Elite AI for all! - Patch Notes

Forgotten_Marshal

PVP Community

1. Standard doesn't always mean that's great. And mechs trading doesn't improve teamwork. If your team want to exploit that breakthrough, then the best positioned player must be there to execute the task with his/her own resources, not giving others that task by trading mechs. As everything, that's reduce to the "knowhow about choosing your allies". In this case, IMO, minus (remove units trading) means plus (promotes teamwork) Also, I don't see why people hates cavalry so much...

2.. As you surely have read from me. I'm against the remotion of neutral trade and I think Elite AI diplomatic treatment must be relaxed to a "dumb" AI status. In this case, we agree.

3. Same as 2., except with the "providing troops" apart, per 1. If you want to protect your ally, fight for him/her with your troops and leave that part very clear in the diplomatic channels available. (GB guaranteed Belgium's neutrality in WWI, but the brits doesn't put their own troops under Leopold's orders in the most cases. Great Britain had their own commanders)

4. Reads like a Elite AI defense. So, it's OK.

RP Community

1. Agree, per PVP. 2.

2. That means you and the new players must be more cautelous and checking the reputation status before taking any action. In this point, you're vilifying and overestimating Elite AI too much. The Elite AI's true weight is its diplomatic management, designed for the players not to be warmongers. Military-wise, instead, it's not different from the "dumb" AI. So, as players understands they can't go out and declaring wars for teh fun, everything will be alright. Indeed, for me, that's really supportive for the RP community, since you're foremost against players declaring wars without good reasons, so Elite AI serves for that purpose. With the former said, however, I repeat as in PVP. 2.: the trouble now with Elite AI is them not giving ROW or Peace, as "dumb" AI did, at all, and that must be corrected.

3. Agree, per PVP. 2. I never tire to repeat how infamous is for S1914 community the remotion of neutral trade.

4. Agree, again.

Social Alliances.

I agree the update, as a whole, is a disaster. But I think that almost all that "whole" is due to neutral trade remotion, since that practically had destroyed the diplomacy in S1914 by becoming all wars in annihilation wars where no diplomacy is needed. By that reason, I ask in the official channels about the issue, where it's observed that people are not happy with the update. That's all.

If any, we must wait.

Greetings.

P.D. As temporary measure against the neutral trade removal, you can "pact" resources with other players in the stockmarket as part of diplomatic ceasefire or peace treaties. And now having information spies on your allies becomes a must for that enforcement, despite how cumbersome it is.

Demonaire

PVP Community

1. Standard doesn't always mean that's great. And mechs trading doesn't improve teamwork. If your team want to exploit that breakthrough, then the best positioned player must be there to execute the task with his/her own resources, not giving others that task by trading mechs. As everything, that's reduce to the "knowhow about choosing your allies". In this case, IMO, minus (remove units trading) means plus (promotes improved teamwork) Also, I don't see why people hates cavalry so much...

2.. As you surely have read from me. I'm against the remotion of neutral trade and I think Elite AI diplomatic treatment must be relaxed to a "dumb" AI status. In this case, we agree.

3. Same as 2., except with the "providing troops" apart, per 1. If you want to protect your ally, fight for him/her with your troops and leave that part very clear in the diplomatic channels available. (GB guaranteed Belgium's neutrality in WWI, but the brits doesn't put their own troops under Leopold's orders in the most cases. Great Britain had their own commanders)

4. Reads like a Elite AI defense. So, it's OK.

RP Community

1. Agree, per PVP. 2.

2. That means you and the new players must be more cautelous and checking the reputation status before taking any action. In this point, you're vilifying and overestimating Elite AI too much. The Elite AI's true weight is its diplomatic management, designed for the players not to be warmongers. Military-wise, instead, it's not different from the "dumb" AI. So, as players understands they can't go out and declaring wars for teh fun, everything will be alright. Indeed, for me, that's really supportive for the RP community, since you're foremost against players declaring wars without good reasons, so Elite AI serves for that purpose. With the former said, however, I repeat as in PVP. 2.: the trouble now with Elite AI is them not giving ROW or Peace, as "dumb" AI did, at all, and that must be corrected.

3. Agree, per PVP. 2. I never tire to repeat how infamous is for S1914 community the remotion of neutral trade.

4. Agree, again.

Social Alliances.

I agree the update, as a whole, is a disaster. But I think that almost all that "whole" is due to neutral trade remotion, since that practically had destroyed the diplomacy in S1914 by becoming all wars in annhilitation wars where no diplomacy is needed. By that reason, I ask in the official channels about the issue, where it's observed that people are not happy with the update. That's all.

If any, we must wait.

Greetings.

P.D. As temporary measure against the neutral trade removal, you can "pact" resources with other players in the stockmarket as part of diplomatic ceasefire or peace treaties. And now having information spies on your allies becomes a must for that enforcement, despite how cumbersome it is.

PvP Community, #3:

Well, in world war two, for example, USA provided around 2/3 of the Russian Vehicular army, and did supply a lot of the allies, while remaining neutral. I believe it´s not *unrealistic* to trade units, as USA did it, a lot, via lend lease act; and our volunteers, same with Canadian and Polish, served under different banners. This is ww2 examples, I am not *too* keen on ww1. But I thank you for the reply.

I suggest we fix the unit trading, rss trading, and etc...

<posted this before>

Demonaire,

I believe that we agree on both that the addition of Elite AI is a good thing and that the removal of resource trading is a bad thing (correct me if i'm wrong). However you believe that Unit trading should be removed for primary reason that it is unrealistic. Thus in order to counter your arguement one must prove that it is realistic? Let me give this a shot through reference to arms trading throughout history in the real world. In 2018, 25$bn worth of arms dealing occured, USA sold 10.5$bn worth. This included guns (infantry), aircraft (fighters, bombers), Tanks (tanks), IFVs (armoured cars), among other arms.

Surely in World War 1 you have heard of Gallipoli? In Australia we have a whole national holiday based around the event from the sacrifice of ANZAC men. This campaign was in part coordinated to open up trade routes with the Russians in order to supply them with guns (infantry), and other arms and supplies (like oil) for their fight. Today you have probably heard of countries supplying the Saudis with arms.

In WW2, America lend-leased a large amount of arms to the british and allies (as well as russia and china) when they themselves were not even in the war. This was totally almost 697$bn in todays currency. And included material supplies such as oil, as well as weaponry such as aircraft (fighters, bombers), warships (LCs, BBs) and guns (infantry).

Anyway, It is realistic. Although there may be another argument in support of the removal of unit trading, this is not it.

Uncanny

Jakob von Binnyworth

I suggest we fix the unit trading, rss trading, and etc...

<posted this before>

Yes, but, in this case, the 20 grains of upkeep per unit means you're not only providing the vehicles, but the troops with them, and putting them under a russian commander. That, of course, isn't the rule in WWI. Remember how GB and France suggested USA to integrate their troops into british and french armies, encountering with a clear negative response from the United States men, who wanted to fight as AEF. Finally, french, british, US mens, canadians, indians, ANZAC, etc., should fight according to teamwork under a unified command, with their own troops and weapons. Unit trading avoids to replicate that.

Okay, so it's a good idea that roleplayers can't attack other players according to demonaire as it creates diplomacy and peace, which roleplayers seek to achieve. .

Spoken like somone who knows nothing about roleplaying games yet is still determined to give their uniformed opinion. It looks more like you are a bytro shill but whatever...

Roleplays employ land swap to get the borders set up. This can involve attacking many countries at the start of the game. A lot of new players struggle to beat standard ai, let alone elite.

Even experienced players will lose a lot of troops, that they can now longer replenish from allies. Throw an aggressive ai into the mix and it's going to mess up roleplays with land swap entirely.

I understand you think you know what you are talking about, but you don't in regards to roleplay. Just stop.

Is rp bytros concern? Definitely not. But people are sick of them repeatedly saying they are for roleplayers, then continuously doing everything in their power to ruin a game that was once loved by many people. It's every damn update

Demonaire

Yes, but, in this case, the 20 grains of upkeep per unit means you're not only providing the vehicles, but the troops with them, and putting them under a russian commander. That, of course, isn't the rule in WWI. Remember how GB and France suggested USA to integrate their troops into british and french armies, encountering with a clear negative response from the United States men, who wanted to fight as AEF. Finally, french, british, US mens, canadians, indians, ANZAC, etc., should fight according to teamwork under a unified command, with their own troops and weapons. Unit trading avoids to replicate that.

How about volunteers? I addressed literal boots on the ground, Canada, Poland, and USA is known to have done this in ww2. Or perhaps the Spanish Civil War volunteers, troops joined that from all over the world, though USA nor any other countries did not declare war on that from what I can tell. And under your argument, shouldn´t bytro be working on something similar then since, idk, you admit it happened historically?

I agree,

All I have to say is the Belgian expeditionary corps served and fought with the Russians.

As for the work around, we developed that over 2 years ago for your sister company. However, why do you think most of us are still here despite them being much more supportive of the community? Because the mechanics are easier to manage and use.

out of the 2,000 registered Rpers that I know of, about 50 can use that exploit effectively and are well coordinated enough to do it.

and the PVP part of me aggressive, AI would be cool for every game... If it wasnt for me seeing elite AIs eat over 100 players in a game on the Finish server a couple years back as the elite AI usually declares on any nation that has fought more then 2 or 3 wars.

Also, average new players learning the game get eaten and generally the players that stick around have freinds or managed to win their first game, or in the least came close. Being murdered by the AI dont feel good, so most of those cases bail.

Uncanny

Demonaire,

I believe that we agree on both that the addition of Elite AI is a good thing and that the removal of resource trading is a bad thing (correct me if i'm wrong). However you believe that Unit trading should be removed for primary reason that it is unrealistic. Thus in order to counter your arguement one must prove that it is realistic? Let me give this a shot through reference to arms trading throughout history in the real world. In 2018, 25$bn worth of arms dealing occured, USA sold 10.5$bn worth. This included guns (infantry), aircraft (fighters, bombers), Tanks (tanks), IFVs (armoured cars), among other arms.

Surely in World War 1 you have heard of Gallipoli? In Australia we have a whole national holiday based around the event from the sacrifice of ANZAC men. This campaign was in part coordinated to open up trade routes with the Russians in order to supply them with guns (infantry), and other arms and supplies (like oil) for their fight. Today you have probably heard of countries supplying the Saudis with arms.

In WW2, America lend-leased a large amount of arms to the british and allies (as well as russia and china) when they themselves were not even in the war. This was totally almost 697$bn in todays currency. And included material supplies such as oil, as well as weaponry such as aircraft (fighters, bombers), warships (LCs, BBs) and guns (infantry).

Anyway, It is realistic. Although there may be another argument in support of the removal of unit trading, this is not it.

Uncanny

But, if you had noted, mechanized units spends 20 grains and 5 oil as upkeep. That means you're not only trading mere cannons, planes, tanks or warships: you're also trading the troops who operates them. And putting national troops under a direct foreign commander was always an issue, at least at WWI (let alone the mere, pure, infantry/cavalry)

As I said before, that's the case of USA refusing their troops integrating the british and french armies for 1918. prefering create the AEF in response. That was also true, in most cases, in ANZAC, canadians and indians troops: even if the overall commander was foreigner, almost all of the remainder chain of command must be nationals, to guarantee loyalty.

That, of course, is the realistic argument, but then Golden Frieeza helped me to realize that the unit transfering is being used for superplayers hired by other players to obliterate an enemy player who's playing well. all while the contractor players just have to wait until that superplayer defeats the enemy and, then, distribute the war spoils. About that, the defeated player was expecting to fight against one of the contractors, not against the contracted superplayer, in a form of "legal" account-pushing. So that's the playability argument.

Greetings.

Demonaire,

When someone pays you to give them a destroyer or other vehicle, you buy it and then you man said vehicle with your own soldiers, thus costing you grain. When someone sells you guns, you buy them and give them to your people so that they can fight. Unit trading does not inherently require the transference of people but rather the transference of equipment. The trading of units can simply be explained in real-life terms as arm-trading as per my above examples.

In terms of your last statement, I am unsure what it is you are referencing or complaining about. Is it working with your enemy's enemy that is bugging you, or is it turning a neutral player into your ally to counter a mutual threat? You use the word 'superplayer', I'm unsure what that means, this isn't superpositioning or something lol. The scenario you describe is also low-key just gonna kill the contractor as this 'super-player' is likely in it for themselves, unless they are friends in which case that's fine as well if they are in an alliance or whatever.

Uncanny

Demonaire - in all your assumptions made from dozens maps about Mercenary Gameplay - you are almost everywhere mistaken as you never saw Mercenary Gameplay in work while you probably have seen Gold Rush, Lemign rush and Hnr rush.

In short- most of people I defeated have learnt something ,are playing better and respect other players more. It is not a lsot time and GMs for them. I myself can enjoy game with 200 provinces and do not have to kill additional 10-20 guys to get to 1200 provs. As long as you do not attack me and price for putting you down is not to high - you are ok to play as you want. You seem not to understand than for me to do mercenary work = losing my real time which I do not like.I enjoy watching longer 500 rounds where people have possibility to fight 1 :1 to compare their skills , no rushing, not GMing, no backstabbing, no friendpacking. Pure skills against skills so everyone watching war can learn from it.

In maps I control - only skills decide about your place in the final score, nothing more and from what I heard most people prefer this way of playing to what is normally on maps. If you are big blob with no skills I see now reason why smaller guy cannot conquer you and own you provs. Tbh he deserves good place more than you sir. And if some 3rd party will join that war I will be more than happy you stop that 3rd party. Right know one of guys on my map was challenged by 2 other , smaller countries but as he was winning they came to consensus to have peace... I believe this is more civilized way of playign supremcy than you have ever experienced sir that is why you have only the worst assumptions about that gameplay style.

Now I do not know why you are straight away agaisnt Mercenary Gameplay. Was it a main reason for devs to block unit trading? Or maybe they did not like idea of people playing skills vs skills games ? Or maybe teaching people how to play in Mercenary Map is something bad for bussines and company does not want people to become better players able to stop Hnr and GMs?

Well I will tell you that - Mercenary Gameplay is quite good way of stopping multis, 20 people friendpacks, GM overdose going in tens of millions GMs and accounts that have 300 sitters. Without trading units even good player will struggle against those abonimations which have not been stopped by company since 10 years. Why to remove possibility to fight them - I have no idea but I know but I am sure it has something to do with money.

PS. I do not always win so take it into consideration please. so it is not like I am terrorizing maps. the most important factor is ofc my real life and if game stands in the way choice is simple.

Uncanny

Demonaire,

When someone pays you to give them a destroyer or other vehicle, you buy it and then you man said vehicle with your own soldiers, thus costing you grain. When someone sells you guns, you buy them and give them to your people so that they can fight. Unit trading does not inherently require the transference of people but rather the transference of equipment. The trading of units can simply be explained in real-life terms as arm-trading as per my above examples.

In terms of your last statement, I am unsure what it is you are referencing or complaining about. Is it working with your enemy's enemy that is bugging you, or is it turning a neutral player into your ally to counter a mutual threat? You use the word 'superplayer', I'm unsure what that means, this isn't superpositioning or something lol. The scenario you describe is also low-key just gonna kill the contractor as this 'super-player' is likely in it for themselves, unless they are friends in which case that's fine as well if they are in an alliance or whatever.

Uncanny

For that being true, the mechs you receive from me means me gaining one infantry (with mobilization 0%) as result of that transaction. The arty would cost only 5 oil for the upkeep, not the additional 20 grains. And, of course, that mechs would render unoperational unless merged with one infantry of yours.

About my last statement, I summarize in this way (also for Golden Frieeza) : player X is fighting against player Y. If player Z wants to help player Y, go ahead, but with its own troops, not with player Y leased troops. With player Y managing economy and player Z in charge of military affair (because it's the expert player in the game) in Player Y country, Player X will always face an unfair disadvantage. Unit trade removal precisely resolves that unfair disadvantage, so if Player Z want to help his ally but he's in other corner of the map, then he can takes their own troops and move them to Player Y country, with the hardships that implies. And use forced march if he want to arrive faster.

(Hehehe, the more I think about what Golden Frieeza said, the more I think the unit trade removal is a marvelous update.)

Greetings.

Jeck

Okay, so it's a good idea that roleplayers can't attack other players according to demonaire as it creates diplomacy and peace, which roleplayers seek to achieve. .

Spoken like somone who knows nothing about roleplaying games yet is still determined to give their uniformed opinion. It looks more like you are a bytro shill but whatever...

Roleplays employ land swap to get the borders set up. This can involve attacking many countries at the start of the game. A lot of new players struggle to beat standard ai, let alone elite.

Even experienced players will lose a lot of troops, that they can now longer replenish from allies. Throw an aggressive ai into the mix and it's going to mess up roleplays with land swap entirely.

I understand you think you know what you are talking about, but you don't in regards to roleplay. Just stop.

Is rp bytros concern? Definitely not. But people are sick of them repeatedly saying they are for roleplayers, then continuously doing everything in their power to ruin a game that was once loved by many people. It's every damn update

The Roleplaying I know involves NOT attacking countries with so menial reasons like you're writing. And if your main concern is about AI countries not being such a lousy weaklings, then you know nothing about what RP is.

Or maybe your conception about RP is really different from mine.

Demonaire,

I used the destroyer as an example last time, this time I will use artillery as the example as you have. If I sell another country an artillery piece I sell them the artillery equipment, normally my artllery crew would cost 20 grain to operate this. However once I sell the artillery I keep my arty crew and the other country uses one of their arty crew to man the artillery they just bought. Thus they pay the 20 grain for the use of there artillery crew. No transaction of soldiers or nationals have occured, only the transfer of the artillery pieces themselves. This is done literally all over the world in billion dollar arms deals. I don't know were you got the notion that you have to merge infantry with a mech in order to use it, perhaps you are saying that you need soldiers to man the artillery. However these crews are not infantry, they are simply trained artillery crews that do not show on the map as they are not used to fight.

On the idea of giving men to someone in your group that is a better PVPer. This is simply teamwork and i can tell you right now this would never happen between randoms. Is it a bad thing, no, you are still playing against the same amount of men with the same amount of land as if you had fought them all when they were controlling there own soldiers. Could this even happen, not really, 10% of an army being slightly upskilled is not enough to turn the tide of war. I mean ultimately if they employ this tactic you were going to fight the two of them anyway as they are friends outside of the individual game and will fight for each other regardless. Really this does not occur commonly, I myself have literally never seen it in my 2 years of play, and the negatives clearly out-weigh the positives (particularly if this is your 'positive').

Uncanny

My conception of roleplay is the standard one in S1914s organised roleplay community and has been for several years.

Again, I do not believe you have enough of an informed opinion to be able to comment on how this update damages the rp community. Certainly not with any weight to your words. Anyone who had even just glanced at a community game in the past few years would understand what a land swap is.

The fact you are trying to make such a case for why the update won't harm the community without understanding said community just shows the disconnect that's present between the staff and the players .

Ta ta

Uncanny

Demonaire,

I used the destroyer as an example last time, this time I will use artillery as the example as you have. If I sell another country an artillery piece I sell them the artillery equipment, normally my artllery crew would cost 20 grain to operate this. However once I sell the artillery I keep my arty crew and the other country uses one of their arty crew to man the artillery they just bought. Thus they pay the 20 grain for the use of there artillery crew. No transaction of soldiers or nationals have occured, only the transfer of the artillery pieces themselves. This is done literally all over the world in billion dollar arms deals. I don't know were you got the notion that you have to merge infantry with a mech in order to use it, perhaps you are saying that you need soldiers to man the artillery. However these crews are not infantry, they are simply trained artillery crews that do not show on the map as they are not used to fight.

On the idea of giving men to someone in your group that is a better PVPer. This is simply teamwork and i can tell you right now this would never happen between randoms. Is it a bad thing, no, you are still playing against the same amount of men with the same amount of land as if you had fought them all when they were controlling there own soldiers. Could this even happen, not really, 10% of an army being slightly upskilled is not enough to turn the tide of war. I mean ultimately if they employ this tactic you were going to fight the two of them anyway as they are friends outside of the individual game and will fight for each other regardless. Really this does not occur commonly, I myself have literally never seen it in my 2 years of play, and the negatives clearly out-weigh the positives (particularly if this is your 'positive').

Uncanny

You perceived like this. I don't. Again, for your "I'm only buying the equipment" being true, the arty should only cost 5 oil as upkeep, without the 20 grains. You saying "I have my own artillery crew" makes no sense because I don't see, between my troops, the crew from the artillery I just transfered, in the same way you haven't that crew before you got the arty. Occam Razor, they call: the arty with the crew being transfered is simpler to assume than the "complexity" of imagine non-existent arty crew on both sides while you're receiving just the equipment.

And no: giving troops to another player for him to use is anything else but teamwork. Teamworks requires coordination between those players (with the flaws that implies). Giving units to a better player is just shirking their work. That's all. Again, you perceived negatives clearly out-weigh the positives. I don't: the benefits of that removal overwhelmingly surpass the costs, as I saw it. More options isn't better and the content of that option in particular denaturalize that fighting since contractor can dedicate only to his country economy, since the mercenary will care their borders and expansion, forcing other players to do the same thing.

That just remember me the SImpson episode where tennis doubles match between Bart/Marge vs. Homer/Lisa transformed in Sampras/Serena vs. Agassi/Venus. Yep, the same denaturalization.

Greetings.

Jeck

My conception of roleplay is the standard one in S1914s organised roleplay community and has been for several years.

Again, I do not believe you have enough of an informed opinion to be able to comment on how this update damages the rp community. Certainly not with any weight to your words. Anyone who had even just glanced at a community game in the past few years would understand what a land swap is.

The fact you are trying to make such a case for why the update won't harm the community without understanding said community just shows the disconnect that's present between the staff and the players .

Ta ta

And again, if your worries isn't about, let's say, the damage done by neutral trade removal, but because the AI is too powerful for you to face, then your conception of roleplay is essentially wrong, no matter how old are you in this game or how comfortable you are in the "standard".

Ta-dah.

Demonaire,

You are operating under the belief that the trading of units is inherently unrealistic. I have supplied a reasonable explanation for the mechanic and posed real-life scenarios in which it has occurred (this explains the 20 grain upkeep as I have demonstrated twice, refer to prior posts.). This kind of explanation has occured for literally years among the roleplaying community, there are many things which are not present in the game that would have occurred in real life including logistic trains, the ability to move outside of predetermined nodes, and the training of mech crews. Implementing these things would detract from the simplicity of the game, which is a bad thing. You speak of Occam's Razor to explain that you are giving over an entire arty crew instead of just the arty pieces. But this is not the simplist solution as dictated by the principle . The simplest solution is to look at what the game is based around (WW1) and what the mechanic is based on (arms deals, lend-leases.) and say they are the same.

In terms of the giving of troops to a better PVPer. You state that it is not teamwork because... It doesn't require coordination, the players are shirking there duties, and it denaturalises fighting? On coordination, both parties (contrater + merc) will still fight as only a small portion can be given away at a time (10%) and it really is not a good strat to dedicate your resource to economy when the easiest and fastest way to build an economy is through expansion (unless you really stuffed up early game). People act as though a small nation can survive against a big nation, but in reality this is not true, if both players are equal skill the small country will lose 90% of the time. On players shirking their duties, again they will fight, it is not feasible to leave out the armies of your friends simply because you are better. On it denaturalising fighting, I had to google denaturalisation lol, again if i have 50 provs and my pvp buddy has 50 provs, we will both have equal armies, even if i give him 10% of my army it is still advantageous for me to fight as well, or we will simply lose to a 100 prov country. I would also like to point out you ignored many of my points. i.e. the following (includes a few extra)

- Only 10% of an army can be traded at any one time, limiting the ability for this to even be feasible.

- Have you ever seen this tactic used in a public match? I haven't in my two years. Makes it a non-issue.

- You are still fighting the same amount of men.
- You are still fighting 2+ countries with the same amount of land.

- Less mobilisation hurts.

- Ultimately some may prefer the economic mechanics over the PVP mechanics (idk why but they may). Before you use this, it is okay to enjoy different mechanics of the same game, everyone has their own play-style lol. We don't want to discourage any one playstyle as that will merely push players form the game. This is more a general statement than anything else.

Also low-key I've never seen you in an RP? If you want to join one hit me up lol.

Uncanny

A remarkably narrow view to take but one founded in ignorance so I guess it's fine?

I mean, feel free to suggest I can't play the game or beat ai if it makes you feel better. My point was always that it makes landswap harder, and especially for newer players. You wouldn't know as you don't know what that is. Unsure how you can argue against it but fair enough.

As for neutral trade, absolutely a bad idea we can agree there.

While I suspect your ta-dah was some sarcastic sign off, ta ta just means bye in much of the English speaking world. I meant nothing untoward by it.

Take care Iv said my bit

It's simple, Jeck: games aren't made for you having an easy playing, neither for the newbie (we can be considerated with their first steps, though) nor the expert. If you don't like challenges, that's fine, but spare me from that "standard".

Greetings.