Thursday November 13, 2008 - update notes

Go ahead, Brainiac. Explain what was so complicated about it. Point out where there was any big new programming work done instead of a few database changes, new scripts, and new graphics. I've only been a software engineer for nine years designing models for structural stress tests on new building materials, I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about, so kindly enlighten me with your depth of knowledge oh anonymous guru of the internet. Maybe you'd also like to tell me what else I do and don't know oh masterful diviner of the TCP/IP packet. That's a neat trick you have there, being confident enough to make such resolute statements based only on a few bits of packet data that appeared in your browser.

I won't be holding my breath.

Absolute truth in this.

I'm not going to get into the issue of retroactive book awards. I've only been playing for about 6-7 months, though I do have a couple of Protector titles so far. Getting the books for those would be nice, but I'm not going to obsess about it, since they would be a drop in the ocean compared to the points needed for the title. I just can't make myself care about the issue.

However, I am bothered by the non-reduction in grind except at the lower end of the title tracks.

With the new books and rewards, it appears that grind has been largely, or entirely, removed for reaching the highest normal-mode SS/LB rank and getting the HoM statue for allegiance rank 4. Basically any player should be able to get these now by just playing the game and doing all the side quests. Bravo, Anet! These are certainly steps in the right direction.

Maxing SS/LB in HM is pretty much break even. Same amount of grind, but with more options for doing it. A step in the right direction, but only a small one.

For the higher allegiance ranks, however, it appears that grind has actually increased for many players, and these ranks have been put further out of reach of the casual, or even semi-casual, player. Just about anyone could learn to do HFFF, but how many can do the 40-minute vanquishes that are being claimed on various threads? I certainly can't (though I'm improving with experience). My vanquishing time is closer to two hours right now for an area such as Fernwood, which is a rate of faction gain *far* below what HFFF would have given me. It also requires that I commit to spending the time to do a full mission in HM or a full vanquish to lock in any rewards. I can't spend the odd 10 minutes here, 15 minutes there, accumulating a worthwhile bit of faction. And any disconnect can entirely blow a huge amount of effort. Basically one either has to fail less -- much less -- at HM play, or be prepared to spend an extra year or so maxing the title. (I'm sure this pleases some people. )

I suppose shifting grind from low ranks to high ranks could be considered a "balancing", but I find this disappointing. At the very least I hope Anet will consider increasing the faction rewards for some of the repeatable quests to make them equivalent to the old HFFF in rate of faction gain. That way everyone still has at least the same chance they had before of maxing the title before the end of their natural lives. E.g., double the faction rewards for Duel of the Houses and Jade Arena, leaving the cash rewards alone. A good HM player can then max the title faster, but it won't be slower than before for everyone else.

HFFF could get you ~10k an hour if you did it correctly, right?

If you play Fort Aspenwood, and fail, you still get ~1.5k faction (on either side, counting progress bonus and kills) for your efforts. If you win, you get over 2.5k, plus 10 Faction for each kill, which means ~3k faction.

If you win half the time, you'll get ~2.25k faction, and each round takes at most 10 minutes, which can be reduced by either the Luxons winning, or the Kurzicks running amber. An average game should last less than 8 minutes, but we add the 2 minutes back due to queuing, loading, and matchmaking.

This means, you can play about 5 or 6 matches in an hour, so at about 2k average per game if you win half the time, you meet what you could do with HFFF. And if you're a good player, you'll do better and earn more. And if you're not a good player, you have 7 teammates to work with. If you win over two thirds of your matches, you can easily get over 15k an hour. The numbers for JQ are about the same.

Now, if you don't like to PvP, that's fine, but you should know what FA is really considered PvP-lite, especially compared to the rougher PvP crowd. Best of all, it's much, much more fun than any amount of HFFF, at least in my opinion.

If you knew programming, you'd know it's never "completely impossible", just too difficult/costly. You don't trust them on the economic explanation, I think we should simply keep asking them to release detailed information on this point.

I started commenting on each point, but then realised it's utterly pointless. We have different interpretations, and that's fine. But IMHO you're reading too much behind her words.

Of course I see what you mean, since I'm in agreement about RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO getting 2 books retroactively. But the important point here is that you're wrong that they have to grind, they simply have to redo the content, not grind it. No one is at the moment forcing them to do anything (if I were provocative, I'd say that some of the people criticising the update are the lazy ones, they want free stuff for no effort, but we'll never know who this is).

It only MEAN less for the people that judge their personal "accomplishments" by comparing their own rewards to those that other players get. If you look at the fun you had from the game, then this issue becomes less important (but I understand those that are talking of fairness from the start). Except if fun for you is dependent on others' fun.

Well, here, I disagree, it's those players that brought it onto themselves. It's the "want reward" philosophy that is wrong, I do not mean to say that rewards are bad/useless, simply that their priority is low.

I realise that people who are very critical of this update and vocally call for fairness try to look at the GW experience over the last 3 years as a consistent set of goals and rewards, without taking into account the evolution of the game. I mean that they are changing the personal value of their LG title at the light of what they think will be the value of players who haven't completed LG before. In RL, this kind of reasoning very rarely leads to fairness, as it often opens more doors for people to QQ/criticise.

What I probably mean is that feeling "punished" by such an update may be unfair to Anet who may have given each "clan" of the vast GW population a bit of something over the years. And as Bryant was telling you in the "GW downfall" thread, GW wasn't meant to be replayable, so people who did everything over and over again should not ask for more (they have the right to do so). As a criticism of Anet's lack of investment for the people that did all the content over and over again, all these comments seem fine, but not as a sole criticism of this update.

You're wrong: a minority asks for the retroactive rewards, but this may affect a lot of people (most of whom would not say anything).

This reminds me of the many many Guru threads that similarly attempted to prove or disprove that a "majority" of people were behind one side of the argument, while in the end (as darkNecrid very nicely explained) Anet is making a decision that will directly affect the game and community they manage. While we express our opinions on Guru, most of the GW population is either playing, or not, and that's what'll show whether Anet should do things differently.

No it doesn't if: 1) you look at it from the point of view of making more people playing, pugging and thus having fun; 2) as a (possible) first step in the "right" direction, something we'll only be able to assess when more is done in the future.

Games are among the most complicated software in the world, even more complicated than OSs as they have to provide a "unified front" to the customer (they're single purpose mega-software). We're talking 1 to 10 MLOCs here, and you may be familiar with the fact that a small modification can require a lot of work from, for example, the linux kernel devs ML. But as you may know, size does not matter, what really matters is software complexity, which is extremely high in a videogame due to the numerous modules interacting in realtime.

Even if you leave aside the graphics and networks to concentrate on game mechanics, there's no way that you could look at an update of this size on a 3-year-old set of 3 campaigns and 1 extension with over a hundred updates by saying "it's just a DB update"! Do you honestly think that they simply had to change the myBigGWdatabase.data file, import the "Book" datastruct and call the "makeBook" procedure 6 times for each campaign?

I love your posts. They make me laugh my ass off.

What a stupid statement! You have absolutely no idea.

Why do we have to put up with the bloatware crud that is Windows, or the half-baked user hostile drivel that is Linux?

Games are kicked out in their hundreds every month, by companies with a tiny fraction of the resources available to OS dev teams. Every year there are quite a few major releases on the scale of GW.

I know which is the more complex and it sure isn't games, not by a very long way. Heck, half of games rely on the OS for much of their functionality!

They didn't build a game, they updated one. Every piece of that update has already been implemented in the engine: faction rewards were already there, end-of-instance triggers for faction/gold rewards were already there, books were there from the BMP, item rewards already existed. This was not an addition to the game mechanics, it was not an upgrade to the AI, it was just a set of data changes. There is nothing in that update note that should have been a major programming project because every last bit of that framework has already been done before. Assuming a competent framework, I would budget most of the time for that change in testing, not development.

It was nothing more than a set of data updates to the existing programming. A major update is adding a whole new area to the game, implementing new AI, or changing an entire game mechanic. Regardless of the time required to implement that, none of that should have required substantial programming, as the bobblehead above seems to believe.

Another programming genius on the boards! What luck we have today, with all these savants on the board who know so much about programming that they can just so casually sling around these claims and be so confident in their assertions!

So, programming genius, how many interactive four dimensional physics models and hardware controllers have YOU programmed to know so much about this subject?

You, sir, are amazing. You're a voice of indignant, self-righteous reason on a board otherwise full of start-raving idiots who never made much headway in English or Debate classes.

Ctb...shut your cakehole. Seriously.

I'm no programmer but I can safely say that I KNOW that an update of such magnitude requires a lot of work, because so many things interlace and are affected by so many other things. If you change one thing without making sure its relationship with all those other things remains consistent, bugs happen and crap goes south.

As for making books retroactive...I can't see it being that difficult. They made the faction gain retroactive, they have the ability to make books retroactive as shown by the EOTN reputation points increase update which made all characters that have turned in previous books for the low amount of rep points able to fill out another book instantly for a price. They could have used pretty much the same code to do it here, just using different triggers. But they didn't. why? because that would have been a metric ass-load of money being dumped into the GW pool all at once, and people would know. All of a sudden there would be "WTB ecto" messages everywhere, prices would skyrocket on everything, and newer players who don't have legendary guardian characters would get the shaft, even for only a week or so.

There's absolutely no way you could know that, it's conjecture on your part, and IMHO bad conjecture, but I could be wrong since I'm also conjecturing. (in the end, we're going to have to throw our CVs into the discussion to weight opinions, and I'm sure that like me you won't do it)

You know as well as I do that competence at a given point does not leave to extensibility as a whole. Linux core devs are among the best ones in the world, yet they trash code all the time due to redesign, itself necessary due to core evolutions. Of course, this update has nothing "core" to it, it does work at the surface of GW1 code, but I'm arguing this surface is quite large. Videogames are well-known for being beasts difficult to control over their lifespan, due to the code complexity I mentioned before, and GW1 is so efficient (at all levels, ability to run on modest HW) that a tiny bit of EotN code which drives book-specific DB data will require new tubes in the code of the 3 campaigns. And these pipes can be ugly and convoluted due to architectural differences. Sure they didn't recode anything in the game engine, but this "game engine" looks like a Frankenstein (I even suggested once that it was the reason why they need to rework it in the context of GW2) with evolutions through the 4 volumes. You can easily imagine that it was not a simple matter of subclassing the generic GameEngine class and lead to many things scattered around the archictecture. So producing this update may have required looking a bit everywhere, changing stuff so that the pipes are reliable (thank you QA, never forget to thank these guys!).

Nope, adding models is not "major" in the "core" sense, it's the (huge) business of world modelers, but it's done in parallel with other changes.

I didn't even consider the fact that most of the programmers involved (Linsey programmed nothing, she said she's not a programmer on her wiki) were working on GW2, so it required going back to legacy code.

Nasty beasts these ones .

Alot of games similar to Guild Wars have a toolset for creating new areas, updating them etc. Adding a NPC, and a few items is trivial. Changing the rewards, etc of something already in place doesn't take a lot of work either. Much of the work that was done was probably calculaitng the rate they wanted the "grind" titles to be achievable, and fine tuning their adjustments. Also in testing for exploits and bugs.
BTW I have been programming probably longer than you have been alive, and have been involved in other online games development.

And, CTB, Fril Estelin do this please, you're nothing but idiotic trolls.

...

Anet did an excellent thing with this update. They added a degree of variety to their game. They made actual gameplay more rewarding then microing heroes for 400+ hours.

Why are you all complaining?

It's a shame updates have come down to title trolls complaining from their dark basements about minute changes, and we don't get amazing stuff like another Sorrow's Furnace instead. How far can you fall Anet?

They're complaining because they didn't get as large of a free reward as they think they're entitled to.

Oh and a few people are still talking about nonsense like the economy.

Before I get started, just let me say I really love the update. I really, really do. I vanquished for the first time in a little while on the weekend and the rewards were fantastic.

Regardless of how much I love this update, I still wish the books were retroactive (once only) for those who have completed/protector/guardian on their characters, completely without the monetary reward. Get that - NO MONEY IS WANTED OR NEEDED.

I think it is clear to everyone that the books were designed to be retroactive, but that at some stage late in the process someone said "think of the economy" and that was that. Most players who wish for the books to be retroactive DON'T CARE ABOUT THE MONEY. They don't care about the xp. What they care about is the faction.

Anet said let's get rid of grind, but their method was simply to add new ways to get the points. I won't argue with this, in fact I rather like it. Did the trolls get that? I LIKE IT. However let's take a player with 8 character slots (so none bought). Let's say he/she has 8 PvE characters, and that he/she has been playing since release. Chances are that all 8 characters have protector titles, all or most of the characters have guardian titles, and at least 2 of them will have vanquisher titles.

WITHOUT REPEATING vanquishes and missions, such has VERY LIMITED methods of gaining faction. It is entirely possible that such a player has maybe r1 or r2 in the faction titles. Before you say, they can AB or FA or JQ, tell me is there anything else they can do to gain faction WITHOUT REPEATING things they have already done? This is what is at the heart of the matter. Some players view repetition as grind, regardless of what repetition it is. Thus for old, loyal players the grind has really not be changed at all. They still have to REPEAT things they have done to get decent rewards allowing them to advance to a reasonable level along the faction track.

But can't they do it with other characters, some of you might ask. Yes. But how much they can gain from these changes (SIN REPETITION) depends on how many characters they have and how many have done what. Let's take the example from before and look at Cantha. They have 4 characters who can vanquish for faction. I think someone worked out in another thread that it was a couple of hundred faction from vanquishing all the areas (for either faction). This gives them 4 x a couple of hundred faction. Let's say that gives them a total of a million plus (so a minimum of 250k for the total of each faction, per character). They can donate double, so 2 million for their faction of choice, still leaving them 8 million short.

If they REPEAT HM missions they can get 120k per book. 120k x 8 = 960k, double for donating makes 1.92mil. They get nearly 2 million if they repeat all the HM missions they have ALREADY DONE across 8 characters.

It has nothing to do with being lazy. It has nothing to do with being greedy, no one I know wants the money. It has everything to do with GRIND. With GRIND being a repetitive thing. With many people viewing grind as repeating anything, regardless of what it is. Yes they could always AB or FA or JQ, but what if they don't enjoy it? Who are you to tell them how to play the game?

As I said before, I really love the update. I think what they have done is great. (Although I still think kilroy needs to be fixed - but that's another story.) I won't go so far as to say it is a kick in the balls to older players, but it certainly places newer players ahead of older ones if no one repeats anything they have already done. It doesn't matter what way you choose to spin it, but if grind = repetition, repetition of anything, I think it is fair to say that older players with very little faction will be required to grind more than newer ones who have very little done. This is the issue at hand.

Incorrect. The faction reward for your book goes straight to your title. You do not get to spend it.

My bad, I forgot that the book donation counted directly towards the title. Regardless, it is still nearly 1 million faction. It is a fairly large chunk when chasing a goal of 10 million without wanting to grind/repeat things. How many winning FA matches does this make at 2.5k a match? 400 I believe, unless my maths is wrong. How many Urgoz runs does this make? I'm not sure on the average faction in either NM or HM for this mission.

Remember that these players don't get access to the faction which new players would get vanquishing on their first two characters.

Its good that they are still updating at all, but this update is anything but a step in the right direction. This is a step in the direction of Anet basically giving up on fixing balance issues/PvP issues/other issues that unlike this update actually effect gameplay. No no...why on earth would they fix something that actually matters ? This update was nothing more then a shameless catering to bad players who are incapable of comprehending the difference between necessary grind and optional grind. Updates that cater to bad players are bad updates.

Retroactive would be very nice. No gold rewards needed.
Like most I'm only interested in the extra allegence reward points.

But if they decide not to give them... I don't really care.

Tho, I think they are allready too late making the retroactive change since many people, including me, have allready replayed missions during the last week.

Ate

I can do without the books, but I would enjoy an NPC that gives a faction title-point reward to each character, past and future, that has earned the NM and HM titles. Just points, just under Factions. This would solve the retro-active issue plenty of folks have, and not trigger the dev's concern about the economy.

Either way, it's not a big deal to me as I don't have any drive to push either title beyond Rank 4. With the bonus towards SS for vanqs, getting the max Faction title is still easily takes 25 times more time/effort than maxing out SS. I'm glad that it's not as boring.

Is your only way of discussing called "don't quote anything but call your opponent and idiot and take your toys home"?

We wouldn't get free rewards. If someone did something 6 times and didn't get a reward, and NOW someone will do it in half and get a full reward, I think HE got it free. Because he did 1/12 of our work and got more than we did. That's almost free.

I'm sorry, I must not be up on the "new math". How is 120,000 "nearly" 1,000,000? Some trick of calculus?

Cry more.

Creative Math from Enron says hi.

Before I begin, let me just say I find it hilarious that everybody arguing against sounds like this guy.

I'm not even talking about the programming aspect of this. I am talking about Anet coming out and giving us a LEGIT statement on the matter. As it is we have several conflicting statements from them on why it happened, and we still don't know the real reason.

How is having to redo content not grind? I thought that was the definition of grind. There are a lot of people here who don't understand that there is no difference between optional grind and necessary grind. Either way it is still grind, and if either one is added in any way than the update didn't do its job.


The problem people aren't seeing is that a lot of people derive their fun from these accomplishments, and this update completely undermines them. You can not sit here and say the "want reward" philosophy is wrong, as that is how some people get fun out of playing. And nobody can say what should be fun or not fun for others.

We have already decided that the 1-2 title solution would solve about 99% of the problem. The argument that it would open up to more QQ is bunk.

That is part of the criticism...

If most would not say anything, how can you tell its a minority?

Irrelevent to my point. Now lets say a lot of people are happy with this update (which they are). The question we have to ask ourselves is not whether or not the update got more people playing, but whether or not the update was effective in what it was trying to do. The update was clearly trying to reduce grind, but did it solve that problem? There are several arguments that say no.

Now then you could argue "well if more grind is what gets people playing then its a good update", which I find to be ridiculous. The update DIDN'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM. If Anet came out and said "we are increasing grind because it gets players playing" I would be fine with that. But to say "we want to decrease grind" then make an update that increases grind in any way is stupid.



As I said at the beginning, they should come out and say WHY they didn't do it or if they will ever do it (which they haven't done legitimately). Not to mention they should answer the arguments that say the update didn't help the grind issue as much as they thought it would. Instead we get different answers, each one being completely contradictory or just flat out false.

Before the update, fastest way to grind faction was HFFF, which wasn't available to Luxons.

After the update, there are several new ways to gain faction - lots of them are faster and less tedious than HFFF, and they are available to Luxons.

Result: Faction grind IS decreased.

I think a previous poster responded to this nicely:

"They haven't reduced the grind for faction at all. They introduced new and more ways to gain it, but doing every quest and every mission (NM and HM) won't get you close to maxing the title. Vanquishing all areas will help a bit, but you're still far from there. That means you're going to have to REDO missions/VQ's over and over again, which is grind imho."

That is not an appropriate response to what I said.
I said grind is reduced, I didn't say it was removed.
If you want to max a Faction title, you grind for it - but since the update, you grind less for it.

Highly in question. Does adding new ways to gain faction even mean the grind is reduced, or that the old way was just stupid? Not to mention...the entire book thing actually increased grind for many...

There is no question. They didn't just add new ways to gain faction - they added new ways that gain faction faster than the previous fastest method (HFFF), and these methods are available to Luxons as well as Kurzicks.

Faster faction gain = less grind

If you're going to grind for a max faction title, you can do it faster than before.
Faction grind IS reduced.

You CAN choose a method that's slower if it suits you better, but that's your choice - and now you have more to choose from.

The previous method was simply broken and had to be fixed. Nearly anything would have been better than the previous method. Yet there is still a ton of grind...and you didn't respond to the point that grind has been increased in many cases.

It is fixed in this update.
So what? No-one is saying there is no more grind, so why are you going around this circle again and again? What there is, is LESS grind.

Nobody is forced to max the title. If you WANT the max title, you don't get it for free, you grind. But now you grind less than before, you have more ways to do it, it's less tedious and repetitive, and Luxons can do it as fast as Kurzicks.

My reply did indeed respond to that non-point.
But I'll say it yet again:
It hasn't been increased.
It has been decreased - unless you choose to grind more than necessary.

I am not sure what DreamWind means by increased grind, but maybe he means that the update encourages old players to grind more, for the books.

I agree the update has reduced the grind at least a bit, and i love most of the update.
But this point with the books is something that contradicts this update's purpose.

You sir, are a mor(m)on.

If I did the campaign 6 times on each of my characters (counting deleted characters, too), it's 6x40k faction. That IS a lot. Screw the gold, faction is better.

There are still no reasons against. Only people that think saying "QQ more" is still cool are against retroactive books.

I still support making page filling the books retroactive, but I wonder if it even feasible anymore. Now that a lot of people have partially filled books, how would Anet untangle which missions were completed prior to the update and which were done after?

I fear this ship has sailed.

I have 10 PVE characters. If they made the books retroactive it would not gain me a single level in Kurzick. (10*NM + 1*HM = 520K faction.) It's a lot, but it would get me to the next level. So retroactive or not, I don't care.

I must say for me the books are not worth the trouble of carrying them arround.

Well, they can always do something.

It seems that game stores mission status as "done but not in book" (allowing mission done without book to be added at small fee.) / "done and in book" (player did mission and had book or added it to book later).

Possibility is that mission done before books are in "done and in book" state which means that anet can't see which mission was done before this system and they can't enable retroactive book rewards without re-rewarding people do missions done in meantime.

They can also be in just "done" state with "in book" as undefined value which could be set to "not in book" state if they wish and retroactive reward would work nicely with crediting people for missions they did before update and not again for missions they did after update.

So its either reward people double for all missions they did after update or don't reward them if they redone missions after update. bad/bad idea

It comes down to fairness.

But what about someone who has only Prophecies or has only gotten their character(s) through Prophecies before this update was given. Do they not get the ability to have retroactive books because theirs do not give Faction/Reputation? Why should someone who has paid the same as owners of the other campaign not be equally rewarded for their time? But then again, why should someone who has paid the same as others for the game, and in many cases more because it was newer at the time, not be able to benefit from rewards and must have to grind to receive the same that others get?

If Shiro's Return were made to give Kurzick/Luxon only, and Night Falls made to give Sunspear/Lightbringer only, then what would The Flameseeker Prophecies give? Do they then get the gold that would affect the economy, or do they get the experience that most players/characters generally don't need, or do they get nothing and it's all considered fair?

A possible solution of sorts to make it fair for everyone is to choose whether you want the gold, experience, or in some cases the faction/reputation reward for retroactive books. The only other truly fairness to the situation to allow all players to benefit is the obvious choice of making everything about the books retroactive. In either case, as many pointed out, there's issues with bringing an influx of gold that would've came more spread out over the many years the games have already been out. But in a game that has had its economy ruined by many poor decisions by ANet (Ursan, months and years before addressing farming issues/builds if they are even addressed at all, consumables, etc) why do they now care so strongly about giving people the rewards they deserve when they have given us nothing but easy buttons that have completely shattered the original concepts of how this game was suppose to be?

The update doesn't reduce the grind for many and therefore isn't a true way to address the grind that is Kurzick/Luxon. But it wasn't meant to be that. It's clear it is nothing more than a way for people to get a higher rank in the titles by simply playing the game, a way for people to be a bit better off when they're done than how many of us were years ago when Factions was released. There were no faction per kills in explorables, no faction for vanquishing, and no books to give us faction. There was no HFFF either - actually had to do FFF and do it with others. Those that have been playing long before this title that wanted a good rank by just playing the game, that wanted their PvE skills to be a bit stronger, and wanted to be able to put their title in HoM without having to grind are the ones that suffered from this, not the ones aiming to max out their title.

When it comes down to it, it comes down to fairness, and unfortunately this update came many years too late to really be fair or to really make an impact on the community. The game was designed then for longevity, for changes and adaptions, but it ended up hurting too much with the focus on GW2. I wanted the books to be retroactive, but I don't care now. I just care about ANet not making the same mistakes in GW2.

I'm sorry, I stopped reading right here, because who really gives a shit how fair a VIDEO GAME is? My god, talk about a misplaced sense of self-worth and entitlement.

In a game like Halo or GTA I would agree. This is, however, a MMORPG. MMO. Massive Multiplayer Online game.

Or just Online Game. In Online games, fairness is pretty important if you want people to buy your next game.

If people see that veterans are screwed over, they won't want to be veterans in GW 2.

You claim to speak for some unseen mass of hardcore veterans who think and feel just as negatively as you do.

All I see is a small handful of greedy, vocal, childish idiots who are pissing themselves because they didn't get a fat faction paycheck when the update hit, the kind of people who are upset over every update, every skill revision, every festival event, EVERYTHING, because it doesn't benefit you directly while screwing the other guy.

Honestly, GW2 won't miss you. I won't miss you, and Anet won't miss you.