The game serial is tied to an account. This comes into play *only* for online play, and *only* when you're using their hosting servers. And even then, you can have two PCs using the same serial/account online (on their servers) simultaneously, and you can deactivate the serial from the account, allowing it to be registered with a different account. To my knowledge, that can be done as many times as you like. Also, you can do direct IP address connections online or on a LAN without involving their servers, activation, serial, anything Startock at all and on as many computers as you like. This (obviously) will continue to work even if they disappear.
I don't PvP and generally view PvP as an anti-social behavior, or at least an anti-social player base.
I more or less agree. But then, you don't *have* to PvP in either game if you don't want to.
Mostly what I see about travel in WoW is that it's some kind of punishing time sink. I rather like being about to move so freely about the game world as I can in CoX. Christ. Players in WoW can't even walk faster.
The difference though is that the world you're walking through in WoW is actually interesting.
CoX also has the Mission Architect now, which is the ultimate creative outlet for players with such urges, and we have the ability to redesign our avatars, right down to the size, shape and placement of our noses.
That beats fishing any day.
Huh? CoX has always had the ability to redesign avatars right down to the size, shape and placement of noses. And MA, while a great idea, is unfortunately so limited in CoX it almost doesn't matter. Really, the only real benefit of the MA is the fact that you can keep doing missions right in the same building, without ever needing to go anywhere. Now, if they let players design mission maps like you can SG bases, and place items and baddies exactly where you want them, and have some options for new/different objectives, you would be right. Is it better than fishing in WoW? Perhaps. Neither one is going to appeal to everyone. The point though is that Fishing is lite content that you can do in a few minutes of spare time, that requires little thought.
Also, CoX has about 100,000 subscribers and an astonishingly loyal player base; unlike a lot of MMOs, people who subscribe tend to stay subscribed, while Fantasy MMO players frequently switch from whatever game has the most scantily clad elves or whatever.
You may be right about the amount of subscribers, but honestly I don't think so. The last time I saw numbers on current subscribers, it was a lot lower than I had expected. I somewhat agree with you about the loyal player base. WoW also has a fairly loyal player base.
To make something clear, I don't play either game any more. I've become bored with both. But I have to admit, it took a lot more hours to get bored with WoW. CoX was always the "other" MMO for me; a game that's great fun for a few hours at a stretch here and there as a break from other more serious games.
And that situation is only magnified in CoX, where the *only* real fun after playing for more than a few months is playing around with level 50 powersets. Honestly, the actual mission content and such is so bland that it would be in their best interests to let players create instant level 50 toons willy-nilly once they get one to 50. Any low-level content that is worth doing can be accessed any time at a higher level from Ouroboros. The player literally misses absolutely nothing by starting at 50 after leveling one toon.
I've found myself doing nothing but killing animals for their meaty bits, meaty bits they only occasionally drop. I can't imagine anything less exciting than that,and nothing in the game makes me think that it's going to get any better, either.
Having played both CoX and WoW extensively I can tell you that if you keep playing, you will soon discover that it does get better, and it only keeps getting better at higher levels. The main difference between WoW and CoH is that WoW starts you off with a few skills to get you acquainted with the game, and the content is specifically tailored to be done with those skills, while CoX just gives you access to xx powers because they are in xx position, and well, if those powers aren't up to par compared to some other powersets, that's just tough. Also, in WoW generally by about level 30 or 40 you'll have most of the skills for your class, and after that will mostly be getting new ranks, as well as further specializing with talents. While CoX's endgame content is primarily a few more powerful powers, WoW's endgame content is new and different dungeons and boss encounters. And yes, they really do have quite a variety of different encounters. Imagine for example a boss fight where periodically gravity gets turned off, and you float around the room and you have to avoid giant bubbles of death that slowly chase you and will kill you if you get hit by 2-3 of them - while still trying to do your job in killing the boss.
And then there's also all the other "lite" content that WoW has that is mostly non-existent in other games.
For example, the list of "different things you can do" in CoX is pretty short.
1. Kill stuff 2. Do missions 3. Play with costumes 4. Play the consignment house 5. Hang out and chill 6. PvP 7. Build missions (kind of)
In addition to that, WoW has all kinds of things like..
8. Fishing 9. Gathering professions 10. Crafting professions 11. Dungeons 12. Exploration (more than 1-2 hours worth) 13. World PvP 14. And lots of more things that I missed
Both games are fun and definitely have their place, but it's easy for me to see why WoW currently has over 11 million active subscriptions while CoX has less than 20K. (I believe the last number I saw was actually less than 15K, but I'm not positive.)
CoX maps are tiny in comparison to other MMOs out there. I remember Asherons call it could take the good part of an hour to go from one side of the map to the other. In CoX it is a fraction of that time.
Lol. For the non-CoX players here, let me explain exactly what is meant here by "a fraction of that time". Once you have your travel powers, you can get from anywhere in the game world to anywhere else in the game world in less than 5 minutes, if your computer loads zones fairly quickly. Most of the time you can get there in 1-2 minutes.
Kind of, in the broadest of terms. The difference is that in CoH, all your missions (quests) take place inside the copy-and-paste caves, office buildings, or warehouses. Well, except for if you choose to do the still-more-bland street missions that involve a.)killing xx number of xx baddies, b.)delivering an item to an NPC, or c.)click some pay phones.
Unfortunately, what Parent posted here is 100% correct. And unfortunately, what he posted is also largely correct of the "custom" Mission Architect missions. The only thing you can actually do with MA is create your own custom baddies and baddie groups. Oh, and write the dialog... which is very important, because everyone always reads that, right? Not only can you not create your own maps, you can't even place the baddies or items yourself. (Besides the vague options of "front", "back", or "middle" of the map.) You're also limited to exactly the same objectives that have already been used in a gazillion other missions. For instance, I would have loved to create an arc of missions that sees you rescue someone in the first mission, have them "help" you in the second mission, only to betray you and turn rogue halfway through, along with a few other groups of seeming "good" guys in the first part of the second map. But no, you can't even do that.
Notice what I said about invite-only? Yes, I do realize it's no guarantee, but it does go a long way. In fact, one of the ones I frequent regularly is hidden well enough that my filter at work blocks it under the category "vehicles". They don't even give out invites right now, so it's impossible for anyone to join it.
Did you actually read the textbook? If not, how do you know that it might not actually be about affecting change? It is possible to change change you know. Maybe someone should write a textbook about effecting change about affecting change.
Why expose your IP address by using a public tracker found on Mininova? It's just asking for trouble. Plus, the invite-only sites almost always have much better transfer speeds because ratio matters.
My time is valuable. I pay a small premium on my computers and in return, some Apple engineer spends more time working so I don't have to. It's a fair trade, so I'll pay it. If you disagree, then don't. No one is forcing you too.
Eh.. that's exactly what I just said.
It's not worth it to me to pay Apple engineers because a.) I have the time to fix my own stuff, and b.) I have software I want to use that doesn't run on Mac OSX.
I'm neither biased for nor against Macs. It's just that where Mac OS and Windows differ, I currently get a lot more value from what Windows offers than from what Mac OS offers. Who knows, maybe in 5 years that won't be the case.
Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.
Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.
Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.
That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.
A) You pirated your AV software, which, being illegal, should include the full retail price when figuring out total cost of ownership
B) You have a free AV, which, might not be protecting you enough (depending on which AV you have) And either way, you aren't necessarily 100% protected without it being scanned often
You need better information. There's actually a good number of free AV's out there now that do just as well as any you can buy. AVG for example is one of the best in the business. It's also one of very few that offers any kind of protection for all the fake antivirus malware that's been popping up a lot recently. I myself don't use any AV at all because I don't need one. Everyone that uses the network my PC is on is capable of avoiding malware.
The hardware is not cheaper. Find me a notebook with a built in multi-touch trackpad, decent resolution webcam, nice-ish keyboard, about 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM, Intel Dual Core CPU, GeForce 9400M or equivalent graphics and you will get a system close to $1300, the price of a Macbook with the same specs. Sure, one could argue that you don't need all the hardware, but the hardware itself isn't that expensive compared to the competition.
You may be right about the TCO for a Mac being lower (depending on the circumstances) but you're not right about the hardware being cheaper. Honestly, I can't believe anyone is even still trying to use this argument any more. Here, for example, is an HP with the same screen size that exceeds the capabilities of the $1300 Macbook in almost all aspects, and it sells for a whopping $900. Oh, and it has a mail-in rebate on it right now so you could actually get some money back on it too. But hey, the Macbook is only about 50% more expensive, so that's not a big deal right? Oh wait, I get it. The 50% price hike is for the multi-touch touchpad right? That's gotta be worth at least $450.
While Windows does have more software choices, a Mac is going to be able to do a whole lot more out of the box. And third party software is about the same price, but first party isn't. You can get iWork for about $50, while Office costs much more.
Sure. But then, all of that "out of the box" capability for the Mac is just a few free downloads away for the Windows PC.
That being said, Macs are great machines. They definitely have their place. And depending on the user, it certainly can have a lower total cost of ownership. For users who don't have the time or desire to learn how to fix their own software problems, the Mac system is definitely the way to go. Anyone who works at a PC repair shop or does phone support at any place that handles both PCs and Macs can tell you that without a doubt the Mac will have far fewer software problems. It's to be expected, because you're a lot more limited on what software you can run on it. (And particularly what free programs you can download online and run on it.) But for a Windows-savvy user who knows how to repair or avoid the majority of potential software problems and has the time to do it, the total cost of ownership is significantly lower with the Windows PC. For myself, I would not currently even remotely consider buying a Mac because it's just not worth it for me. For my sister though, the Macbook is perfect. It does exactly what she needs and she never has trouble with it.
Yes but for most people it's much much easier to remember and recognize lots of small pictures than it is to remember and recognize lots of small 3-letter combos.
Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."
Damn right. In fact, the majority of the time when a speeding ticket is handed out, the distraction of the police car at the side of the road is more of a safety hazard than the speeding driver was.
And could not agree more with the rest of what you posted as well.
um, busted tie-rod end, come on, how often has this ever happened, it should be picked up when it has play, and even then it will not just fall apart, unless maybe someone smacks into a gutter really hard,
It happened to me. There was no "play" to be detected. The steering worked fine, and then all of a sudden it didn't. I was driving down the road at 50MPH, and when I slowed down and tried to make my left turn onto another road, it wouldn't turn. Up until that very second it was still working exactly like it had for years before. Nothing to alert me that it was about to go.
I don't think it's that so much as that most people will see it as a waste.
First, no one expects to ever hit a pedestrian (I know I don't; I've had my fair share of mishaps while driving but never came close to hitting a pedestrian) and second, even if they *do* hit a pedestrian, the odds of the circumstances being just right for this device to not only come into effect but also help protect the pedestrian are so low it's just not worth the extra money. Better to spend more money on driver training and features that help the driver put that training into effect.
No shit, that must be why she's there like every other block no matter how many times you hit her. Hey, she wants to get hit, who am I to let her down.
Slashdot Mirror
The game serial is tied to an account. This comes into play *only* for online play, and *only* when you're using their hosting servers. And even then, you can have two PCs using the same serial/account online (on their servers) simultaneously, and you can deactivate the serial from the account, allowing it to be registered with a different account. To my knowledge, that can be done as many times as you like. Also, you can do direct IP address connections online or on a LAN without involving their servers, activation, serial, anything Startock at all and on as many computers as you like. This (obviously) will continue to work even if they disappear.
I don't PvP and generally view PvP as an anti-social behavior, or at least an anti-social player base.
I more or less agree. But then, you don't *have* to PvP in either game if you don't want to.
Mostly what I see about travel in WoW is that it's some kind of punishing time sink. I rather like being about to move so freely about the game world as I can in CoX. Christ. Players in WoW can't even walk faster.
The difference though is that the world you're walking through in WoW is actually interesting.
CoX also has the Mission Architect now, which is the ultimate creative outlet for players with such urges, and we have the ability to redesign our avatars, right down to the size, shape and placement of our noses.
That beats fishing any day.
Huh? CoX has always had the ability to redesign avatars right down to the size, shape and placement of noses. And MA, while a great idea, is unfortunately so limited in CoX it almost doesn't matter. Really, the only real benefit of the MA is the fact that you can keep doing missions right in the same building, without ever needing to go anywhere. Now, if they let players design mission maps like you can SG bases, and place items and baddies exactly where you want them, and have some options for new/different objectives, you would be right. Is it better than fishing in WoW? Perhaps. Neither one is going to appeal to everyone. The point though is that Fishing is lite content that you can do in a few minutes of spare time, that requires little thought.
Also, CoX has about 100,000 subscribers and an astonishingly loyal player base; unlike a lot of MMOs, people who subscribe tend to stay subscribed, while Fantasy MMO players frequently switch from whatever game has the most scantily clad elves or whatever.
You may be right about the amount of subscribers, but honestly I don't think so. The last time I saw numbers on current subscribers, it was a lot lower than I had expected. I somewhat agree with you about the loyal player base. WoW also has a fairly loyal player base.
To make something clear, I don't play either game any more. I've become bored with both. But I have to admit, it took a lot more hours to get bored with WoW. CoX was always the "other" MMO for me; a game that's great fun for a few hours at a stretch here and there as a break from other more serious games.
And that situation is only magnified in CoX, where the *only* real fun after playing for more than a few months is playing around with level 50 powersets. Honestly, the actual mission content and such is so bland that it would be in their best interests to let players create instant level 50 toons willy-nilly once they get one to 50. Any low-level content that is worth doing can be accessed any time at a higher level from Ouroboros. The player literally misses absolutely nothing by starting at 50 after leveling one toon.
I've found myself doing nothing but killing animals for their meaty bits, meaty bits they only occasionally drop. I can't imagine anything less exciting than that,and nothing in the game makes me think that it's going to get any better, either.
Having played both CoX and WoW extensively I can tell you that if you keep playing, you will soon discover that it does get better, and it only keeps getting better at higher levels. The main difference between WoW and CoH is that WoW starts you off with a few skills to get you acquainted with the game, and the content is specifically tailored to be done with those skills, while CoX just gives you access to xx powers because they are in xx position, and well, if those powers aren't up to par compared to some other powersets, that's just tough. Also, in WoW generally by about level 30 or 40 you'll have most of the skills for your class, and after that will mostly be getting new ranks, as well as further specializing with talents. While CoX's endgame content is primarily a few more powerful powers, WoW's endgame content is new and different dungeons and boss encounters. And yes, they really do have quite a variety of different encounters. Imagine for example a boss fight where periodically gravity gets turned off, and you float around the room and you have to avoid giant bubbles of death that slowly chase you and will kill you if you get hit by 2-3 of them - while still trying to do your job in killing the boss.
And then there's also all the other "lite" content that WoW has that is mostly non-existent in other games.
For example, the list of "different things you can do" in CoX is pretty short.
1. Kill stuff
2. Do missions
3. Play with costumes
4. Play the consignment house
5. Hang out and chill
6. PvP
7. Build missions (kind of)
In addition to that, WoW has all kinds of things like..
8. Fishing
9. Gathering professions
10. Crafting professions
11. Dungeons
12. Exploration (more than 1-2 hours worth)
13. World PvP
14. And lots of more things that I missed
Both games are fun and definitely have their place, but it's easy for me to see why WoW currently has over 11 million active subscriptions while CoX has less than 20K. (I believe the last number I saw was actually less than 15K, but I'm not positive.)
CoX maps are tiny in comparison to other MMOs out there. I remember Asherons call it could take the good part of an hour to go from one side of the map to the other. In CoX it is a fraction of that time.
Lol. For the non-CoX players here, let me explain exactly what is meant here by "a fraction of that time". Once you have your travel powers, you can get from anywhere in the game world to anywhere else in the game world in less than 5 minutes, if your computer loads zones fairly quickly. Most of the time you can get there in 1-2 minutes.
Kind of, in the broadest of terms. The difference is that in CoH, all your missions (quests) take place inside the copy-and-paste caves, office buildings, or warehouses. Well, except for if you choose to do the still-more-bland street missions that involve a.)killing xx number of xx baddies, b.)delivering an item to an NPC, or c.)click some pay phones.
Unfortunately, what Parent posted here is 100% correct. And unfortunately, what he posted is also largely correct of the "custom" Mission Architect missions. The only thing you can actually do with MA is create your own custom baddies and baddie groups. Oh, and write the dialog... which is very important, because everyone always reads that, right? Not only can you not create your own maps, you can't even place the baddies or items yourself. (Besides the vague options of "front", "back", or "middle" of the map.) You're also limited to exactly the same objectives that have already been used in a gazillion other missions. For instance, I would have loved to create an arc of missions that sees you rescue someone in the first mission, have them "help" you in the second mission, only to betray you and turn rogue halfway through, along with a few other groups of seeming "good" guys in the first part of the second map. But no, you can't even do that.
In other words, grasshopper, nice work -- but the NSA is capable of much craftier network take-downs.
Thank you Mario! But our princess is in another castle!
Think I'll stick with the tried and true magnetized platter tech.
FTFY.
You beat me to it. But yes, it HAD to be mentioned.
Duh. Why do you think they came up with Starter Edition for netbooks?
Notice what I said about invite-only? Yes, I do realize it's no guarantee, but it does go a long way. In fact, one of the ones I frequent regularly is hidden well enough that my filter at work blocks it under the category "vehicles". They don't even give out invites right now, so it's impossible for anyone to join it.
Did you actually read the textbook? If not, how do you know that it might not actually be about affecting change? It is possible to change change you know. Maybe someone should write a textbook about effecting change about affecting change.
Why expose your IP address by using a public tracker found on Mininova? It's just asking for trouble. Plus, the invite-only sites almost always have much better transfer speeds because ratio matters.
You think that people know to download software?
Yes.
My time is valuable. I pay a small premium on my computers and in return, some Apple engineer spends more time working so I don't have to. It's a fair trade, so I'll pay it. If you disagree, then don't. No one is forcing you too.
Eh.. that's exactly what I just said.
It's not worth it to me to pay Apple engineers because a.) I have the time to fix my own stuff, and b.) I have software I want to use that doesn't run on Mac OSX.
I'm neither biased for nor against Macs. It's just that where Mac OS and Windows differ, I currently get a lot more value from what Windows offers than from what Mac OS offers. Who knows, maybe in 5 years that won't be the case.
Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.
Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.
Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.
That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
It may have been a joke, but it certainly wasn't funny.
[citation needed]
I think your humor engine needs a tuneup.
Ok, but that either means one of many things:
A) You pirated your AV software, which, being illegal, should include the full retail price when figuring out total cost of ownership
B) You have a free AV, which, might not be protecting you enough (depending on which AV you have) And either way, you aren't necessarily 100% protected without it being scanned often
You need better information. There's actually a good number of free AV's out there now that do just as well as any you can buy. AVG for example is one of the best in the business. It's also one of very few that offers any kind of protection for all the fake antivirus malware that's been popping up a lot recently. I myself don't use any AV at all because I don't need one. Everyone that uses the network my PC is on is capable of avoiding malware.
The hardware is not cheaper. Find me a notebook with a built in multi-touch trackpad, decent resolution webcam, nice-ish keyboard, about 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM, Intel Dual Core CPU, GeForce 9400M or equivalent graphics and you will get a system close to $1300, the price of a Macbook with the same specs. Sure, one could argue that you don't need all the hardware, but the hardware itself isn't that expensive compared to the competition.
You may be right about the TCO for a Mac being lower (depending on the circumstances) but you're not right about the hardware being cheaper. Honestly, I can't believe anyone is even still trying to use this argument any more. Here, for example, is an HP with the same screen size that exceeds the capabilities of the $1300 Macbook in almost all aspects, and it sells for a whopping $900. Oh, and it has a mail-in rebate on it right now so you could actually get some money back on it too. But hey, the Macbook is only about 50% more expensive, so that's not a big deal right? Oh wait, I get it. The 50% price hike is for the multi-touch touchpad right? That's gotta be worth at least $450.
While Windows does have more software choices, a Mac is going to be able to do a whole lot more out of the box. And third party software is about the same price, but first party isn't. You can get iWork for about $50, while Office costs much more.
Sure. But then, all of that "out of the box" capability for the Mac is just a few free downloads away for the Windows PC.
That being said, Macs are great machines. They definitely have their place. And depending on the user, it certainly can have a lower total cost of ownership. For users who don't have the time or desire to learn how to fix their own software problems, the Mac system is definitely the way to go. Anyone who works at a PC repair shop or does phone support at any place that handles both PCs and Macs can tell you that without a doubt the Mac will have far fewer software problems. It's to be expected, because you're a lot more limited on what software you can run on it. (And particularly what free programs you can download online and run on it.) But for a Windows-savvy user who knows how to repair or avoid the majority of potential software problems and has the time to do it, the total cost of ownership is significantly lower with the Windows PC. For myself, I would not currently even remotely consider buying a Mac because it's just not worth it for me. For my sister though, the Macbook is perfect. It does exactly what she needs and she never has trouble with it.
Yes but for most people it's much much easier to remember and recognize lots of small pictures than it is to remember and recognize lots of small 3-letter combos.
I'm not so sure about that any more. Lately, the average user seems more likely to be too paranoid to click through anything, even things they should.
Speed enforcement does need to be reformed. Officers seem to only give tickets as an incentive to keep their jobs. Its not about safety, its about making the quota to satisfy "the higher ups."
Damn right. In fact, the majority of the time when a speeding ticket is handed out, the distraction of the police car at the side of the road is more of a safety hazard than the speeding driver was.
And could not agree more with the rest of what you posted as well.
um, busted tie-rod end, come on, how often has this ever happened, it should be picked up when it has play, and even then it will not just fall apart, unless maybe someone smacks into a gutter really hard,
It happened to me. There was no "play" to be detected. The steering worked fine, and then all of a sudden it didn't. I was driving down the road at 50MPH, and when I slowed down and tried to make my left turn onto another road, it wouldn't turn. Up until that very second it was still working exactly like it had for years before. Nothing to alert me that it was about to go.
Didn't we just have an article on this exact same thing a few days ago explaining why this is definitely NOT possible?
I don't think it's that so much as that most people will see it as a waste.
First, no one expects to ever hit a pedestrian (I know I don't; I've had my fair share of mishaps while driving but never came close to hitting a pedestrian) and second, even if they *do* hit a pedestrian, the odds of the circumstances being just right for this device to not only come into effect but also help protect the pedestrian are so low it's just not worth the extra money. Better to spend more money on driver training and features that help the driver put that training into effect.
No shit, that must be why she's there like every other block no matter how many times you hit her. Hey, she wants to get hit, who am I to let her down.