Guild Wars 2

@Teon, no worries.

And contributing:

Solo kills account for twice the ppk (ie a fight where both parties skills only hit one person counts as a solo kill). Would encourage solo roaming again, an area that is sorely lacking in recently WvW.

(quick question) Do we get 2 points per stomp atm? Just looking for clarification. Or does it matter if you stomp or not. I’m an oldie who was used to the cap bloodlust, and stomp – and still accustomed to playing that way … but not sure if they changed that since I returned. Do kills also count when a player is degenerated without a stomp?

Hexinx.1872:

(quick question) Do we get 2 points per stomp atm? Just looking for clarification. Or does it matter if you stomp or not. I’m an oldie who was used to the cap bloodlust, and stomp – and still accustomed to playing that way … but not sure if they changed that since I returned. Do kills also count when a player is degenerated without a stomp?

You will earn 2 points when you kill an enemy or take part in killing an enemy. Go fire a cannon at two enemy zergs fighting each other and you improve your server’s K/D rating and war score a lot. :P

If your server also has the Borderland Bloodlust you can earn more 1 point by stomping the enemy.

Thank you for the clarification. So if I kill 1 guy and stomp him under Bloodlust, our server gets 3 points… but if a zerg runs over some roamer… the server only gets 2.

Back to what should we try:
- poll to categorise individuals preferred playstyle in WvW (categories: I like to solo roam, I like to havoc, I like to play in guild only runs, I like to run with the commander, I like to play defensively and scout, I enjoy siege warfare)

Only provide the ability to select one, as it’s asking for your preferred playstyle. This should give you an idea of your current playerbase and maybe you can run polls in future based on those given functions. It would be interesting as a player to see, especially if you could provide results total, and results broken down based on server.

While players may enjoy playing multiple styles, myself included … I think it would be good to understand based on a player’s preferred play style.

I suggest (and I’m not the first),
Invulnerability windows. -nothing new in PvP type games such as the most hardcore of hardcore PvP games: Eve.

ON ONLY [the server with the lowest score at any one time] (a metric I’ve been harping on about for what seems like forever with and to no avail):
Guilds that claim KEEPS (not towers or camps) can state when that their objective will be invulnerable.
Duration of invulnerability window can be varied depending on whatever you like, guild upgrade, player level, wvw item, supply..
Now I think about it – supply would be the best thing, since then you will have put the effort into the game-mode itself, but during your play session. SO, the more you supply stuff into it, the longer the invulnerability window can be (scale it so 10000 supply is 4 hours – but that’s the maximum).
Obviously, all and any of this is subject to interpretation and modification.

Crise.9401:

Nuzt.7894:

Take away the AoE cap for a day.

Not sure if you are serious, this topic seems to generally be filled with trolls.

In case you are, the AoE cap is not a gameplay limitation but a technical limitation, say they do what you ask… it is highly likely that day no-one could play WvW because the servers would constantly crash or those who do manage to get in would be experiencing a slide show.

Honestly, they should do it. Then after all the horrid lag and crashs that will happen over the entire day they will be able to say “We told you so”.

phantom.1675:

Thelgar.7214:

phantom.1675:

GOALS: Fix mega-servers/home world, fix 1 man siege defense

2) Make siege invulnerable (or invulnerable siege option) for a short time (need testing).

1 defender with 5 well placed AC’s thwarting 10-15 players from taking objectives encourages too many large zergs to have free reign all over the place.

Defending vs outnumbered should be more of a combination of defensive siege AND minimal numbers in open field combat. The 1 defender can AC the players while 5-10 more players actually fight them near the structure/assault point.

By making siege invulnerable upon building, it also encourages more flash building of defensive siege by a minimal number of players which enables above (but requires there be > 1 defender).

This allows more smaller groups 5-15 to take objectives and requires similar sized groups to defender against it. This keeps 5 players from defending entire fortified maps while the rest zerg ball on another borderland. Mostly it enables comeback potential where having fortified stuff doesn’t snowball the entire week’s scoring.

This is very favorable to stacked servers, requiring matching numbers to defend anything. It turns the BLs and BL thirds of less populated servers into a Karma train for the stacked server unless they dissolve their main force into a havok for each map, conceding EBG and likely losing their home BL as well.

I didn’t say I wanted matching numbers. I said I wanted sane numbers, 20 versus 1 should always win, given they have 3-4 siege weapons placed. The problem is siege is stupid and cant dodge the AC, players can. If 20 guys get wiped by 1 AC, I am ok with that. But even if 20 players can survive a single AC, the siege never will and that’s what allows taking of objectives and makes WvW interesting.

As to what is favored, I would love to see a test, because I don’t believe you. And you (or I) can’t possibly know until someone tests it, otherwise it’s just unfounded guesswork.

Furthemore, Anet is supposed to address the population imbalance overall. I am simply talking about where players are given roughly equal numbers. If you both teams have 100 players, the current system favors putting the smallest amount possible (i.e. 1) to defend each objective by manning siege and have the largest zerg ball of zerker run around somewhere. This isn’t interesting and it isn’t fun.

I am favoring anything which forces a split of zerg balls into much smaller teams and encourages fights rather than 1 guy hiding in a keep with 5-6 siege weapons able to hold off versus 20 enemies.

For what it’s worth I am on DH getting the anet rickroll of the CD conglomerate. The issue is, everything gets fortified and we dont have enough players to take anything. Either our siege is wiped by 1 guy with balli/AC or enough of the siege is eliminated that he can hold out for the zerg ball to come and just roll us over. This is happening to us because we are Low Pop.

You can not believe me, but it isn’t unfounded guesswork. I was running one-man defense on Fort Aspinwood against TC right after the Alliance stacking. A few more seconds per attack, and we’d have lost everything rather than a couple towers. The margin for getting a team to defend before or as the gate/wall drops is that narrow. Any experienced havok commander knows that a few seconds is regularly going to contribute to victory, and to make sure you have people dropping siege as soon as you arrive rather than fooling around with the guards. You’re asking for extra seconds for free. it doesn’t take a test or guesswork to figure out the result.

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

-Remove the ability to repair fortified gates and walls—once they’re down, they’re down.
-Add cooldowns to prevent continuously disabling siege.
-Mandate that all Anet employees responsible for gameplay design decisions play WvW for at least three hours, one night per week, so they can experience how little fun it is to bang on fortified objectives defended by siege-spamming cowards, and hopefully make better decisions in the future.

Thelgar.7214:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

Instead of complaining about changes to siege, what would you like to see? ANet seems willing to try any simple changes that extend an existing mechanic, while they work on the more complicated underlying issues.

• Make siege un-refreshable but cost less supply to build while within friendly objective
• Set minimum effective distance to catapults (no proxy catas)
• Allow Watchtower improvement applied to keeps and the castle

Hexinx.1872:

phantom you just scratch an itch I’ve always hoped they would implement (but never will)

Hall of Heroes – much based around death match, with a few capture the flag style rounds mixed in, very much like gw1’s system. Multiple team based maps (up to 1v1v1v1 – i always thought that last map should have been a 4 way not a threeway), like it was narrowing the field down as you get closer to the glory. (*anyway this won’t happen because its a new game mode, and there is not enough resources)

I don’t see why it can’t happen – if like the post you were referring to it’s embedded in the WvW game mode and contributes to war score. Doesn’t even have to be on the same map; it can be another map in WvW that effectively acts like the HoH from GW1, teams from one server fighting teams from other servers, progressing through the maps until they get the right to challenge for the HoH itself.

I’ve felt the WvW setting could do with different activities for a while, and to me this seems like a perfect one to add. Different from PvP, can’t really work as an ‘esport’ in its own right, but can make WvW that little bit deeper.

Well… :

First, remove superior weapon siege, then add new system on wall/door that put specific vulnerability stack on them when nobody’s here to tend to them. 1 stack every 2-3 minute per wall/door. Upon removing a stack player have an increase in it’s WvW track. This way maybe scouting may feel rewarding and building that are left alone will crumble faster while “scouted” building should be sturdier than they are right now (maybe add protection on wall/door that are well attend).

The point would be to promote a gameplay where everybody is not out running in karma train looking mainly for silly battle without caring at all if something is taken from them by enemies.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

What experiments would you like ANet to offer in the Live WvW maps (Desert, EB, or Alpine), during this period of renewed activity?

Gliding. And bombing while gliding.

Zok.4956:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

What experiments would you like ANet to offer in the Live WvW maps (Desert, EB, or Alpine), during this period of renewed activity?

Gliding. And bombing while gliding.

And a way to shot down people gliding.

Crise.9401:

On a serious note, bringing back the orbs for ABL as a test is really something I’d like for them to try.

I genuinely miss this mechanic. It gave the zerg fighters a singular focal point.

• Poll for rotating EB and Edge of the Mists (not make new maps yet but see how many active WvW’ers would be interested in it)
• Mercenaries out of the northern corners of BL and south-central area similar to the mercenaries in EB (the hylek, dredge, and ogres) so that the skritt/centaurs in ABL are actually given a purpose (and the roaming ones aren’t always a pointless hindrance)
• Launch Pad defense sieges (being able to build launch pads within keeps and towers to send players over their own walls (to behind a zerg))
• Gliding in WvW (test via unlocking for all, implement via WXP upgrades)
• Disable WXP in EotM
• Add JP area to DBL
• Placeable “barricade” supply-taking item – similar to the barricades seen in Silverwaste forts and Verdant Brink camps but taller (so players cannot jump over them). Could be fun to create a maze of them for enemies.

Invisible fences! Places pillars that zap enemies that run past them. If 2 placed with x enemies that pass between receive an extra strong zap.

Could see a few ways to implement. Simplest being like a supply trap enemy walks over and animation shows pillars pop from the ground and does damage in a radius around each pillar with the fields overlapping so enemies in between take more damage.

More fun way would be individual seige that are auto turrets that emerge from hiding and pulse damage in a short radius around them. However periodically they will pulse another skill that looks for other pillars within a slightly larger radius. When it detects another they create a trap field between them with the same duration as how often the skill to create it cools down.

To make the pillars fair being as they are hidden autoturret have them built like seige but with no ability to refresh them. They could be destructible while buried but I would suggest they take greatly reduced damage unless they are exposed and attacking enemies

The seige version would be cooler and could create a mine field like effect if several were places but would mean more coding potentially where the trick/trap version would be faster to establish would likely be limited to one per player as long as they are in map like current tricks meaning building a minefield is harder and easier to have a single enemy trip them all wasting it

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Launch Pad defense sieges (being able to build launch pads within keeps and towers to send players over their own walls (to behind a zerg)).

Would be cool but don’t think the wvw maps could handle unrestricted gliding and launchpads.

Now if the launchpads were like cannons and mortars and set build sites with predetermined facing could work well. Anet would be able to test all glide range from the pad and set the launch arc how best works.

Would also like to see it auto deploy a glider for you at the peak when you use it and give you a bomber bundle. This way you could have set gliding rules that do not tie to masteries so all are even (plus non HoT accounts could get tempted with a taste of gliding). There wouldn’t be easy counters by just marking up the landing from just a normal jump pad. By making gliding part of it yes you are visible but you can drop the glide at any point to drop making predicting and marking up a landing site harder.

I still want flak to be part of all this gliding suggestions. Honestly, Mordrem Snipers pretty much one shot you if you try pass by them while gliding. We could use somenthing similar if we are ever to glide in WvW.

Jeknar.6184:

Zok.4956:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

What experiments would you like ANet to offer in the Live WvW maps (Desert, EB, or Alpine), during this period of renewed activity?

Gliding. And bombing while gliding.

And a way to shot down people gliding.

Oh man, something like that would sure enhance the value of lb rangers.

Hexinx.1872:

Thank you for the clarification. So if I kill 1 guy and stomp him under Bloodlust, our server gets 3 points… but if a zerg runs over some roamer… the server only gets 2.

Back to what should we try:
- poll to categorise individuals preferred playstyle in WvW (categories: I like to solo roam, I like to havoc, I like to play in guild only runs, I like to run with the commander, I like to play defensively and scout, I enjoy siege warfare)

Only provide the ability to select one, as it’s asking for your preferred playstyle. This should give you an idea of your current playerbase and maybe you can run polls in future based on those given functions. It would be interesting as a player to see, especially if you could provide results total, and results broken down based on server.

While players may enjoy playing multiple styles, myself included … I think it would be good to understand based on a player’s preferred play style.

That would be one heck of an interesting poll, imo.

Some ideas taken from GW1:

• Obelisks – static siege weaponry that is by default automatic low-damage PBAoE pulses, or can be manned for targetted anti-player damage and conditions. Would function as a counterpart to arrow carts – where arrow carts apply damaging conditions, Obelisks would apply debilitating conditions (blind, vulnerability, confusion, torment) and offer small support to allies (protection and regeneration).
• Siege Turtles – Tractivator for towers which sends an armored NPC to slowly march upon the keep nearest the tower sent from to siege its walls from a distance.
• Juggernauts – Tractivator for towers which sends an armored NPC to slowly march upon the keep nearest the tower sent from to siege its door from a distance.

Teraphas.6210:

Now if the launchpads were like cannons and mortars and set build sites with predetermined facing could work well. Anet would be able to test all glide range from the pad and set the launch arc how best works.

That’s exactly what launch pads are. They are static in placement and which way they launch players and how far they launch players.

Gliding and launch pads in WvW should be mutually exclusive, IMO.

Fix stuck bug.

How about implementing a queue to balance populations by time brackets? You join a server with a prime time closest to your play time. Queues are set to never allow a server to outnumber the lowest populated server in the match by 10% at any given time.

Give players information stats on play periods (ie full, medium, low) for each time period on servers so they can make a decision before joining.

Give one free transfer per player. Rank guilds by number of players and play time. Allow only so many guilds to transfer based on guild ranking per time slot. Allow guilds to move to selected servers first then base population ratings on that.

Server stacking is the main problem this game is facing and I think working out this will provide the most benefit for all players.

If this can be achieved then :
a) match variety will increase.
b) more competitive matches will occur.
c) player participation will increase because of the above.

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Thelgar.7214:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

Instead of complaining about changes to siege, what would you like to see? ANet seems willing to try any simple changes that extend an existing mechanic, while they work on the more complicated underlying issues.

Pointing out that an idea has an obvious and predictable effect isn’t complaining. Both eliminating siege disablers fall into that category. It doesn’t take testing to figure the effects of those. They’ll give an advantage to the side with more numbers. I would not make any changes that favor larger sides over smaller sides. I’ll point out any others that do that as well.

Thelgar.7214:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Thelgar.7214:

Illconceived Was Na.9781:

Sird.4536:

No wonder the siege polls are winning lol, the ideas here are just….

What is your idea that is better than changes/additions to siege?

Dude, unless he is going to suggest removing the gates, anything is better than the two suggestions here to increase invulnerability on placed siege and remove siege disablers.

Instead of complaining about changes to siege, what would you like to see? ANet seems willing to try any simple changes that extend an existing mechanic, while they work on the more complicated underlying issues.

Pointing out that an idea has an obvious and predictable effect isn’t complaining. Both eliminating siege disablers fall into that category. It doesn’t take testing to figure the effects of those. They’ll give an advantage to the side with more numbers. I would not make any changes that favor larger sides over smaller sides. I’ll point out any others that do that as well.

As I pointed out, Anet is separately working to balance numbers. If numbers arent balanced, the gamemode will always be trash. Imagine sPvP where one team got 6 people and the other 4. Yeah, it would be complete garbage. That’s all that’s happening here.

Now once you balance numbers, there are still other problems, and my suggestion was to remove momentum that allows fortified keeps to be held easily all week with 1 defender vs 10-20 assaulters.

Jaytee.9513:

How about implementing a queue to balance populations by time brackets? You join a server with a prime time closest to your play time. Queues are set to never allow a server to outnumber the lowest populated server in the match by 10% at any given time.

Give players information stats on play periods (ie full, medium, low) for each time period on servers so they can make a decision before joining.

Give one free transfer per player. Rank guilds by number of players and play time. Allow only so many guilds to transfer based on guild ranking per time slot. Allow guilds to move to selected servers first then base population ratings on that.

Server stacking is the main problem this game is facing and I think working out this will provide the most benefit for all players.

If this can be achieved then :
a) match variety will increase.
b) more competitive matches will occur.
c) player participation will increase because of the above.

The population balance is the most influential and the most complex issue in WvW. It is not something you can easily try out and roll back while the development focus is on Scoring changes. Read through first dozen suggestions to fix the issue on this forum and you start to get a feel of the scope.

Adding hard queue limits have been suggested before.

Teraphas.6210:

Konig Des Todes.2086:

Launch Pad defense sieges (being able to build launch pads within keeps and towers to send players over their own walls (to behind a zerg)).

Would be cool but don’t think the wvw maps could handle unrestricted gliding and launchpads.

Now if the launchpads were like cannons and mortars and set build sites with predetermined facing could work well. Anet would be able to test all glide range from the pad and set the launch arc how best works.

Oh yes, please.
Flying like Baron von Münchhausen on a cannonball into the enemy zerg would be very cool.

adjust katapult splashdamage: split the damage of katapults into 50% from te projectile and additional 50% from splashdamage. This way there would be an reason to actually hit the wall directly intstead of just using the splah. This would additionaly nerf sneaky katapult positions.

add scout trap: an trap that, when activated, scouts all enemy players in that area for a short duration simmilar to sentrys

FlowyGhost.4867:

adjust katapult splashdamage: split the damage of katapults into 50% from te projectile and additional 50% from splashdamage. This way there would be an reason to actually hit the wall directly intstead of just using the splah. This would additionaly nerf sneaky katapult positions.

Something that I was actually thinking about the other day; add extra damage to charged catapult shots so you don’t feel like so much of a boob when you plant it further than melee range for no good reason.

we allready got plenty of siege, allready too much. just stop it.
can ANET for love of god please remove all the kittening random mobs in the BLs like ppl actually have asked for!

ZirZo.8264:

we allready got plenty of siege, allready too much. just stop it.
can ANET for love of god please remove all the kittening random mobs in the BLs like ppl actually have asked for!

I actually like having some mobs around. More specifically when I am scouting I like having some in balista range just outside where I am keeping watch so I can snipe them with ballista bolts and get some loot while I scout

That being said I wish there was more purpose to the ones that exist especially the vets and champs. Perhaps grant buffs in an aoe when killed? Just some reason to actually fight that oakheart in nw eb

Add a potion of siege resistance. Reduces siege damage to you by 20%. Reduces your supply capacity by 20%.

phantom.1675:

Now once you balance numbers, there are still other problems, and my suggestion was to remove momentum that allows fortified keeps to be held easily all week with 1 defender vs 10-20 assaulters.

1 defender cannot hold that many people unless the attackers are completely stupid (and I know many are since I’ve done that kind of defense already). If an outnumbering attack force cannot breach wall when they have superior manpower they don’t deserve the keep.

Personal and World KDR displayed with /kdr.

edit: For personal show based on session/ day.

I would like something like this to be done for class balance patches as well.

Jeknar.6184:

phantom.1675:

Now once you balance numbers, there are still other problems, and my suggestion was to remove momentum that allows fortified keeps to be held easily all week with 1 defender vs 10-20 assaulters.

1 defender cannot hold that many people unless the attackers are completely stupid (and I know many are since I’ve done that kind of defense already). If an outnumbering attack force cannot breach wall when they have superior manpower they don’t deserve the keep.

I guess I dont agree with that. I feel like level 60 noobs in rare gear without full traits, if working as a group with supply should always win a 20 v 1 (in a keep with unlimited siege) no matter how badly they botch it.

This is the problem with the game mode, it favors so many “tricks” that only veterans can know about (like putting defensive siege where it can’t be hit unless you also know the “counter spot”) and is so offputting to any new players, that nobody wants to try it out, or if they do they get steamrolled and never go back.

I am in favor of skill, but to me there is no skill with siege, you get on the siege and you spam the button. I’d prefer if the skill came in where and what you attacked, and actual combat skill. Siege skill is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned.

phantom.1675:

This is the problem with the game mode, it favors so many “tricks” that only veterans can know about (like putting defensive siege where it can’t be hit unless you also know the “counter spot”) and is so offputting to any new players, that nobody wants to try it out, or if they do they get steamrolled and never go back.

These “Veterans” had to learn their tricks, just as the new players will learn eventually (if they have enough interest ofc). We all learned to play WvW the hard way, why new players need to be given a easy route? Sure, game mode is ‘dying’ and in need of players. But if these players give up in the first wipe, they are not meant to be in this game mode anyway.

/2copper.

Reset glicko after each new merging.

Jeknar.6184:

phantom.1675:

This is the problem with the game mode, it favors so many “tricks” that only veterans can know about (like putting defensive siege where it can’t be hit unless you also know the “counter spot”) and is so offputting to any new players, that nobody wants to try it out, or if they do they get steamrolled and never go back.

These “Veterans” had to learn their tricks, just as the new players will learn eventually (if they have enough interest ofc). We all learned to play WvW the hard way, why new players need to be given a easy route? Sure, game mode is ‘dying’ and in need of players. But if these players give up in the first wipe, they are not meant to be in this game mode anyway.

/2copper.

For the same reason that there is a cap on daily achievement points. If it’s perceived as impossible to catch up to the leaders in a game, entry into that game stops. They limited achievement points from dailies so that new players have hopes of catching up and thus care about daily achievements. Something similar has to be done to keep 3 year vets from having too much advantage over 3 week noobs. Plenty of research into gamification and incentive in skilled areas shows this is true.

The “vets” should have an absurd advantage solution smells like Donald Trump.

phantom.1675:

For the same reason that there is a cap on daily achievement points. If it’s perceived as impossible to catch up to the leaders in a game, entry into that game stops. They limited achievement points from dailies so that new players have hopes of catching up and thus care about daily achievements. Something similar has to be done to keep 3 year vets from having too much advantage over 3 week noobs. Plenty of research into gamification and incentive in skilled areas shows this is true.

The “vets” should have an absurd advantage solution smells like Donald Trump.

Dude, anyone can teach the “veteran tricks” to a new player willing to learn… Hell my guild have some few month old players who can run over your average player simply because they were interested in learn a few new tricks. You just want it to dumb it down so they don’t need to learn anything, only walk around spamming 1 like the great majority of the player base do.

And your comparission with the AP change is ridiculous.

Based on someone else’s ideas in a recent post, here’s another couple of suggestions:

• Scouting Goggles — a single-use consumable that creates the same effect applied by spy balloons, i.e. it shows red dots on the mini and world maps, allowing everyone to see the threat.
• Call for Help Tactivator — pulling the lever would generate a broadcast message to allies in all the other WvW maps. Perhaps, “[Red] Borderlands Garrison under attack”.

Both should get some tweaks to the simple concept to prevent trolling and being “too” useful. However, as stated, I think both can be done using only existing mechanics.

I’m still holding out for the April Fools where if you attack a doly, it summons every doly on the map and stomps you silly.

Why wait for April? Just add a stampede tactivator to camps.
It could summon 10 dolyaks at once, spawning as a herd that charges off to their objective, stampeding anyone in the way (like the minotaurs in Wayfarer).

If you add a cooldown that matches the spawn time for 10 dolyaks, with none spawning while on cooldown, the camp upgrade time would be the same. As a tactic it could even replace the supply drop for towers and keeps too.

A real merging of the servers, I don’t think it’s any secret that in some cases the linking’s have done more damage then good. Allowing people to transfer to a cheap server in a high tier has not solved anything, you’ve just given people an easier way to bandwagon or stack those higher tiers while as usual the lowest of tiers continues to lose population.

I just want to vote hammers out for now, followed by a recall vote for linking….

You really think there’s going to be any more polls? It looks like they’ve already finished with their usual “surge” of communication (based around the release of new LS), so now it’s back to silence.