part of the game and as long as the developers are not going to remove it by their accord, it will stay. Dismiss this fact as you please, but it isn't going to change the fact that they are the ones who are in control. The direction and gameplay they set out is on them and it appeals to some people whether you don't like it or not.
I live in a reality and make arguments based in that. If you want to live in a theoretical environment where the creators statements have no meaning, it just isn't realistic.
1 -
An appeal to authority would be "the game devs have said they won't fix it, so it's good" not "the devs have said they won't fix it, so they probably won't fix it" that's just acknowledging the reality of the situation. If the game developers don't want to change something, they won't. Since they've repeatedly said they don't want to remove proxy camping, it's reasonable to believe they won't remove proxy camping. This isn't a value judgement on camping, just acknowledging the reality that nobody is going to force the devs to change a mechanic they don't want to change.
2 -
It is still an appeal to authority because you are framing the discussion within limitations set by said authority, when those very limitations could very well be wrong.
I get what you are saying, but these forums are here for feedback on the current state of the game, and presumably, the devs' stances are informed by the feedback provided. If we stop giving our feedback because we think that the devs disagree, then the entire forums can be closed off immediately because there's no point.
If the devs are making a mistake, these forums and these types of discussions are where this is pointed out.
1 -
Where did anyone say that people should stop leaving their feedback? You seem to be reaching to argue against points nobody is making.
Nobody has said that we can't talk about something because the devs have said they aren't changing it, just that any discussion is somewhat pointless without taking into account the current reality of the situation. It isn't about right or wrong, just acknowledging the current position of the people who you would have to convince to get the changes you want.
1 -
You can leave your feedback, nobody states that you shouldn't.
My stance is to view at more realistic and achievable levels rather than ideological absolutes. My suggestions and view on where the game can head are far more based on what the game is and has been and considers where the developers have stated their game will be heading.
You want to view it from an absolute ideology stance. I don't think that it will change the developers stance on the matter.
You are the one claiming what I have to state has no foundation, while the logic is laid out and not that difficult to comprehend. My feedback is set far more likely in the realm of consideration of the developers as it falls far more in line with what they have stated to want within the game.
The removal of camping is not the only way to go about it and claiming that it is the only message we should spread or what we state isn't valuable feedback is a bit hypocritical. As I am still appealing to them to make a change.
1 -
@Kalinikta I've been meaning to ask, why do you think the developers are so pressed about the issue of face-camping, and not all forms?
I am of course assuming that we agree I do not face-camp (as demonstrated in my video).
I think it stands to reason that face-camping is the least effective form of camping, so why is it a problem? Are we just accepting that so many people in the community are incapable of overcoming an insignificant challenge? Or are the devs recognizing that the game is not designed to help survivors overcome this problem?
And where does that leave my demonstration of camping? I wouldn't classify what I did as proxy-camping--it is a hybrid.
I think my demonstration is a more concerning issue than face-camping because it presents the same quandry that we've seen in DBD and in many other online multiplayer games--success via low skill floor with big reward.
...but to play devil's advocate against myself for just a moment, I wanted to share a video that Otz just released. Although I don't think it instantly discredits the results I've been seeing, and their correlation to camping, he does point out that my success in this study is not a 1 to 1 causation. We touched on this topic breifly @Kalinikta, when I asked you what you'd think about matchmaking accounting for player builds.
Edit: You also brought it up early in this thread, but I don't think the conversation at the point was ready to identify the problem, so I had put off the remarks until now--the conversation has since shifted to thinking about solutions
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on2 -
Strictly speaking, if a killer somehow gets carried by camping, it's because the survivors allowed it to happen in the first place.
2 -
Tru3 did this exact same test and got 0.98 average.
0 -
There should be another form of punishment besides loss of bloodpoints because those who do it clearly don't care about the amount of bloodpoints they get.
Besides loss of bloodpoints, camping should be (and is currently) punished by the other survivors not saving and doing gens, but many don't do that and would rather try and save. Simply because it's really boring gameplay, especially for the survivor who is hooked. It makes a match completely redundant.
0 -
Are you trying to gaslight me? What is your point with this comment?
0 -
Gaslighting doesn't mean what you think it means.
1 -
Dictionary.com walks into the coversation...
0 -
By all means, bring the dictionary. All they said was "Tru3 did this, and came up with this". This isn't gaslighting. It's not challenging your sanity in any way. It was stating a fact that something happened and data was gathered.
Sit down, and read the dictionary.
2 -
He can be punished by the survivors themselves by doing gens, but most of them refuse to do that and just waste time trying to take advantage from a distraction for unhooking which a lot of times finish in another hook for him.
1 -
That Otz isn't evidence of anything and you do a massive disservice to yourself trying to use his video as evidence of anything.
1 -
0.98 average on what? Otz did three experiments.
0 -
The reason face-camping is considered a problem for the developers from my point of view is fairly simple, while experienced players can deal with it no problem is that it ruins the new player experience. It is to easy to adapt as a new killer and to destructive for a new survivor, they don't have the perks, tools and knowledge on how to deal with it and the killers don't learn the game, there isn't any nuance in their approach any hook will do and that will eventually cause them to feel helpless once they start facing better players. They in essence squander the training grounds with this one simple tactic and affects the retention rate of the game. The new player experience is incredibly important.
I saw Otz video, it is kind of what I mean with the best tactics and how it balances. As he indicates play as mean and bastardly as you can and you will book results. In essence that is what you are doing, you are using the best of the best setup and playing mercilessly. You should watch the tournament he referenced, I did that a while back and it showcases what no limits DBD looks like with the best type of execution there is. That showcases that if you meet equally merciless opponents, you would have a pretty decently balanced experience (objectively speaking). As I stated before if you bring the best and face the best it is a decent match, but if you didn't while they did... you are in trouble.
There is a reason why most tournaments place limits on what either side can bring and that is to create a more dynamic and competitively similar balanced gameplay. While killers can still camp and tunnel to their hearts desire, they are limited in their setups for it and the survivors are technically even limited in what they can bring against it. Yet due to these limitations, you see them diversifying and playing more varied and that is something I advocate for to be built into the game. It doesn't remove these tactics from the gameplay, but it isn't the only thing you see.
Camping isn't an unhealthy side effect that some claim it is, it is something that they design around. It isn't the only game that does this either, many shooters for instance are built around holding corners, having tools to navigate around that or shift the focus point in order to encourage the positioning to need to be changed every so often.
2 -
Stay on topic, please.
please go reread the context I provide around that video. Does it sound like I’m treating Otz’s words as gospel?
0 -
In the fact that Otz is probably one of the most knowledgeable players in the game, if not the most knowledgeable, his statements in the video would hold some weight. Also, he's probably played the game more hours than anyone else.
Take Otz's video with the latest data that the developers have posted, then it does start showing a general consensus. And both those data sources support the data @KayTwoAyy and I have also gathered.
I'm not saying it's definitive by any means, however when you have multiple sources all showing the same thing, it is compelling.
0
