arcanaville

So this is my notes for the AoE factor design formula: AoE factor = 1 + 0.75 * Radius/5 - 0.011 * Radius/6 * (360-Arc) / 5 Spherical AoE is the degenerate case where Arc = 360 degrees. This formula is mathematically identical to the formula quoted at the top of the thread. The damage formulas I have agree with the OP as well: they are actually identical to the ones posted by Trickshooter, and were the ones I used at the time: Recharge = (Damage - 0.36) / 0.16 Damage = (Recharge * 0.16) + 0.36 The AoE factor was applied to damage for the purpose of balancing AoEs. It is possible that coincidentally or not, many of the powers being looked at in this thread were accidentally or deliberately exceptions to the rule. I have a recollection of Lotus Drops/Whirling Sword/Whirling Axe being one of those powers that was not following the rule correctly. I mentioned exceptions to the rule above, there's something else I should mention that also caused problems: DoT. Technically, the design rule was that DoT was not included in the damage calculations. DoT was "bonus." That's why TLD, WS, and WA all have the same endurance cost and recharge, but don't actually all do the exact same thing. DoT was like debuffs: not part of the damage/endurance/recharge balancing equations. But this created problems when you ask "what's a DoT?" It might seem obvious, but what about powers that deal all their damage in two ticks instead of one over time? Think dual blades for example. Sometimes the devs had to use their judgment, and they didn't always do so in a perfectly consistent manner. I think if you apply the DER equations and the AoE factor calculations to ranged sets you'll find they agree more often. That's in part because melee sets have a more tumultuous history. One whole set is a pseudo copy of another set (Katana). Once set was accidentally balanced around the wrong discount formula entirely (Claws). One set is almost a complete set of rule breakers (Dark). And some of the newer sets were more funky experimental with mechanics (staff, titan). As long as I'm mentioning range, of course nukes break the rules completely. Don't even try.

Well the formulae were always a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, individual powers were adjusted on an as-needed basis to tweak the power of specific power sets. That being said, it does look like the formulae for cones was violated more than most. The single target and circular AOE formulae are correct for most powers but cones do appear to be all over the place. I ran the numbers for Assault Rifle and all three cones are violating the formulae. We may need to perform the ritual to summon Arcanaville. Actually, the damage formulas were an actual rule, but in some legacy cases the rules were broken in a way no one noticed until too late (i.e. Claws), and in some later cases were explicitly messed around with to try to experiment with modifying the rules (i.e. Claws again). And anything using a pseudo pet was basically lucky to not be one shotting Hamidon by accident. The damage/recharge, and damage/endurance (factoring in AoE modifiers) were *supposed* to be followed consistently. They just were not always. Do you have any clue what's going on with the Area Factor for cones then? Because i'm struggling to find a cone that fits the formula so I'm wondering if the given formula is incorrect in some fashion. EDIT: Energy Torrent fits, but a lot of others don't. It's been a while, but I will try to do some research on this when I get some time. I do recall that the formula worked in general for most blaster ranged AoE attacks. It did not work for many melee attacks because many fell into "exceptions." Shadow Maul, for example, is an exception. So-called pencil cones were also I believe exceptions. Attacks that were not balanced as "attacks" were exceptions - for example, Siphon Life although that's not an AoE, doesn't obey the damage formulas in general because it isn't treated as a conventional attack. Let me see what I can do here.

This one was very specifically my fault, and as with most problems having to do with damage calculations, you can blame Claws. When Claws went through its update the devs predicted the changes were going to boost Claws by a few percent, I predicted the changes were going to boost Claws into the stratosphere, and my predictions ended up being accurate to within about 10% after the set was tested. That's when DPA calculations went from being an interesting attack chain arithmetic thing to being the *only* thing relevant to attack set performance metrics. You know, it still amuses me that "DPA" is something that doesn't really exist much outside of CoH. Part of that is CoH was originally designed without global cooldown, which means unlike almost all other MMOs CoH attack powers do not have fixed DPS. And part of this is due to the fact that for a small little superhero MMO we had a super-high concentration of quants. I haven't seen anything like the quant community in CoH outside of maybe Eve Online. Few MMO player communities could even do these kinds of analyses much less invent them from scratch.

Well the formulae were always a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule, individual powers were adjusted on an as-needed basis to tweak the power of specific power sets. That being said, it does look like the formulae for cones was violated more than most. The single target and circular AOE formulae are correct for most powers but cones do appear to be all over the place. I ran the numbers for Assault Rifle and all three cones are violating the formulae. We may need to perform the ritual to summon Arcanaville. Actually, the damage formulas were an actual rule, but in some legacy cases the rules were broken in a way no one noticed until too late (i.e. Claws), and in some later cases were explicitly messed around with to try to experiment with modifying the rules (i.e. Claws again). And anything using a pseudo pet was basically lucky to not be one shotting Hamidon by accident. The damage/recharge, and damage/endurance (factoring in AoE modifiers) were *supposed* to be followed consistently. They just were not always.

Original animation isn't possible anymore. They can give options for animations, but they all have to be the same duration. Original Storm Kick animation was *much* longer than the current one, so is not compatible anymore. Doesnt work "quite" like that, any animation can be lengthened or reduced according to needs by speeding up the animation file. I wasnt serious anway, was merely harking back to a much forgotten "oldie" In this case the difference is so large I'm not sure the engine will do the right thing if you tried to do something that extreme. However, it would be possible to add the original animation as a power customization option in theory, because it is possible for the animation of a power to be longer than the cast time. It is just that either the animation would interrupt in the middle when you tried to execute the next attack when the cast time expired which would look weird, or you'd set the entire animation to be rooted in which case you'd be stuck executing it even if the cast time of the power expired, which would make Storm Kick into a horrible attack. The problem I think is that the animation file may not exist in the system any more, because I don't think anything used it as of shutdown so it wouldn't be in the live files. But you know where it would exist? An old game CD. If someone could find an original prepatched CoH, the client should have the animation file buried in the pigg files somewhere. It might be possible to make it work with the current game. I'm not 100% sure about that, and this would require dev work to make work. But this could be tested in theory without messing too much with the game client. I'm going from memory because it has been a long, long time since I messed with this, but if you find (and extract) the .anim file and rename it to be the correct name of an actual animation that exists in the game, and then you make an appropriate local subdirectory structure that would convince the game client to load it on start up, assuming that virtual file system fetch wasn't tampered with by the current homecoming devs the game should use that old animation file instead of whatever is currently compiled into the game, where ever that animation is used. You could maybe replace an emote with that animation, and running that emote would run the Storm Kick animation instead of the correct one. It might be a little more complicated than that because you have to deal with sequencers and such, but I did this once while messing around with the game client back when the game was still live. However, I didn't publish those results because tampering with the game at this level opened up a lot of interesting exploitability options.

While technically true in regards to SR being able to softcap, bare in mind that soft cap is not a 95% chance to not get hit as enemy level and designation scales up. At +4/boss, soft cap is questionable, and elude does have value. Soft cap only floors an enemy chance to hit you down to 5% in certain situations. That said, someone will be able to post the values under which elude may be perma-able, as I cannot from my mobile, at work. Softcap floors the enemies chance to hit you down to 5% in all situations barring the enemy having to hit buffs or defense debuffs: This is technically true, but I should note here that one place enemies can get implicit tohit buffs that I think most people have forgotten about is that above +5 the combat modifiers started giving tohit increases to enemies again. Originally, enemies got higher tohit for being higher combat level than you: a patch in I7 changed those tohit increases to accuracy increases, but only up to +5. Above +5, enemies got both accuracy bonuses and scaling upward tohit increases. This isn't a situation you generally face, but it is there. So basically what players called the (defense) soft cap was really five percentage points lower than the base tohit of enemies (because the absolute tohit floor was 5%). That was normally 50%, so the defense soft cap was 45%. But against anything with a different base tohit or increased tohit (from buffs, combat modifiers, or anywhere else) defense values higher than 45% would still do something. As to perma-Elude, as others have mentioned the updated Elude with the 1000 second recharge made perma-elude literally impossible. Without the ability to go perma, most people shifted their attention to invention builds that tried to get to in the vicinity of 45% defense, plus or minus. Some people did still like taking Elude and using it in some situations, and some people even constructed builds that tried to keep Elude up most of the time and just rode out the downtime, but this was a minority option.

Everyone pretty much does. And I forgot the Sentinel numbers were lower on DDR, which would as you point out increase the value of going over the soft cap. But when I built SR characters, I tried to balance how much defense I was building against everything else I was building, knowing that if I was going to have to pop a purple anyway then breaking my build for two extra points of defense didn't make sense. In other words, I'd rather make a build that had to occasionally pop a purple than constantly pop blues or greens. Since inspirations exist, people should factor their use into the build. My main MA/SR (scrapper) build was designed to add a lot of passive regen and end management to make the build more sustainable, at the expense of going for the incarnate cap (which is super difficult for scrappers anyway). Fundamentally speaking, purples last longer than greens or blues. But I still tried to build for somewhat over the normal soft cap, so I didn't need to use inspirations in most "normal" content. I found that theorycrafting builds was more about compromise than maximize. Everything costs something, and the question isn't what you should build for but rather what should you pay for what you want to try for. Some build targets are worth going for, some aren't, and the devil is in the specific details. We were still coming up with build options right up to shutdown, so there wasn't and isn't any such thing as the perfect build for any powerset combination. That's one thing I actually liked about CoH buildcraft. No one actually found the min/max optimal point for any build, there were always more options to explore.

As was mine. Good to see you again! There was an (in)famous young-ish troll on the original forums whose name began with "Aby..." and I believe she was also on Triumph. I imagine she would be close to 30 in age now, but I'll never forget her asking out loud on the forums what was wrong with her and why she was unliked and the responses, though brutal ("Because you are a troll!"), were all too true. I often thought about her and people like that and wondered what ever happened to them. Did they turn out ok? I recall the forum poster in question. I have no idea about that specific individual, but with some hindsight I believe many posters then as now fell victim to the belief that the goal on public forums is notoriety. You look around, see what everyone else is doing, and you tend to take notice of and remember the most extreme posters. With that as your mental model, you try to fit into that group, while also doing something noteworthy that makes you stand out. That's the internet in a microcosm. I know for a fact that many less-liked posters had no idea why they were less-liked. It is a phenomenon I've noticed happening on every forum I've been on before and since. It doesn't help that our tiny circle of friends and acquaintances are not representative of the world as a whole, and what is acceptable within the circle isn't usually outside. It can take decades of life experiences to learn that properly. There were a lot of younger players playing the game. Some of them very obviously so. I hope they and everyone else are all doing well today. Except for that shmuck Twixt. That smug judgmental academic twit can still go climb a tree.

I was on a couple servers, but Triumph was my home server from the beginning. I remember many of you from the server and the forums. Here's something from our last days on the server, the first (and I think only) successful Really Hard Way Magisterium Trial, successfully completed just a couple days before shutdown. Because even though the game's going away, a badge is still a badge.

Holy crap. She's back. This whole experience is a little surreal. Glad to see y'all. To get back on the topic: "I knew an MMO of which I spent seven years forgetting more than I'll ever know about any other game." Welcome back, Triumphian... Triumphite... Triumpean... Triumphile... Pantsless Player.

One thing I'd like clarity on is if it's worth it to go over that 45% value to ward against -Def debuffs? So if my Def is, say, +60%, I know I'm still capped. But if I get a -15% Def debuff, am I still capped? Super Reflexes already has a high amount of resistance to defense debuffs. So going over 45% isn't worth it, in my opinion, for that particular goal with SR. If you're concerned about specific groups with LTs or Bosses with higher than average hit chances, then using inspirations covers that gap if you are opposed to certain Incarnate solutions. Also, those kinds of enemies are priority targets to die first while their friends whiff whiff whiff. I would always try to build for slightly above 45% as a hedge against defense debuffs. SR has huge resistances to those, but it is important to realize that because SR's protection comes mainly from high defenses at or near the soft cap it is also much more vulnerable to defense debuffs. A -7.5% defense debuff might get resisted all the way down to -0.375%, but for an SR at the soft cap this actually increases incoming damage by a relative 7.5%. A 7.5% increase in incoming damage is not unnoticeable. But an SR running around with 47% defense can ignore the first -40% in raw defense debuffing, which encompasses most of what you're ever likely to be hit by. Where this was most noticeable was in things like the ITF where you're surrounded by defense debuffers, often right up to the aggro cap. The difference between 45% defense and 47% defense was definitely noticeable there: my MA/SR with slightly overcapped defenses would regularly outtank other SR that only built to 45%, or sometimes even slightly lower thinking there was no real difference. In *most* normal content the difference is not very noticeable and you can often cover with inspirations. But that's less practical in content with wall to wall debuffers.

This appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle. I would ask people to keep it in mind - the fix isn't going away, so how can Rage/SS as a whole be made better, in your opinion? A little clarification on this would be helpful. So as others have pointed out, the Def crash can be completely removed without affecting the bug fix, restoring SS to where it was on live for all intents and purposes. So are you saying that just the bug fix won't be rolled back, but getting rid of the Def crash is a viable option, or that the Def crash is staying, and you want other solutions completely? Just to jump in here, a couple things are worth pointing out, although these things all point in different directions. 1. Removing the crash doesn't actually return the set to I23 live, because the crash was unavoidable in the non-perma case. It is important to note that the devs didn't balance the sets for the top end of performance, and like it or not perma-Rage was top tier performance most players were almost certainly not achieving. I think this is important to keep in mind. 2. Conversely, the devs had been slowly moving away from "crashes" of a serious nature. What qualified as a serious crash was and is subjective, but I believe the philosophy of the devs was moving in a direction of not needing to pay for powers like this with crashes, but instead in other ways. That shift in thinking doesn't necessarily mean they were going to jump and remove all crashes from all powers everywhere immediately. But I think if the game had continued on they would have been more willing to negotiate on something like the Rage crash. Just IMO. 3. Making the -DEF crash resistable is nice in theory but problematic in practice. My recollection of the numerical analysis I did on the Rage crash in combination with my defense set mega spreadsheet suggested that this would end up going all over the place. Like if I recall correctly tanker SR was going to ignore this completely while tanker Shield defense was not going to be happy. And ironically both with and counter to point #1 above, this was going to do interesting things to high end invention builds. So what would I have done with this? Glad you asked. I was working on an idea before shutdown to replace the Rage crash with an anti-crash. This is going to sound completely bananas, and I didn't have all the details worked out (like how to justify it - this will become obvious soon enough). But basically, I would replace the -DEF crash with a buff. Sort off. The crash would reduce damage by -1000000000% - like enough to put you to the floor no matter how many defenders are on your team. But it would *also* grant +Rech and +Endred. Basically, you go faster, you spend less end, but your damage goes to almost nothing. This would help early tankers by allowing them to tank better: their clicky defenses get stronger by getting faster, and they can use powers like AoE to keep tagging spawns with enough damage to keep aggro. But they would also have a little bit of that "exhaustion" associated with Rage running out. They kind of become "pure" tankers for a few seconds, hitting everything and grabbing aggro with all of their attacks, and their defenses get a boost. Here's the catch. You only get this benefit if Rage actually shuts down. If you make Rage perma, you *don't* get these benefits. Furthermore, you can't activate Rage during this crash, you either go perma and lose these benefits, or you accept the crash and must ride out the low damage period without Rage, even if you have enough recharge to activate it. So how do I justify such a change, from a crash to a buff? Well, as many have mentioned, in the high performance arena perma Rage already existed on live and this would not change that behavior. But in the low end, it would actually increase SS performance substantially, at least defensively. The question is did SS need a low level buff. I thought it did, and that's where my work ended - I didn't get to trying to prove that. But bottom line: instead of Rage having a defensive crash that people tried to avoid by making it perma, this new version of Rage would contain a gameplay choice: avoid the "crash" and get perma-Rage, or accept the crash and temporarily gain significant defensive benefits and aggro control but also losing the ability to deal a lot of damage. That seemed to be a reasonable tanker-like trade. This new Rage might need to be tweaked down slightly in terms of its overall +DMG/+ToHit, of course. I am pretty far out of the loop in gameplay for Tankers having not touched them since shutdown, but as this was something I was actually thinking about before shutdown (since -DEF was in my wheel house) I thought I would throw this out there.

Actually, there's a separate discussion involving design landmines. Which is to say, it is very easy to say that the only hazard to this kind of feature is stupid people accepting random teleports, so it isn't really a problem, so lets do it. Unfortunately, it is generally the case that when something is said to have only one hazard, it is probably because all the others are less obvious. In a game like City of Heroes, and any MMO really, when you decide to push the envelope in any direction you have to decide to accept not only the immediate obvious side effects of doing so, but also all unforeseen ones as well - because you can't just keep jerking the design away from hot surfaces constantly, you'll be constantly having to decide whether an unforeseen bad side effect is bad enough to do something about or is something everyone will just have to live with. And eventually you get the other downstream effect where this causes a chilling effect on future design changes, all of which have to account for potential interactions with these hidden problems. Everything has side effects, and it is extremely difficult to control side effects you can't easily predict, and so you have to consider the long term cost of every change you make in terms of the likelihood if it impacting other things. Falling damage is one of those things that was constantly debated in City of Heroes, but the immersive benefits associated with it were seen as not worth all the potential collateral design damage accommodating it would require. One rule of City of Heroes' design was to minimize to the greatest extent possible the ability for players to hurt other players outside of direct PvP. This is why Pain Domination went through several tweaks, this is why confuse was very carefully controlled as an effect, this is why there's no such thing as "flagging for PvP." A lot of people think this limits the game, and it does, but it gives something back for it: players don't have to learn all the ins and outs of how to keep themselves safe from other players. There's a secondary, and possibly even bigger design win. This design decision self-selects for players that want to cooperate, and it tends to discourage players who want more "realism" in how they interact with other players in the game. This means the players who want to play City of Heroes skew towards players who don't want that added component to the game, and that acts to make the playerbase slightly more friendly towards each other in-game. Generally speaking, when there was a conflict between "realism" even the watered down realism of the game, and undesirable player conflict, the game chose to remove undesirable player conflict. That's why, for example, it is much harder to do things like block other players from objectives in CoH than in many other MMOs.

I knew an MMO that tried to kill you with invisible robots. Where you could dribble a boss-level enemy to death: Where you could kill the game's strongest enemy with a clone of itself: Where both physics and biology were just casual suggestions: Where this is the squishy archetype:

I knew an MMO where the players were completely batsh*t bonkers. Me: I think the largest amount of unbugged damage you could generate in the game would be if you spawned the Kronos Titan in Steel Canyon and pulled him to a burning building and let it explode. The game uses an odd sequence of damage to ensure the blast kills every player in range, and it should generate about forty million points of damage against the Kronos Titan. Protector server: Hold my beer.

I believe the problem is one of mindset as much as powerset. The traditional mindset is to slot for damage and accuracy, and slotting for endurance reduction is a "waste." So people don't, so they end up sucking wind. Brutes are an exception specifically because the default mindset is different. The standard theory is that brutes need to keep up fury for damage, so it is more important to hit constantly than hit hard, so it is "socially acceptable" to slot for endurance reduction. So they do, and then they appear to be moving through content without running out of endurance as if by magic. Back in the day I created a no stamina and no set invention build for MA/SR that while it wouldn't win any performance rewards was perfectly playable without running out of endurance constantly but could still kill things reasonably. This is what it looked like taking on a Storm Palace spawn, a notoriously harder-than-average place for SR scrappers. Not bad for a build that on paper does almost everything wrong. Incidentally, I've seen multiple posts from people asking if the game is still fun, if the magic is still there, if the game holds up to modern standards. I honestly haven't had time to do anything more than roll a few alts and park them in the tutorial yet, but I'm looking at that video from twelve years ago and honestly, I haven't done anything as fun as that in any MMO since then.

That...doesn’t end well. Well ACTUALLY it Did all but in one path. Just ask keeper of the Time Stone ;) Just one. But because of him, also the only one.

That seems quite a bit faster than farming a billion heal in gladiator arenas.

This is a little tricky. What you're seeing isn't the set bonus from Numina's. You're seeing the effects of one specific Numina's IO that you slotted: Numina's Convalenscence: Regen/Recovery. This specific IO grants +20% regen and +10% (endurance) recovery. This is 20% more regen than normal. Normal base regeneration for a player character is 100% health in 240 seconds, or about 0.42% of your health per second. That's what is showing up as "Base" regen under Regeneration in the real numbers panel. The Numina's proc IO (that's what those are called) is giving you 20% of that as a bonus. 20% of 0.42%/sec is about 0.08%/sec, which is what you're seeing in the panel. In City of Heroes, most regeneration happens relative to your max health, which is different from many other MMOs. If you somehow increase your max health, your regeneration rate (in health points per second) also goes up. So we tend to talk about regeneration in percent of health bar per second, or XX%/sec. This means someone trying to max out regeneration should be looking to both increase their regeneration rate (%/sec) and their total health which automatically increases health regeneration in points per second. Incidentally, so where's that set bonus you were looking for? The 12% set bonus is considered a "Huge Improved Regeneration Bonus" and is showing up in the panel as such. 12% of 0.42%/sec is 0.05%/sec, which is what you see there.

I will quote from another online game forum I frequent: "it is possible I'm wrong, but that won't change my opinion." This is the online gamer mantra.

If I recall correctly one set that was pointed out as possibly overpowered was Assault Rifle due to the incredibly short cast time on Sniper Rifle with the interrupt removed. I know that was fixed here by giving Sniper Rifle a more reasonable cast time even with fast snipe. I believe that was reported as broken in the I24 beta. If memory serves AR had the funky snipe going back to the beginning of time, and no one wanted to mess with it because it wasn't a big deal and hardly noticeable prior to fast snipe. I'm pretty sure the devs would have changed that before I24 went live had the shutdown not occurred. I also think Dual Pistols, which EarthAddy mentions, was highlighted as a set to watch out for after go-live for performance. Actually I think people were complaining about DP prior to that, but there wasn't complete consensus and we had a number of back to back to back Blaster tweaks that complicated the situation. Now that I think about it, AR had another issue going into I24. Inventions were turning AR into an AoE powerhouse, and combined with fast snipe was going to make certain high performance IO builds single target powerhouses as well. That was something I think Blasters in general were starting to raise eyebrows on. Memory says AR worked well in practice but looked bad in theory until "Arcanatime" analysis showed the set was much better on paper than the old numbers suggested (comparatively speaking: "Arcanatime" showed some sets like Ice were not as good as original calculations suggested).

The whole tanker vs controller vs brute vs mastermind thing was an interesting debate back in the day: unfortunately it is unresolvable in the general case because there's some fundamental irreconcilable issues you can't address without making severe changes to the game as a whole. This is less a question of how to address the issues, and more a question of whether you can convince everyone to accept a suboptimal compromise that fails to address most of the issues while targeting a narrow set of them. Short version: Everything must be soloable. Tankers must survive multiple players' worth of aggro. No archetype should cap out radically lower than any other when progressed via inventions or incarnate abilities. Logically, you can only keep two of these. As to resistance debuffs. Resistance automatically resists resistable resistance debuffs. There's no special resistance debuff resistance. Resistance itself is resistance debuff resistance. This one used to confuse players all the time. There are defense attributes. There are defense attribute debuffs: these reduce your defense attributes. There is defense attribute resistance. These resist any attempt to debuff (change) your defense attributes. This all makes sense. But resistance is different. There aren't actually any resistance attributes. There are actually damage type attributes. What we call "resistance" is resistance to changing those attributes, just like defense attribute resistance is resistance to changing *those* attributes. So if you try to use smashing damage to lower your target's health via the smashing attribute, smashing resistance would lower that damage. Think of smashing damage as a health debuff. Smashing resistance "resists that debuff." How do you debuff resistance? Well, in the game engine you implement that by trying to lower the resistance aspect of that attribute - the "resistance" aspect of the "smashing" attribute (or whatever). And what could possibly resist that change? Well, you're trying to change some aspect of the smashing attribute, so smashing attribute resistance should resist that change. But smashing attribute resistance is what we players call "smashing damage resistance." So damage resistance is its own resistance to debuffing. Because damage resistance *is* damage-resistance-debuff resistance, there's no way to make something more resistant to resistance debuffs without increasing their actual resistance to that particular damage type (there's some technical gotchas in there, but this is the simple version).

I don't think this is a fair characterization of my posts. I used to melt eyes, not brains. It is not my fault the brains were immediately behind those.

It sounds like I missed something good there. Too bad I was taking one of my many breaks to play WoW at the time. Well, most things in the Incarnate trials were +4 and had a lot of AoE. Before the devs addressed this, mastermind pets were -1 and -2 relative to the player. So your pets were facing +6s spamming AoE damage. This made most mastermind pets into instant roadkill. Masterminds were, I think the polite word is "unhappy."

HOLY CARP, I REMEMBER YOU! :D :D Long time no see, man! I remember you as well. Dual Archery/Boomerang Fish on Freedom, right?