A Question (suggestion) about morale

[Gamble]

Since I am new to this forum (at least as someone who actually wants to contribute ;)) I want to say hello to everybody. I am very (VERYVERY) much interested in WoR and also looking forward to the first possibility for me to play it myself (perhaps as a backer or in early access?).

Ontopic now:
Perhaps the answer or a solution to my suggestion is already there :if so, please ignore this and don't be too mad about my suggestion ;)

A thing which I think is a "big thing" in line warfare overall is morale, and I am quite sure that most people will endorse. I know that there will be a morale system in the game. What I imagine is something like an added difficulty in aiming (shaking view, slower movement and so on) while being under artillery fire, being separated from your regiment, being flanked and so on. But what's about wavering and breaking? As far as I know every detail starts to waver after a certain amount of losses taken and/or something of the things I stated above - until it finally breaks and the individuals only think about their own life and start to run back to Washington or Richmond ;)
This is something which will not happen in online gaming, at least not in my oppinion. Since this game wants to be as accurate as possible I would suggest something like an AI takeover for player characters in certain circumstances.

Let's imagine:
Your regiment has taken fire from the front center by an equal force, both about same strength and skill, but one fights uphill, the other downhill. On top of that, the regiment uphill has some kind of breastwork, fences or even a stonewall for cover. The regiment attacking uphill is also under artillery fire from it's flank. (classic, sounds like fredericksburg, right?).

In a normal online game, even with really good players (good means no lonewolfs, people who try to be accurate), the fight would probably go on until there really is just an unrealistically small part of the original regiment left. Perhaps the "survivors" would still try to fight on, no matter what.
If they have a decent officer and are a well trained team of players, they perhaps would fall back at the right time, but even if so, they would have to take heavy fire and even more losses while doing so.

I for myself want the most accurate and thus the most immersive simulation possible, and to imagine single soldiers running left and right, reloading, and still try to stand and make a fight is definitely not part of that (even if it may be funny sometimes and could have ridiculously awsome outcomes).

What I suggest:
If your regiment is doing all right, stand to each other, shoulder by shoulder, backed by officers and so on, you will get a maximum of "morale" out of it. But if you get parted from your detail, get flanked, or your regiment takes heavy losses the whole regiment's morale will suffer.
This could result in a "AI takeover", beside the usual camera shaking/blurring effects.
First thing to happen could that player characters take one or several steps back, which perhaps can be hold by the presence of an officer (feel my saber, boy), but these would the first "wavering" in the line. If more of these negative effects accumulate over time, the possibility that the unit will break increases. If the line is thinned out or some people thought of pulling back prematurely without "waiting" for the others, it will completely fall apart and an "AI" routine will make every single character run back to a point behind the own lines. If there is no own line anymore, the characters will completely disobey and have a run for the potomac, one way or the other ;)
Perhaps some fifty yards or even less would be enough, the line is broken, and there is no sense in turning back alone. (slight differences in running speed should do it). The players actually would be forced to really fall back and rally again simewhere else. If they are pursued by a charge of the opposing team,still under fire or something similar, the low morale would cause the player character to headlessly run again.

This certainly is something which has to be carefully balanced and I know this is a thin line for players, loosing control alltogether is something which is not really funny, even in a videogame. But I think if this is done right it could add greatly to the realism of this game, aswell to the thrill and the skilllevel demanded. You also could make this optional to the server settings. Or something like frightening fridays XD

Thank you for reading this, sorry if this already obsolete. I hope I wrote something reasonable here, I really want this game to be a success. I will have a look in this thread tomorrow and then go on vacation for two weeks, so you will have plenty of time discussing this (or trash the post, of course ;)

best wishes,

Gamble

[Rithal]

I wish there was a way to implement this, and there may be, but I feel that forcing players to retreat after taking some amount of losses will probably be turnoff for a lot of people.

Yes the game needs to be hyper realistic, but there needs to be a right balance of game and real life.

I am in support of making something like this idea optional in server settings, although I feel it would probably be deactivated more often than not. Nevertheless, this option needs to be there for those who want it.

[TrustyJam]

Thank you for your suggestions. We don't support the idea of an AI taking over for you. This is a game and not an interactive movie. The player should be in charge of his own actions at all times.

That said, We have game designs in place to highly encourage players to retreat for a while if they want to stay in the fight as a complete unit. Our reinforcement spawn system is very much created for this purpose as well as making sure units last longer than the initial clash (if played well) with the enemy. We'll bring you more info about it once it's implemented.

- Trusty

[Rithal]

Thank you for your suggestions. We don't support the idea of an AI taking over for you. This is a game and not an interactive movie. The player should be in charge of his own actions at all times.

That said, We have game designs in place to highly encourage players to retreat for a while if they want to stay in the fight as a complete unit. Our reinforcement spawn system is very much created for this purpose as well as making sure units last longer than the initial clash (if played well) with the enemy. We'll bring you more info about it once it's implemented.

- Trusty

Can't wait to hear about it! Is it just me, or do you guys always have something up your sleeve? :D

[TrustyJam]

Can't wait to hear about it! Is it just me, or do you guys always have something up your sleeve? :D

The idea of WoR has been several years in the making - we like to think we have thought about most of the design aspects. How well thought out these are will be put to the test once skirmishes launch and evolves.

- Trusty

[Gamble]

I absolutely understand your point, TrustyJam. I am really hyped for this game, and really hopy you guys will deliver ;)
The thing why I wrote this is that I know how online players behave, and even the best military "simulations" which are somehow comparable to this have the same problem. The players ;)
In every game I ever played (and I play frequently and a lot online, since the 90ies) something more realistic only could be achieved by players who were organised in clans or something similar. On public servers there is always a huge amount of people playing lone wolf. I am aware that you will never get rid of that completely, but perhaps you can point the players in the right direction. I don't wanted to suggest anything like an interactive movie, and as I said, something like I suggested would have to be very, very carefully designed and balanced.

You talked about a Respawn-System, I really hope you do NOT support respawns on Regiments. That would kill the realism completely imho. Nobody ran from Fredericksburg to the Stonewall to support the Irish up there ;)
But as I initially said, I believe in you guys, but I also think that you have to push the players in the right direction. Especially when it is something which could add to the immersion and realism if done right.
I never played the M&B Mods for line warfare, but I saw a lot of videos of these. These show exactly what I am afraid of. Chaotic gameplay, almost no teamplay (at least not in the historic way I would like to see for WoR). I played both Battlegrounds a lot, and for some few days where some enthusiasts met it showed the same thing. No realistic flow of the battles. It always ends up in 1on1 combat and shattered groups of hysteric players.
I really think that a system that forces the players in line is something a game like this needs badly.

I think that the guys who ran away had actually no control of themself anymore, so perhaps a short override could even contribute to the realism AND the fun. Since regiments often attacked more than once, giving them a kick into the right direction for rallying again could help players do better at a second time.
As I said, I wouldn't completely force this on players, but make it an serverside option.

I am sorry if this may sound harsh, it's not meant that way. I am not a native english speaker ;)
Please reconsider my suggestion and take time to think about it. I can't imagine of anything else that would make players really stick to their regiments. Perhaps Seargents who shoot them if they take a stroll in the woods :D But that would produce a harsh community, and this would frighten of more players than running some yards away without control of their players, especially when they can prevent that from happening by playing right.
Thanks for your time, I really (!) appreciate it. Best of luck with the game, I can't wait to try it myself.

[TrustyJam]

We will be supporting spawns on regiments. Let's just get that out there. I really don't want to dive deeper into how the mechanics are going to work at this time, but it is most certainly a needed feature in a game like ours. To me, you come across as someone who's against respawns in ARMA while comparing it to Counter-strike where there are no respawns until the end of the round. I'm not saying we're at ARMA level scale wise, but it is still a good comparison between WoR and M&B maps.

There are going to be several mechanics highly encouraging players to stick to their regiments, the reinforcements being one of them. Another is the lack of nametags and friendly fire and a third is certain area buffs which are going to be tied into the regimental orders given by the officer.

I fail to see the realism in an override system. Imagine you're about to shoot a guy who's coming at your buddy who's busy reloading with the intention of testing out the pointiness of his bayonet. You could easily have saved your friend - you even feel like you're in a relative safe area of the melee taking place. Yet, due to the fact that an automatic override system has been put in place where you spin 180 degrees and run away as soon as a given amount of friendlies has been hit/bullets passed by you - you won't have the chance to.

A decision to flee the battle should be up to the players themselves.

I too have witnessed the chaos of M&B - even the organized line battles (only participated in two). Largely, I believe that is due to the fact that nearly no actual objectives nor gameplay mechanics that encourage you to stick together other than the sheer power of having numbers on your side is present in the game. That won't be the case in WoR. There will be objects - of which you are free to ignore (just don't count on winning the battle then).

- Trusty

[Gamble]

Just a few last lines ;D


We will be supporting spawns on regiments.
I would lie if I wrote now that I am not disappointed a littlebit. But I am quite sure that disappointment will go away when I play your game, I definitely will. No matter what, at least trying to achieve something like this deserves to be bought imho. I would never compare Counterstrike to this kind of game, but ArmA, Red Orchestra 1 and 2 and some others are perhaps the better choice if you want to have a look. What I wrote up there still applies to these and very often the gamerounds are fun, but completely and utter nonsense realism wise. From Single MG flanking maneuvers in RO to people using the helis as a jetski in arma, I have seen everything. And not just from time to time, but almost always.


There are going to be several mechanics highly encouraging players to stick to their regiments, the reinforcements being one of them. Another is the lack of nametags and friendly fire and a third is certain area buffs which are going to be tied into the regimental orders given by the officer.
People will ignore it, like they ignored it in other games. That's what I fear



I fail to see the realism in an override system. Imagine you're about to shoot a guy who's coming at your buddy who's busy reloading with the intention of testing out the pointiness of his bayonet. You could easily have saved your friend - you even feel like you're in a relative safe area of the melee taking place. Yet, due to the fact that an automatic override system has been put in place where you spin 180 degrees and run away as soon as a given amount of friendlies has been hit/bullets passed by you - you won't have the chance to.

A decision to flee the battle should be up to the players themselves.
The realism in this has it's source that in such a situation as your example the soldiers are frightened. They shit their pants. Of course some will fight the urge to run away, their instincts. But history has proven that the vast majority decided to run in such situations. I can look up for examples here, but I am quite sure you guys know what you are doing and I certainly don't want to sound like a know it all.
It would be realistic for the guy to run, especially because we are talking about a war which was very much fought by volunteers, and not regulars. There were exceptions of course, and perhaps the experience of a soldier should play a role aswell. Still, I think that in the exact situation you brought up, people would tend to run. Perhaps they already took heavy losses from musket fire, artillery or even friendly fire. A bayonet charge right in your face makes you think twice about if you REALLY want to stay here. Experienced soldiers perhaps have the choice, but if everybody else runs, it's a choice which means almost certainly death for them. If they are lucky it means prison.

A player perhaps is rushed by adrenalin, but I think that most players won't be frightened, and none will fear for their lifes. That`s the realism in there. Everybody likes to be a here, but just very few people back then were heroes because of personal actions. It was the "team" that made them heroes. And it should be the same in games that have a historic and realistic approach, if you don't want them to be just masquerade but give the players the opportunity to learn something from it.

An Example from a totally different type of game: Ultimate General: Gettysburg is an awsome game which does a lot of things right and plays like a dream. Scourge of War: Gettysburg is an awsome game aswell, but in the end it is a game AND a complex Simulation, as complex as you want it to be (talking about the HITS mode here, to lead your troops from the saddle and the view of your commander, by sending dispatches and giving orders to your officers). I hoped that War of Rights would be more like the second type of game, even if it is a FPS, but since I love UG aswell, I will be fine with that, too. Hope you got my point there and why I suggested such a thing.

Thanks for the attention, I won't steal more of your time for the next two weeks, but I will try to sneekpeek into the forums while I am on tour.
Since I work in the gaming industry aswell, I know how cumbersome users like me can be :), distracting you from the bigger goal. I will try to stop that now.

[TrustyJam]

I doubt we'll have a very long lasting playerbase if the players are forced to wait, say, 30 minutes everytime they are killed before being able to respawn. Yes, you could spawn at the default spawnpoint and not your regiment, but what would you gain from that? Short answer is quite often at least 10 if not 20 minutes just to reach your regiment again - if you can find them and are not killed on your way there that is. It's a perfect way to split up the regiment after the first piece of combat which is something we very much would want to avoid.

I still don't see the point of your argument in terms of automatic fleeing. There's no way at all to create a system that's able to factor in all possible situations a player might be in as to whether or not to override the players actions - makes me curious as to what position you have in the games industry. :) Falling back, get a chance to gain some morale and stamina back while the regiment is reinforced is the best way to go about it.

We appreciate any kind of thoughts and feedback you guys are willing to throw at us, so by all means, keep it coming!

- Trusty

[Gamble]

To answer your question first: I am a concept and 2d Artist. From my perspective I am the guy who invents epic stuff and Coders turn me down and babble something about "technically not possible". From the perspective of the others I am the guy who flamboyantly comes up with crude ideas that simply make no sense ;)

I thought about regiment spawning, and I definitely see your point there. I think there really is no way around it, but still, it somehow bothers me :D. Basically it's because of getting as near as possible to the "real deal", without danger to your own life, aside from that there are no wars like this anymore and I really don't want to take part in one...

I also see your point on the problem that would occur on the technical side of my suggestion. That indeed could be very CPU time consuming indeed, complex to achieve, too...
You'll have to more or less force the players to withdraw and - what's aswell as important- hold the lines at all cost. I just can't see that happen with any of the usual gamedesign choices...
Yeah well. I think I will volunteer and try to become a Seargent. So I can kick anybody's butt who runs off the field prematurely.
I hope you will achieve the 1000 players per server... so perhaps 250 of these will actually do proper fights ;)

[TrustyJam]

It's quite simple. You have two choices as an officer of a regiment close to the breaking point. Either order a final charge or order a retreat. Both options can be viable, depending on the situation. Choose the wrong option, and you're likely to be out of the match. That's about as much as we're going to force the players though. We're going to let a player playing as an officer make that call. We feel most players would almost certainly follow a retreat order since they know they are likely not to stand a chance alone if they continue to fight and they know the regiment will have a chance to regain its strength if they do indeed retreat. Our Reinforcement spawn system is created to simulate the reserve being used - guys to fill the gaps of the dead/wounded as they often did back then. In regards to players holding the line at all costs, it's very much the same as retreating. If I know I'm able to pop a limited ticket in order to get straight back in action with my fellows should I be unlucky and be one of the first ones to get hit in a line, I'm much less likely to approach the game as a modern military shooter, hiding behind a tree or rock (not that they didn't do that but you get me). If I've already used my quick way back into the action, chances are most of the regiment is either dead or are about to die thus resulting in our second spawn option, a base spawn wave resulting in the majority of the regiment staying together which is in turn, again, enabling me to risk standing in the line of fire.

It's all about what sort of punishment death actually is. Yes, you'd likely ignore these mechanics if you're a rambo-minded player. Chances are, though, that you won't be playing the game for long at all anyways if that's the case. We're creating the game with regiments in the center. Your regiment should be concern number one, your own health second - very much like the real thing has proven time and time again throughout the ages.

Also, can't say you're an artist without showing off a few works of art. Lay them on us! ;)

- Trusty

[TrustyJam]

Went ahead and disclosed a bit more than I ment to there - woups!

- Trusty

[Gamble]

That disclosure sounds promising! Thank you for that. I still hope you won't be dissapointed by the players!

anyway, you asked for it:

some pencilsketches, atleast a littlebit ontopic, a year old now:
www.open-skies.de/basti/oldstuff.jpg

and a newer pic, digitally
http://www.open-skies.de/basti/lanefightfinal.jpg

not as good as I would like them to be, but I am getting there and working on it. Was somehow lazy in my 20ies, and regret that now ;) Goddamn german beerparties :E

off to bed now... there's a travel waiting tomorrow. Thanks again, I really appreciate it!

[Rithal]

Our Reinforcement spawn system is created to simulate the reserve being used - guys to fill the gaps of the dead/wounded as they often did back then.

I have always wondered this. When a regiment went into battle, did it place all of its men in the front line, or did it hold several companies in reserve to fill the gaps after a few hours?

[Paul]

I have always wondered this. When a regiment went into battle, did it place all of its men in the front line, or did it hold several companies in reserve to fill the gaps after a few hours? This changes on how much frontage a regiment has (the space it can occupy between the two neighbouring regiments). Ideally, you would have eight companies in front with two in reserve, but of course if you have minimal frontage, you have more reserve.
*Edit* - 10741075


To discuss spawns, I think spawns on regiments are a very good idea, as long as the proper restrictions are in place. These have most likely been considered already, but in the case they haven't there are a few things I think would enhance spawning on regiments allot. Regiment tickets, position/regiment requirements & limits on proximity to enemy.

Regiments tickets would be the total amount of spawns your regiment could have. Without this, opposing regiments can just stand in the line of fire and really not worry about death because in a short amount of time they can all re spawn and keep doing so until the whole team's tickets are expended. Regiment tickets could compliment team tickets and with a much smaller amount of spawn tickets, creates a need to preserve lives.( - *Edit* After re reading Trusty's post, it appears two ticket/spawn systems are already planned. Will leave my point however.)

Position/Regiment requirements would control under what requirements people can respawn. Perhaps all living members of a regiment must be together within a certain area of eachother & must have the regimental colours to spawn. Thus creating more reasons to stick together in line. (Skirmishers would have to function differently)

Proximity to enemy restrictions, much like the previous point control when people can respawn. If a regiment within a certain distance of an enemy regiment, say 30m, a distance for close combat or a charge, no men can spawn for either regiment. This first of all encourages decision to retreat & give up ground when being charged or perhaps holding and fighting to your deaths or victory. Melee combats were very rare in an open battlefield and this feature would replicate people retreating to let their men spawn. Second of all, if you do get into a melee, it is really not fun when you kill most of the enemy and bam! they all come back less than 10 metres from you. Much like War of The Roses' unfun spawning feature. Lastly, it would stop a couple remnants of a regiment hiding in a bush, letting your regiment past, spawning in the rest of their regiment and attacking you in the rear without warning, which is also unfun and unrealistic.

Some people may not like spawning on regiments, due to how other games work, but as long as it is done in a balanced and fair way, with restrictions and what not, it can be a very good feature.

[Historical Player]

I have always wondered this. When a regiment went into battle, did it place all of its men in the front line, or did it hold several companies in reserve to fill the gaps after a few hours?

Nah, they just sent them all in and told them good luck! lol!

[Josy_Wales]

I really hope you are giving the officer a lot of possibilities of using orders and boosts when needed, and make that a big part of the gameplay tactics. If so I can see the officer having just six shots fully understandable if he has the option of for example: force respawn his men, give stamina boost, charging bonus and so on (for a limited time). I would also hope this would be possible for the higher ranked officers as well, but with different options.

I love that objectives will be a big part of the game, and I hope the general have the opportunity to make a battle plan (which can be changed during the battle), so you don't have to attack or hold the same places and crossings every time, but can choose different tactics: Objectives you want to take first, the time you want the different regiments to push, bluffs and where you want to place your strength. But I think you should be able to defeat the enemy by blitzing the him with enough amount of casualties, as well.

This makes me very curious about what tasks the skirmishers will have in addition to scouting, slowing down the enemy advance and taking out officers, when it comes to the big objectives.

[TrustyJam]

I really hope you are giving the officer a lot of possibilities of using orders and boosts when needed, and make that a big part of the gameplay tactics. If so I can see the officer having just six shots fully understandable if he has the option of for example: force respawn his men, give stamina boost, charging bonus and so on (for a limited time). I would also hope this would be possible for the higher ranked officers as well, but with different options.

I love that objectives will be a big part of the game, and I hope the general have the opportunity to make a battle plan (which can be changed during the battle), so you don't have to attack or hold the same places and crossings every time, but can choose different tactics: Objectives you want to take first, the time you want the different regiments to push, bluffs and where you want to place your strength. But I think you should be able to defeat the enemy by blitzing the him with enough amount of casualties, as well.

This makes me very curious about what tasks the skirmishers will have in addition to scouting, slowing down the enemy advance and taking out officers, when it comes to the big objectives.

Skirmishes will be very simplicified compared to our full on historical battles due to the early launch (will expand the systems as the project develops) and the much smaller scale of the engagements.

- Trusty

[Josy_Wales]

I just have some questions about "Skirmishes" I've thought about for a while now.

-Will you do updates like rust or something close?
-Will the first game mode be like the battle one in M&B?
-How playable will the first release be (animations/combat/visual)?
-Will u start with only infantry class, or have all except cavalry from the start?

I understand if you don't have the answers at the moment, just trying to understand what your plans are :)

[TrustyJam]

- Haven't played rust.
- Not sure what the battle mode is in M&B.
- As playable as we can get it without any funds.
- Limited classes from the start, more to be introduced later.

- Trusty

[Josy_Wales]

http://playrust.com
They do small and big updates, and are gradually building and adding new stuff to the game. Also with help form suggestions and what the fans and players experience from the game and updates.
Community updates: is where the devs show off the best videos, art or ideas made by fans after an update.
Devblog: is about an update, telling and showing whats new that week.

M&B battle game mode: 2 teams fight each other until no one is left of one of the teams, and if you die you have to what until the round is over. Like CS.

[TrustyJam]

Yes, we'll continually update the game, and no, no gamemode like that as such.

- Trusty

[Soulfly]

well thank god...just imagine the waiting time when 200 players battle each other and you are the first to die.....

[Rithal]

well thank god...just imagine the waiting time when 200 players battle each other and you are the first to die.....

Yeah.... yeah I didn't enjoy that in NA1, so I doubt I will enjoy that here... Good thing it won't be in the game XD.

@Paul, Thankyou for your post. It allows me to picture exactly how regiments operated during battle.

@Historical Player, XD Well you never know. It isn't a crazy thought to think all ten companies lined up 2 ranks deep in one line... Its not impossible nor is it tactically unsound as long as you have other regiments in reserve. I guess I have been playing too much Total War... I only see regiments form one double rank line.

[Soulfly]

Well this function would make sense after a while, like after the reinforcements are depleted. But last-man-standing from the beginning would be frustrating, though i am still curios to know how the "spawn at the regiment" will work, but this may be another issue

[Josy_Wales]

I like the objective and respawning on regiments features and I think it can make the game even more strategic, but what I am both concerned and excited about is the pace of the gameplay.

I bought and played Verdun for a cupel of weeks ago, and while I know WoR and Verdun will be two very different games, its the closest thing I can compare it to with objectives, spawning on squads and slow firing/one hit firearms (from what I have heard/seen from you guys so far). I really thought verdun was going to be a great experience in terms of realism and feeling like being a soldier on a field, but the pace of the game really threw me off. The intense combat was constant, you didn't know how the battle escalated or sometimes where your teammates was and you didn't really get to feel like a part of a battle.

The intensity is needed in a battlefield oriented game, but if your going to get the feeling your actually in a battle you need to have different pace experiences: Holding a position and waiting for the attackers you don't know will come, marching and send reinforcements to where its needed, sending out skirmishers first in case of ambushes and quantities of enemy forces, tactical retreats and other things that might seem slow, but makes you feel like your a part of a battle and something big.

This will also give I variety of engagements for different purposes. The general could test out the enemy strength at certain objectives with quick short lasting attacks, make a plan what the different regiments/companies/brigades should focus on first and which objective they should meet up and overrun the enemy in a intense all out assault, skirmishes and everything around different ways of defending and attacking.

This is only what I think personally and your welcome to agree and disagree alike, and I have all trust possible that this team will do this their way to make this game the perfect civil war experience.

[Historical Player]

Yeah.... yeah I didn't enjoy that in NA1, so I doubt I will enjoy that here... Good thing it won't be in the game XD.

@Paul, Thankyou for your post. It allows me to picture exactly how regiments operated during battle.

@Historical Player, XD Well you never know. It isn't a crazy thought to think all ten companies lined up 2 ranks deep in one line... Its not impossible nor is it tactically unsound as long as you have other regiments in reserve. I guess I have been playing too much Total War... I only see regiments form one double rank line.

It makes sense somewhat for real life combat, but maybe not North and South. I hate being the first one killed in battle. I lead my troops from the front and I always end up getting sniper by some guy who accidentally hit the left mouse button. Respawning would be cool, but I fear it may lead to many suicide charges.

[Rithal]

It makes sense somewhat for real life combat, but maybe not North and South. I hate being the first one killed in battle. I lead my troops from the front and I always end up getting sniper by some guy who accidentally hit the left mouse button. Respawning would be cool, but I fear it may lead to many suicide charges.


Yeah, I was talking purely from a historical standpoint, not a N&S standpoint. I was just wondering how reserves worked within the regiment irl.

[Historical Player]

Yeah, I was talking purely from a historical standpoint, not a N&S standpoint. I was just wondering how reserves worked within the regiment irl.

School kids? No, lol. They probably had an overcomplicated way of handling that.