| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules
it's called 'options' and 'variety', it makes characters diverse. that's a good thing
and too many people who play for system-mastery.
in the end, the only people that matter are you and your group of friends around the table. who cares how others play the game?
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer)
and what a game changer it is. simplifying to the extrem, sucking the joy out of everyone who ever looked at a RPG book with interest. seriously, though. the advantage system is one of the biggest minuses in my book for 5th E
and brings new people to the hobby.
on this we can agree.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think just reading the comments on this thread shows the key reason why the new edition was necessary: The vast majority (maybe even 100%, I haven't checked thoroughly) of those opposed to the new edition say that they came to PF because they didn't want to switch from 3.5 to 4 back in the day, so they don't want to switch from PF1 to PF2 either.
Of course that's a totally fair sentiment. In fact, I'm one of those grognards myself, been there since AD&D 1st edition, loved 3.0/3.5, disliked 4e, all of that. But the thing is... None of the younger players share that history, and so far I didn't see anyone who joined less than 10 years ago voice opposition to the new edition. So, the audience for keeping things the way they are is a fixed group.
It's simply not sustainable for a company to rely on the continued business of a given group of people, not matter how fiercely loyal. If only because even the stoutest grognards are, unfortunately, not eternal.
ah, those sweet summer childs will learn their lesson sooner or later
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.
I dunno about that. Listening to Eric Mona on the Know Direction podcast, he said that where they were torn on how extreme a change to make, they opted to take the more extreme path for the playtest and then change it back if it doesn't work.
I'm sure there are some things set in stone, but I don't think we should assume we know what those things are except maybe what the core classes will be and other very basic things.
and so far I didn't see anyone who joined less than 10 years ago voice opposition to the new edition.Hello, pleased to meet you.
Hi. I knew it couldn't be zero people!
I started rping in 2013 or so with Pathfinder and I've got to say. It's time for a new system. A decade is a long time for a game especially since it's built off an even older system that was a patch on an even OLDER system. 3.0 came out in 2002 or something didn't it? There comes a time when an edition has to be allowed to ease off into a well earned retirement!
The 3.x core fundamentals have proven to be astoundingly resilient and they should forever be applauded for that. But they're not evergreen!
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules, and too many people who play for system-mastery.
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer), and brings new people to the hobby.
The large number of people who enjoy the system mastery aspect of the game is the pool of people most likely to abandon Paizo because of the changes.
In essence, Paizo is choosing to abandon one segment of it's player base in the hopes of attracting new players from 5.0
I wish Paizo the best of luck, but I've seen way too many companies crash and burn when they forsake one demographic for another and wind up with neither.
You can only patch up something so many times before the act of patching becomes pointless.
Like it or not...we don't have the complete picture here of everything that caused Paizo to pursue a significantly different Second Edition. Sure, Core Rulebook sales seem to be stable...but what about the other books? And how easy is it to create new material, in a game that is basically a variation of 3.5, and which has a ton of 3pp support.
At some point you start running out of interesting design space, and are left with making ever more niche products catering to smaller and smaller numbers of people. All of which need to be made to be kept inline with a 10 year old core rulebook, which has its own balance issues.
And while that is happening, other games with an easier buy in are growing and pulling bored/unhappy pathfinder players to there system (which has certainly happened with 5E).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules, and too many people who play for system-mastery.
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer), and brings new people to the hobby.
The large number of people who enjoy the system mastery aspect of the game is the pool of people most likely to abandon Paizo because of the changes.
In essence, Paizo is choosing to abandon one segment of it's player base in the hopes of attracting new players from 5.0
I wish Paizo the best of luck, but I've seen way too many companies crash and burn when they forsake one demographic for another and wind up with neither.
With skill feats, ancestry feats, and the other bits and bobs they have mentioned, it looks like this game will still have a degree of customization and crunch pretty far above 5E. Most of the simplification I have seen seems to be in how game actions resolve, not so much in character building.
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rules, and too many people who play for system-mastery.
5th Edition D&D = streamlined rules (advantage/disadvantage is a game changer), and brings new people to the hobby.
The large number of people who enjoy the system mastery aspect of the game is the pool of people most likely to abandon Paizo because of the changes.
In essence, Paizo is choosing to abandon one segment of it's player base in the hopes of attracting new players from 5.0
I wish Paizo the best of luck, but I've seen way too many companies crash and burn when they forsake one demographic for another and wind up with neither.
They have been very clear that they are aiming to make a game that is still very, very crunchy. Just one that is also more intuitive. Rogue talents, alchemist discoveries, and monk ki powers sound like they are going to be named as "x class" feats, and will happen every other level. They are in fact hoping to make the game even crunchier by building archetypes into the core rulebook, and making it so the cleric also gets class feats to choose as they level.
Indeed, one thing I'm curious about is what is left that every member of the same class gets, sans archetypes. We haven't heard a lot of that so far, and it sounds like 4 different sword and board fighters can have significantly different builds and playstyles.
Where PF2 will fall behind is just in the initial offering of options, but that will happen sooner rather than later once they publish the core rulebook. You won't actually have to buy those new books either, given how easy it is to find PF material online.
There's also certain parts of the game that could really use a culling. We have too many crap feats and traits are damn mess to navigate. I'd much prefer a smaller list of more potent and versatile feats, and probably eliminate everything but campaign traits.
Hi all, its been a while still reading but I wasn’t thrilled with pathfinder enough to play it for long. So I have no horse in this race other then I came looking to see if PF 2 will be more to my liking. So far, not sure. I need to see more.
However I would warn many of the supports from using their line of defense for making a new edition. 4e D&D supporters made many of the same arguements when that ... edition hit the shelves and those arguements didn’t win over converts instead they solidified the opposition to the product. I would suggest instead of saying simply its time for a change, we need to make changes to get new players or some other statement. Try arguing how such an such a mechanic is clunky and how PF 2 will make it work smoother. Or say how such and such a change will make the game play better or more intuitive. Argue over the facts not feelings I guess is my advice.
Personally I think we need to see the rules before we can evaluate if PF 2 is a worthy edition or not. Change just for the sake of change to me is a bad idea. Change to solve a problem or improve game play has value. Let’s see the product and then we can debate what we like and don’t about the changes. Also sometimes as much as we dislike it, change is needed. Be a bit open to it if you can.
it's called 'options' and 'variety', it makes characters diverse. that's a good thing
Those options, much like PF1, will still exist. And with the new edition, there will be room to create further new "options" and additional "variety." I don't think that Paizo intends to nullify character diversity. Far from it. Instead, I think that it's about being able to bake many of those options, particularly the more popular ones, into the core assumptions into a more robust system a little more seemlessly and soundly.
But sometimes the nice thing about new editions is that they let you catch your breath and press the reset button on how those options work. Crunch is still not leaving the game. System mastery is not leaving the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The playtest is gonna be too short for it to have have substantial impact. It's pretty much just looking for minor tweaks to what they have already set in stone.It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.I'm not sure, but if they're set in stone it seems like a horrible way to go into a playtest. It defeats the point. "We'll listen to feedback and tweak accordingly, unless it's something we just want to do anyway in which case you can pound sand." That's not a good mindset. As I've said in another thread, "This new system is worse than the old one, go back and tweak that instead of this new thing." is a valid response to changes. I just have to hope that Paizo is as open-minded as they're expecting us to be. I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've been good in the past.
I keep hearing sentiments like this. And I find them puzzling. So let me offer some reasons for being more hopeful about the impact of the playtest.
1. There will be an entire team of developers, working 40+ hours a week, who will be spending most of their time developing the game after the playtest document has been released. For 6-8 months.
What do we think they'll be doing all this time? Reclining in lawn chairs and sipping Mai Tais?
Paizo is not a big company, and they're investing an enormous amount of resources and man-hours to this. This is not an allocation of resources they can afford to waste by twiddling their thumbs and correcting typos.
2. The fear about the lack of impact of the playtest seems to stem from a picture of the developers as a group with a relatively homogeneous opinion of how things should proceed.
Given the remarks we've heard about internal disagreements between developers, and wistful comments from lead developers about how much they'd like to have a couple of "yes-men" on the team for just one day, I think we have good reason to think this is false.
Rather, like most teams of creative personalities, it seems like the developers have widely varying preferences and opinions about a whole host of issues. Consider the many 3rd PP contributions people on the development team have made, advocating widely different ways of approaching the game.
What's seems more likely is that there will be developers championing lots of different ways of developing the game. And the playtest data will make a big difference in determining who on the development team ends up winning these arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi. I knew it couldn't be zero people!and so far I didn't see anyone who joined less than 10 years ago voice opposition to the new edition.Hello, pleased to meet you.
Not just him. ;)
I think just reading the comments on this thread shows the key reason why the new edition was necessary: The vast majority (maybe even 100%, I haven't checked thoroughly) of those opposed to the new edition say that they came to PF because they didn't want to switch from 3.5 to 4 back in the day, so they don't want to switch from PF1 to PF2 either.
I played 4e for quite a while and didn't mind it.: I however loathe 5e and couldn't force myself to play it after going through the playtest... So I don't mind change, I just mind change that [IMO] looks crappy. :(
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
And another not ten year adopter here. Can we remove the fake meme that everybody having objections to parts of this is just an old fuddy duddy that needs to get out of the way of ‘progress’?
and what a game changer it is. simplifying to the extrem, sucking the joy out of everyone who ever looked at a RPG book with interest.
I suppose a lot of people buy it because they love their joy sucked. It doubles the sales of every other RPG combined
Perhaps a massive marketing campaign boldly featuring the slogan, "And NO ELVES!"
Now, that is something that's never been done before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose a lot of people buy it because they love their joy sucked.
I was curious why anyone would like it, so "because they love their joy sucked" works for me. ;)
It doubles the sales of every other RPG combined
Good marketing? Plenty of things that sell better don't actually perform better than other options. personally, I've never really cared what the new 'fad' is when figuring out what I like.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
15 quarters in a row blowing every other RPG company combined is pretty solid for a fad.
It is OK if you like something else. It is a bit absurd to say that a mechanic in it is universally disliked by the enterity population of people who has ever read a RPG book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is a bit absurd to say that a mechanic in it is universally disliked by the enterity population of people who has ever read a RPG book.
Almost as absurd as saying that it's universally the best thing since sliced bread? IMO, it's a super divisive mechanic you either love or hate. People that like it play 5e. People that don't play something else... What incentive is there to add it here?
Fad: you've paid WAY, WAY, WAY more attention to who is more popular than who than I EVER have. I play what I like and avoid what I don't and care little for who else does. As such... fad seems appropriate to me for something new and shiny gaining interest over the current offerings. Is there a time limit when something stops being a fad and become a trend? For me, I seems still a fad.
It is a bit absurd to say that a mechanic in it is universally disliked by the enterity population of people who has ever read a RPG book.Almost as absurd as saying that it's universally the best thing since sliced bread? IMO, it's a super divisive mechanic you either love or hate. People that like it play 5e. People that don't play something else... What incentive is there to add it here?
Fad: you've paid WAY, WAY, WAY more attention to who is more popular than who than I EVER have. I play what I like and avoid what I don't and care little for who else does. As such... fad seems appropriate to me for something new and shiny gaining interest over the current offerings. Is there a time limit when something stops being a fad and become a trend? For me, I seems still a fad.
For your personal taste this is fine to ignore facts, but as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing s it is dominating big time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost as absurd as saying that it's universally the best thing since sliced bread?
If somebody had said that it is a rule that fills with joy the heart of everyone who has ever read an RPG, I would point out that some people play other games and don't like it. However, that was not said, and the over the top, said as an absolut, extremely exaggerated and slightly melodramatic sentence I quoted was saying the opposite: that nobody, ever, liked it. Which is pretty dumb, being the number one "fad" for almost 4 years in a row. It has been the most dominant "fad" for as much time as PF was the top seller.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
I'm really looking forward to the new rules (and don't think of them as Lite at all, rather depth without unnecessary complexity).
However I too hope they keep the 1st Edition PRD, as well as finish updating it with the later books which are still not up on the PRD.
Because I plan to play and run both games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing s it is dominating big time.
IMO, I don't see how following what 5e is going helps them much: people that like it and it's mechanics have a game that's just like that: 5e. The logical thing is to differentiate themselves from it by going a different direction to attract people that don't like it. The only other option is to 'out 5e' them at their own game and try to fight over the exact same pool of players. They aren't going to collect both... as I said, you either love of hate things like advantage.
If somebody had said that it is a rule that fills with joy the heart of everyone who has ever read an RPG, I would point out that some people play other games and don't like it.
His term was "gamechanger" and I took it that way.
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
That's possible but it's a very fine line to walk: make it enough like 5e to attract those gamers while leaving it 'pathfinder' enough to keep the old gamers. I know for myself, the more 5e it is the less I want to try it.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".
All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.
I'm really looking forward to the new rules (and don't think of them as Lite at all, rather depth without unnecessary complexity).
However I too hope they keep the 1st Edition PRD, as well as finish updating it with the later books which are still not up on the PRD.
Because I plan to play and run both games.
Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think just reading the comments on this thread shows the key reason why the new edition was necessary: The vast majority (maybe even 100%, I haven't checked thoroughly) of those opposed to the new edition say that they came to PF because they didn't want to switch from 3.5 to 4 back in the day, so they don't want to switch from PF1 to PF2 either.
Of course that's a totally fair sentiment. In fact, I'm one of those grognards myself, been there since AD&D 1st edition, loved 3.0/3.5, disliked 4e, all of that. But the thing is... None of the younger players share that history, and so far I didn't see anyone who joined less than 10 years ago voice opposition to the new edition. So, the audience for keeping things the way they are is a fixed group.
It's simply not sustainable for a company to rely on the continued business of a given group of people, not matter how fiercely loyal. If only because even the stoutest grognards are, unfortunately, not eternal.
Oh they certainly need to bring in new people. But tossing the old ones aside isn't helpful. They really need both groups. WotC was counting on new players to make up for the alienated old guard with 4th. Other than perhaps an initial rush, they didn't.
A new edition is fine, and probably necessary considering all the baggage. Ten years for one edition is a good long run (and more like 18 if you consider it just a variant of 3), and any system is going to be straining a bit with age. And appealing to new players is absolutely vital, and something I think PF1 was a bit lacking in. I'm personally not arguing for no changes at all. What I'm arguing for is respect for the old players (the ones who made them successful in the first place), and willingness to listen and dial back some of the radical changes if they're received poorly. I'm looking for that happy medium of a system that's appeals to the old time players but is refined and improved to appeal to new ones (and gives the old ones a better overall experience). Yeah, I'm aiming a bit high here.
Pathfinder = too many books, too many rulesit's called 'options' and 'variety', it makes characters diverse. that's a good thing
You options and variety that are commonly unusable broken and poorly worded. As much as people hate the meme you kind of the textbook meme example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think they are trying to just appeal to new players. Rather, they seem to be addressing many of the issues that older players have had with the game as well. Some of the changes that people believe are too much are just what another old player has been looking for.
It looks like, though, the parts that are most bothersome are set in stone and input on them isn't going to matter much save for tweaking around the edges, unfortunately. It does seem like there is one specific subset that is being catered to, and hard.I dunno about that. Listening to Eric Mona on the Know Direction podcast, he said that where they were torn on how extreme a change to make, they opted to take the more extreme path for the playtest and then change it back if it doesn't work.
I'm sure there are some things set in stone, but I don't think we should assume we know what those things are except maybe what the core classes will be and other very basic things.
That's very reassuring to hear. And makes sense to me from a design standpoint. Go for the most extreme and then dial it back as needed. Find the sweet spot between innovation and familiarity. Starting too conservatively will possibly just result in something with such minor changes that it doesn't' really justify a new edition. And it's good to hear that they are willing to listen and fall back if needed. They might need to make this more widely known to reassure nervous players.
I suspect the new action economy is probably mostly set in stone, as well as core goblins and alchemists. Likely the proficiency system. For other things I don't know. This might be another thing that would be reassuring to know. How likely something is to be changed or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
'kay, let's admit that not everyone opposed is a veteran of the 3.5 vs 4 war. The language used by many on these threads led me to think otherwise. No big deal, anyways.
I do not think they are trying to just appeal to new players. Rather, they seem to be addressing many of the issues that older players have had with the game as well. Some of the changes that people believe are too much are just what another old player has been looking for.
Fully agree. The idea that existing players, or players that disagree with some of the changes, are being discarded by the game designers or by Paizo is plain wrong. Those designers are listening and responding on this very forum. And Paizo is putting forward an extensive playtest, preceded by months of partial discovery, open to comment. They clearly hope to get a solid majority of the existing PF audience on board.
Nor can anyone say negative feedback is being ignored. We won't know that until the final version of PF2 is released. Some are saying the thing is cast in stone and the test will not change anything, but that's speculation, at best. Certain core concepts like action economy are likely irreversible, but the team has clearly indicated the possibility of meaningful changes.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
His term was "gamechanger" and I took it that way.
But it is true that it was a gamechanger. It changed the game in a way some like, and some others, like you, don't. But the mechanic is truly gamechanging. His statement was true. "it sucks the joy of Everyone who ever looked at a RPG book" is not only blantantly a falsehood, but also an over-the-top just-for-effects melodramatic falsehood. It helps the convoy if people express themselves with at least a modicum of respect for truth.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
His term was "gamechanger" and I took it that way.But it is true that it was a game changer. It changed the game in a way some like, and some others, like you, don't. But the mechanic is truly gamechanging. His statement was true. "it sucks the joy of Everyone who ever looked at a RPG book" is not only blantantly a falsehood, but also an over-the-top just-for-effects melodramatic falsehood. It helps the convoy if people express themselves with at least a modicum of respect for truth.
Some say Po-tay-to and some say po-tah-to... You still spell it potato. You see it as a game changer [a significant shift in RPG's] and I see it as a pile of suck... I don't agree that it's a [significant shift in RPG's] so I find "gamechanger" JUST as false as you seem to see [sucks the joy of Everyone] so I think the only thing we'll agree on is that it's a divisive love it or hate it mechanic.
If it didn't change the game you love, you would not hate it. It is, therefore, a change to the game. Just not a change you liked. If you see that sentence just as false as something demonstrably false as "nobody who has ever read a book liked it" then the problem is not the term, but you not understanding how logic works in regards of proving things false.
"everybody hated it" is false as soon as anyone did not hate it. I didn't, therefore it is false.
"it was a game changer" is not invalidated because someone did not like it. You can think it was a pile of suck, and it still can be true.
To invalidate "it was a game changer", you have to proof it did not change things. "the change they did sucks" does not do that. To invalidate "nobody liked it" you have to proof someone did like it.
UGh semantic argument...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.
on the topic of
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doing
are you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?
Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Their is actually a self-destruct code built into every single paizo book and when 2nd edition comes out their going to push the button then suddenly POOF! all gone.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Almost everything about DCs film direction, apart from the fact they are super hero movies, is very different from the MCU.
Yeah like them being bad instead of good. ;)
But seriously you're right, they seem to be trying for a 'dark' tone more often (probably because Batman is the most successful DC character in film), while Marvel tends to go for a lighthearted fun with lots of jokes and gags. The later seems to be more popular right now. And my understanding is that Wonder Woman had a lighter tone (I haven't seen it) than the other DC movies and was the most successful of them both monetarily and critically. This might be part of the reason for the difference in success. Well that and quality. Suicide Squad, ugh.
Almost everything about DCs film direction, apart from the fact they are super hero movies, is very different from the MCU.err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.
on the topic of
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doingare you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?
Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success
mostly the quality, really
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also nobody is trying to copy Marvel. They think they are but they aren't. Make movies like comic books (singular titles that intersect at Eve talk and crossovers), and don't show utter contempt for the source material.
Universal made a universe before making individual titles so messed it up already, and they also look like they haven't even seen the source material as evident of making non horror movies. Disregarding that those characters have been in a successful cinematic universe TWICE in the past. DC likewise have writers who have not only displayed a contempt for the source material but the fans and mostly creatively driven by a director that didn't 'get' comic books until he read one that was a cynical deconstruction of superheroes written by a wizard that adds 300% more r*pe in his stories than what's necessary. The failures of other cinematic universes has more to do with a lack of competence so it's a poor example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
err.. I have a name, you know, you can use it.
on the topic of
as a business they best be paying attention to what 5e is doingare you sure? look at what Marvel Studios has done over the last decade with their Cinematic Universe. Now THAT was a game changer. Look at all the businesses that tried their best to emulate that model and see how fast they crashed and burned. Was it in Universal's best interest to try to start their cinematic universe and crashland twice over the last, what?, 5 years? Was it in WB's best business interest to try to start their DC cinematic universe with Green Lantern, only to fail spectaculary and then to start it again with those awful Snyder movies?
Sometimes the best one business can do is to look at what the competitors do and just go in a different direction than to try and copy their success
Being aware of what the competition is doing and where the market is, is just plane smart for any company. But you are right that just copying one aspect of something isn't enough for success. You need to actually have quality. And from what I've seen, Paizo does seem to recognize that just doing a clone of 5e would be a failure, 5e already exists so people who like it already have their 5e style game. They're trying to keep their existing market as a crunchier and more customizable alternative, but also recognizing some of the things that work for the competition and implementing them to freshen up the system. Even as someone who loves PF, I have to admit is a bit crufty in places. Trying to have the best of both worlds instead of a straight copy. I hope they manage the proper balance.