"Deeper gunplay and mechanics"... Why is scope glint in this game then?

Comments

  • Major_Pungspark
    1348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Apparently you did.

    They nerfed every class except sniper, that they buffed, sure they increased bullet velocity of everything else to but what does that help when they don´t hit. I mean, I used to pull out handgun every time I went inside a house because the practical ttk for pistols was so much better than, well everything except automatico and shotguns.

    And before they abandoned the game they buffed most weapons, like insane buffs like the 08/smg, good idea to buff an smg to 800rpm, 80 bullits in the mag and give it four hits to kill and probably overbuffing lmg:s.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    The only people that don't like scope glint are the people that sit 300m+ away from any objective and snipe all day. You know it's true. Go ahead, take a poll of the entire BF community about whether or not to get rid of scope glint. I can 100% guarantee that the OVERWHELMING majority (75%+) of players will say to keep it.

    And what about recons within 100 meters of the enemy which is well within the reach of the other classes? Should they have glint too? Why should they have what equates to being 3D spotted any time they aim down their scope? Any other class can camp at that range and get kills from that distance without a shining beacon relaying their position to everyone looking in their direction.

    What the OP says is absolutely true regardless of your feelings about scope glint. DICE removed 3D spotting, except with specific gadgets, to make the game more skill based. Now you actually have to physically see your enemy. Scope glint is directly contradictory to that. It's something that cannot be relegated with your own skill. You will always be giving away your position the moment you ADS.

    If I hadnt played every Bf game so far I might see the problem. Every kind of open map is allways totally infested by snipers, in every bf. In Bf4 you could at times have one squad on each side fighting for flags and the rest scattered around the map or in vehicles. So removing scopeglint in a game that have nerfed 3d-spot would mean that snipers would never fire at each other but just farm infantry.

    That wasn't really what I asked though. I couldn't care less about worthless hillhumpers. I honestly hate playing with and against them. I'm asking about recons who are within range of the other classes. Why should they have scope glint? I've always prefered a system where glint intensity varied upon distance to target. The further you are, the more glint there is. I've played every BF game since BF2 except for Hardline.
    Mystriall wrote: »
    From what I've seen, the ZH-29 is a viable close range option for the recon when you use it ironsighted. And we still need to see what else is coming :) I don't get why it's necessary for the recon to be effective at all ranges. I feel there are too many worries both ways with a limited amount of information about it.
    -
    Some say recon is "OP" with the ZH-29 and others say recon is the "weakest". The people saying it is OP are mostly the guys hating the recon class, and the ones saying it is weak is mostly the guys playing the recon class. Especially those coming from BF1 as far as i can tell, because it isn't as easy to use as they would like it to be.
    -
    We can see videos of people doing good with all classes, so as far as i am concerned, there is no big issue with any of them. They have made some more adjustments after the Beta, and we won't know how the balance is now until we play the game at release. In addition, we will get to play some of the larger maps aswell, which might shift the balance more, so I'm waiting to conclude until i got more data/information to go on.
    -
    Now on the topic of scope glint: Scope glint is significantly dimmed/reduced compared to how it was in BF1. So i don't get the complaints regarding the scope glint.

    The ZH-29 is the best weapon the recon class has for closer ranges, but it's still not a good CQB weapon. It kills too slowly for that range. It's more of a medium ranged rifle. And even at medium range, it's still outgunned by the G43 and the beta STG as well. Which is why I'm still hoping the RSC and AL8 are better for closer ranges. Besides that, I don't want recon to have weapons that are strong at all ranges. I want weapons that are good at one or the other. Although I'd always emphasize wanting weapons that are better at closer ranges than longer ranges. Long ranged gameplay rarely contributes as much to the team as someone fighting on the objective with the rest of the squad. Also, I've been playing recon/scout a lot since BF3. I'm not just a BF1 scout. I would be glad to have BF4 balancing back for rifles where they were actually strong in close quarters. I also found scope glint to be plenty bright on the long scope. I was easily able to pick out any scout who was ADS in my direction, without actually seeing them, only because of their glint.
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Basically I totally agree with OP. They say they want to make the game more tactical and remove gimmicks like doritos, so they should get rid of scope glint too.

    The scope glint pushes scouts further back unless they pick infantry variants. It doesn't punish hillhumpers at 300m.

    It's there for balance, end of story. You can't make someone entirely invisible and killing from 300 meters away with no counter and no way to find them or your game will become a ghost town in short order when the majority of your player base gets tired of getting sniped and change to recon.
    Of course it makes sense that one does not want someone who is sniping from a long distance to be invisible.
    In that context I do not get why the death cam is so bad at showing the distant enemies who killed you.
    .
    However when someone is like 50m away and uses a large scope to get headshots, he is in a handicap. That is why I will probably use mostly SLRs with recon in BFV where headshots are not expected by the gun balance unlike with Bolt actions.

    You make a valid point but not being a dev I don't know how practical it is to code scope glint to turn off when one is within CQB range.

    I don't really think that would be much of a problem. They've already done it before with the sweetspot glint in BF1. As you step into a scout's sweetspot in BF1, it gradually gets brighter until it's at max intensity. The idea of glint only existing within certain ranges and with varying brightness is something that already exists with the sweetspot rainbow glint.
    Kunstula wrote: »
    Because double standards. DICE has a clear bias against the scout class. Look at how low they put the damage of bolt action rifles and how ridiculously fast they drop from max to min damage, while giving all other weapons a massive long range buff by removing spread. Put slow rechamber and reload speed for bolt action rifles while automatic weapons have higher damage with faster reloading on top of that and you have the recipe for very bad weapon balance.
    With drag added there is already a sufficient countermeasure in place to greatly reduce the effectiveness of extreme long range sniping. Glint only exists as a hand holding mechanism for players with very poor situational awareness and positioning, it was never intended for balance even though many keep repeating that lie over and over.

    You mean they hate them like when releasing Bf1 where they increased velocity, added a sweet spot, nerfed all other classes ttk into the ground, and made it impossible to hit anything at most ranges...unless you had a medic rifle where you could fire very slow to hit at range. I can clearly see the hate.

    The purpose of that was to bring scouts closer to the action. They buffed scouts within 300 meters of their target. That's undeniably true. However, scouts are weaker at long ranges than they were in BF4. Comparing the Gewehr 98 to the SRR-61 (the two best long ranged rifles in terms of drop rate and bullet velocity), you'll find that the G98 bullet is traveling slower than the SRR-61 bullet past 270 meters and also has more drop at all ranges. In fact, at that 270 meter range where their velocity is about equal, you're looking at a little over 22 inches more of drop with the Gewehr 98 even though it starts off with a velocity of 880 m/s versus the SRR-61 at a constant 620 m/s. This is a result of drag effecting the G98 but not the SRR-61, and it is also due to the G98 (and all BF1 rifles) having a drop rate of 12 m/s^2 versus the SRR-61 at 6 m/s^2.

    So in regards to that, scout was both nerfed and buffed with the velocity changes. Easier to lead targets at closer ranges due to the faster velocity. Harder to lead targets at longer ranges due to the addition of drag and increased drop rates.

    The sweetspot was the one thing that was too much of a buff in some cases. It wasn't as beneficial as some people make it out to be since most scouts don't intentionally always keep within sweetspot distance. It's more of a lucky thing that happens every now and then for me. Still, it adds some unfair randomness to the game.

    As for the other classes in BF1 versus BF4, it seems to me like they made those changes because they didn't want one class (specifically assault) to rule all objective ranges like they did with the assault rifles in BF4. They wanted each class to be more specialized to specific ranges depending on what weapon you were using.
  • Hawxxeye
    4852 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »

    As for the other classes in BF1 versus BF4, it seems to me like they made those changes because they didn't want one class (specifically assault) to rule all objective ranges like they did with the assault rifles in BF4. They wanted each class to be more specialized to specific ranges depending on what weapon you were using.
    Only there was a massive overlap between the effective ranges of support, medic and scout in mid to longish ranges, especially in the last few months.
    The only draw that I still find to the BF1 version of the class still is the flares and nothing else pretty much.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Sixclicks wrote: »

    As for the other classes in BF1 versus BF4, it seems to me like they made those changes because they didn't want one class (specifically assault) to rule all objective ranges like they did with the assault rifles in BF4. They wanted each class to be more specialized to specific ranges depending on what weapon you were using.
    Only there was a massive overlap between the effective ranges of support, medic and scout in mid to longish ranges, especially in the last few months.
    The only draw that I still find to the BF1 version of the class still is the flares and nothing else pretty much.

    Definitely. And that's something I argued against in the past. Classes were more well defined in their intended roles in vanilla than they are now. Now there's a lot of range overlap between classes. Medic in particular has weapons for any range you'd need in the game. Lately I've been using the Medic more and more with weapons like the Farquhar Hill Optical and RSC Optical plus occasionally the Avtomat on close ranged maps. They cover all the ranges that I'd generally fight at as a scout and are honestly better at it.

    The Farquhar Hill Optical is just performing too well for me lately. Just had a game on Argonne with it at 11.33 KDR and 2.01 KPM. Joined on the losing team. Managed to hold D and E for a while. Then we made a push with the train and ended up capturing all objectives except for A and winning the match. One of the few Conquest matches I've been in where the train actually made enough of a difference to flip the game.
    Post edited by Sixclicks on
  • Hawxxeye
    4852 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Did they fixed the accuracy issues the FH had when shot rapidly?
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Did they fixed the accuracy issues the FH had when shot rapidly?

    I'm not sure. I never really used it much before, so I wouldn't know how it used to be if they did. It seems to be pretty accurate for me. Although I don't spam it fast at range. I know the Farquhar Hill Storm used to seem like it had terrible accuracy back when I used it for the headshot kills assignment with it. But I never really cared for optical weapons back then since you couldn't change the dot color and the default was too difficult for my colorblind self to see. Now I actually prefer optical weapons.

    Also, what's up with the red edited text above on my previous post? Is that new? I don't see it on this one which I've edited too.
    I guess it only appears if you edit a while after the original post.
  • Major_Pungspark
    1348 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I used the FH last night when I ended up on a server running Galicia (Yay, that is one sucky map, thanks for adding to the misery with the usual artillery trucks and some planes, and badly made trenches, adding to the sniping and very few playing assault thanks to...range issues.). Don´t think I never noticed that it had some problem with spamming accuracy, it is a 259 rpm one so it aint that usable at closer ranges and goes to four hits at "longer" (Like 60 meters or something.) ranges. It has very low recoil, making 3/4 hits pretty fast at range, but not fast enough inside houses.

    A bunch (All?) of the optical semis seem to have some annoying visual recoil added to them so I given up on them, maybe I have to try the FH optical, usually use the storm(?).



  • theONEFORCE
    2843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Kunstula wrote: »
    Because double standards. DICE has a clear bias against the scout class. Look at how low they put the damage of bolt action rifles and how ridiculously fast they drop from max to min damage, while giving all other weapons a massive long range buff by removing spread. Put slow rechamber and reload speed for bolt action rifles while automatic weapons have higher damage with faster reloading on top of that and you have the recipe for very bad weapon balance.
    With drag added there is already a sufficient countermeasure in place to greatly reduce the effectiveness of extreme long range sniping. Glint only exists as a hand holding mechanism for players with very poor situational awareness and positioning, it was never intended for balance even though many keep repeating that lie over and over.

    You mean they hate them like when releasing Bf1 where they increased velocity, added a sweet spot, nerfed all other classes ttk into the ground, and made it impossible to hit anything at most ranges...unless you had a medic rifle where you could fire very slow to hit at range. I can clearly see the hate.
    I must had played a different BF1 then cause never had I felt that the enemy snipers were a huge threat and every auto weapon was a bullet hose within its intended range.

    Enemy snipers weren't a huge threat? Now that we know you'll say anything to further your agenda it weakens your whole argument.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Kunstula wrote: »
    Because double standards. DICE has a clear bias against the scout class. Look at how low they put the damage of bolt action rifles and how ridiculously fast they drop from max to min damage, while giving all other weapons a massive long range buff by removing spread. Put slow rechamber and reload speed for bolt action rifles while automatic weapons have higher damage with faster reloading on top of that and you have the recipe for very bad weapon balance.
    With drag added there is already a sufficient countermeasure in place to greatly reduce the effectiveness of extreme long range sniping. Glint only exists as a hand holding mechanism for players with very poor situational awareness and positioning, it was never intended for balance even though many keep repeating that lie over and over.

    You mean they hate them like when releasing Bf1 where they increased velocity, added a sweet spot, nerfed all other classes ttk into the ground, and made it impossible to hit anything at most ranges...unless you had a medic rifle where you could fire very slow to hit at range. I can clearly see the hate.
    I must had played a different BF1 then cause never had I felt that the enemy snipers were a huge threat and every auto weapon was a bullet hose within its intended range.

    Enemy snipers weren't a huge threat? Now that we know you'll say anything to further your agenda it weakens your whole argument.

    I die to enemy snipers a lot less than assaults, medics, or supports. So I'd say they're certainly less of a threat. I mean, it's even a pretty common thing to hear snipers are "useless" and "most can't hit much." And most players have lower KPMs with scout than the other classes. All that would seem to indicate that the scout class as a whole, snipers and aggressive players, are less of a threat than the others.
  • theONEFORCE
    2843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Kunstula wrote: »
    Because double standards. DICE has a clear bias against the scout class. Look at how low they put the damage of bolt action rifles and how ridiculously fast they drop from max to min damage, while giving all other weapons a massive long range buff by removing spread. Put slow rechamber and reload speed for bolt action rifles while automatic weapons have higher damage with faster reloading on top of that and you have the recipe for very bad weapon balance.
    With drag added there is already a sufficient countermeasure in place to greatly reduce the effectiveness of extreme long range sniping. Glint only exists as a hand holding mechanism for players with very poor situational awareness and positioning, it was never intended for balance even though many keep repeating that lie over and over.

    You mean they hate them like when releasing Bf1 where they increased velocity, added a sweet spot, nerfed all other classes ttk into the ground, and made it impossible to hit anything at most ranges...unless you had a medic rifle where you could fire very slow to hit at range. I can clearly see the hate.
    I must had played a different BF1 then cause never had I felt that the enemy snipers were a huge threat and every auto weapon was a bullet hose within its intended range.

    Enemy snipers weren't a huge threat? Now that we know you'll say anything to further your agenda it weakens your whole argument.

    I die to enemy snipers a lot less than assaults, medics, or supports. So I'd say they're certainly less of a threat. I mean, it's even a pretty common thing to hear snipers are "useless" and "most can't hit much." And most players have lower KPMs with scout than the other classes. All that would seem to indicate that the scout class as a whole, snipers and aggressive players, are less of a threat than the others.

    The lesson we learned from BF1 is that when you try to balance a class based on the lowest common denominator, they remain ineffective and it opens up a large opportunity for abuse. The class attracted the worst of the worst and what kept the stats up were the players that abused mechanics intended to help noobs get kills.
  • VincentNZ wrote: »
    Yes I would agree it is a balance tool especially in a game without spotting. If you can not know where somebody firing at you is at, you can also not react to it.

    and that's a bad thing?
  • theONEFORCE
    2843 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Yes I would agree it is a balance tool especially in a game without spotting. If you can not know where somebody firing at you is at, you can also not react to it.

    and that's a bad thing?

    Yes, it keeps the game moving. If you want to camp and pretend you're Chris Kyle, go play hardcore and leave everyone else alone.
  • SlowOldWarrior
    331 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I'm OK if they eliminate scope glare when on the flag capture area while it is being captured.
  • Hawxxeye
    4852 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Yes I would agree it is a balance tool especially in a game without spotting. If you can not know where somebody firing at you is at, you can also not react to it.

    and that's a bad thing?

    Yes, it keeps the game moving. If you want to camp and pretend you're Chris Kyle, go play hardcore and leave everyone else alone.
    No it does not keep the game moving, those stars on the hilltops were hardly moving in the previous titles. The only people moving at those who actually try to get closer and fight in the range of the other weapons.
  • DingoKillr
    3392 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Yes I would agree it is a balance tool especially in a game without spotting. If you can not know where somebody firing at you is at, you can also not react to it.

    and that's a bad thing?

    Yes, it keeps the game moving. If you want to camp and pretend you're Chris Kyle, go play hardcore and leave everyone else alone.
    No it does not keep the game moving, those stars on the hilltops were hardly moving in the previous titles. The only people moving at those who actually try to get closer and fight in the range of the other weapons.
    There are some great myth surrounding Scout/Recon. Scope glint is 1 of them.
    - It has little impact on quick scopes as those players don't have the scope up long enough.
    - Balancer not even close it highlight poor players far more than good players and is the same at every range.
    - Stops camping no it doesn't why should a feature be design to counter that players on gadgets like Shield.
    It was very poorly implemented when even players behind cover could have glint seen, without being able to 3D spot.
  • BGHFlakjacket
    1245 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Dice has always catered to the "pro snipers"......BF1 with the sweet spot was probably the most **** kissing of the scout class I have seen in any BF game. Allowing their bullets to do 80% dmg when other guns using the same ammo get 20% is just not even close to realistic. With the total mess of BF1 HC, the game became pathetic with base campers sniping their buddies on the other team and then bragging about the longest headshots.
    I do not want to know how many lessons that Dice will forget from their experience with all the prior games. BF5 will have the same mess that Battlefield has always had and will makae the same mistakes with BF6.
  • SirTerrible
    1521 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    That wasn't really what I asked though. I couldn't care less about worthless hillhumpers. I honestly hate playing with and against them. I'm asking about recons who are within range of the other classes. Why should they have scope glint? I've always prefered a system where glint intensity varied upon distance to target. The further you are, the more glint there is. I've played every BF game since BF2 except for Hardline

    Didn't it already basically work like that in BF1? Use snipers with lower magnification (the sights that are best at close to mid range anyway) and no glint. Is the same in BFV? Seems like a non issue if so.
  • Sixclicks
    5073 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Sixclicks wrote: »
    That wasn't really what I asked though. I couldn't care less about worthless hillhumpers. I honestly hate playing with and against them. I'm asking about recons who are within range of the other classes. Why should they have scope glint? I've always prefered a system where glint intensity varied upon distance to target. The further you are, the more glint there is. I've played every BF game since BF2 except for Hardline

    Didn't it already basically work like that in BF1? Use snipers with lower magnification (the sights that are best at close to mid range anyway) and no glint. Is the same in BFV? Seems like a non issue if so.

    Medium scopes in BF1 originally had no glint. They added glint to them later though. Long scopes always had glint. They also added a rainbow glint that appeared whenever you were in sweetspot distance.

    As for BFV, medium scopes have no glint. Long scopes do. But I still don't think that's a great system. The reason being: you can still sit at long ranges with a medium scope and have no glint. Also, because this game puts a heavy emphasis on getting headshots with bolt actions since they're so pathetically weak on body shots, being able to use a long scope to be more precise is more desirable, but not when every time you ADS you're essentially becoming 3D spotted for everyone in the direction you're looking regardless of how close you are to your target.

    All scopes in BFV should have glint. And the amount of glint should vary based on the amount of distance there is between you and your target. At close ranges - no glint. At medium ranges - dim glint. At long ranges - bright glint.

    The way scope glint shows at all ranges on long scopes is completely contradictory to the entire reason that they removed 3D spotting by anyone. The idea is you're supposed to actually use your eyes to pick out enemies rather than relying floating doritos or bright "I am here" flashlights. So I think it's completely unreasonable for there to be any glint well within the range of other classes. It makes no sense.

    Multiple times in the alphas and beta I was able to see an enemy Recon who I normally would not have seen only because of his glint while he was within a relatively close distance for me. I even had a clip with an example where I only noticed and killed an enemy recon because of his glint about 30 meters away just to end up dying to the support guy who was laying prone right next to him who I didn't see because he didn't have glint. How is that fair?
  • ProAssassin2003
    2950 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Op as someone who doesn't Snipe often like me and I often get frustrated by snipers I agree with you regardless.

  • Hawxxeye
    4852 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    Kunstula wrote: »
    Because double standards. DICE has a clear bias against the scout class. Look at how low they put the damage of bolt action rifles and how ridiculously fast they drop from max to min damage, while giving all other weapons a massive long range buff by removing spread. Put slow rechamber and reload speed for bolt action rifles while automatic weapons have higher damage with faster reloading on top of that and you have the recipe for very bad weapon balance.
    With drag added there is already a sufficient countermeasure in place to greatly reduce the effectiveness of extreme long range sniping. Glint only exists as a hand holding mechanism for players with very poor situational awareness and positioning, it was never intended for balance even though many keep repeating that lie over and over.

    You mean they hate them like when releasing Bf1 where they increased velocity, added a sweet spot, nerfed all other classes ttk into the ground, and made it impossible to hit anything at most ranges...unless you had a medic rifle where you could fire very slow to hit at range. I can clearly see the hate.
    I must had played a different BF1 then cause never had I felt that the enemy snipers were a huge threat and every auto weapon was a bullet hose within its intended range.

    Enemy snipers weren't a huge threat? Now that we know you'll say anything to further your agenda it weakens your whole argument.

    What agenda are you talking about?!
    I only said that I never found a situation in BF1 where people would say " these enemy snipers are destroying us we cannot capture this objective". On the other hand I saw a lot of "These allied snipers are a liability cause not enough of us push on the objective".
    .
    For that reason I am in support of any changes that make the people playing the class more comfortable with getting closer together with the rest of the team instead of them trying to outrange all the other weapons for safety (such as more weapon options that are not just rifles)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!