ThomasC.1056

More diversity is always good, but don't have too much hope !

I acknowledge the issue and the frustration, and I don't like stealth as well. The whole concept of "get out of the blue, one shot or vanish at F1 speed" is lame. I want to ask one question about it :

**Why only thieves/mesmers for solo roaming ?**

Solo roaming means you're not building a complementary team, so you need a class that can performs correctly for both damage and survivability, especially when you can cross more enemies that you could deal with. Just like MUDse is saying. Thieves and mesmers are good for that, because of mobility, which is a really significant way of surviving. Defensive stats or skills are not that performing actually... Warriors used to be a thing, but I guess the recent nerf of stances made them too fragile for solo roaming. So I'm not sure what works "really" well for solo roaming beyond thief and mesmer.

> @"Tzozef.9841" said:

> Overall it's working.

>

> This is BALANCE, the balance we need. Thank you

>

> Reducing Condition Burst and increasing Duration is the right move, much more balanced

In some way, I can agree.

In some other way, I'm also seeing the return of massive stunlock gank builds... I'm not really sure a stun+power burst that downs you in 2 seconds whatever stunbreaker you use is really much of an improvement compared to a condi burst that downs you in 2 seconds whatever cleanses you use.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > Converting as I proposed would have meant that all snowflakes would be equal in value to one tiny snowflake under the old system. Extremely simple math. No converting necessary.

> Yes, and converting as you proposed would have tripled the number of ordinary snowflakes in the new system, which would have been enough to overwhelm the early demand. Prices would plummet and everything would have been worthless at the start.

This is where your reasoning fails : _overwhelm the early demand_. That's not a simple offer/demand question, because the same people can alter both offer and demand the way they please. So the TP could have not crunched.

Just ask yourself : demand by whom ?

The final destination of flakes are probably a NPC vendor or a craft station. Flakes have no value for themselves as gear would. And who controls the costs in those specific places (demand) ? The very same people that evaporated the stockpile (offer). Those very people that could have just kept the overall amount of flakes ingame, and adapt the crafting and NPC costs accordingly to keep the economy healthy.

And spare us all that drama.

> @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > @"Wanze.8410" said:

> > > > @"Astralporing.1957" said:

> > > > > @"Allisa Wonderland.8192" said:

> > > > > > @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > > > > > Where's John Smith when you need him?

> > > > >

> > > > > He left a while back...

> > > > >

> > > > > So much for people telling him he didn't know how to do his job.. this is what we get from the replacement. Ha! Oh I miss you Mr. Smith!!

> > > > >

> > > > I don't. It's not like he would have done it any better - **he was well known for "economizing" at the expense of players**.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > what does that even mean?

> > It means he seemed to think that players served the economy, instead of the other way around. And he was perfectly willing to make adjustments that had negative consequences for most players involved if it happened to bring the economy closer to some ideal of it he had in his head.

> >

> > Thus, this kind of action (and explanation) as the current snowflake debacle is something i can easily imagine him doing as well.

> >

>

> How does the recent change to snowflakes have negative consequences for most players involved?

>

> And what other examples can you give?

The issue raises which the conversion rates of previous flakes' tiers vs. new ones : you can only get 10 new flakes from a top tier old flake, which requieres 32 tiny snoflakes, which are worth 32 new flakes. And as 10 < 32, it's a net loss for the players who have hoarded on top tier flakes for clutter management.

It may not be that impactful in game, if prices were quenched as well, but it makes no sense to evaporate that many snowflakes for economics reasons while, _at the same time_, you're the one who set prices of all the new items that require new flakes.

It would have made far more sense to simply relabel all the snowflakes into new ones with a 1 tiny = 1 new base, and upper tiers accordingly, to relabel in new flakes the prices of "old stuff that you could previously get with old flakes" following the same logic, and create new prices for new items in new flakes while taking into account the total new flakes in game, which is a plain multiplication that takes one single nanosecond to do.

They chose otherwise, it's a bad message for itself, and the devs answer to that wasn't really a "good" message as well.

Hello Raymond,

Thanks for taking part in that thread. It's a good thing to have some red bannered answers in the WvW section, and I'm really grateful for you to chime in sometimes.

> @"Raymond Lukes.6305" said:

> > @"hunkamania.7561" said:

> > -AFK PIP farmers that get rewarded for doing nothing. How about rewarding people that actually do stuff. Literally the Q is taken up by a ton of dudes that are AFK!

> We're **talking** about some things to do for this. One thing we'd like to do is make OS better suited for people to afk out their participation and also do general WvW vendor work. We'd also display the participation UI so it's more obviously a map where you are still getting rewards. This doesn't fully solve the AFK issues but its something we're **looking into**.

> > -T3 structures and tactics need nerfing or at least give a better reward other than a champ bag for taking these things because some of these keeps and towers are harder to take than robbing a bank in IRL. What is the point of taking a keep or a tower anyways? No one cares about these things. Soon everyone will be hiding in their corners doing nothing but refreshing siege.

> We've been **talking** about this recently and I think we've got some **ideas** we're going to pitch internally and then **discuss** some options with you guys.

> > - Why isn't there some way to GVG people in other tiers without going to the crappy guild hall or OS? The game is like 5 years old godbless. It's called guild wars 2(don't care about the lore)

> We've been **talking** about some options with this as well. We like the idea of being able to GvG with more guilds. We're going to need to do some **more investigation** into the feasibility of this but it's already on our list.

I understand the previous topics may not be the top priority things, but as a message, your answer is a bit of a turn down. It shows that you're positive of some things that are discussed here, and it's a good thing. Unfortunately, it also shows that you still don't have a clear idea on these, which may lead people to fantasize that you don't care (which I doubt).

My suggestion would be to have sort of to do list, or work in progress list. Of course, it wouldn't disclose the exact status of a given topic, but some generic info wouldn't harm, would it ?

I agree with all that you're suggesting.

I'm not expecting much though, especially in the QoL section : most vendors, bank and crafting would make any WvW lobby a far better alternative to all the lobbies (royal terrace, lily of elon, mistlock sanctuary etc.) they're selling in gems. Moreover, the WvW one would have the "get me back to my previous map" that only mistlock has.

Of course, some would say that luring people in WvW for QoL may have a positive effect on population, but I'm honestly not betting much on that part, unfortunately.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > Bonus question:

> > > * Do the devs think this is fair? They don't think that's a meaningful question: any conversion results in changes; some people win out with such changes and some do not.

> >

> > I'll remember that next time someone asks me how tall I am. Instead of answering in meters, I'll answer in feets, and I'll probably get 68% shorter in the process.

>

> That analogy sure sounds amusing; it just doesn't have anything to do with the snowflake changes. Height is height, but conversion from one economic system to isn't an exact science; there's no clear way to do it that is completely fair. When East & West Germany reunified, the DDR Deutschemark had a variety of values compared to the BRD's, driven up & down by speculation. For the actual merger, someone had to decide on a specific conversion rate and it was going to end up being unfair to lots of people regardless of the figure. Make the rate too high and the economy would inflate due to the sudden influx of new marks untied to the old capitalist market forces. Too low and people in East Germany wouldn't be able to afford to live in their own homes.

>

> Snowflake conversion involves a lot potential pitfalls, such as the pre-announcement TP prices, the ratios of value, the amounts stockpiled, and so on. Our personal feelings about what the rate should be aren't important; protecting the economy overall is.

It's not an economic system conversion, it's a currency conversion. Each tier of snowflakes has a multiple value of the previous one, which means that the obvious thing to do would be to keep the multiplication when you translate snowflakes to a new version. It's just as if you were switching 1 pfenning for 1 euro cent, but 1 euro for 32 pfennings, while simultaneously stating 1 euro = 100 euro cents. It makes no sense, even from an economical point of view.

I'm an exact scientist, so maybe I'm too cartesian to forsee the future, but I honestly can't see what harm to the economy a simple re-labeling of something with a 1:1 ratio including an inheritane in all the multiples could do.

> @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > Ultimately, it's a currency conversion that required compression. The value loss is relative to the base only.

>

> No, it really didn't require it. The value of snowflakes is real, measurable and obvious the value loss is real too.

>

> As an attempt to get this across in real world terms this is basically the same as the US Government deciding to introduce New Dollars. The good news is that Old Dollar Bills will convert into New Dollars at a 1-to-1 ratio! Of course old 50s are now only worth 20 New Dollars and old 10s are only worth 5 New Dollars. How acceptable would that be?

Whatever you're saying is irrelevant and misleading, because as old dollars don't have value anymore, you can't say that a 10s is worth 10 old dollars, because it's now worth 5 new dollars.

/sarcasm

> @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> > > Speculative insight... They moved from a Base 2 to a Base 10 system and used a 1:1 ratio of tiny to snowflake as the reference point. There are rounding errors

> >

> > Let me help you with the maths.

> >

> > If 1 tiny snowflake = 1 new snowflake, then 32 tiny snowflakes = 32 new snowflakes. Now, as 1 flawless snowflakes = 32 tiny snowflakes, then 32 tiny snowflakes =/= 10 new snowflakes. That has nothing to do with a base. And if you think that writing "10" instead of "32" is only a rounding error, then I suggest you to think about how you're supposed to round when you're multiplying integers, in a system that manages integers without any issue.

> >

> > That's only they wanted to erase them. Fair and square.

> >

>

> Binary and Metric don't get along perfectly. Currency conversion required compression. There was no perfect solution, so they did what they could to make it fair. See post above regarding buying power.

>

> Don't get hung up on the numbers.

Perfect solution ? Well, just calculate how many tiny snowflakes each tier is worth, and use that very number as the value in "new snowflakes". Easy, smooth, fine and fair.

You won't make me swallow it was a matter of integer coding for such tiny numbers... The only reason it'd require compression is the inventory clutter the conversion of whole stacks of each tier would have created, and eventhough, there're diamonds which are 1000 new snowflake -> 1 diamond as the most powerful source of compression there is.

So please, don't try and use numbers to justify the fact 68% of snowflakes evaporated in a snap by the sheer will of some.

That said, I haven't checked the new prices, so maybe it has no consequences indeed, but as a symbol, it's catastrophic.

> @"crashburntoo.7431" said:

> Speculative insight... They moved from a Base 2 to a Base 10 system and used a 1:1 ratio of tiny to snowflake as the reference point. There are rounding errors

Let me help you with the maths.

If 1 tiny snowflake = 1 new snowflake, then 32 tiny snowflakes = 32 new snowflakes. Now, as 1 flawless snowflakes = 32 tiny snowflakes, then 32 tiny snowflakes =/= 10 new snowflakes. That has nothing to do with a base. And if you think that writing "10" instead of "32" is only a rounding error, then I suggest you to think about how you're supposed to round when you're multiplying integers, in a system that manages integers without any issue.

That's only they wanted to erase them. Fair and square.

> @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> Bonus question:

> * Do the devs think this is fair? They don't think that's a meaningful question: any conversion results in changes; some people win out with such changes and some do not.

I'll remember that next time someone asks me how tall I am. Instead of answering in meters, I'll answer in feets, and I'll probably get 68% shorter in the process.

> @"Alexander Youngblood II.9341" said:

> > @"Pifil.5193" said:

> > I'm sorry, but I'm don't understand how "the old high tiers give you more of the new currency".

> >

> > 1 tiny Snowflake = 1 new Snowflake.

> > 1 Flawless Snowflake = 32 Tiny Snowflakes = 10 new Snowflakes. Not 32.

>

> That is a misleading way to phrase it because it is no longer true. One Flawless snowflake no longer equals 32 Tiny Snowflakes.

> One Flawless Snowflake is equal to 10 Snowflakes. There is no way to acquire the old Snowflakes so their old values are not relevant when asking what a Flawless Snowflake is worth.

Pure absolute nonsense. Given the flawless snowflakes (vs. tiny snowflakes) stock is a direct heritage from their previous conversion rate, eventhough they're not worth anything _now_ doesn't mean that the previous conversion isn't relevant. It's still the key to their relative value. Or let me rephrase what everyone is telling : A = 32B. Everyone agrees on that one, even the devs, because it's "no longer true" (which means it used to be), and as A and B have no use now, there's no reason to say it's wrong unless it's a wintersday's miracle. Now, I summon C with the following properties : C = B and A = 10C. Which leads to 10C = 32C which is 10 = 32. Everything is fine in ANet's wonderful world.

The core thing is you're actually admitting you scrapped their relative value to less than a third of what it used to be. Just tell it like this : you snapped your fingers, and the value dropped by 68%. That way, it's not misleading. Wasn't there any way to move to the new system _without_ the conversion loss ?

> @"Karl McLain.5604" said:

> The primary design for confusion is 'burst'; it's expected to deliver a lot of stacks at once for low duration, punishing skill usage for a short while and then falling off quickly. Due to this difference in nature, we chose to leave it alone in this patch.

From [that thread](https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/314813/#Comment_314813)

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"X T D.6458" said:

> > > > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > > > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions

> > > > "

> > > > ......

> > > > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation?

> > > > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out.

> > > > .......

> > > > "

> > > >

> > > > Allow me to disagree on this part, IMO, even if people won't get full reward but only a reward locked at when they left (not counting outnubered and any other buff they could get) they will still leave maps or at least a big part of AFKers will do if a system of cashing out existed.

> > >

> > > No the devs are right, if players are simply allowed to "cash out" immediately they will just get participation up and log out and will be able to get full upcoming rewards without actually having played for them. Since participation will remain on an account for a little while even after logging out, a player can greatly abuse it, by simply doing this over and over.

> >

> > As many stated : just add a debuff that prevents you from entering WvW for 15 minutes (standard full decay time).

>

> You seriously think preventing people from entering WvW is a good solution?

We're talking about a "cashing out" option, which means people fundamentally want to leave WvW to do something else. To prevent people from cashing out and coming back, a possible way is indeed to prevent them to log back in... Since they wanted to leave, what's the harm ?

They need a dynamic gem store so that people do micro (or not) transactions, which provides them the cash flow needed to produce content.

The red line is : "Use the gem store to provide cash flow to create new content for the gem store." The content creation is supposed to be aimed at players through balance of skills, new stuff, new maps, LWS etc. I have absolutely no clue how much of developement time is dedicated to "create content for the gem store", but I'm 100% certain we'll never know about that.

It's sad, because a lot of good titles in the gaming industry turned into that : empty shiny shells made to be sold and to spur microtransactions through a store. Megabucks and shareholder value, but players, in all this, are still starving.

I hate it fondly as another evidence of ANet devs not playing by their own rules. It's a control effect. Plain and simple. It should be overrid by stun breakers and stability.

Unfortunately, it is to be expected they play a lot with their new toy. Just like paragons who use shouts that aren't boons etc. It's so sad they don't take example on another old game I know called Guild Wars...

I'm honestly fond of Taimi, and I think she's the best of the whole team. She's got her head on her shoulders, thinks a lot, finds a lot of things and solutions, yet at the same time, she can be witty, goofy, sarcastic and light hearted. Moreover, she's always been supportive of the commander, and helpful in any way she could. Only Rox come close to her, because Rox she's plain and reliable, and does her best. Canach and Kasmeer are ok. In the meanwhile, Braham is a selfish teenage brat and Marjory will be helpful only when, she feels like it, and will take part only if it doesn't impair her own agenda of "I'm oh so dark".

> @"Odokuro.5049" said:

> > @"Galmac.4680" said:

> > 1. You are complaining that the conditions of a group of condi classes are too deadly, but the damage of a group of dps classes, that even kills you faster, is ok? I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

>

> Except the group of Power DPS classes have to hit you reliably in order to kill you, unlike Condition DPS classes that can spam attacks/skills at you, miss half of them and still get 8+ Stacks of 5K to 8K Condi-Ticks going.

>

> Removing the Burst and replacing it with a ramp up time, will indeed, make it a war of attrition which is what it should have been, conditions should have never been a burst.

In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. Issue is, there're two big flaws in what you're saying :

> @"Odokuro.5049" said:

> Except the group of Power DPS classes have to hit you reliably in order to kill you, unlike Condition DPS classes that can spam attacks/skills at you, miss half of them and still get 8+ Stacks of 5K to 8K Condi-Ticks going.

I understand that issue, because I play some melee power specs. But it's not an issue with conditions. It's an issue with the "engine". So that doesn't make it a valid reason to nerf conditions (and I'm not saying it isn't required).

> Removing the Burst and replacing it with a ramp up time, will indeed, make it a war of attrition which is what it should have been, conditions should have never been a burst.

That would be true if fights lasted longer than, say 5 seconds. They could put burning stacks for 150s, that wouldn't change a thing : outside of zergs, 90% of fights are done within the first burst. For power specs, it seems natural that a single burst should end it, but to me, it's not. If it's a war of attrition, as you're saying, then power specs have to so their tricks for a significant (and shorter) amount of time than condi ticks. And by "tricks", I'm not necessarily saying "perfect rotation supposed to win the fight because they told so on gankbuilds.com".

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > @"ThomasC.1056" said:

> > > @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> > > No. I'm not talking about players or power or stacks or whichever from people.

> > > Not talking about PvP or WvW or Raid or whatever else directly but...

> > >

> > > Okay so, is it just players that's getting this nerf? Or is some of the enemies out in the open getting the same treatment too?

> > > Just asking as there's some out there now that can stack quite a bit on you really fast and wondering if it's ramped up at a pace for them as well?

> > > If not, that won't be right in a way, but then from the other side of the spectrum...

> > > ...there's some that can put conditions on you that can last up to like 30 seconds or so which can be super annoying too so if they ARE affected... what about the duration of those? You say longer durations of conditions... would that mean it can be 40.. 50... a minute to deal with these conditions if you have no way of cleansing it?

> > >

> > > What's going to happen to the condition enemies? I haven't said anything for days as I thought someone would address it, but no one has from what I've seen so I'll just come out and ask.

> >

> > Considering ANet's usual way of designing mobs' skills is either create a new skill massively OP _or_ put a player's skill on steroids with tons of additionnal effects, I'm foreseeing a huge disappointement if you're expecting condi enemies to be nerfed as well. They have to be that way. That's what they call _challenge_, you know...

>

> There's a difference in challenge and cheap.

:+1: May your voice carry up to them !

> @"Ayumi Spender.1082" said:

> No. I'm not talking about players or power or stacks or whichever from people.

> Not talking about PvP or WvW or Raid or whatever else directly but...

>

> Okay so, is it just players that's getting this nerf? Or is some of the enemies out in the open getting the same treatment too?

> Just asking as there's some out there now that can stack quite a bit on you really fast and wondering if it's ramped up at a pace for them as well?

> If not, that won't be right in a way, but then from the other side of the spectrum...

> ...there's some that can put conditions on you that can last up to like 30 seconds or so which can be super annoying too so if they ARE affected... what about the duration of those? You say longer durations of conditions... would that mean it can be 40.. 50... a minute to deal with these conditions if you have no way of cleansing it?

>

> What's going to happen to the condition enemies? I haven't said anything for days as I thought someone would address it, but no one has from what I've seen so I'll just come out and ask.

Considering ANet's usual way of designing mobs' skills is either create a new skill massively OP _or_ put a player's skill on steroids with tons of additionnal effects, I'm foreseeing a huge disappointement if you're expecting condi enemies to be nerfed as well. They have to be that way. That's what they call _challenge_, you know...

> @"Aeolus.3615" said:

> @Burnfall.9573, tks for the info and correct :) i didnt know about that.

>

> Mesmer needs to be reverted to the gw1 mesmer :P that would fix it, about thiefs i dont mind with them, imo atm they are far the issue.

If only mesmer could be reverted to GW1... All the punishing hexes and interrupts (with the appropriate UI of course). I had so much fun with my mesmer !

> @"X T D.6458" said:

> > @"Zaraki.5784" said:

> > https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/19921/wvw-frequently-asked-questions

> > "

> > ......

> > Q. Why can’t we cash out participation?

> > A: Cashing out has many complications and does not address the primary reason that players suggest it: AFKing. It is impossible to predict all the rewards someone would earn because we cannot predict if a map will become outnumbered or if your world’s placement would change. We would somehow need to make cashing out rewards as good as the rewards you would get if you were still playing. If the rewards are not as good, people would still AFK, and if we made the rewards too good then everyone would just constantly cash out.

> > .......

> > "

> >

> > Allow me to disagree on this part, IMO, even if people won't get full reward but only a reward locked at when they left (not counting outnubered and any other buff they could get) they will still leave maps or at least a big part of AFKers will do if a system of cashing out existed.

>

> No the devs are right, if players are simply allowed to "cash out" immediately they will just get participation up and log out and will be able to get full upcoming rewards without actually having played for them. Since participation will remain on an account for a little while even after logging out, a player can greatly abuse it, by simply doing this over and over.

As many stated : just add a debuff that prevents you from entering WvW for 15 minutes (standard full decay time).

**The most stunning impressions :**

I am speechless. Surely ANet does listen to the community because :

* **Map exploration** : I remember reading about PoF something alongside : "no need to do an event to explore the whole map", as a genuine good thing. Well. They've listened. If you don't do the meta, you've got a really hard, if not impossible time to explore Palawadan for example.

* **Paragons and dervishes** : some say it's fan-service and a wink to GW1 vets ? More or less, this is how I would have considered it _if there hadn't been that many threads in the forum asking for them to come back, as professions, as elites, or just the spear/scythe._ That never was possible, mostly because of precious dev's time, which of course makes sense. And now, you see that precious dev's time has been used to create those classes for NPC's. Create the skills (paragons shouts, which are not boons btw. Back to the old system ?), create the animations. I'm saying "used", I could better say "wasted", because they've been created for disposable adds.

* **Big encounters** : the big bosses. Uh... You really had a good time designing them eh ? So many fireworks, so many fields on the ground, so many jumps and things. And the very very last attack of the whole chapter. Instructions are just "survive". Survive to what ? To an endless flow of nonsensical attack ? A previous thread asked _"When is a fight getting too long ?"_ My answer : when you're so bored, bewildered, and feeling that exact oblivion that's the opposite of "fun" that you end up facepalming and chuckling because you're figuring out the very serious staff meeting that ended up to that failure.

So obviously, ANet reads the forum and understands. Understands the urge to do exactly the contrary of what players are asking and enjoying. Because what ? Because they love raising the middle finger to their community ? I'm just speechless. It's a shame. It's a disgrace. This only sheds a nausea tainted shadow of the what the devs have in mind when they're creating content : their own fun. Their own toys. And waving them in front of a community starving for more than fan-service. You really should spend more time creating content for the players to use, and not for the player to see.

Now, some words about the rest :

**New map :**

* Smaller than PoF's and easier too : good point.

* Meta will probably deserted soon ?

* Heart quests boring.

* New awakened mobs are too insanely powerful. Paragons and dervishes are ok.

* Some fan service which is fine.

* Art is nice, but there's something (not in the water !) in Champion's Dawn that drops my FPS to 10 even on my high end computer.

**Lore and story :**

* Too many _deus ex machina_ : don't know something ? Ask Taimi ! Looking for something ? Ask Kito ! It feels like those sidekicks are dragging the PC from one place, one guy, and one idea to the other, in order to progress in the story. So it feels rushed, and it makes me wonder about how much they could anticipate compared to a braindead commander...

* Overall, story was interesting and engaging

*

*

**Miscelleanous :**

* QoL things were well appreciated.

* New currencies seem less useful than LWS3.

It's been reported in the bug section, without any answer, as far as I know.

It's a very specific behaviour of mobs (trash and bosses) getting straight invulnerable and going back to some kind of checkpoint, ignoring you in the process. It's not at all the same than mob disengaging and resetting HP because it's been dragged too far away from its area.

It's a really frustrating behaviour, and I hope it'll be fixed soon.