Actually, dude raises an interesting point, considering that a Proto Gallente Commando with all skills at level 5 with a Prototype Plasma Cannon is only doing 426 DPS to armor.... and either of the Proto Gallente tanks with 4 Complex Heavy Armor Repairers can repair 508/s....

It's actually virtually impossible for a single player with that fit to do any damage to either of those tanks with those fittings. Even with a Complex Damage Modifier, the commando is only doing 456 DPS, and that's if the shot lands.

I'm checking the other weapons now, but you can see what I'm working with right here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QjKAHl1eEQdc7fFONABPQWuHOXYKCVkwW5MskKCzIoI/edit?usp=sharing

Now something more ontopic;

the matter of active vs passive regeneration.

Many players are poking me and those who can post here are pointing out that unless the speed or AV that they're going to be excessively difficult to kill as the window of opportunity to kill them is more immensely smaller than infantry can provide. Infantry do not have the same mobility capabilities of an HAV.

I know momentum is being added to help with acceleration and primarily deceleration the question remains are there going to be any other speed changes? or is it looking like that the regen issue will have to be continued to be addressed.

I was always a strong believer that active systems the ones you have to manage and be mindful of to be more effective because you choose when to use it; which then becomes a skill in module management something the more favored era of tanks had. As it stands now the natural armor regen and the passive reppers alone are fairly strong to be 'combat' viable.

I would like the notion to shift from combat viable to wounds licking. Combat viable belongs in the realm of active modules such as an active armor repairer, and a multiple cycle booster.


As far as Vehicle vs Vehicle is concerned this seems fine and fair.

They shouldn't fail to activate in the first place. They should give me the HP boost when I want it, which is almost always when I need it most.

Sadly extenders are just flat out superior to shield boosters. They promote passive buffers while I like the concept of module management that comes with active tanking (shield boosters). Also, extenders cost roughly half the PG of a booster while giving more than half the HP of a booster. And finally, extenders are 100% reliable; they are always there, no activation required without a chance of failure.

Shield booster PG cost needs to be about equal to extender PG cost. Yes boosters give more shield, but they are active modules, which I feel is a balanced tradeoff on its own. No need to make boosters harder to fit.

I have a workaround idea to fix them :
Make shield boosters have around 5 pulse spaced 0.2 seconds away from each other and split the shield bonus into those pulses. This way you would still get the same HP in 1s, but if one pulse fails, its not that much of an issue.

Not a huge fan of this fit: http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11796

3k damage per shot (2 shots virtually any dropship)
6k ehp

It just screams redline camper. Oh, and all complex mods without a fitting mod.

No regen......relying on the now crappy regen is bad, you will lose tank fights if you fit a blastet vs a armor tank.

126 hp/s regen vs 305 regen and 4.5k armor, regens when shot at.
shields don't regen under fire and don't have NOS.

Or 167 hp/s armor regen with 2 armor plates.
maddy will always win a blaster fight.

I saw a tank with 2 reps at 305 reps...anyways the main point is armor will always regen more than shield...nno delays, in comabt, seems broken to me.

Got one more:

http://www.protofits.com/fittings/shared/179/11799

"Cheap" pub fit. Used for hit and run infantry control; not necessarily against other tanks, though it could possibly take on missiles or rails up close.

To the batcave!

Too bad I don't expose my backside for just ANYBODY.

BRB, writing a new fanfic.

I'll call it...

Fifty Shades of Gunnlogi

I hope not, lows have nothing as is.

One thing I've noticed is that the Madrugar has a 3/4 slot layout where the Gunnlogi has a 5/2. Really the Madrugar needs a 2/5 since a) It really only needs two utility highs max, having to choose between nitro, damage, and/or scanner and b) the extra low will really help fit a respectable tank but allowing the use of a fitting mod.

Real quick Breaking Stuff, what heavy suit do you forge with?

Caldari and amarr are the cqc ones, having the most hp...

They have more hp than minmatar, they just can't regen, but blasters should be viable on shields, like a RR is on armor suits.

Shield tanks will be 100% easier to kill.

Shield reps nerfed

Shield damage unable to be mitigated by alternating hardeners or activating more than one.

Shield EHP nerfed per engagement.

How have shields not been nerfed?

Exept the gunlogi got a rep nerf and the maddy a rep buff.

It gets damage mods with high tank...

Look at my horse/pony, my horse/pony is amazing~

They will be no where near equal, EHP and damage profiles are not the only numbers that matter.

4 second shield recharge delay is nearly 1/6 th of the hardener duration, now the repair rate has also dropped by 25%.

Don't get me wrong I am also fully specced in armor, so instead of you driving behind a rock in your LAV to shoot through said rock at my shield tank, it will be at my armor tank which will out rep most of your damage before I rail snipe you.

Maddy fits nitro with zero cost to its EHP, instant top speed in either direction with higher top speed than Gunlogi. While it lowers it's chances of being hit with activated nitro it us also instantly repping likely around 300 hp/s. Fluxes have next zero effect on Maddy while destroying shields. Shield tanks armor also nerfed to point an assault rifle could finish one off if shields are down.

If the idea is to only have gallente tanks outside the redline then carry on with these changes as is.

But dint complain about all the shield tanks sitting in the redline.

3x assorted repairers
2x assorted plates
basic railgun
assorted nitros etc in highs

+ ANY SORT OF COVER COMPARABLE TO THE COVER YOU ARE US ING WITH YOUR FORGE.

beats you as in I back up for 4 or 5 seconds in cover and outrep your damage where a shield tank will need around 14 to 20 seconds.

clear enough picture ?

The problem is the spreadsheet wizards and AV players are trying to balance around EHP, like there is weapon that unleashes 12000 damage in one second that will pop one tank but not the other. The reality is:

Shield hardeners increase ehp for 24 seconds base
Armor hardeners increase ehp for 36 seconds base
Ehp over the first 4 seconds of every tank battle will have most madrugars repping 1200 damage into additional ehp, more if hardened.
Shield damage threshold ( which armor does not have a version of) further reduces shield Ehp the longer the battle ensues.

AV players should not decide that which they do not understand.

It makes sense that you want mmore nerfs being an AV player, try not to be so obvious about it.

Unfortunately ratatti decided he wants shield tanks in the redline rail sniping while armor tanks nitro around the map repping 300 hps.

Doc DDD hasn't trained Reading Comprehension to level 3 yet. Cut him some slack.

So go 3 reps and 1 plate, same outcome, was under assumption Maddy was 2/5

Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits.

[Pokey Dravon]

Really the only thing that fit is good against would be Swarms and Blasters. High alpha weapons like Forge Guns, Rails, and Missiles tears apart low HP, high regen fits.

I'm a bit confused. Is he having problems with a rep tank taking cover after being shot with a high alpha weapon?

Every time I faced you you have done the same thing, LAV behind a hill and shoot through hill, then I rail you in the head.

Well polish up your bpo LAV and bpo suit, the redline tank population is about to increase 10 fold when tankers realize it'sthe only place they won't pop before thier one hardener runs out.

Few things:

1) Can you bring up the profile on these tanks? Little weird that (base) Commandos can't pick up a tank on their passive scans.

2) What are ISK prices looking like for the newer tanks? Having more slots but less base durability seems like they should be cheaper if we want them to match current prices through module expenditure.

3) Think you should look at another method of balancing the MBTs' and the SHAVs' fitting costs. Seems like I'd always just slap on some standard turrets and use the extra PG/CPU on the MBT over the SHAV - just get more as a whole. Just as well, I'd be getting more assist points anyway on the off-chance they actually do kill anything with the small guns.

4) What are the bonuses going to look like, if any?

How will the caldari be better at long range fights?

There will be zero benefit short of uhav defensive bonuses which will probably be nerfed before implementation.

Exactly why I said caldari has no advantages. Nothing about weathering a storm of av and rail turrets, simply that the gallente hull has advantages tower the caldari. The Caldari has no advantages over the gallente, which is why the majority of tanks not sniping from the redline if the proposed numbers go through will be gallente.

The current reason the gallente tanks are little used is due to poor cpu and next to useless hardeners. As per the request of the AV community, instead of increasing efficiency of using one hardner and dramatically increasing stacking penalties, ratatti has decided to double nerf shields to promote ehp stacking and ensure any 2 swarmers can keep all vehicles trapped in the back of thier redline.

He at least plays the game, in a tank.

This is basically it as you describe.

Active = High volume
Passive = Low volume

players should be progressing towards active as it rewards skill, but passive is easier to cope with as a new pilot.

Shouldn't be forced to fit armor reps to be able to recuperate, so native reps, very low.

An offensive action, should be countered with another action (hardening, boosting, active repping) and that in turn should be countered by maneuevering into the back (fuel injector or weak spot), or active dmg modding.

Its because when you take hits while you've activated the booster, the booster cuts out. This usually happens under blaster fire, when the shields are under continous damage.

You wouldn't notice it as AV infantry attacking with a forge or swarms, as that break inbetween shots is long enough for the entire pulse to go off and raise shields. Its one of those tank v tank nuances.

Easy enough for anyone to verify, take a base sica that comes with a default shield booster, and get a red blaster instalation to shot at you. You can't boost through incoming damage.

See? You don't use vehicles. If you used shield vehicles, and used a booster, and saw that the slightest damage stops it completely, you wouldn't've had to say anything about that at all. It doesn't get "interrupted," it stops completely and starts the cooldown.

I'm sure. From you're description, ideally the heavy shield booster should at least go near the top underfire and then cut out. From my observations, a booster taking hits will simply stop at what ever stage a round hits it. A pulse lasts a second, so the interruption window is still very small. The only weapon with a high enough ROF to break that is the blaster. Getting your booster interuped by the other weapons is more or less the dice rolling against you.

Best bet vs blaster tanks is to either break LOS, hope they over heat (most inexeperinced tankers do), then kick in booster and force the blaster to start from scratch. Hardeners are more relaible. My new tanks might have a good combination of the two. Hardener, two extenders, perhaps a light and heavy booster.

AV needs to be toned down.

Please do not buff AV until after the tanks are out. Madrugars.and Gunnlogis costing half a mil already get outclassed when up against two AV if they are any good and coordinated. A proto tank costing millions should be worth such an isk investment.

Av doesn't need to be toned down.

Minmando with damage mods needs to be fixed.

Says the guy that doesn't use vehicles because he doesn't play the game.

I made some fits with all skills maxed in proto fits that still goes over either cpu or pg, not sure if the 10% per level has been added to electrical and engineering yet, but dropping those at all would make the fittings even worse.

I would recommend starting at 10% if it has already been added, if not yet added then anywhere from2% to 5%; per level would be enough on both armor and shield builds.

oh and shield booster functionality and stats need to be fixed to be useful over stacking extenders.

It probably isn't going to be a thing, but if it were, 3-5% is the most sensible option.

Edit: misquote because phone.
If the bonus 'doesn't do anything' why keep it? The suit is being used for some kind of reason.


http://wiki.dust514.info/index.php?title=Stacking_Penalties

Triple modded assault is 18.04% (7, 6.08, 3.99, these are multiplicative)

Base wiyrkomi dmg is 312, after 3mod assault it's 368.27~

Commando has an un penalized 10%, which makes that first mod a 17.7% dmg and the second dmg mod is penalized to 6.08. Total damage bonus is ~1.2485... A lot higher than the 3% you claim.

Base wiyrkomi is 312, 2x modded minmando is 389.55 dmg... Before proficiency or the swarm actually doing 1.3x vs armor instead of the 1.2 its supposed to.

24.85 - 18.04 = 6.81 almost a full 7%, close to double the 3.6 you're claiming.

So if this bonus "doesn't do anything" why don't we remove it? If you're opposed to it the bonus must clearly do *something*

... I have ADHD.

And out of curiousity, will DHAVS be able to fit a Nitro?

That could make things pretty silly.

Broken as in having to shoot 10 m behind target to hit, I'm not talking about anticipation of where target will be, but the constant back and forth breaks something... easiest thing to do is not move turret and let nitro tank drive into shot, but for me at least I end up having to guess which vector in time the other tank exists. Much easier to hit other tanks while using nitro personally.

Ummm, duh? I'm sorry, when I say passive resists I mean like we had pre 1.6. Sorry I'm a long time tanker and forget to clarify, I simply assume everyone knows what I mean:) Of course by module. That's why I say you wouldn't need to run multiple hardeners with a small passive resist module.

And you being an AV guy, saying AV needs no tweaking. OMG dude, the hell they won't. They won't be able to scratch most of these tanks fits. Maybe armor, but there really need to be some more shield based AV out there.

Gunnlogi is OP with the current setup, still.

Are UHAV getting defensive module bonuses or something else entirely?

I wasn't going to ask, but I will ask if you think DHAV need to be soloed by AV? Tanks that aren't even built around killing infantry.

Another note, AV may need some minor tweaks upwards, but the biggest change needs to come from the tank module side. With the added slots, modules need to be toned down to reflect this.

Then again, of course we can put it all on the AV side, but you have to keep in mind DS and light vehicles. Don't want to be insta popping things for the sake of tank balance.

And your statement that the Uhav can't be soloed, yet the MBTs can seems incredibly wrong to me. Something just doesn't jive with that statement. Something that can easily kill the AV infantry yet remain way stronger just doesn't sit well with me. I have a UHAV now, called a double extender hardener gunnlogi. With gunners, honestly, that's all the defense I would need to be on par and above a solo AV.

And by solo, I don't imagine you mean fire one clip and call it done. I imagine it would take some work. Especially if you are taking on something that is limited in engagement against them.

And as I said with true, UHAV's or any multi seater tank is useless in PC. Multi man tanks only have a place, and always will, in Pubs. Which by their very nature are unbalanced to start. What do you think of that statement.

And I know, lots of ands.

Hmmmm okay that does sound odd. I was simply thinking things like cooldown and duration bonuses.....not actually making the hulls more resistant to damage.

I'm assuming the hulls will have better based HP values anyway right?

and NO av dont need to be buffed, maybe plasma cannon but swarms are overkill on min comando allerady..

FG...well it need some love,breach especialy.

So much fail right here.

I get ya.

In my mind all I'm saying is that every capacity an infantry mounted AV weapon has a tank mounted one theoretically should have more of in spades.

Interesting theory. Btw what is your scrambler lance like?

I've been thinking of suggestions for the Large and Small Laser Turrets if they ever are to appear and how they might function.

Normally I hate the idea of another hold trigger down laser but after I started thinking about one with twin barrels....... it started to fall into place.

Anyways, I always feel like a douche when I get out and gun down that AV. Fun yes, but it's just not right.

You buff AV then you kill the LAV
You buff AV you kill the DS
You buff AV you kill the ADS
You buff AV you kill the DHAV

Any which way you buff AV you kill something else and completely take it off the field and out of the game.

Simple solution - HAVs take out HAVs and AV does secondary damage because ADS/DS/LAV cannot survive now so it means any new LAV/DS like Logi then its already made useless before it gets out the door.

AV cannot be the end all solution, AV is there for when you do not have vehicle support but right now it is there no matter what and is the end all solution. If it gets buffed it kills everything, if it gets nerfed then it may require more than 1 AV person but the 3man HAV getting destroyed by 1 AV is unfair but having AV making every other vehicle useless is just as bad.

Not really when rattati is seriously thinking about limiting the hardener to 1 and nerfing PG/CPU modules or creating various fits on protofits.

Im right when i talk about SL in uprising and now, im right on the new advanced/prototype HAVs which are just in name and not nature because of no slot increase, im right about the ADS unable to dodge SL.

I play the game every day and i see what happens to my vehicles and how a SL pushes me off easily or i can dual a FG because they have a chance to miss. I have FG and SL to proto and prof 5, i have used them and i know the downsides and upsides of both.

Opinions come from playing the game and just being a spreadsheet warrior doesn't cut it because the spreadsheet pits whatever it is on an empty field with no cover, no moving, no tactics, no variables whatsoever so it produces a false outcome.

Unfortuanly not many use FG, the majority is AV and last i checked the SL is AV, the FG is generally fine, the PLC is not but buffing any AV can defo kill the rest of the vehicles.

But you may say ' I'm not interested in taking Red star opinions seriously when all you guys do is repeat spkr4thedead's usual not-points.' so then why should i take your points seriously or anyone from your corp seriously? should i tie you all with the same brush? why should CCP take you seriously? Should anyone take your opinion seriously?

TBH with your latest post it reeks of 'im not listening to you la la la la la la' which frankly is childish and not in any way helpful.

Ah you must have updated it from last time I looked at it.

I'm more comfortable with 13-16 seconds, but we'll have to see how it plays out in testing.

How will it be different? Assuming you mean current numbers.

13-16sec TTK is quite terrible when considering in the past 30sec and upwards of towards a minute were standard HAV vs HAV times in uprising.

I feel that AV should not hit harder or faster than a HAV at all.

if 13-16sec is for AV then you can half that for a HAV which is terrible and boring and twitch.

30sec should be the minimum battle time between HAVs and for AV add on 15sec more.

Buffing AV should be out of the question unless you want to kill off the other vehicles because if you want AV ti kill in 13sec then DS/ADS/LAV will all get creamed before they come out of the redline.

What was this originally about again? There was to much arguing and not enough discussion for me to remember.

Well, one Cx damage modded IAFG deals about 700 DPS before proficiency/bonuses; it's hardly uncommon to be attacked by multiple AV users, and a single Wiyrkomi MinMando will kill an unhardened Madrugar in seven seconds (assuming two damage mods and maxed proficiency we have one second between volleys and three seconds to reload. First volley strips shields, second and third take the HAV down to about 800 HP fourth volley kills the HAV. I'm also assuming two repairers, because plates are garbage). Hardened, that increases to eight seconds - the fifth volley will kill the HAV.
Eight seconds is a long time; it's usually long enough to escape. The MinMando will gain some 3-400 WP out of this. If he has a friend, or he's firing invisibly, you die. One or both of these things are frequent.

It is also perfectly doable to solo a Gunnlogi as a forge-gunner; four shots from a damage-modded IAFG and two Lai-Dai Packed AV grenades will kill pretty much anything, assuming you've already forced the triggering of the hardener (if you didn't why are you bothering?).

Essentially, what's happened is that the only way to survive as a tanker is to either stay in the redline and only come out while hardeners are up and you're certain you won't be ganked upon leaving, or to be so much more skilled and prepared than the AV player that there's nothing he can do (like the idiots who insist on firing swarms at my hardened shield tank, versus the times when I dance around blasters in the street in my Sentinel to score an easy kill).
In the meantime the AV player is making bank, and you're making a loss.

If we are worried about balancing in ambush, just remove vehicles all together from oms. ..


The only thing keeping tanks alive as long as they are now is the ability to stack hardeners, removing this ability, while nerfing shield regen and cpu/pg chips, nerfing base HP of hulls to force the 2 extra slots to be filled with isk costing hp modules, all add up to a vehicle nerf. Armor tanks seem to be in a better place though.

Seems like this was more of an AV buff initiative then a ' let's make tanks useful and give them something to do'

This does make me wonder though, how much of a buff does the maddie need to be on par with infantry AV and would such a buff put them over the top against a gunnlogi.

The gunlogi is no where near OP, and definitely not after all the proposed nerfs.

The gunlogi is the only vehicle that can tank damage from mutiple sources ONLY while it's hardeners are activated, and even theniit's not for any longer than the time it takes a breach forge to fire 3 times.

Agreed, I've suggested multiple times in the past that we use current weapons, tacking on different damage profiles. EM swarm launchers, can you imagine the tears that would flow!

Would rather see though some amar and minmatar weapons to fill the gap. At least then it wouldn't be spec into FG or SL and have the best of all worlds. At least then you would have to spec into another weapon to achieve the same goals.

I hear a lot of mention of the laser weapon and I always think that pretty beam of light that you hold on target. Honestly I can't imagine that would be the right direction for an AV weapon.

I was thinking the laser weapon fires bursts of lasers, rather than a beam of light that only needs to be held on a target. Add a little skill into a weapon. Sure a laser beam works on small targets but on a large target it would be FAR too easy.

Sure why not, it is still a ratio of 1 AV to 3 pilots and 1:3 doesn't look fair to me but yet you will complain that it may take 3 AV to kill 1 HAV. Can't have it both ways.

Small turrets suck, if the AV player is close enough to get there head ripped off that is the AV players fault but there are many areas of a map that the gunners cannot reach out of a tank or in the gun seat.

It has been an option in PC, a rare one but if it is a ratio of 3 man HAV to 3 AV then maybe it may happen.

And this is why we've lost so many pilots. Those that don't use vehicles having the sole say in the direction vehicles go in.

Unfortunately, it likely won't end. As it is, pilots aren't being listened to now. We're losing base HP on both hulls. That constitutes a nerf to vehicles, no matter what you want to say.

I've never said that. I have said that AV should be a deterrent. Deterrent =/= useless.

Can you possibly explain why tanks can't beat on tanks, with AV providing supplementary damage, rather than relegating a friendly tank to a mere distraction?

Well you would because if that tank had 10people in it you would need 10people with AV to kill it.

He didn't say that only that AV should be capable of killing HAV in a meaningful manner.... y'know ....having actually talked to Breaking on the odd occasion when he hasn't called me a "nerd" instead of spewing vitriol at him.....

Our Cannon are bigger and better than existing AV forms and should act like it. None of this rapid firing bullshit.

But you would not.

You are already complaining about getting 3 AV to combat a 3man HAV.

Solution is simple,.. If you dont drive tanks or ADS you can fck off from this thread.

Of course it won't happen, because despite you not using vehicles, you still believe with absolute conviction that you know what's best for vehicles, and not those that actually use them, and use them often.

Being apart of a corp has nothing to do with this child.

You still believe that 1 AV should be able to take out a 3man HAV.

If i said it should take out 3 AV to take out 1 man HAV you complain and say it is unfair and that it should take 1 player to take out 1 player.

The double standards is there for all to see, you hide behind 'balance' yet you want it as unbalanced as possible in the favor of AV while making vehicles a sideshow at best and absolutely useless at its very worst.

Since are going to be like this i can do exactly the same thing.

It should take 3 AV working together to take out a HAV, don't quote 1 player to 1 player BS to me since you obv don't want it and if you cry balance i will say 'tank', my missiles should hammer infantry into the ground but a flaylock and core locus do the job better where is the balance?

All players like you do is take, take and take some more, you suck the life out of this game while you still complain that it is too hard for you, that you need more buffs and the playstyle that is supposed to counter you should be nerfed more and more. It won't stop with this game, slowly it dies out and you move onto the next like a virus slowly ruining it because something is too hard or you can't solo it and the cycle continues.

Vehicles are in this game and yet you want a clip of whatever to kill every vehicle, why don't you move to a game where vehicles do not exist? I play planetside and can deal with AV and other vehicles but that is because the game is more developed and i have countermeasures yet no matter what pilots say you always disagree. You don't want turrets to kill infantry, you don't want HAV to have too much health that 1 clip cannot kill it outright, you want to buff AV for the new vehicles yet don't care about the DS/LAV which will be made useless, it is always what you or infantry want and never what pilots actually want who happen to use and skill into the vehicles hoping that it can actually become a proper playstyle rarther than a freak sideshow who can be put out of the game by 1 player with minimal SP investment.

AV we hawe right now could blow up a crome surya or sagaris with no problems..


And yeah I know that my english sucks..

Vehicles are the central focus of this balancing act.

And yes we know they aren't any focus at all. They're less than an afterthought, providing easy points for AV.

You call swarms previously able to do ~3000 damage per volley a nerf from Chrome? Lol

Then stop treating us as if we were hostages.

Everybody was crying bloody murder when the fused locus, flaylock and tac AR were being nerfed. Same with the Cal logi. Many announced they were biomassing, or stop playing, or that it was the end of the game. It's still going, and those that threatened that are still here. Why should I compromise? I did that in my hull spreadsheet. I won't do more than that. My conviction is unwavering.

You want compromise on the power of AV. I'm just reciprocating.

Ah.... I didn't consider that. Thanks for reminding me of that little bit of info I can use in future. It actually highlights a fair point some tankers bring up that back when that was recorded [Chromosome I believe] most of the community didn't have the SP for proper AV and didn't appreciate its role.

At time's I'm not even sure Marauders were or would be in this climate over powered.....especially considering how slow tanks used to be and how active pilots had to be in their operation.

Pretty much. I miss the days where it took experience to properly maintain your modules and cycle them constantly.

No that is not vehicle qq,..that is I got killed by a forge gun/rail turrent!!! My KD!!


Nerf nerf nerf nerf

I'm judging myself too, i can be the latter, but i'm trying to be the former.

Tanks were fine during Chrome.

What about Uprising prior to 1.7?

No single hardener rule
No PG/CPU upgrade debuff (increased fitting costs as previously discussed)

stay posted