Just to note: it's possible to do this while using way fewer connectors, e.g. just in the exact places you need them. A little fiddly, but it makes the whole system even more cost -efficient. 👍
XD I'm proud of you, getting into 3D tetris. A couple of notes on the 3D diamond tetris from personal experience: I find that it is often wise to make a connective layer at both the top and bottom of the stack, so that a lucky AP shell won't take out most of the turret. 3D diamond tetris tends to work best in width/length numbers that are divisible by 3. The connective layer at top/bottom tends to be the best place for guage increasers and fusebox. And, the closer the height of the turret approaches the width/length (not counting connective layers), the more efficient the turret becomes, because equal height and width and length maximizes the number of 6-way connections. In a sense, the bigger the turret becomes, the more efficient it becomes- it doesn't scale linearly by size. :)
I'm really enjoying all of the FTD videos from both of your channels and was very excited to see your sort of "competitive collaboration"! It's been really captivating and inspiring to watch your battleship updates, so much so that I've felt encouraged to continue with designing my own battleship which I started over a year ago. I wish I were able to build as quickly as either of you, but on the reverse side I do enjoy working slowly and methodically. The main problem is that I've played on-and-off since 2015, and have yet to even attempt a campaign run because I can't finish a fleet of vehicles that I'm happy with quickly enough ;[ Regardless, I wait for more of your guys' videos with bated breath and I wish you both the best of luck in your battles. May your shells fly true, and your armor hold fast!
@@General_Griffin Thanks man! And you know what I haven't attempted the campaign since about that time when I rage quit since the game crashed a lot and lost progress (fortunately they fixed the worst frequent crashes and added autosave!) But I get that the BROADSWORD I spent more than a year on working on it from time to time, this new DRACONIA is a crash course in everything for me ^^ Looking forward to seeing them in action!
Just to give some alternate 3x3x3 bricks of various weapons... with a turret neck and firing piece outside that if needed. A 3x3x3 PAC that fires 1 time per 13 seconds will do 9000 explosive damage per shot, 22k impact, 5k EMP or 5k piercing. It's a ton more damage than a 3x3 CRAM, and hitscan too. The cram's advantage is that it's cheap. That 3x3x3 PAC will run you about 5k materials. An Advanced Cannon 3x3x3 is a little more difficult, as that's about as small as you can make it. Expanding that to 3x3x4 would make it much better, but anyway, lets assume you have just a 3x3x3 for some reason. You can make a 333mm, 10s reload, that shoots a 3.7k ish shell. You wouldn't though, even if you made that cannon you'd shoot HESH, or HEAT, or frag, or something like that. Material cost 3770. It's a little expensive because it's pure railgun. A 3x3x3 laser does 432 sustained dps at 60 ap. So 5,800 per reload. Of course that's not area, but it is hitscan and 60ap not 4ap. That will run you 1700ish materials. Missiles is sort of funny, you can make a 2m tall large missile. 15k explosive damage. 14 second reload. If you're bombing you can do a magnet, since that would be a likely 3x3x3 cram use. That will run you 4000 materials. If you wanted to go with medium missiles you could do 6 unguided double HE warheads for 3500 damage per missile, total of 21k. 14 second reload time. There's a lot of wasted space. You could also do the magnet bomb for 5100 per missile, so 30k for the block. You can't have guided medium missiles that do damage and maneuver though, that kicks in at 3m of gantry. A PAC is unsurprisingly the absolute most bang you can pack into a 3x3x3. Outside of nukes, or a mass driver, or maybe melee. ADV cannon does roughly similar to the CRAM, but it's a terrible advanced cannon and not cost effective. You could make a much better 85-200mm advanced cannon using gunpowder shells that's more cost effective, acts as a CWIS and deals more total damage. I was just duplicating the CRAM stats. A laser is a pretty good option, though you might want to make it a 1q sniping laser not a 0q. It requires external charging, but it will always hit and it does more damage once you're not shooting at wood, but it's more focused. Get it. Laser. Focused. Ah, never mind. Missiles are far and away the best bombs you can pack into a 3x3x3. They have a ton of extra space, which is probably a concern if you're building a bomber.
Looks like you only get a 5-10% malice to the material/firepower using 2D instead of 3D at large scales (756.8/705.9 = 1.072), whereas, given the very similar volume in the turret, you're only getting 60% the firepower (38.59 vs. 24.25). You know what I think? I think if you put those large turrets on ships, the 2D diamond tetris would win against the 3D diamond tetris. But! That wouldn't be fair, the 2D tetris turret is altogether more expensive, to the point it's a bad trade! Yes, indeed. But consider this: if you could put the same firepower in a smaller package, and pay only a little bit more, how much smaller would it take to be worth it? How about 60% the size? Two ships: cram only, one 3D diamond tetris, the other 2D diamond tetris. Same material limit for the cost of each gun, make the best you can. The ships overall do not have to be the same size. In fact, make them as small as is reasonable and will carry the guns. Thus, the one with 2D diamond tetris should be smaller. Using the same mats limit for engines, it should also be faster. Just thinking in our heads, we might recall some experiences with smaller, faster ships being notably better using crams only. Just thinking out loud.
I may take notes on the wraparound 3d Cram design, it would fit like a glove for a bomber or depth chargers for destroyer Atho with diamond tetris 3x3 I like the packers in the middle, on 2 Conners connectors and on the other compactors or gauge increacer(or connectors if I wanna scale for a 5x5 or bigger
Probably the most crucial thing to note for anyone trying to make a nice non-diamond CRAM tetris is definitely how cheap packers are compared to pellets. Many people will see the price difference but not consciously think about how much of a difference it can make how you manage your packer-pellet connections around this. More packets for less pellets will be just as strong as but much cheaper than less packers to more pellets.
I know I'm bit late to the discussion but I think you just convinced me to stick with my 2d Cram-Tetris. My thoughts on why in no particular order: - In favor of 2d: The usefulness of a shell does not scale linearly with its firepower. Higher power shells are far more likely to actually punch through the armor and do damage to the insides where it really matters. Even if both shells can punch through the stronger one should deal a higher percentage of its damage to the insides unless you get into the overkill region and then it hardly matters anyway. - In favor of 3d: The fact that the pellets are not stacked right on top of each other means that the 3d-Tetris probably is probably less likely to chain react and go down with a single hit to its insides. - In favor of 2d: The costs of externalities per turret. As someone else in the comments has already pointed out you need about 3 3d turrets to match the listed firepower of 2 2d turrets. This means you also need a longer hull more shields more propulsion etc. Than there are also all the things you need to have at least one of per craft like AI, LAMS, AA-suite and so on which also impact the total cost of the craft. While the impact of these once per vehicle vary depending on the number of turrets you actually put on the craft, most craft probably won't go for a large enough number of turrets to make those completely negligible. - In favor of 3d: Since you need more turrets to achieve the same listed firepower that also means you get more redundancy in battle lowering the impact of loosing a turret to a lucky shot. All in all I think that going with a smaller 2d-Tetris ship for the same listed firepower will save you enough material to not only armor the turrets a bit better mitigating some of their lower survivability but also bring that firepower in a more efficient shell which is more likely to disable the enemy craft.
I now tend to build Cram ships by using 3D tetris, it is way cheaper than 2D's but still pack quite a punch when up gauaged to 2000mm, and with 4 of these turrets it would be devastating.
Another thing to note with 2D "diamond" tetris is that it can be used to make efficient multibarrel cram turrets. Up to 4, but 3 barrels is my personal favorite if you aren't obsessive compulsive about them all having the same firing rate and/or gauge. All you need to do is instead of connecting all the "columns" of connectors to a single firing piece, connect them to several different ones. They end up sharing pellet blocks, so even though any given one has low connection efficiency, the combined connection efficiency remains high. It also helps to center your tetris on a column of pellets, instead of on a column of connectors. It might be possible to make something similar work with 3D tetris by leaving open spaces in your connector layers, but it would probably take a lot of work to figure out exactly and you would have to do it differently depending on how many barrels you're using. Might be worth a try.
This is late, but what I learned from this is that 2D tetris actually seems better? More expensive, by about 50%, but it's also about 50% more compact per firepower Meaning you can make the gun 50% smaller, and thus 50% cheaper, for the same firepower as the significantly larger 3D tetris It's strange frankly, that the more complicated 3D tetris has so little payoff
with tetrahedral 3d CRAM tetris you can rotate the columns so they all connect internally, you dont need top connectors. however it is still a tradeoff of firepower density for cost while providing some decent redundancy.
@@BorderWise12 well it's like a tetrahedron, it looked like thats what you were doing, the same as awellner from your old discord but I remember him just calling it 3d tetris but that is more a category than a type. 3 connectors one way, one in middle, then three the other cardinal direction. it can work easy for 9x9 in 5 columns and 3x3. With 5x5 and 7x7 they have to go out from the column and overlap differently so need more thinking to make. useally due to the density loss I tend to do diamond and connect via the bottom of the turret as the turret base and LWCs already cause it a disruption of the diamond tetris density allowing slightly better density useally.
@@siskinedge I'd like to see an example of this. It's hard to visually pick up what's being described in this explanation, but I am curious. Perhaps an example on the Steam workshop?
maybe a bit of an abstract question, but when you sit down to build something like a cannon or an engine or even a whole vehicle, what is the process that goes through your mind? are there certain patterns you follow or principles to keep in mind or something? as someone who's been casually on and off with the game since early days I still really struggle with being confident I'm doing the right thing, and usually whatever I make ends up not matching up to even the vanilla campaign enemies in terms of effectiveness per cost
I've been wondering how BW can build such stupidly tanky craft with so much firepower. I think I've figured it out. BW loves using CRAM. Cheap, but I don't use them because I've never mastered the Tetris, and the accuracy sucks. No wonder my Railgun/PAC/Missile builds are so difficult to make defensible for their cost.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to compare the CRAM cannons would it not be wise to keep the gauge between them the same? After all, the gauge in this experiment would be a control variable, as it does not pertain to either 3D vs 2D, the independent variable, or any of the dependent variables you're testing for.
Yup. That's why I didn't for the first few examples. The only reason the gauge is different for the turrets is to use as much of the turret space as possible, which is another measure of efficency.
you really need to fill out your turrets to the full circle i did some quick back of the napkin math and even though my 2000mm mostly 7x7x7 2d tetris cram has slightly lower listed stats, its about 1.5x as space efficient per firepower vs your 11x11x8 2d cram when you account for all the extra empty space you are having to leave inside your turret armor below deck so it can still rotate
i removed the gauge increasers until it was the same gauge and it stayed about the same ratio not sure how much of that is do to a potential loss of efficiency at higher sizes but i think most of it is do to the empty space
alright i did some real math and looks like you are missing out on a theoretical maximum of 19.7% of your firepower/volume at 11x11 by not doing the full circle. now you wouldn't be able to maintain the same efficiency as the rest of the cram so you wouldn't get the full 19.7% but still is free volume on the table
I always use 3d tetris on ships yet I have gone for 2d tetris for my cram bomber/assault plate. I needed to fit the firepower into a more compact frame (oh, don't get me wrong, that thing is like 400k mats and kinda huge still).
Cram secondaries are a great compliment to pinpoint damage high velocity primaries like AP railguns and lasers. Good way to add raw damage to close range and crippled targets.
Just to note: it's possible to do this while using way fewer connectors, e.g. just in the exact places you need them. A little fiddly, but it makes the whole system even more cost -efficient. 👍
Ok i have to admit i didnt think it was possible to make a 1000mm CRAM that strong. Time to start making cake prefabs of this!!!
XD I'm proud of you, getting into 3D tetris. A couple of notes on the 3D diamond tetris from personal experience: I find that it is often wise to make a connective layer at both the top and bottom of the stack, so that a lucky AP shell won't take out most of the turret. 3D diamond tetris tends to work best in width/length numbers that are divisible by 3. The connective layer at top/bottom tends to be the best place for guage increasers and fusebox. And, the closer the height of the turret approaches the width/length (not counting connective layers), the more efficient the turret becomes, because equal height and width and length maximizes the number of 6-way connections. In a sense, the bigger the turret becomes, the more efficient it becomes- it doesn't scale linearly by size. :)
Hahaha wow we are in sync mate! I haven't watched it all yet just ze beginning but I also just posted about 3d cram today lol, what are the chances XD
I know, right? I stumbled on this just a few days before seeing you doing it in a video! XD
I'm really enjoying all of the FTD videos from both of your channels and was very excited to see your sort of "competitive collaboration"! It's been really captivating and inspiring to watch your battleship updates, so much so that I've felt encouraged to continue with designing my own battleship which I started over a year ago. I wish I were able to build as quickly as either of you, but on the reverse side I do enjoy working slowly and methodically. The main problem is that I've played on-and-off since 2015, and have yet to even attempt a campaign run because I can't finish a fleet of vehicles that I'm happy with quickly enough ;[ Regardless, I wait for more of your guys' videos with bated breath and I wish you both the best of luck in your battles. May your shells fly true, and your armor hold fast!
@@General_Griffin Thanks man! And you know what I haven't attempted the campaign since about that time when I rage quit since the game crashed a lot and lost progress (fortunately they fixed the worst frequent crashes and added autosave!) But I get that the BROADSWORD I spent more than a year on working on it from time to time, this new DRACONIA is a crash course in everything for me ^^
Looking forward to seeing them in action!
Just to give some alternate 3x3x3 bricks of various weapons... with a turret neck and firing piece outside that if needed.
A 3x3x3 PAC that fires 1 time per 13 seconds will do 9000 explosive damage per shot, 22k impact, 5k EMP or 5k piercing. It's a ton more damage than a 3x3 CRAM, and hitscan too. The cram's advantage is that it's cheap. That 3x3x3 PAC will run you about 5k materials.
An Advanced Cannon 3x3x3 is a little more difficult, as that's about as small as you can make it. Expanding that to 3x3x4 would make it much better, but anyway, lets assume you have just a 3x3x3 for some reason. You can make a 333mm, 10s reload, that shoots a 3.7k ish shell. You wouldn't though, even if you made that cannon you'd shoot HESH, or HEAT, or frag, or something like that. Material cost 3770. It's a little expensive because it's pure railgun.
A 3x3x3 laser does 432 sustained dps at 60 ap. So 5,800 per reload. Of course that's not area, but it is hitscan and 60ap not 4ap. That will run you 1700ish materials.
Missiles is sort of funny, you can make a 2m tall large missile. 15k explosive damage. 14 second reload. If you're bombing you can do a magnet, since that would be a likely 3x3x3 cram use. That will run you 4000 materials.
If you wanted to go with medium missiles you could do 6 unguided double HE warheads for 3500 damage per missile, total of 21k. 14 second reload time. There's a lot of wasted space. You could also do the magnet bomb for 5100 per missile, so 30k for the block. You can't have guided medium missiles that do damage and maneuver though, that kicks in at 3m of gantry.
A PAC is unsurprisingly the absolute most bang you can pack into a 3x3x3. Outside of nukes, or a mass driver, or maybe melee.
ADV cannon does roughly similar to the CRAM, but it's a terrible advanced cannon and not cost effective. You could make a much better 85-200mm advanced cannon using gunpowder shells that's more cost effective, acts as a CWIS and deals more total damage. I was just duplicating the CRAM stats.
A laser is a pretty good option, though you might want to make it a 1q sniping laser not a 0q. It requires external charging, but it will always hit and it does more damage once you're not shooting at wood, but it's more focused. Get it. Laser. Focused. Ah, never mind.
Missiles are far and away the best bombs you can pack into a 3x3x3. They have a ton of extra space, which is probably a concern if you're building a bomber.
Looks like you only get a 5-10% malice to the material/firepower using 2D instead of 3D at large scales (756.8/705.9 = 1.072), whereas, given the very similar volume in the turret, you're only getting 60% the firepower (38.59 vs. 24.25).
You know what I think? I think if you put those large turrets on ships, the 2D diamond tetris would win against the 3D diamond tetris.
But! That wouldn't be fair, the 2D tetris turret is altogether more expensive, to the point it's a bad trade! Yes, indeed. But consider this: if you could put the same firepower in a smaller package, and pay only a little bit more, how much smaller would it take to be worth it? How about 60% the size?
Two ships: cram only, one 3D diamond tetris, the other 2D diamond tetris. Same material limit for the cost of each gun, make the best you can. The ships overall do not have to be the same size. In fact, make them as small as is reasonable and will carry the guns. Thus, the one with 2D diamond tetris should be smaller. Using the same mats limit for engines, it should also be faster.
Just thinking in our heads, we might recall some experiences with smaller, faster ships being notably better using crams only.
Just thinking out loud.
It's good thoughts! Thank you thinking them out loud! 👍
Come join Menti's battleship brawl 7, try these theories out! It's in the build phase until alpha moves to stable so there's plenty of time.
@@shawnreed343 not OP but where can i find it?
I may take notes on the wraparound 3d Cram design, it would fit like a glove for a bomber or depth chargers for destroyer
Atho with diamond tetris 3x3 I like the packers in the middle, on 2 Conners connectors and on the other compactors or gauge increacer(or connectors if I wanna scale for a 5x5 or bigger
Large missiles are far and away the best bombs. Though there might be case/size where frame are better depth charges.
Probably the most crucial thing to note for anyone trying to make a nice non-diamond CRAM tetris is definitely how cheap packers are compared to pellets. Many people will see the price difference but not consciously think about how much of a difference it can make how you manage your packer-pellet connections around this. More packets for less pellets will be just as strong as but much cheaper than less packers to more pellets.
Sooo… I downloaded From the Depths a few days ago and I already managed to make a (mostly) functional CRAM canoe.
Good job
I know I'm bit late to the discussion but I think you just convinced me to stick with my 2d Cram-Tetris. My thoughts on why in no particular order:
- In favor of 2d: The usefulness of a shell does not scale linearly with its firepower. Higher power shells are far more likely to actually punch through the armor and do damage to the insides where it really matters. Even if both shells can punch through the stronger one should deal a higher percentage of its damage to the insides unless you get into the overkill region and then it hardly matters anyway.
- In favor of 3d: The fact that the pellets are not stacked right on top of each other means that the 3d-Tetris probably is probably less likely to chain react and go down with a single hit to its insides.
- In favor of 2d: The costs of externalities per turret. As someone else in the comments has already pointed out you need about 3 3d turrets to match the listed firepower of 2 2d turrets. This means you also need a longer hull more shields more propulsion etc. Than there are also all the things you need to have at least one of per craft like AI, LAMS, AA-suite and so on which also impact the total cost of the craft. While the impact of these once per vehicle vary depending on the number of turrets you actually put on the craft, most craft probably won't go for a large enough number of turrets to make those completely negligible.
- In favor of 3d: Since you need more turrets to achieve the same listed firepower that also means you get more redundancy in battle lowering the impact of loosing a turret to a lucky shot.
All in all I think that going with a smaller 2d-Tetris ship for the same listed firepower will save you enough material to not only armor the turrets a bit better mitigating some of their lower survivability but also bring that firepower in a more efficient shell which is more likely to disable the enemy craft.
Just a note: CRAM pellets are not volatile and do not chain react, so there's no need to worry about that. 👍
@@BorderWise12 Thanks good to know. Was this different in the past? I think I remember some HE and Frag Pellets exploding 2 years or so ago.
I now tend to build Cram ships by using 3D tetris, it is way cheaper than 2D's but still pack quite a punch when up gauaged to 2000mm, and with 4 of these turrets it would be devastating.
Another thing to note with 2D "diamond" tetris is that it can be used to make efficient multibarrel cram turrets. Up to 4, but 3 barrels is my personal favorite if you aren't obsessive compulsive about them all having the same firing rate and/or gauge. All you need to do is instead of connecting all the "columns" of connectors to a single firing piece, connect them to several different ones. They end up sharing pellet blocks, so even though any given one has low connection efficiency, the combined connection efficiency remains high. It also helps to center your tetris on a column of pellets, instead of on a column of connectors.
It might be possible to make something similar work with 3D tetris by leaving open spaces in your connector layers, but it would probably take a lot of work to figure out exactly and you would have to do it differently depending on how many barrels you're using. Might be worth a try.
Weapons of equivalent size sounds like a punk rock band 2:04
Honestly might just save those 3cubed layouts for use in adventure for a quick size weapon alternative
Man I couldn't figure out the 3d tetris. Thanks man
This is late, but what I learned from this is that 2D tetris actually seems better?
More expensive, by about 50%, but it's also about 50% more compact per firepower
Meaning you can make the gun 50% smaller, and thus 50% cheaper, for the same firepower as the significantly larger 3D tetris
It's strange frankly, that the more complicated 3D tetris has so little payoff
Surprised you didn’t CRAM the puns in
Good to see another Borderwise post!
... why haven't I thought of this!? Thanks for this, but I am now in a tad bit of pain
thanks for this tutorial finally got me the idea of how to make cram cannons (never really touched cram cannons coz of their tetris)
You're welcome! Glad I could help. 😁
with tetrahedral 3d CRAM tetris you can rotate the columns so they all connect internally, you dont need top connectors.
however it is still a tradeoff of firepower density for cost while providing some decent redundancy.
How do you do tetrahedral tetris?
@@BorderWise12 well it's like a tetrahedron, it looked like thats what you were doing, the same as awellner from your old discord but I remember him just calling it 3d tetris but that is more a category than a type.
3 connectors one way, one in middle, then three the other cardinal direction.
it can work easy for 9x9 in 5 columns and 3x3.
With 5x5 and 7x7 they have to go out from the column and overlap differently so need more thinking to make.
useally due to the density loss I tend to do diamond and connect via the bottom of the turret as the turret base and LWCs already cause it a disruption of the diamond tetris density allowing slightly better density useally.
@@siskinedge I'd like to see an example of this. It's hard to visually pick up what's being described in this explanation, but I am curious. Perhaps an example on the Steam workshop?
@@shawnreed343 check awelner's 3d cram tetris platform, it's on the workshop.
@@siskinedge Hmm... I already have it. I wonder if it was updated since I subscribed? Anyway, I'll have another look when I've a chance.
All im seeing is those 1x1 ammo containers inside the platform and im concerned for your computer
It's ok, she can take it. 😁
@@BorderWise12 ah, we all know by now she couldnt HAHA
maybe a bit of an abstract question, but when you sit down to build something like a cannon or an engine or even a whole vehicle, what is the process that goes through your mind? are there certain patterns you follow or principles to keep in mind or something? as someone who's been casually on and off with the game since early days I still really struggle with being confident I'm doing the right thing, and usually whatever I make ends up not matching up to even the vanilla campaign enemies in terms of effectiveness per cost
I have regular patterns and habits, yes. I usually start with a template of the size I want and go from there.
Always appreciate the time and effort you put into your videos.
Cheers! It's good to hear that. 😁
I've been wondering how BW can build such stupidly tanky craft with so much firepower. I think I've figured it out. BW loves using CRAM. Cheap, but I don't use them because I've never mastered the Tetris, and the accuracy sucks. No wonder my Railgun/PAC/Missile builds are so difficult to make defensible for their cost.
I've been waiting this for some time
Nice
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but to compare the CRAM cannons would it not be wise to keep the gauge between them the same? After all, the gauge in this experiment would be a control variable, as it does not pertain to either 3D vs 2D, the independent variable, or any of the dependent variables you're testing for.
Yup. That's why I didn't for the first few examples. The only reason the gauge is different for the turrets is to use as much of the turret space as possible, which is another measure of efficency.
@@BorderWise12 Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. I just got confused when I saw that the larger turrets were of different gauges.
What about 4d tetris?
you really need to fill out your turrets to the full circle i did some quick back of the napkin math and even though my 2000mm mostly 7x7x7 2d tetris cram has slightly lower listed stats, its about 1.5x as space efficient per firepower vs your 11x11x8 2d cram when you account for all the extra empty space you are having to leave inside your turret armor below deck so it can still rotate
i removed the gauge increasers until it was the same gauge and it stayed about the same ratio not sure how much of that is do to a potential loss of efficiency at higher sizes but i think most of it is do to the empty space
could also be ammo configuration differences mines aphe but your still missing out on alot of volume efficiency
alright i did some real math and looks like you are missing out on a theoretical maximum of 19.7% of your firepower/volume at 11x11 by not doing the full circle. now you wouldn't be able to maintain the same efficiency as the rest of the cram so you wouldn't get the full 19.7% but still is free volume on the table
I always use 3d tetris on ships yet I have gone for 2d tetris for my cram bomber/assault plate. I needed to fit the firepower into a more compact frame (oh, don't get me wrong, that thing is like 400k mats and kinda huge still).
What are your thoughts for including a single CRAM as a secondary?
Not a bad way to finish off a vessel that's slowed down or immobilized by other weapons. 👍
Cram secondaries are a great compliment to pinpoint damage high velocity primaries like AP railguns and lasers. Good way to add raw damage to close range and crippled targets.
U sound like the spiffing brit
Yeah, people say that a lot. XD