Type-10 Balance Discussion - How to make the battle cow viable

[domingo]

So if we go the T10 is the T9 redesigned for military purposes on short notice then it's price should be dropped. Significantly.


Because it underperforms for the task it was designed for. So in the real world you'd see many "on sale", "lucrative offer" and other marketing . And it would be phased out by manufacturer, while they will work on real big combat ship.


Plus I think there are many ships that don't have a significant niche, different form being a stepping stone towards other ships. Or none at all (looking at you, Asp Scout).

Most/all ships would benefit from some kind of rebalance.

 

[Vandellion]

So if we go the T10 is the T9 redesigned for military purposes on short notice then it's price should be dropped. Significantly.


Because it underperforms for the task it was designed for. So in the real world you'd see many "on sale", "lucrative offer" and other marketing **. And it would be phased out by manufacturer, while they will work on real big combat ship.


Plus I think there are many ships that don't have a significant niche, different form being a stepping stone towards other ships. Or none at all (looking at you, Asp Scout).

Most/all ships would benefit from some kind of rebalance.

Im my honest opinion the type 10 defender should be a combat oriented choice by the time you get something about 300m credits and don't want to wait until you get rank to the cutter or corvette to get a well rounded ship. Normaly people go for the anaconda until they can work on the ranks for ships like corvette or cutter because there are no other option. (the type 10 could be that option)

I think that was the place that this ship should be. You have about 300m credits you want a good endgame ship but you want something that can work well on pve like powerplay kill missions for getting the weapons or other trinckets and to make a few missions for getting ranks for unlocking cutter or corvette. Well you need not look any further.

The way i see it this ship should be in combat Better or at the VERY least even to an anaconda (since type 10 is combat oriented and anaconda is not) and somewhere weaker than corvette or cutter but not by light years away like it is nowadays.

Like i stated this is one mans opinion since i know that if we take the in game description to mind the focus of the ship was by the time it was made more focused in thargoid combat. (i just wish that they can improve one without make the other so unviable).

 

[Vandellion]

If we were to stick with the thargoid theme - which I think is reasonable - here's my two credits: the issue isn't turrets or hardpoint placement, or even general design.

It's that what the T10 would be excellent at doesn't really exist well within the game: a flak turret powerhouse for multi-crew. A T10 supporting a squadron for Thargoid hunting - not solo hunting - ought to be able to wreak absolute hell on thargon swarms, caustic missiles, and as it already does - scouts. In other words, it ought to be the premiere area denial ship. In a role like this, the T10 description and design make great sense and even fits the ethos of Alliance-oriented craft (which the T10 was specifically commissioned by): not an 'anchor ship' like a corvette, but a solid support vessel for localized militia...typical of how the alliance supports its member systems.

So...knowing that multi-crew is in the state it is (not bad, not good either, especially for gunner role...which this particularly pertains to...) how then do you reform the T10 for solo usage in this environment? Designing new turret modules and AI for assigning turrets (a la eve online, as opposed to existing fire at will setting) with filters or manual targeting might be a good start. Developing new utility modules specific to AX operations - such as AX defense turrets (I forget their name...blanking, sorry), AX chaff for thargon swarms or caustic missiles, or large-scale Xeno scanner pulses that reveal data/hearts for all allies in radius that require large amounts of capacitor and power to use/equip.

In other words, modules that allow not just the T10 to excel as a support ship, but also serve as choices in medium and smaller ships clearly designed for support roles as well...such as the FDS and Crusader, or even the diminutive Adder and Cobra. I'm a sucker for support roles and I really wish the game provided more options for this that didn't require multi-crew to be viable.

Like I said, my two credits.

I agree that there are quite a few things that currently are not in the game that could improve this ship.

Like customizable hardpoint placement. New big ships could come with as default or allow you to place one especific type of hardpoint in more then one place. (to some extent no increased number of hardpoints)

That way ships like type 10 defender that has space could swap the hardpoint as needed when the need arise. (if you go for thargoid maybe the bellow class 3 makes sense to you but if you are going for pvp or pve that may not)

That would increase the weapon choice as well because will make a lot of weapons viable.

A size 7 hanger could allow you to deploy two fighter stead of one or one improved fighter.
A size 8 could allow you to deploy one improved fighter (a smaller version of sidewinder/eagle/and some others) and one regular one.
That way peolple could consider go multicrew as a fighter pilot because they would be flying something at least half decent. And since we are daydreaming those improved fighters could come with a gauss cannons if it was enabled and brought at a location that a techbroker is. That way the big ship in itself will allow multicrew to function like it should.

Fixed plasma acelerator turrets. (so that the gunner don't fall asleep in the job) and many other things.

But like Sylow said earlier those are indeed big in game changes so the odds of some of what i said happening are very slim. (and there are issues about in game balance to work with aswell)

 

[lenna]

But the T10 is barely even suitable for military PvE. Hardly a 'behemoth'.

Behemoth does not equate to invincible, and where PvE is concerned it does really qualify - it is irrelevant whether other ships may or may not be better under specific circumstances X, Y, or Z.

 

[lenna]

...

I am sorry but you are the one without an argument...

Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too.

The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-

• Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
• Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
• Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
• Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
• Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
• Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
• Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
• The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
• The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
• A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
• MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)

While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.

So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D.

• Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis.
• Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is.
• Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant.
• Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.

As for the "Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should.

 

[Vandellion]

I am sorry but you are the one without an argument...

Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too.

The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-

• Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
• Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
• Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
• Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
• Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
• Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
• Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
• The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
• The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
• A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
• MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)

While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.

So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D.

• Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis.
• Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is.
• Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant.
• Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.

As for the "Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should.

"Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too."

That analogy doesn't apply and has nothing to do with anything this tread is all about. The ingame stated as a starting point(you can't just ignore that part because it's convenient to you). Like other people said in OP those are nothing but words that DEv can change if they feel like it at any time and nowhere the game implied that the chassis of the type 9 was one obstacle to make it a proper military ship like you keep saying or making assumptions.

The game wanted to make a ship similar to type 9(looks) battle oriented to fight thargoid as a primary role(in game description not my opnion or assumption See twither of elite like SYLOW posted a few posts back). That is everything the ingame description is for and that is why the "starting point" is there. Saying that those that made the ship was thinking like you are now is nothing but baseless assumption and that is void.

The comparison between the ships specs/stats bellow is void again because like the game stated the ship is battle oriented and was changed in every aspect to fit that role. You can't compare the ships because their roles in game are different and have nothing to do with anything being said in this tread. The game didnt said that they made a type 9 battle oriented it said it used it's carcass (chassis) as a starting point to make a battle ship(starting point is not the same as copy and paste). If you take the engine out of a car you will have nothing but metal that is worth almoust nothing. Is the inside that counts. And in that regard the game said in a lot of words that every aspect was made for combat.

Comparing a battle oriented ship with a cargo ship just proves how far out of topic you really are and how you don't quitte understand what this ship was builded for.

The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-

• Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
• Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
• Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
• Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
• Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
• Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
• Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
• The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
• The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
• A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
• MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)

While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.

"So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D."

That has nothing to do with anything i said earlier about the credits. Everyone that plays this game and gets to the point that they can choose to buy one type 10d knows by that time that credits doesn't matter enought to justify having a poor ship that is outperformed in everithing it does just to save a few credits that you can farm in one hour or so.

• "Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally "imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis". Assumption/ The game said it used the chassis as a starting point it didnt said it reused with the same specs like you keep saying. Just as you can assume that the type 9 chassis is bad at combat role anyone can think otherwise. If the ship was build to be a cargo ship having a lot of guns with bigger distributors/powerplant is meaningless so they made it good at the only thing they wanted it for(saved space that would benefit combat for the sake of having more optionals). With a chassis of a ship with that mutch space (second best in game) what makes you think that it can't be proper fit to a combat role? You wanted the type 9 to have a 7 distributor and the same number of guns as the t10d to you assume that it would perform well in a combat role? does that seems reasonable to you? The restrictions that you keep saying are there because the ship was made for a specific role trade/cargo(type 9) and that role is not the same as the type 10d. i disagree fully that the type 9 chassis is a weakness like you try to make it be.
• Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is. That is your opnion and just as you can have one so can everyone else in this tread.
• Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant. That is where you are wrong. There are no variables that can make it half decent in pvp. Since it seems that the game wanted it to be for pve (thargoid) that is something that at the very least is not worth debating further.
• Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.
• Useless nothing is until you give it a purpose. Just because you find the purpose you gave to the ship works for you (even tough is one purpose that was not intended by the dev) that doens't mean that the ship doesn't need balance. This is a game. People can give any ship a purpose if they really want to. Even a wrong one.

"As for the "Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should."

Tell me... where have i said anything about the behemoth part other than copy and paste the ingame description? Now you read my mind too and make your arguments on that?(on what i maybe thinking) I mean really?

What i may think of the behemoth part and what you think of it is something that neither of us have any right to claim we are right on because what the game intended with the behemoth is something that neither of us can know for sure because is open to interpretation. Everyone can interpret as they feel like it. And neither will be wrong or right on that part.

 

[Jaylem]

The thing is, the Ship IS viable, just not in what it was intended for, as a pirate/ heavy trade ship it excels (with the current highest DPS value of any ship in game) but for AX combat it is a total flop... Clearly no one at LAKON ever fought a Thargoid.

If the description was changed to divert it away from AX combat, it would be pretty cool, but the whole 'we designed this for AX combat' throws it out of wack...hence why I use mine JUST to kill scouts as a joke, as it is the only Thargoid type it is actually good for killing.

 

[domingo]

Clearly no one at LAKON ever fought a Thargoid.

I will correct you.

Nobody at LAKON who tried to fight Thargoids survived.

 

[Tiili]

If nobody reports failures, they must all be successful

 

[Noobilite]

Coriolis EDCD Edition

A ship builder, outfitting and comparison tool for Elite Dangerous

s.orbis.zone

I call it the doom turtle! 8p

Although this is a short ranged doom turtle.

 

[Yautja]

This is my favourite ship for combat mining. It's turrets and fighter destroys pirates faster than I am able to read how many cargo they wanted from me and I am not forced to stop mining process during that time. I was attacked by a player in Imperial Clipper once in RES. He escaped with 30% of hull and I did't use all cell banks

 

[HunterMemnoch]

Going back to improvements, maybe built-in caustic resistances against Thargoids as another option?

 

[lenna]

The thing is, the Ship IS viable, just not in what it was intended for

Debatable wrt the last part - keep in mind that the T10D was clearly intended to be a rush job and the first ship intended to be used in the given role.

Historically, it is not unknown for initial "rush" jobs to be superseded by better more bespoke and superior designs. That is clearly what has happened with regards to the T10D and the Alliance triplet of designs.

 

[lenna]

Going back to improvements, maybe built-in caustic resistances against Thargoids as another option?

It already has a higher hull hardness value and higher baseline hull points than any other craft - that was clearly meant as an initial attempt to counter the caustic effects to at least some degree.

 

[Chaparral]

I am sorry but you are the one without an argument...

Let's take the AC-130 v C-130 as an analogy, the AC-130 basically takes the C-130 chassis and adds guns to it in order to modify it for a ground attack role. It is powerful and capable of dealing a lot of damage BUT it is still essentially just a heavily armed C-130 - essentially a flying artillery piece. Given the number of weapons and sheer size of the craft it could reasonably be referred to as a military behemoth too.

The T-10D by comparison (v. baseline T-9):-

• Hull hardness increased to 75 (at least better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda if not the best in ED)
• Baseline Hull points increased by ~20% (better than Cutter/Corvette/Anaconda)
• Baseline Agility rating increased by ~50%
• Baseline Cruise Speed increased by ~38%
• Baseline Boost Speed increased by ~10%
• Added 4 L hardpoints that for whatever reason have clearly been intended for turrets.
• Added 4 Utility hardpoints (increasing the number of utility slots to 8)
• The FSD and PD have been beefed up by one grade
• The PP has been beefed up by 2 grades
• A class 8 optional has been traded for 2 class 5 military
• MLF increased over the T-9 (increased from 16 to 26 which places it second only to the Cutter - at least according to on-line sources. Can't locate the MLF stats in-game to check if they are right, certainly not in any of the places I expected them to be)

While it is the slowest and least manoeuvrable of the big 4 it is still faster and more manoeuvrable than the T-9 on which it is based and is the cheapest of the big 4.

So what if you would pay X billion credits for a T10D specified exactly as you would like it to be, such a ship would then cease to be a T10D.

• Is it geared for combat? Arguably yes given the limitations notionally imposed by reusing the T-9 chassis.
• Is it effective for PvE? IME yes it is.
• Is it effective for PvP against the typical "god" PvP builds? That depends on numerous variables but ultimately should be irrelevant.
• Are there better ships for combat out there? Probably yes on balance, but moot given all the factors in play - on balance the T-10D is neither useless nor without purpose.

As for the "Behemoth" part of the definition, it does not necessarily mean what you think it should.

Was it initially marketed as an Anti Thargoid Ship?
Yes
Do all of those extra hardpoints play well with the 4 HP AX limit?
No
As a pirate ship, as a bounty hunter, as a mercenary, as an assassin, as a miner, as a cargo ship is it the optimum choice?
No

On a side note, I look forward to fighting T10s in CZs or in CNBs because they are big fat slow targets that drop good mats.

Given that there are better alternatives for every single role, why would anyone choose this ship over another? It isn't a battle cow, it's a white elephant.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

For the hell of it.

Only reason I ever built or spent time flying one.

 

[lenna]

Was it initially marketed as an Anti Thargoid Ship?
Yes
Do all of those extra hardpoints play well with the 4 HP AX limit?
No

The only EXTRA hard points were the 4 Large mounts which were clearly intend for 4 Large Turreted AX M/Cs (one of the few AX weapons initially available) and probably meant to be used in conjunction with Multi-Crew.

Your argument is heavily flawed and disregards the other improvements over the T-9 from which it was derived.

 

[Chaparral]

The only EXTRA hard points were the 4 Large mounts which were clearly intend for 4 Large Turreted AX M/Cs (one of the few AX weapons initially available) and probably meant to be used in conjunction with Multi-Crew.

Your argument is heavily flawed and disregards the other improvements over the T-9 from which it was derived.

4 Large turreted AX MCs might be useful vs. scouts, but it is absolutely not optimum vs. interceptors. The T10 was definitely promoted as a response to the interceptor threat before it was released. Suggesting that 4 large AX turreted MCs even in multicrew, would be effective against interceptors (when so many alternative options are superior), pretty much reveals a limited experience with AX combat. Mobility is key when fighting interceptors.

The T10 has more battle capacity than a T9, no one is disputing that. The T10 is simply not competitive with other ships in its cost class due to hardpoint distribution, it's flight model and protection. It definitely deserves some love. Switch two of those larges to huge, or change its flight model, and you'd see a change in its popularity for sure.

Are you suggesting that T10's don't make a juicy target? I would rather face a T10 than a Cobra 7 days a week (I hate that head on thin profile while using rails or PAs!).

Calling an argument flawed without pointing out the specifics does not advance the conversation - but I get what you're saying. On paper the T10 makes sense.

In the game however, it does not.

 

[lenna]

4 Large turreted AX MCs might be useful vs. scouts, but it is absolutely not optimum vs. interceptors. The T10 was definitely promoted as a response to the interceptor threat before it was released.

I disagree that it was specifically targeted at any particular type of Thargoid - it was merely the FIRST quick fix in response to them. This singular point is what most seem to forget and dismiss out of hand. The Alliance Chieftain/Challenger/Crusader were the longer term answers.

The T10 has more battle capacity than a T9, no one is disputing that. The T10 is simply not competitive with other ship in its cost class due to hardpoint distribution.

Moot and irrelevant in the main given the singular design goal behind it. I think too many people in these forums are overly focused on specific types of loadouts and seem to expect every ship to perform well with similar loadouts.

None of the big 4 are perfect and they all have their positives and negatives in respect to each other. The T10D will never truely be able to compete with the other big 3 for ONE reason and one reason alone - the lack of any Huge weapon mounts at all; However, that is offset somewhat by the 4 Large mounts (the Anaconda has 3 but one of those is pretty poorly positioned) which are arguably perfectly positioned for turreted weapons. The T10D is also the cheapest of the big 4 and arguably more suited to combat than the Anaconda (the only other one of the big 4 not superpower rank locked) due to the arguably poor positioning of the underslung weapons on the Anaconda. The Corvette and the Cutter are both decent vessels in their own rights but they are both rank locked too - the Corvette arguably has the best overall weapon positioning and the Cutter is simply a top of the food chain ship with a top of the food chain price to match. The Cutter's top-off the food chain status does not make it the best of the big 4 in combat nor any other specific activity though - it's speed is what grants it the aforementioned status IMO but speed is not the be all and end all.

That being said, from personal experience the T10D is plenty effective enough as-is as a general PvE ship IME and will always have a place in my fleet of ships.

 

[Chaparral]

I disagree that it was specifically targeted at any particular type of Thargoid - it was merely the FIRST quick fix in response to them. This singular point is what most seem to forget and dismiss out of hand. The Alliance Chieftain/Challenger/Crusader were the longer term answers.


Moot and irrelevant in the main given the singular design goal behind it. I think too many people in these forums are overly focused on specific types of loadouts and seem to expect every ship to perform well with similar loadouts.

None of the big 4 are perfect and they all have their positives and negatives in respect to each other. The T10D will never truely be able to compete with the other big 3 for ONE reason and one reason alone - the lack of any Huge weapon mounts at all; However, that is offset somewhat by the 4 Large mounts (the Anaconda has 3 but one of those is pretty poorly positioned) which are arguably perfectly positioned for turreted weapons. The T10D is also the cheapest of the big 4 and arguably more suited to combat than the Anaconda (the only other one of the big 4 not superpower rank locked) due to the arguably poor positioning of the underslung weapons on the Anaconda. The Corvette and the Cutter are both decent vessels in their own rights but they are both rank locked too - the Corvette arguably has the best overall weapon positioning and the Cutter is simply a top of the food chain ship with a top of the food chain price to match. The Cutter's top-off the food chain status does not make it the best of the big 4 in combat nor any other specific activity though - it's speed is what grants it the aforementioned status IMO but speed is not the be all and end all.

That being said, from personal experience the T10D is plenty effective enough as-is as a general PvE ship IME and will always have a place in my fleet of ships.

Ships last longer in the game than a quick fix. If this was the actual rationale, then no one would own it after the Chieftain line, and Guardian weapons came out.

It is absolutely the case that it is inappropriate to cut and paste loadouts between the Cutter, Corvette, and Anaconda. That being said, there is not a competitive loadout for the T10 that makes it on par with the other 3.

I would personally pick an Anaconda over a T10 for every single role the T10 might be used for. I would be curious to hear from the pvpr's if head to head they would prefer the Anaconda or T10 - my guess would be the Anaconda. I have G5DD on both Anacondas and T10s in my fleets and the Anaconda's response feels superior imo in every way.

Since this thread is about the T10, I don't want to get into the details about hardpoint distribution strengths and weaknesses for the other 3 (i.e. is the Anaconda's HP distribution better or worse than the Corvette?), but comparing the T10 to the other ships, I would pick the HP distribution for any of the other ships over the T10 (unless the T10 acquired a vastly improved pitch and yaw rate).

If we want to entertain the rank lock discussion, I know there are FAS and FGS fans out there, but I would take a Chieftain (without rank lock) as the best value out of the options and it is not rank locked. Given the Chieftain as an example of a non-ranked locked ship still being competitive with other rank-locked ships in its class, suggesting that the T10 should not be competitive with the Cutter, Corvette and the non-rank locked Anaconda isn't logically consistent.

I always wonder if FDEV maintains stats on which ships in a given class get flown the most. My prediction is the T10 is at the bottom of the 4.