The potential of this game saving the MMO genre

[APE 1,564]

11 minutes ago, hamon said:

My point? I am just demonstrating that the current game has abandoned the idea that everything in CF revolved around surviving against Hunger, collecting, looting, killing and doing all sorts of things just to stay alive. In the concept of the game it is the main element and now the DEVs launch live campaign where the most important are the faction points or create guilds? I know there the original idea was so good and the DEVs turned into this joke of campaigns with faction points, guild points, fuuuck points. This ended the immersion of the whole story they created in first project. Hunger now is one secondary abstract element in game.

Do you understand live = test currently? The game isn't finished or launched.

They plan to build out the Hunger mechanics.

Why wouldn't it be important to create guilds? This is supposed to be a Throne War Sim. Did you expect it to be a BR where one player wins a campaign?

In your interpretation of what they said before, how does a faction win a campaign? A guild? An individual? What should the Hunger do? What do you envision the game to be?

You're doing great at quoting what they've said, problem is none of it is very specific and seems to be pretty much what they have been building.

How does a faction win a campaign? A guild? An individual?

[hamon 9]

9 minutes ago, APE said:

Do you understand live = test currently? The game isn't finished or launched.

They plan to build out the Hunger mechanics.

Why wouldn't it be important to create guilds? This is supposed to be a Throne War Sim. Did you expect it to be a BR where one player wins a campaign?

In your interpretation of what they said before, how does a faction win a campaign? A guild? An individual? What should the Hunger do? What do you envision the game to be?

You're doing great at quoting what they've said, problem is none of it is very specific and seems to be pretty much what they have been building.

How does a faction win a campaign? A guild? An individual?

I think it would be interesting to have a campaign with very limited resources to force the war bettwen worlds. Limited resources without respawn and players divided into city maps belonging by small, medium, ou large guilds and resources arround. When the supplies run out (food mainly) the world war begins focused on steal another guilds and the last living city wins. 

Players in larger guilds would have fewer resources per member due division bettwen all and each one could  be killed by players in smaller guilds, but with more resources per soldier (best equipment due less division in guild). That is, there would be a balance between total population in one guild and individual power per member (inversely proportional).

All guild members need to help each other and will have to hand over all collected resources to the Guild Bank that who will divide for all members a value into gold used to buy items. Of course, the player receives a guild score for contributing. There may be patents in the guild according to the player's score.

The goal would be to create a  guild capable of making its members individually strong and numerous, which would be very difficult in a world with limited resources and with very large number of players in same group. GREED, WAR and HUNGER like real world.

 

Edited January 27 by hamon

[Zatch 242]

1 hour ago, hamon said:

I think it would be interesting to have a campaign with very limited resources to force the war bettwen worlds. Limited resources without respawn and players divided into city maps belonging by small, medium, ou large guilds and resources arround. When the supplies run out (food mainly) the world war begins focused on steal another guilds and the last living city wins. 

Players in larger guilds would have fewer resources per member due division bettwen all and each one could  be killed by players in smaller guilds, but with more resources per soldier (best equipment due less division in guild). That is, there would be a balance between total population in one guild and individual power per member (inversely proportional).

All guild members need to help each other and will have to hand over all collected resources to the Guild Bank that who will divide for all members a value into gold used to buy items. Of course, the player receives a guild score for contributing. There may be patents in the guild according to the player's score.

The goal would be to create a  guild capable of making its members individually strong and numerous, which would be very difficult in a world with limited resources and with very large number of players in same group. GREED, WAR and HUNGER like real world.

 

Once campaigns last 90 days+ and an engaging end game "hunger" system has been developed Crowfall is intended to play like your quote above. If you're mad there isn't a Battleroyale like system that constantly closes in like hunderdome; that was never intended to be an endgame system. 

Can anyone figure out why he's upset? I truly have no idea.

Edited January 27 by Zatch

[APE 1,564]

6 hours ago, hamon said:

I think it would be interesting to have a campaign with very limited resources to force the war bettwen worlds. Limited resources without respawn and players divided into city maps belonging by small, medium, ou large guilds and resources arround. When the supplies run out (food mainly) the world war begins focused on steal another guilds and the last living city wins. 

Players in larger guilds would have fewer resources per member due division bettwen all and each one could  be killed by players in smaller guilds, but with more resources per soldier (best equipment due less division in guild). That is, there would be a balance between total population in one guild and individual power per member (inversely proportional).

All guild members need to help each other and will have to hand over all collected resources to the Guild Bank that who will divide for all members a value into gold used to buy items. Of course, the player receives a guild score for contributing. There may be patents in the guild according to the player's score.

The goal would be to create a  guild capable of making its members individually strong and numerous, which would be very difficult in a world with limited resources and with very large number of players in same group. GREED, WAR and HUNGER like real world.

Why can't they do that with the game design currently in development? This isn't too far off from what they've described to want. However, that doesn't mean every campaign will be the same. The different rulesets are what can set Crowfall apart from other PVP MMOs. There doesn't have to be one way to play.

With the Dregs being GvG and not factions, they'll have to figure out mechanics that allow a single guild or whatever group format to win. Having the last remaining tree/stronghold could be an option. They've talked about having an elimination style ruleset. Which could be like your guild loses it's castle/tree and you lose.

What they manage to launch with can be built upon as long as players enjoy what is available. Expecting everything now is not realistic. Wanting them to do exactly what you want when you want isn't realistic. Things will get done as the are able to.

[ferorious 0]

10 hours ago, Zatch said:

I think the idea for the game is pretty clear: territory control with maps changing to stop stagnation. The Eternal Kingdoms are for showing off wins, and for players to have a permanent housing system.

 

The idea is not so clear like you mentioned:

1. You can't say so like three things like for example: its a fps there a terrorist and CTs (csgo) and thats my game idea. You need to define more or less how the game should work from bottom to top and know how the mechanics at least should look like to make the contents you've promised
2. For example if you say EK are for showing off than why should I even bother making houses and suff if its only for showing of. Next point is territory control that could be a lot of things, its like saying skillsystem for instance, but how should it work? how does it look like?

You can't get involved hundreds of players and their money and you don't even know what you want to produce.

[ferorious 0]

10 hours ago, APE said:

They gave some vague big concept descriptions early on and they've built upon those ideas. Somethings have changed but overall not a lot. The hunger consuming the world like a wall of death in the Hunger Dome is still possible (they already have the tech) but they haven't been focusing on that currently. They have entire systems missing that they need to get in before that. However they seem to still have plans in place https://crowfall.com/en/news/articles/beware-the-hunger/

They didn't say it would take ONLY 800k. Game development isn't cut and dry where you get X money and then magically make a game. There are unforeseen costs that simply can't be accounted for. I would of liked for things to have progressed faster/better than they have, but is what it is. Wanting them to do something doesn't make it happen. 

What does saving the genre look like? A game needs to have 10 million players? Be 100% unique based on your criteria? 

Crowfall has a lot of new ideas and or ideas found in multiple games/genres but they are being put into one game. I don't know of any MMOs with campaigns such as this for example.

People still play Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, and of course millions still play WoW. Newer games and older ones have adopted questionable payment models and things some do not like, but people still play those games (Black Desert, Archage). Like I commented, just because YOU do not like them, doesn't mean they aren't good. 

ACE has said from the start that they aren't aiming at large numbers because that would require making a game they don't want to make. Even then it isn't very realistic that a MMO is going to come out and pull in huge numbers. Every high end MMO that has come out gets an initial rush of players then they bleed out. Crowfall might be like that, but I'm fine with them starting small and slowly building over time or just keeping enough to have several campaigns going at once. 

A game doesn't need to have millions of players to be good or successful. I've never played on a server with millions of people. A few thousand or even a few hundred is plenty as long as the game design is smart. How many do you need for RvR? 50, 100, 500 on each side at all times? We aren't sure how well Crowfall will do with massive numbers yet. Camelot Unchained has an in-house engine that so far seems to support large numbers for RvR. Again, I backed it as well because I have no idea which game will end up better for me.

I mentioned Fortnite/Overwatch because those are the games that do well these days. Easy to learn, hard to master, hop in/out whenever you want. In this era of mobile/lobby gaming, it seems like most just want a quick fix. MMOs take an entirely different time/effort investment that I don't see the masses really wanting anymore. Someone that like WoW or GW2 or insert whatever MMO might not like Crowfall because it is a different game. Just as you might not like the hundreds of games already out there.

Having an idea and making are two different things. I have no doubt that the devs want to do a lot and planned a lot, but it takes time, money, and especially dev talent. Some things might just be too hard to pull off for whatever reason and they are trashed, changed, or morph into something else.

Looking at something from 4 years ago and what is going on today might have some disconnect but for the most part it is the same vision. For those of us that have been following along it isn't so confusing I guess.

For the first part:

Quote

They gave some vague big concept descriptions early on and they've built upon those ideas. Somethings have changed but overall not a lot. The hunger consuming the world like a wall of death in the Hunger Dome is still possible (they already have the tech) but they haven't been focusing on that currently. They have entire systems missing that they need to get in before that. However they seem to still have plans in place https://crowfall.com/en/news/articles/beware-the-hunger/

They didn't say it would take ONLY 800k. Game development isn't cut and dry where you get X money and then magically make a game. There are unforeseen costs that simply can't be accounted for. I would of liked for things to have progressed faster/better than they have, but is what it is. Wanting them to do something doesn't make it happen. 

I already answerd that:

Spoiler

 10 hours ago, Jah said:

 

They stated clearly on their Kickstarter that they could not make the game with 800k. Funding from the Kickstarter was never going to be enough to make the game. The notion that they could have "made this game 9 times" is totally ridiculous.

 

Of course you couldn't but do you think the number 800k came from nothing? If so i'm really sorry but then I MUST say as someone who studied economy that this game will go bankrupt. You may also have noticed that I said following thing:
 

  Quote

at least 4 times faster if you plan some unexpected problems.

Also I never said that the 6,410,680 USD, that were more than planned would be enough for financing this game, you are putting words in my mouth, what I said was that with such a big of an amount of time and money, that the IDEA/Game mechanics/goal of the game should at least be clear and you could at least expect the status of Alpha and not preAlpha.
In the link what you have sended they also clearly stated what i've mentioned and feared: The developers don't know what the game should look like themselves:

  Quote

We are limiting our scope of Crowfall in two major ways: first, we’re starting with the core module of the game, not the entire vision of the game ..

 

For the second part:
 

Quote

What does saving the genre look like? A game needs to have 10 million players? Be 100% unique based on your criteria? 

Crowfall has a lot of new ideas and or ideas found in multiple games/genres but they are being put into one game. I don't know of any MMOs with campaigns such as this for example.

People still play Ultima Online, Everquest, DAoC, and of course millions still play WoW. Newer games and older ones have adopted questionable payment models and things some do not like, but people still play those games (Black Desert, Archage). Like I commented, just because YOU do not like them, doesn't mean they aren't good. 

ACE has said from the start that they aren't aiming at large numbers because that would require making a game they don't want to make. Even then it isn't very realistic that a MMO is going to come out and pull in huge numbers. Every high end MMO that has come out gets an initial rush of players then they bleed out. Crowfall might be like that, but I'm fine with them starting small and slowly building over time or just keeping enough to have several campaigns going at once. 

A game doesn't need to have millions of players to be good or successful. I've never played on a server with millions of people. A few thousand or even a few hundred is plenty as long as the game design is smart. How many do you need for RvR? 50, 100, 500 on each side at all times? We aren't sure how well Crowfall will do with massive numbers yet. Camelot Unchained has an in-house engine that so far seems to support large numbers for RvR. Again, I backed it as well because I have no idea which game will end up better for me.

I mentioned Fortnite/Overwatch because those are the games that do well these days. Easy to learn, hard to master, hop in/out whenever you want. In this era of mobile/lobby gaming, it seems like most just want a quick fix. MMOs take an entirely different time/effort investment that I don't see the masses really wanting anymore. Someone that like WoW or GW2 or insert whatever MMO might not like Crowfall because it is a different game. Just as you might not like the hundreds of games already out there.

Having an idea and making are two different things. I have no doubt that the devs want to do a lot and planned a lot, but it takes time, money, and especially dev talent. Some things might just be too hard to pull off for whatever reason and they are trashed, changed, or morph into something else.

Looking at something from 4 years ago and what is going on today might have some disconnect but for the most part it is the same vision. For those of us that have been following along it isn't so confusing I guess.

Of course millions of players still play these MMOs but for what reason? 

1. If you don't want to play some standard grinding MMORPG that treats you like a cash cow what do you play? old games like UO ecc. that had mor innovating game mechanics than new MMORPG -> thats why old games are played (and for reveling in memories)
2. If you don't want to play this new MMORPGs that basically are all the same, then what are the alternatives? simple there are none only the old games like UO ecc. where the graphic is basically poorly made socks, and some exceptions like Albion or Crowfall -> and thats why I said that Crowfall could safe the genre.

Why I say that the genre needs to be safed?
All this things that the genre is dead and so on are not things that only I have said, you know who are the once who say this things? - The player themselves
Like I already said you can just google "MMORPG genre dead" or something like that and you can find thousends of players, players who played for years and experienced all kind of adventures, made friends within their guids and grew up with the genre. They post this questions in the forums of the games they've played for years and loved them (WoW ecc.) but they see that the games are only developing worser and worser.

And I never meant that millions of players will join this game I simply meant that you can't plan to implement Realm vs Realm battles, castle sieges or what not if you don't have the players to do so. Of course this game won't be an Came**t Uncha**d where there are hundreds of players against each other but thats a completely other principle. 
And the once who play MMORPGs already know that they will need to put a lot of effort and time in it so I don't think that thas a problem.

Yes I know that having and making an idea are 2 different things but if you say to thousands of backers and supporters, that have paid for those ideas, that the game will have this kind of things in it you can't simply go back on your word because they've paid for it. After all they are giving the money so that the devs can produce this ideas, and if you go back to the first part of my answer you will see that there was plenty of time and money ;D

[ferorious 0]

10 hours ago, APE said:

So why do you care about this project or give them money if you believe they don't know what they are doing and are on a road to bankruptcy?

Guess I'm missing what your point is. The game could be good if they just make it good like you believe it should?

If you don't understand the basic idea, mechanics, goals, then you haven't read/watched enough to understand.

They aren't calling it Alpha yet so now what?

I never said that it will go bankrupt, what I said is that if the numbers they planned like the 800k they wanted to made are only random numbers and not financial calculated numbers then they will go bankrupt (you are once again putting words in my mouth).
I don't think that the game will be better or good if they do it like I believe the only thing I did was giving some suggestions (definition: an idea or plan put forward for consideration) for how some game mechanics could look like.

I understand the basic idea, and i've read everything on their website and watched nearly all the videos they linked, but they never define any mechanics or anything, they say like yea we want to do this and that but my question was how should it look like? If I plan to make a shooter for instance I plan how you can win (capturing points), how you achieve the neccesary tasks that are needed to win (stay on a point till it is captured) and so on. If all this things are clear than I can make a game out of it.

The Alpha status means that the game has a certain status and arrived to a certain phase

[Kalus_Konkwest 113]

I don't want to rain on the OP's parade but as a game being published by a small and new indie studio, even if Crowfall has the most mind blowing features of any game in the history of the universe for all time it probably isn't going to change or save the mmorpg genre. Why? Because a small studio won't have the resources to market the game widely. Blizzard became the 800 pound gorilla it did because it excelled at marketing and had the budget to make sure that when they put out a new game, you heard about it constantly. I've mentioned Crowfall to friends and colleagues and none of them had ever heard of it. I suspect that trend won't change much even after the game releases. This game gets compared to EVE Online pretty often and CCP Games also isn't the best at marketing, a lot of the buzz that game generates comes from gaming news articles about big fights that go on in it that cause thousands of dollars in real money worth of losses. It seems as though ArtCraft is planning for there to be a similar method of measurement in Crowfall with being able to trade for VIP and the like, but without features like killmails and the third party websites designed for tracking all of that built by the players of EVE even big fights in Crowfall will likely go unnoticed. That's not to say that the game won't be amazing, but it will probably be one of those titles that flies far under the radar of most gamers. We, the players of Crowfall, will probably be largely responsible for getting the word out about the game and building it's success.

Edited January 27 by Kalus_Konkwest

[hamon 9]

8 hours ago, APE said:

Why can't they do that with the game design currently in development? This isn't too far off from what they've described to want. However, that doesn't mean every campaign will be the same. The different rulesets are what can set Crowfall apart from other PVP MMOs. There doesn't have to be one way to play.

With the Dregs being GvG and not factions, they'll have to figure out mechanics that allow a single guild or whatever group format to win. Having the last remaining tree/stronghold could be an option. They've talked about having an elimination style ruleset. Which could be like your guild loses it's castle/tree and you lose.

What they manage to launch with can be built upon as long as players enjoy what is available. Expecting everything now is not realistic. Wanting them to do exactly what you want when you want isn't realistic. Things will get done as the are able to.

By developmental logic, the main theme is the first mecanic developed in the game. If this is a game that supposedly has the apocalyptic thematic to create the war of thrones guess what should be the most important element in the game in first PVP mode? Scarcity of resources due Hunger? NO. Only capture points... We have everything available in the game and with resources at will and wait for the winter to pass drinking hot chocolate!

By logic in all original game concept the first mode of their PVP test, it should be something that exalts the fight against Hunger, where you should constantly think about what to eat, what to steal, what to build only to survive with your guild mates (could even betraying to prevent from dying).

This kind of hostile environment even solves Uncle Bob's problem: the first thing a player entering a survival campaign would have to think about how many guild mates he really needs to stay alive. If he joined a very large group of weak individuals they will have difficulties in getting resources for each one due division and and everyone dies easily with starvation. If the player goes to a smaller group he will have more resources available, he will have better equipment, but he will have to have enough companions so that each one has a indispensable role of craft/war so that they can optimize the use of scarce resources and defense the base. This creates a natural balancing system to avoid Uncle Bob that is much more realistic than this multiplying capture points we see now.

If a player dies, he should go into another world and continue the campaign with duration of  months until all conected worlds are exploited and devoured by hunger. Win condition is the best score average per world. PVP all time without stagnation in boring worlds.
I know that DEVs want to do campaigns with only one death, but now, for example, we will have dregs, where the goal again is not to survive, but rather to know who will rule in whom, with large guilds  focused on making small guilds their vassals in very unbalanced PVP . This is a uncle bob paradise.

 

Edited January 27 by hamon

[hamon 9]

11 hours ago, Zatch said:

Once campaigns last 90 days+ and an engaging end game "hunger" system has been developed Crowfall is intended to play like your quote above. If you're mad there isn't a Battleroyale like system that constantly closes in like hunderdome; that was never intended to be an endgame system. 

Can anyone figure out why he's upset? I truly have no idea.

... Only see my post to ape...

Edited January 27 by hamon

[Zatch 242]

7 hours ago, hamon said:

By developmental logic, the main theme is the first mecanic developed in the game.

I'm curious to how many games you've shipped because this never happens, ever. 

7 hours ago, hamon said:

By logic in all original game concept the first mode of their PVP test, it should be something that exalts the fight against Hunger, where you should constantly think about what to eat, what to steal, what to build only to survive with your guild mates (could even betraying to prevent from dying).

 

No the first concepts they need to test is whether the servers and game can handle 100+ people fighting at once. Crafting, combat, world stitching all come before the hunger mechanic. The hunger is frosting on the cake, not the cake itself. 

 

7 hours ago, hamon said:

If a player dies, he should go into another world and continue the campaign with duration of  months until all conected worlds are exploited and devoured by hunger. Win condition is the best score average per world. PVP all time without stagnation in boring worlds.
I know that DEVs want to do campaigns with only one death, but now, for example, we will have dregs, where the goal again is not to survive, but rather to know who will rule in whom, with large guilds  focused on making small guilds their vassals in very unbalanced PVP . This is a uncle bob paradise.

 

This is your idea for a game. None of the devs or anyone here has ever endorsed this. Could Crowfall do this down the line with the systems they've developed? Maybe, but this all comes down to your misinformation. 

The whole point of the dregs is to come down to one winner and having the map reset. I don't think you understand what Uncle Bob is. Uncle Bob is a system where the map DOESN'T reset. The game stagnates because one group is in charge and has no one to contest it.  

[hamon 9]

43 minutes ago, Zatch said:

I'm curious to how many games you've shipped because this never happens, ever. 

No the first concepts they need to test is whether the servers and game can handle 100+ people fighting at once. Crafting, combat, world stitching all come before the hunger mechanic. The hunger is frosting on the cake, not the cake itself. 

 

This is your idea for a game. None of the devs or anyone here has ever endorsed this. Could Crowfall do this down the line with the systems they've developed? Maybe, but this all comes down to your misinformation. 

The whole point of the dregs is to come down to one winner and having the map reset. I don't think you understand what Uncle Bob is. Uncle Bob is a system where the map DOESN'T reset. The game stagnates because one group is in charge and has no one to contest it.  

Laughing loudly! "As the central narrative driver of conflict in the Crowfall universe, the Hunger is a dark, supernatural phenomenon of unknown origins" lol. Now capture points has the big point in game...

1- The DEVs have already said that they have plans to campaign with ONE DEATH like my example.

2- Uncle bob is the same as happens when you lose a chess piece and every time you lose a piece this ends up with your ability to play against enemy pieces to the point where you simply can not win, that is , the game loses its meaning. The reset on Campaign is actually just a method for players not to waste time on campaigns that they do not win and give a chance to start over, but that does not really solve Uncle Bob's. Basically Dregs are a chess where the side with fewer pieces (guild players) gets with less and less chance of winning.

Edited January 27 by hamon

[Jah 5,707]

1 hour ago, hamon said:

2- Uncle bob is the same as happens when you lose a chess piece and every time you lose a piece this ends up with your ability to play against enemy pieces to the point where you simply can not win, that is , the game loses its meaning. The reset on Campaign is actually just a method for players not to waste time on campaigns that they do not win and give a chance to start over, but that does not really solve Uncle Bob's. Basically Dregs are a chess where the side with fewer pieces (guild players) gets with less and less chance of winning.

Watch the Uncle Bob video again. It was about campaign resets. It was not some broad manifesto against anyone having an advantage over someone else.

[hamon 9]

16 minutes ago, Jah said:

Watch the Uncle Bob video again. It was about campaign resets. It was not some broad manifesto against anyone having an advantage over someone else.

"One of the biggest challenges that Crowfall set out to fix was what we call “the Uncle Bob scenario” also known as “slippery slope”, a condition of game state where the game rules naturally reinforce the strong team (Uncle Bob) getting stronger and the weak teams (everyone else) getting weaker.

So, what do we layer on top of the Campaign’s strategic foundation to deal with slippery slope?
Some games (like bowling) deal with this in a heavy-handed manner: give the losing teams a handicap. Crude, but effective.

A better model might be a game like “7 Wonders” (the tabletop board game). It breaks each game up into three “ages”, which are akin to our seasons, and provide a graceful escalation in potential point accumulation with each successive season. This keeps the losers in the game because they feel like they still have a chance through clever gameplay to turn things around and win – because sometimes they do!"

[Jah 5,707]

9 minutes ago, hamon said:

"One of the biggest challenges that Crowfall set out to fix was what we call “the Uncle Bob scenario” "

Did you watch the video?

[hamon 9]

28 minutes ago, Jah said:

Did you watch the video?

 

The progress of a campaign character will not be erased when the world ends, but that does not mean they will adopt the uncle bob system. This is an MMORPG where players really need to have progression, but they want the game to have balance mechanics, where a disadvantaged player can retrieve and win it without having to give up the game like chess or join the stronger side and avoid conflict like this campaign.

Edited January 27 by hamon

[Jah 5,707]

1 hour ago, hamon said:

that does not mean they will adopt the uncle bob system.

Not sure what that even means.

[hamon 9]

24 minutes ago, Jah said:

Not sure what that even means.

They=DEVS. 

Game with uncle bob  (chess): each piece lost decreases the chance of the player to win because he restricts his moves. In CF it means you lose a territory to a great guild and can not recover because the enemy has 10x their number.

Game without the uncle bob: any game where you have no irremediable disadvantage that diminishes your chance to win. The enemy has bigger numbers and defeated you, but if you can steal your food, the enemy will starve and die.

 

Edited January 28 by hamon

[KDSProm 182]

On your first question - betrayal.

In the 3 faction campaign that won't be possible but in the Guild vs Guild it will.

The 300 slots of the guild will be able to be filled with (maybe 300) guilds that will swear fealty to the bigger guild. How deep the tree will go with sub-guilds I don't know but I know that in a second a guild leader will be able to take his whole sub tree of guilds and swear fealty to another guild thus changing alliance in the middle of the fight.

If that's not betrayal - Game of Thrones style - than I don't know what is

Edited January 28 by KDSProm

[mandalore 1,275]

Uncle Bob is about carrying advantages till winning is all but guaranteed.  I’m not sure what’s being argued about anymore.