Standard Scheme Variants (Part 1: Competitive Ground Schemes)

[KoreanRedDragon]

It's always alive! As long as anyone has any thoughts on how to push competitive schemes to be more competitive or to simplify them so they're easier to get into competitively, I'm all ears and will be adding stuff to the posts at the top.

Hot seat time in Elite and Team17 is an interesting dilemma to me. On the one hand, it does feel nice to be able to see the wind and have a bit of time to plan your turn ahead right before it starts... but on the other, we've historically seen the top players at these schemes handle zero hot seat time very well, doing their planning during enemy turns or, in case of drastic changes to the map or to worm positions, as they're beginning their turn, usually while walking/jumping in the general direction of where they knew they wanted to go. So far, you guys have touched on the reasons why giving players 5s of hot seat time would make Elite more comfortable for players, but I do think it comes at the cost of slightly reducing the skill ceiling of the scheme. Sure, generally speaking, more thinking time probably results in more impressive turns on average, but the very best Elite turns of all time have been so impressive because we knew that all the thinking and planning had to have come either during the opponent's turn or while the turn was being taken. So, whatever impressiveness is gained by giving players more planning time is lost by the knowledge that they were given more time to think (i.e. essentially playing an easier variant of the scheme); the two pretty much cancel each other out and I feel like comfort is maybe not enough of a reason on its own to mess with a scheme setting that has survived for ~15 years in competitive play. It feels dangerous in the sense that perhaps someday in the future, when Elite is being played at a ridiculously high level, someone will suggest reducing turn time from 20 to 15 seconds to compensate for this and to again increase the skill ceiling of the scheme, and then we're all going to have to go through the cycle of getting used to new settings again, which is exactly the sort of thing a standardisation effort like this wants to keep from happening too often.

Another reason why I feel we should maybe stick with 0s of hot seat time in Elite is that this is something that's always served as a kind of separator between Elite and Intermediate. In Intermediate, the extra planning time you're given before each turn serves to push the scheme in an even more cerebral direction, where your physical skill and dexterity are secondary to your long term strategy and the careful decision making of when to risk it and when to play it safe. In Elite on the other hand, it's always been an intended part of the experience that being really fast to think and act, as well as really efficient with your walking/jumping/roping/attacking should give you so much of an advantage that huge comebacks always remain a possibility, as long as you're skilled enough to pull them off. By bringing the two schemes closer together in how much thinking time you're given in them, that line becomes a bit more blurred... but I guess that's not necessarily a bad thing? Still, I think in a league or other competition that supports both schemes at the same time, having them be more diverse is probably better than them being more similar. After all, it's this diversity of required skill sets that sets competitive WA apart from most other multiplayer games.

[Senator]

Team17

Pointers for discussion

1. Should Team17 have any hot seat time? Some old schemes used to have 10 seconds of it, Lex for example feels that it's a good idea to have it, but I think that at least since the times of the CL2K league, competitive variants of the scheme have had no hot seat time. I personally like it this way because it gives players who are quick to think (or are able to do the thinking during their opponent's turn) and quick to make their moves (in so doing preventing their opponent from getting a lot of thinking time during them) a deserved advantage. But there's also an argument to be made that T17 is a naturally slow, tactical scheme and that having enough time to think about what to do during your turns, so that you can utilise all 45 seconds of them optimally, may be preferable.

The less downtime, the better. T17 games are quite long and slow paced so we shouldn't make them any longer unless it's really necessary.

2. Should the starting hazard objects be half oil barrels and half mines instead of all oil barrels like most players are used to today? Half mines and half barrels used to be the case a very long time ago in some people's Team17 schemes, but seems to have fallen out of favour for no particularly good reason. It was supposedly changed to all barrels so that initial placement couldn't screw you over as badly, but I feel that's counterbalanced by the additional skill and decision making when you're faced with the opportunity of going for a Firepunch/Dragonball-onto-mine move early on, sometimes favouring that even over picking up a crate. It makes early games more diverse and cooler to watch; van and I certainly prefer things this way, with half mines and half barrels!

No because that increases the chance of plop/kill on the first turn of the game (which you can do nothing about).

4. Would making the round time (the time before sudden death hits) slightly longer make Team17 early game more relevant and the endgame more fair and interesting? Would making the round time 12 instead of the current 10 minutes act as a replacement for making the water rise more slowly once sudden death does hit (so that we might keep that at the current setting)? By extending the time before sudden death this way, we would make it more likely for high damage weapons to be picked up in early and mid game, and those are the best motivation for players to attack rather than turtle and hoard homing weapons for sudden death. In the long run, player habits could change to take this into account, and we could be left with cavern Team17 that's more interesting on the whole.

In dual layer cavern maps the problem is that you can darkside quite easily to the point you need homing weapons. In TUS scheme homing weapons have a low probability (1,2%) and there are games where neither player gets any homing weapon. This results in many draws. Longer round time would make darksiding more difficult and players would be less dependent on homing weapons. Better have some minutes longer game than a draw? This is not a problem in open island maps, though, but nobody plays in island maps these days. Some guys (including me) have been playing in dual layer cavern maps without the indestructible border as Free mentioned. Longer round time isn't needed there either.

5. For the longest time, crate probability in Team17 was left to the players to deal with as best they could, with every available weapon having equal probability to show up in a crate (super weapon quirks notwithstanding). I think it was in the First Blood league that Mad Cows had their probability lowered from 3 to 2, simply because getting them in batches of 3 made them too destructive. But this was totally fine by me. It's when people started trying to "balance" individual weapons according to their "usefulness" that things went to hell and now nobody knows what sort of distribution of weapons can be expected from crates anymore. Can we just go back to giving all weapons, including things like air strikes, a probability of 3 (and maybe keep 2 for Mad Cows) again? Please?

Banana Bomb is like a super weapon and it should be as rare. If homing weapons are given a high probability, we will see both players camping at the sides of the map and shooting their 3 or 4 homings. Do we want to see games like that? I would increase the chance of homing weapons slightly from TUS scheme, though, to prevent draws.

5 - all other weapons (4,1%)
4 - Mad Cow (3,3%)
2 - Homing Missile, Homing Pigeon, Aqua Sheep, Air Strike, Napalm Strike (1,7%)
1 - Banana Bomb (0,8%)

Or 4 (4,1%), 3 (3,0%), 2 (2,0%) and 1 (1,0%).

With TUS scheme you know it gives lots of Dynas, Holys, Bows, Miniguns etc. With equal probabilities it's random. You see people taking stupid gambles like teleporting with a 75 HP worm next to the opponent and getting rewarded. With TUS scheme it's probable that the opponent has the weapon to kill you. Still, I prefer equal probabilities (for most weapons) because it makes games more interesting as you see more different weapons being used and also defensive moves when you get shit from crates. TUS scheme makes games too "boom boom".

btw, is T17 really supposed to be played in island maps with super weapons (Armageddon etc) enabled?

7. Longbow power is a hot point of contention. Most Team17 players these days are extremely used to each Longbow arrow doing 50 damage, but to those (newer players included) who see Longbow as more of a utility weapon rather than a high damage one, this is very confusing. Apart from the 5 star Ninja Rope, Longbow is the only thing in the scheme that's grossly overpowered compared to what a reasonable person might naturally expect, so should it be brought in line with everything else and reduced to the standard 15 damage per arrow? Deadcode thinks that would make it too weak and has therefore had it set to 5 stars of power in his Team17 scheme, making each arrow do 30 damage. Now what do we do? I think I'd probably prefer 15 damage (because then every weapon in the scheme could be made the standard 3 stars of power), but I can live with 30 damage as well. Arrows doing 50 damage each definitely feels a bit insane, but it is how it's always been...

In Shopper it's 15 damage but there's no infinite Fire Punch / Dragon Ball. T17 has still worse weapons than 15 damage Longbow (Handgun for example). I suppose they just wanted to add some unique things to the scheme.. like aqua upgrade. I'd say change it to 15 for the sake of standardization or leave it as it is (a unique thing of T17). Making it 5 stars sounds like a weird compromise. Just put Longbow upgrade on or off.

10. Why is Kamikaze not part of the Team17 scheme as a weapon that you can collect from crates? Should it be? What's the worst that could happen? Again, adding it would mostly only satisfy the requirement that every weapon should be available from crates in this scheme, but I guess Kamikaze would also be a really powerful finisher during sudden death. We definitely lack those in cavern map Team17...

I guess the worst that could happen is a draw. Other than that, I don't see why it shouldn't be included since the scheme already has Suicide Bomber. You should just give it a low probability. I mean what are you supposed to do with 3-4 kamikazes?

11. Should stockpiling perhaps be set so that you keep your weapons (and get a set of new ones, including the 5 star Ninja Rope and 7 fresh Girders) between rounds and in case of a draw? Team17 is a single round scheme, sure, but in competition where draws are handled by playing a new round instead of reporting the draw, this positive stockpiling could change things a great deal and certainly speed the potential second round after draws up a lot, plus perhaps be more fair because your good crate collecting habits from the previous round would carry over and give you an edge in the rematch. On the other hand, some players might feel that if the first round was a draw, the rematch should reset everything and be played as a completely new game, no advantage to either player.

Stockpiling might encourage playing for a draw and saving weapons for the next round - not a good thing. At least you should put 1 turn delay to every weapon so that you can't plop a worm on the first turn of the rematch.

12. Does anyone still want to argue in favour of reintroducing Worm Select into the Team17 scheme as a utility that you start with? The old variant of the scheme (called 1Percent) gave each player two Worm Selects, which obviously made sudden death very different. But apart from Ropa, I don't think I've seen anyone else show genuine signs of interest in going back to this in recent years...

Worm Select makes darksiding more difficult but at the same time it encourages darksiding because it prevents you from utilizing turn order. It makes also comebacks harder, which is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes you are behind because the opponent killed your full HP worm with a Super Banana Bomb, for example. Having turn order advantage in SD balances this. I have never played T17 with Worm Selects included, though. *waiting for ropa's response*

15. There are probably at least a few players out there who perhaps feel that rope and/or bungee knocking wouldn't be such a bad idea in Team17. While I personally feel that it's unlikely that this change would get wide enough acceptance now to make it into a standard variation of the scheme, it's a good idea to keep our options open, so I'm adding this bullet point here anyway.

The less rules, the better. We need to ask if "no rope knocking" is really necessary. Players who are not aware of the rules can break this rule easily. I'd say either remove "no rope knocking" from both Team17 and Elite for the sake of simplification or leave it in both.

btw, are you going to open similar thread for rope schemes anytime soon?

[TheWalrus]

10. Why is Kamikaze not part of the Team17 scheme? Should it be? What's the worst that could happen?

I guess the worst that could happen is a draw. Other than that, I don't see why it shouldn't be included since the scheme already has Suicide Bomber. You should just give it a low probability. I mean what are you supposed to do with 3-4 kamikazes?

I think he meant outside of crates, I've always thought you should have 1x kamikaze by default at start of match, it is an effective anti-turtling weapon

[KoreanRedDragon]

Oh, no, I definitely mean available from crates; perhaps that needs to be clarified up there, then. Adding more always-available weapons to the T17 scheme feels quite unnecessary to me, it's just that the notable omission of Kamikaze from crates has always bothered me a bit, never knew why Team17 (the company) specifically decided not to have it in there... when everything else is, and has to be played around!

[TheWalrus]

Oh, no, I definitely mean available from crates; perhaps that needs to be clarified up there, then. Adding more always-available weapons to the T17 scheme feels quite unnecessary to me, it's just that the notable omission of Kamikaze from crates has always bothered me a bit, never knew why Team17 (the company) specifically decided not to have it in there... when everything else is, and has to be played around!

seems like a complete waste to have another pickup that kills your own worms like suicide bomber, but to each his own

[TheKomodo]

Oh, no, I definitely mean available from crates; perhaps that needs to be clarified up there, then. Adding more always-available weapons to the T17 scheme feels quite unnecessary to me, it's just that the notable omission of Kamikaze from crates has always bothered me a bit, never knew why Team17 (the company) specifically decided not to have it in there... when everything else is, and has to be played around!

seems like a complete waste to have another pickup that kills your own worms like suicide bomber, but to each his own

It's VERY useful in Elite from time to time, I don't know if it's in Intermediate, never really looked at the scheme but if it is, it's obviously useful.

I'd imagine it can be used in similar fashion, getting rid of a low HP worm, to do damage to a worm and possibly kill, possibly even hit multiple worms, or push them, or kill them...

Or did I miss something?

[Korydex]

Pro scheme rules are missing...

[Senator]

I just cut some text from the quotes to make my post shorter. KRD was talking about Kamikaze in crates.

[TheWalrus]

Oh, no, I definitely mean available from crates; perhaps that needs to be clarified up there, then. Adding more always-available weapons to the T17 scheme feels quite unnecessary to me, it's just that the notable omission of Kamikaze from crates has always bothered me a bit, never knew why Team17 (the company) specifically decided not to have it in there... when everything else is, and has to be played around!

seems like a complete waste to have another pickup that kills your own worms like suicide bomber, but to each his own

It's VERY useful in Elite from time to time, I don't know if it's in Intermediate, never really looked at the scheme but if it is, it's obviously useful.

I'd imagine it can be used in similar fashion, getting rid of a low HP worm, to do damage to a worm and possibly kill, possibly even hit multiple worms, or push them, or kill them...

Or did I miss something?

yeah , i wanted it to be a standard weapon by default in t17 like the rest of the f4 row, not a weapon found in crates

[h3oCharles]

BnG

1. Should worm health be set to 250 in 1v1 matches?

I think it might depend on player's preference. BnG Marathon anyone?

2. Should there be rules preventing straight Bazooka shots and the use of Shotgun to damage enemy worms?

Damage via Shotgun is a big no for me, it should be only used for digging.

By 'straight' I mean couple things:
1. Shot directly upwards (0 degress)
It shouldn't be overused, since it is easily recreatable.

2. Direct attack on an enemy w/o huge use of wind
This should be forbidden

3. Should Blow Torch, Girder and Pneumatic Drill be part of the scheme?

I don't see anything wrong with Torch/Drill if accompanied with the Darksiding rule.

Girder is a complicated thing. Maybe delay it to 15, just so it's forced for the endgame? Maybe the Darksiding rule will nerf it. I'm honestly not sure.

Hysteria

1. Why has TUS Hysteria devolved into being played with only 4 or even 3 worms a side?

Make it more fast paced? That's my idea. I mostly saw 4 per player/team

2. Is 12 randomly placed Mines too much and should we stick to the old variant with only 8 of them?

I've been experimenting around and 12 for default-sized island is a bit too much, but 8 is too few. Maybe 10?

3. Is a round time of 10 seconds working out well in competitive Hysteria?

Depends on players. But if we're talking competetive, 5 secs is a must IMO.

4. What happened to random worm order in Hysteria?

I don't think I saw it in TUS, possibly give it more unpredictability, which here is useless.

Elite... or should I say - e1337 - cuz I'm leet!

1. Should Elite be best of 2 or 3 like Intermediate is?

nope.avi

2. Considering what has happened to the Elite scheme in the past, should edited random maps be accepted at all?

Don't go overboard and I think we're good.

3. Should the power of Mortar and Cluster Bomb be standardised with what they are in the league varaint of the Intermediate scheme or left as they are?

Do both 2

4. Does the floating weapon glitch need to be forbidden in Elite, Intermediate and possibly also Team17?

explain plz

5. Does jumping after using Pneumatic Drill and Teleport really have to be forbidden in Elite/Intermediate/Team17?

Yup

6. Is anyone at all in favour of reintroducing crates or rope knocking into Elite?

That's a no for me too.

Normal

1. (blablablabla mortar and cluster) If casual, go for 3 on both, if ranked do 2

2. Does the floating weapon glitch need to be forbidden in Elite, Intermediate and possibly also Team17?

Explain plz

3. Does jumping after using Pneumatic Drill and Teleport really have to be forbidden in Elite/Intermediate/Team17?

forbidden plz

4. Is there anyone left who prefers 0 turns of Jetpack delay instead of the currently widespread variant with 2 turns of delay on this utility?

Where the heck this came from?! Keep it retro, 2 delay on jettie

Team17

1. Should Team17 have any hot seat time?

Since we're starting with lots of turn time IMO (45) and select on start, I don't think so

2. Should the starting hazard objects be half oil barrels and half mines instead of all oil barrels like most players are used to today?

Mines would be too much rng for what is it now, since we can still get mines from crates (I think)

3. Is the water rise rate during sudden death set in stone in competitive play?

Not that I'm aware of. It's 20 px/turn for what I remember.

4. Would making the round time (the time before sudden death hits) slightly longer make Team17 early game more relevant and the endgame more fair and interesting?

Depends on players. One would have a slow-paced tactic, other one would be a crazy eco rush b terro on CS:GO

5. (blablablala cr8%) We would have to get into some massive math and balancing. I don't think this is going to be an easy thing to deal with.

6. (blablablala mortar and cluster) Cluster 2, Mortar 3

7. (blablablala Longbow) Longbow at 50dmg is indeed OP. 4-shots and "Bye bye!". Nerfing it to 30dmg is a subject to talk about. Anyone made a Cup with this change? If so, what the participants thought?

8. (blablablala inf girders) This one is pretty disgusting, 7 girders per side is very well thought, cuz inf would open sooooooooooo maaaaaaany possiblilities with darksiding and aggresive blocking it would smell like Checkers.

9. (Girder in crates) I don't think so, but if the majority says opposite, try playing around with percentages and maybe something good may happen about this.

10. Why is Kamikaze not part of the Team17 scheme as a weapon that you can collect from crates?

I say Kamikaze is like triple torch at the cost of a worm. It's too OP in a default-sized caverns where one tunnel can change the entire game.

11. Should stockpiling perhaps be set so that you keep your weapons between rounds and in case of a draw?

Rematch is a rematch, I don't think players should start with a handicap

12. Does anyone still want to argue in favour of reintroducing Worm Select into the Team17 scheme as a utility that you start with?

Worm Select used well can cause the enemy to flip their table as it goes to the tactic, so no

13. (blablablala Floating Weapon Glitch) explain plz

14. (blablablala drill jump) forbidden plz

15. (Rope/Bungee knock) Rope knock forbidden for sure, for Bungee it is questionable, as Senator said.

16. TL;DR plz

[Prankster]

Seems like this topic is getting some popularity, so I'll add my 2 cents as well.

BnG
I'll be a bit sentimental here.

Even with the current amount of rules, it's a shitty feeling when I'm trying to play it the way I like (you could say "with style") and I'm getting beaten with "cheap", "uninspired" shots and rollers.
I think, most of those who like BnG, think of it as "the gentleman's game".
Imagining the variant with even less rules, where all "cheapness" is allowed makes me think we need more rules, not less. It makes me think even removing it from the classic league would be better than letting "cheapness" take over.

At first glance, at least. Because all is not what it seems.
I like to think that BnG is about the creativity of utilizing your very limited options. And, while their goal is to prevent "cheapness", rules also limit creativity. Both in the sense of the shots (normal 5s grenades, for example) and in the sense of playing style (expecting each other to use a wide variety of shots).

Maybe I (we?) should start differentiating between funners and competitive BnG, and this thread is about the latter.
In competitive BnG, there shouldn't be such thing as "cheap", to begin with. Anything that's not forbidden is a part of the game and should be reckoned with, unless you prevent it by pushing and hiding.

These are the rules I'd have:
- reaim (aim vertically up or down at the start of your turn)
- only bazookas and grenades can be used for attacking
- random double cavern maps with the top part removed

These rules I'm not sure about:
- stay on your half of the map - because it's a bit vague
- no sitters - also, a bit vague (can't really measure .25 sec (or anything) live in the game)
- no 1s grenade attack - it actually isn't that easy and hardly ever useful anyway
- no straight bazooka shots - if your position allows it, you're probably doing something wrong
- no defensive girder - I'm generally not sure about girder(s) in BnG

These rules I would remove:
- 5s only with lg or max bounce - this is just a weird way trying to enforce the no sitter rule, while doing more harm
- no darksiding - why not hide well, if you can? destroying hides can be part of the game

Weapon options (other than the obvious):
- teleport
- shotgun
- blowtorch
- pneumatic drill
- fire punch
I'd suggest to have infinite of all of these, as skipping a turn of attack is enough of a trade anyway.
I'm not sure about girder, maybe let's keep the one for now, but the "no defensive girder" rule is a bit vague...

Team17
I wouldn't add hotseat time.
I wouldn't add infinite girders (endgame can get bad enough already).
I don't think keeping weapons for next round in case of a draw would be fair.
Having mines could be an interesting addition, though.

[TheWalrus]

BnG should go no rules ijn TUS games except for: 

You need always maintain distance - no closer than 1/3 in 1v1 and 1/4 in 2v2; keeps people from teleporting their worm upon the opponent's worm and breaking the scheme, creating a stalemate.

No darksiding - keeps players from hiding in an unhittable spot and relying on zooks and the spacing rule

Then nothing is cheap

I still prefer a2b rules though, but those wouldn't work on TUS, people are too tryhard here

[TheKomodo]

I'm happy with whatever BnG rules, I love them all

Edit: Actually want to reply to some of Pranks text:

Even with the current amount of rules, it's a shitty feeling when I'm trying to play it the way I like (you could say "with style") and I'm getting beaten with "cheap", "uninspired" shots and rollers.

I remember feeling the same, and don't even remember how I was able to change my perspective, but I feel better for accepting it and appreciating all styles now

I like to think that BnG is about the creativity of utilizing your very limited options. And, while their goal is to prevent "cheapness", rules also limit creativity. Both in the sense of the shots (normal 5s grenades, for example) and in the sense of playing style (expecting each other to use a wide variety of shots).

That's why a2b was so special <3

These rules I'm not sure about:
- stay on your half of the map - because it's a bit vague
- no sitters - also, a bit vague (can't really measure .25 sec (or anything) live in the game)
- no 1s grenade attack - it actually isn't that easy and hardly ever useful anyway
- no straight bazooka shots - if your position allows it, you're probably doing something wrong
- no defensive girder - I'm generally not sure about girder(s) in BnG

These rules I would remove:
- 5s only with lg or max bounce - this is just a weird way trying to enforce the no sitter rule, while doing more harm
- no darksiding - why not hide well, if you can? destroying hides can be part of the game

Stay on your half of the map, agreed, I don't think there should be a distance limit as long as you are on YOUR half, that's purely opinion though.

You can't measure .24s in the game but you can take measures to make sure you can both finish peacefully and check afterwards.

1s is funny, it's not that it's lame, it's just, derpy lol.

We say no straight bazooka shots, but really why do we have this rule, this rule existed when BnG was played on that map with the |_| shaped cups, which totally makes sense, but in this day and age, there is no need for it, people shoot very high wind zooks with such small power that it's pretty much the same thing anyway don't you think?

Defensive girders, speaking personally, is the best thing since SG, it's made SO many games way more interesting near end game

[DarkOne]

Hysteria

4. What happened to random worm order in Hysteria?

I don't think I saw it in TUS, possibly give it more unpredictability, which here is useless.

Looks like someone didn't read the discussion on random turn order!

Random turn order isn't completely random - if you have 4 worms, then the next 4 turns will be randomized, but all your worms get their turn. After that is completed, a new batch of turns is decided in exactly the same way - all worms get their turns, but the order in which this happens is randomized.

Also, KRD, you mentioned you'd check out the cups I linked to, but appear to not have followed through on that

I held a poll afterwards about what people would prefer, I think it was half wanted to keep original, the others wanted random turn order. The people who generally oppose random turn order, I feel, didn't really understand how random turn order works, though. They keep saying it makes the scheme all luck, which certainly is not the case. It merely makes early suicide very unappealing, which was kind of the point of that experiment to begin with (and early suicide tactics is what makes a lot of people hate hysteria)

[Prankster]

You need always maintain distance - no closer than 1/3 in 1v1 and 1/4 in 2v2; keeps people from teleporting their worm upon the opponent's worm and breaking the scheme, creating a stalemate.

No darksiding - keeps players from hiding in an unhittable spot and relying on zooks and the spacing rule

Then nothing is cheap

Stay on your half of the map, agreed, I don't think there should be a distance limit as long as you are on YOUR half, that's purely opinion though.

Defensive girders, speaking personally, is the best thing since SG, it's made SO many games way more interesting near end game

So it looks like some sort of distance rule is in agreement. My ony concern is what I already said before (in a way):
I would, if possible, avoid conflicts that can be solved post-game only. Also, what should the punishment be, if someone deals damage from too close?

By the way, I prefer the distance rule over the stay-on-your-half one.

Darksiding is another question. I think if we get rid of the sitter rule and 5s restrictions, relying on zooks is not a huge advantage anymore (as if it ever was).
If we get rid of the darkside rule, defensive girder could be allowed, too.

What do you think about:
- map restriction (following the path of REM);
- adding firepunch (we already had it in b2b in most of our funners and maybe a2b games too);
- restricting all attacks to zooks and nades?