Jump to content
kerraig UK

Battlefield V - November 20th

Recommended Posts

Well to counter all of this negatively I’m currently rank 14 and have unlocked all but the level 10 guns and this has really clicked for me now, I think it’s superb. Both maps are great and the gun play is awesome, whether I’m running an iron sight sniper, an LMG or anything else.

 

Considering they’ve got over 2 months to polish it and take in the feedback from this and the Alphas I’ve got no real worries this won’t replace BF1 for me (Currently at just under 21 days played). 

 

The first medic gun isn’t OP IMO but it’s a good gun for beginners. All the guns are very usable given a little time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rsdio said:

 

R1 location spots too, unless it's something weird like being squad leader specific or something. I've cursed it putting down the marker in front of some scenery rather than behind quite a few times.

Of bad guys? If you’re the squad leader you can use it to highlight an objective but I didn’t think it noted enemy spotting 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3D spotting was removed as it was very powerful. Shooting enemies through smoke in BF1 was a bit unfair really. I think the calling out of position in this is a nice readjustment, plus the Scout has the binoculars that can still spot enemies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had another go on this it was a bit better than my previous experience but it still doesn't feel very fun, I play for games for fun and they seem to have removed all enjoyment I derived from previous entries in the series, a shame as it has put me off buying it completely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MattKB said:

Of bad guys? If you’re the squad leader you can use it to highlight an objective but I didn’t think it noted enemy spotting 

 

Well, what passes for enemy spotting now. It's not 3d dorito spotting obviously but if you see someone and press R1 your guy says 'enemy over there' or whatever and puts down a marker on the location for a few seconds. Although it usually ends up on a cardboard box or something 50 yards in front of the enemy when I'm doing it.

 

Highlighting A or C or whatever as an objective is a different thing again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of negative views on the game in here. Usual for Rllmuk these days! I fucking love the game, and I'm loving the changes that force you to work as a squad if you want a decent supply of ammo and health. There was 4 of us playing the other day and it just had us grouped together working as a squad, watching out for each other, reviving each other and keeping each other supplied.

 

In the past games it always starts out like that, but when you can just jump in a tank and fuck off with unlimited ammo & regenerating health, why bother sticking in a tight squad?

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't get why there is such a negative reaction to this game online, unless its just the echo chamber effect. If you go on the Battlefield Reddit its nothing but complaints about different stuff, though no one can agree what they dislike about the beta. I am loving the beta but I don't have any preconceptions from the newer battlefields to go off.

 

People are either moaning its not like the good old Battlefields, or its changed too much from the newer Battlefields, or its too much of a generic Battlefield, or its not fun, or its missing something indefinable. A lot of complaints about the attrition - which I think is a great change that makes for a better game flow, rewards teamwork and adds an extra layer. And above all its something new that doesn't change the precious formula.

 

Anyway I don't understand how people aren't enjoying it, and maybe this beta was a mistake to have bugs and a very small map set and game types for folks to play around with. Is Battlefield V doomed and liked by a minority? If you believe the community it seems that way. It's been a long time since I saw a game got shat on by its fans so much, but I feel for Dice, they try new things and just get slammed for it. But what I find weird is how polarizing this game is.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoever is charge of menu design/UI at Dice should be fired.

 

And by that I mean fired in a rocket to another planet lest their ideas of what constitutes an intuitive and simple interface infect any other games.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is negative consensus:

 

There aren't enough maps or weapons compared to previous games. There are less than a quarter the number of guns that launched with BF4.

The upgrade and progression system is un-intuitive and uses the same currency as cosmetic unlocks.

The maps are smaller yet feel empty.

A lot of folks have a problem with the ammo/bleed out systems which are enforced to promote tactical gameplay, but actually just make playing solo a joyless slog. Having limited ammo forces you into crowded areas to use the supply drops, which will usually result in you being killed and it takes longer to respawn than previous BF games.

The UI and aesthetic design is dumbed-down and lifted from Battlefront.

Rush game mode is gone, and a ton of content won't be ready for release.

There isn't a clear roadmap for what the post-launch content will be.

They're struggling to please everyone with their cosmetic approach, something they could've dodged entirely by going full-on "alternate".

 

That pretty much covers it.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really about solo play though I thought? As for the amount of maps and guns, quality over quantity is surely preferable. You don't need endless amounts of weapons with little to differentiate them. 

 

I'm looking forward to the campaign too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me it's not an echo chamber thing, the game just doesn't feel fun. I haven't felt any ebb or flow on the Rotterdam map at all unlike previous entries, Amiens for example is brilliant on conquest. It just feels terrible to me compared to BF4 and BF1 both of which I loved, that's all I know and that's what I'll judge it on, my own personal feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never found the spotting system very good, but my main issue with it was that you didn't know if you had been spotted or not. The lack of spotting or information about the whereabouts of the enemy is a serious problem in this game.

 

Just had a game of Conquest, again on Rotterdam. But there is no way to either attack for defend a point in any strategic manner because you have no information about where you might encounter enemies. There are also so many ways into a capture zone that there is little to no chance of setting up a smart offence or defense. It is down to pure luck if you manage to enter a capture zone without being shot either by an "invisible" enemy huddled in a dark corner or by someone that just happened to spot you across the map.

 

Capture zones also extend inside and outside of certain buildings meaning that you can have a stalemate with no team actually seeing or shooting at each other.

 

And with the TTK being fast and the respawn timer being slow you spend more time staring at the bleedout screen than shooting stuff if you try to play the objective. It feels like the game premiers hanging back at a safe spot picking up people at a distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the criticisms above but I'm still having fun. Although if you do get squadmates that dont play as a team it does suck. I'm hoping the full game addresses the variety/map size issues. Weapon selection I'm not too arsed about but I agree the unlock credits system seems like a tacked on way to extend playtime. Rotterdam I really like and in my games it has seen the ebb and flow although that definitely comes down to having teams with half decent squad commanders who do their job. Spotting is one of the newer additions to the series and so I don't miss it, I do agree it can be kinda annoying to get killed from multiple directions but it does make you more cautious and start using smoke etc more often.

 

I watched the Angrygamer rant video and I agreed with a lot of what they were saying, it's obviously a bit of a kick in the teeth for longtime fans of the series. For me though coming from Bad Company as the last one I played, there's a lot to love about it. I do think the lack of vehicle combat combined with the small maps is a shame, but from the maps they are releasing there are some big vehicle ones listed. I don't miss the old Battlefield size of maps, although it felt epic you often spent minutes just getting to a point to just die from a bomb or a sniper (and of course watch as the people in vehicles drive off without picking any teammates up). 

 

I think I'm more forgiving because compared to BF1942 and BF2 there's as much content, I think people have just come to expect tons of stuff now from the series.

 

Unfortunately though there's no way they can address a lot of the communities concerns before launch, so this could be a painful experiment for Dice. I reckon EA needs to give them more dev time for the next one and stop trying to force them under the generic EA frontend/progression systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan Stock said:

I really don't get why there is such a negative reaction to this game online, unless its just the echo chamber effect.

 

I'm not enjoying it and I'm not sure why. I like the new recoil system, the lack of 3D spotting and the new destruction but it just feels off somehow. 

 

I think it might be the general atmosphere. 

 

BF1 had a very strong, very oppressive WW1 identity, BF3 and 4 had that ace near future identity, Hardline had...never mind.

 

It doesn't feel like a ww2 setting somehow, which is weird given the sten guns and tiger tanks.

 

Then again it might just be the maps. 

 

I can't explain it. It just doesn't feel right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I have to say it doesn't feel very World War 2 aside from a few moments here and there. When you compare to Battlefield 2 or Battlefield 1, both of those had very distinct atmospheres that made you feel like you were in that time period. Probably the kinda generic settings and lack of vehicles doesn't help capture the WW2 vibe very much, plus the sound isn't as good as usual. Compare to COD WW2 which felt very much WW2 even though it used all the Saving Private Ryan tropes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, grindmouse said:

A lot of folks have a problem with the ammo/bleed out systems which are enforced to promote tactical gameplay, but actually just make playing solo a joyless slog. Having limited ammo forces you into crowded areas to use the supply drops, which will usually result in you being killed and it takes longer to respawn than previous BF games.

 

This is a completely bullshit 'consensus' though. The new changes to revive and anmo make it much more tactical an experience. Battlefield has never been a game to play solo, it's all about playing as a squad with your pals. Plus it's a beta, lots of things will be subject to change. According to previous 'community consensus', BF1 was a bad game and I spent hundreds of incredibly entertaining hours on that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just from another perspective - I didn't get on with BF1 at all sadly, been playing BF since the very beginning and I absolutely adored this beta. 

 

Gutted it's ending and the release isn't for another 2 months.

 

I've gone from being not interested in this in the slightest to it now being my most anticipated release this year :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d think the bleed-out takes about two minutes based on this thread, it’s about 10-15 seconds at most and really not that much longer than the respawning in BF1.

 

I absolutely love it. In purely mechanical terms it’s a step in almost every way from BF1. The movement, aiming and shooting all feel extremely crisp and responsive in a way that basically none of the previous Battlefields have ever really nailed, I played a few games of BF1 tonight for comparison and it felt clunky as fuck going straight between the two. Removing spotting and lowering the base ammo has completely revitalised the game, it’s considerably less of a meat grinder now. There’s way more potential for sneaking around objectives and boldly manvouvering around the maps without constantly being shot in the back from miles away.

 

That said, the UI is atrocious and I agree that it doesnt necessarily ‘feel’ like a WW2 game based on these maps. A lot of that is presumably that’s a side-effect or DICE consciously trying to avoid the same trope-y settings that have been done a million times before, and considering how tired and familiar CoD: WW2 felt within minutes I think they made the right call.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: “Bleed out taking 10-15 secs max” I believe it varies. It can take longer than that to get through bleed out>redeploy screen.

 

If it doesn’t encourage tactical player between a squad of strangers, then it’s not working. Blaming the player for playing it wrong I’m afraid I don’t agree but if they don’t change it, there are plenty of other, better shooters out there.

 

Like Rainbow 6 Siege. If you want to a real tactical team-based shooter that can be enjoyed solo queuing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, grindmouse said:

Re: “Bleed out taking 10-15 secs max” I believe it varies. It can take longer than that.

 

If it doesn’t encourage tactical player between a squad of strangers, then it’s not working. Blaming the player for playing it wrong I’m afraid I don’t agree but if they don’t change it, there are plenty of other, better shooters out there.

 

Like Rainbow 6 Siege. If you want to a real tactical team-based shooter that can be enjoyed solo queuing.

 

It only takes longer if you hold the right trigger to call out for a medic to come and revive you. It's really not that bad. If you don't like it go ahead and get Call of Duty ^_^

 

The thing is Battlefield would be a far greater game if the only people that played it were intent on playing it as it's meant to be played. So forcing out those who wan't to play a "solo" fps will dampen sales initially but I think it will make the game all the better for it (and will bring players back eventually).

 

Response to your previous comments @grindmouse  and re-reading your comments they strike me as being from someone who doesn't play all that much battlefield?

 

There aren't enough maps or weapons compared to previous games. There are less than a quarter the number of guns that launched with BF4. - There are still about 20 guns. Wheras there are less guns than the previous installments. BF1 had very little customisation. In addition as per usual they will release guns as the game goes so i'm pretty confident that there will be more than 20 guns in a years time.

The upgrade and progression system is un-intuitive and uses the same currency as cosmetic unlocks. - Can't argue to much but I don't see it as an issue personally.

The maps are smaller yet feel empty. - Judged on 2 maps and 2 game modes? How do you know what all of the other maps are like? It may feel emptier but I suspect that's more down to having so many different approaches to each objective and most people being smart enough to realise they don't have to attack each other at that bottleneck everyone is dying at.  I haven't played the beta loads but what I did have there was always plenty going on and generally each objective was being fought over.

A lot of folks have a problem with the ammo/bleed out systems which are enforced to promote tactical gameplay, but actually just make playing solo a joyless slog. Having limited ammo forces you into crowded areas to use the supply drops, which will usually result in you being killed and it takes longer to respawn than previous BF games. - See my original comment, go play Call of Duty if you want to play a "multiplayer" fps on your own.... Battlefield has always been focused on team play and they are taking steps to try and force that. The limited ammo I suspect will be adjusted so you start with more, but to be honest you pick up ammo of people you kill so just make sure you hit the target.... This and the bleed out time are non issues really because if enough people complain they are easily adjusted so it will be based upon the majority of responses from the battlefield community.

The UI and aesthetic design is dumbed-down and lifted from Battlefront. - I agree, I don't think they needed to mess with this.

Rush game mode is gone, and a ton of content won't be ready for release. - Rush was always the least popular game mode and sometimes you would struggle to find more than a couple of fully servers so this isn't a big surprise really, it's essentially been replaced with a new game mode in grand operations (even then I suspect it's not too difficult for them to bring it back in down the road as evidenced by BF1, they can add game modes in at a later date easy enough) & the additional content, what fps these days has all the content straight away? Compare it to COD, how much content is released as paid dlc? The difference being this time around you won't have to pay for that additional content....

There isn't a clear roadmap for what the post-launch content will be. - No there isn't but that's a downside to moving away from paid dlc. I suspect it's because the additional content will be based upon initial sales which will determine how much post-launch content will be created (it's a numbers game).

They're struggling to please everyone with their cosmetic approach, something they could've dodged entirely by going full-on "alternate". - They can't really win here anyway, if they went for realism they push people away that want customisation, if they went for 'alternative' they push those away who want realism....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got bored and frustrated of the bleedout mechanic after 20 minutes; let alone having to suffer through that for 20 hours.

 

They could easily fix that mechanic (it's more of a non-issue really) yet DICE, with all their expertise, managed to fuck up something so basic. I mean I play games like Post-Scriptum, Day of Infamy, CS:GO, Insurgency, etc where you might not spawn for half a minute or more yet their bleedout/spawn mechanics are far less cumbersome than that of BFV. Go figure.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Luseth said:

 

It only takes longer if you hold the right trigger to call out for a medic to come and revive you. It's really not that bad. If you don't like it go ahead and get Call of Duty ^_^

 

Left trigger barely speeds it up at all. Blackout beta tonight!

 

Quote

The thing is Battlefield would be a far greater game if the only people that played it were intent on playing it as it's meant to be played. So forcing out those who wan't to play a "solo" fps will dampen sales initially but I think it will make the game all the better for it (and will bring players back eventually).

 

I think it risks dampening sales and never picking them back up, given the roadmap of content is unknown and it’ll be competing with new releases.

 

Quote

Response to your previous comments @grindmouse  and re-reading your comments they strike me as being from someone who doesn't play all that much battlefield?

 

Played 3, 4 and a bit of 1.

 

Quote

. - There are still about 20 guns.

 

 

BF4 had around 100 guns.

 

Quote

The maps are smaller yet feel empty. - Judged on 2 maps and 2 game modes? How do you know what all of the other maps are like? It may feel emptier but I suspect that's more down to having so many different approaches to each objective and most people being smart enough to realise they don't have to attack each other at that bottleneck everyone is dying at.  I haven't played the beta loads but what I did have there was always plenty going on and generally each objective was being fought over.

 

 

I just didn’t feel like I was in a 64 player large scale battle.

 

Quote

. - See my original comment, go play Call of Duty if you want to play a "multiplayer" fps on your own.... Battlefield has always been focused on team play and they are taking steps to try and force that.

 

They should positively reinforce teamplay, not negatively punish solo players. Team mates don’t heal, so bleed out is a joke. I take your point but it’s actually a bit misleading because BF3 & 4 didn’t have this issue, they just had a short respawn countdown and if you were healed during that time you had the option to revive.

 

Quote

TThere isn't a clear roadmap for what the post-launch content will be. - No there isn't but that's a downside to moving away from paid dlc. I suspect it's because the additional content will be based upon initial sales which will determine how much post-launch content will be created (it's a numbers game).

 

 

Right, and you said initial sales may be dampened. So if that’s going to impact the quality and quantity of post-launch support that’s even more of a deterrent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I’m also a solo player and I hardly agree with anything you’re saying.

 

Holding the left trigger doubles the speed of the bleed-out, at which point you’re looking at pretty much the same length of time as the previous games, just with less of that time spent waiting for a counter on a map screen (although I do think respawns should default to the map screen as they do in BF1). Thanks to the spotting/ammo changes, you also die less frequently, and spend less time caught in the die/respawn/die immediately loop that bigger battles in the previous games frequently descended into.

 

BF4 was criticised for having far, far too many guns, which it did. Fewer, more distinct weapons is always preferable IMO.

 

Initially you also criticised the movement and the weapon feedback which I think is nuts, it’s night and day ahead of the previous games in that regard. Comparisons to R6:S are silly, but also short sighted because it literally took 2-3 years for R6 to de-jank itself.

 

Obviously everyone’s entitled to their opinion but I reject the implication that there’s any sort of unanimous opinion on these changes. I always trust DICE over their whinging playerbase and see the merit of their decisions. If anything, I wish they’d listen to their players far less.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

 Obviously everyone’s entitled to their opinion but I reject the implication that there’s any sort of unanimous opinion on these changes. I always trust DICE over their

whinging playerbase and see the merit of their decisions. If anything, I wish they’d listen to their players far less.

Wat. 

 

But yes let's definitely not listen to the suggestions and feedback from the people who actually buy and play our games -said no developer ever

 

Obviously everyone prefers different things and some of those 'things' might work better than 'other things' but to say a developer shouldn't at least take some cues from their playerbase is about the stupidest thing imaginable.

 

EDIT: Also,

Quote

but I reject the implication that there’s any sort of unanimous opinion on these changes

I just read this again, in utter disbelief, and thank fuck you're not in charge as games would never get patched, rebalanced or improved otherwise. :lol:

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really not. I don’t personally work in games but I imagine attitudes regarding customers who think they know more than people who have spent their entires lives honing a particular craft are shared across all creative fields. 

 

Player engagement is very de rigueur in these days of social media marketing, but half of those players would absent mindedly turn Battlefield into Nuketown with noob tubes if you actually listened to them. Player feedback was the reason suppression was effectively removed. Have faith in your creative vision and ignore your fanbase, they’re almost entirely idiots who have zero awareness of all the tireless testing, iterative changes and hard decisions that have already been made behind the scenes. 

 

Usually when decisions get made at a creative level that the fan-base wholeheartedly reject its because of interference at a corporate level, not because the fans are such amazing gamers that they became at better making games themselves.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, VN1X said:

EDIT: Also,

I just read this again, in utter disbelief, and thank fuck you're not in charge as games would never get patched, rebalanced or improved otherwise. :lol:

 

Not sure why you’ve quoted that, it was in specific response to grindmouse phrasing his posts in a way that implied that everyone agreed that his very specific issues with the beta, when obviously lots of people don’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VN1X said:

Wat. 

 

But yes let's definitely not listen to the suggestions and feedback from the people who actually buy and play our games -said no developer ever

 

Obviously everyone prefers different things and some of those 'things' might work better than 'other things' but to say a developer shouldn't at least take some cues from their playerbase is about the stupidest thing you can say.

 

You are right mostly, but sometimes a developer has to go, 'this is exactly what you want, you just don't know it yet'. Do you think every developer / designer went along with exactly what their potential customer base wanted? If that was the case we probably wouldn't have cars or iphones or even computer tablets (I mean to think Excite could have bought Google for less than 1 million dollars once upon a time and blockbuster could have bought Netflix)... Sometimes a designer / developer does have to go against the grain in order for things to make their next step.  So whilst potential customer feedback is important there are moments where a developer also has to say no, it's finding a balance isn't it?

 

Of the people in this thread that have voiced their complaints & concerns, how many can honestly say they still pump hours into Battlefield 1 on a regular basis? How many of those players that are complaining about the game and it's changes will even still have the game in 2/3 months time? The thing to remember is that Battlefield is slowly going the way of other shooters with it's cosmetic purchases etc. With that in mind it need's to keep the people happy that are going to keep coming back to the game for the duration of it's life. It need's those people to keep coming back and spending money on cosmetics and ultimately that is what the game is now going to be aimed at surely?

 

Battlefield has always done so well because it's different to your other options. The negatively impacting solo players isn't a bad thing. You have other games that are options if that's how you want to play an fps. What other game is focused on squad play the same way as battlefield?

 

Going back to the bleed out, it's noticeably quicker should you hold the left trigger and whilst it may not be the quickest bleed out in video games it's fine. I used to play medic quite a bit on BF4 & 1 yet every time I went to heal people would respawn too quick and you would then be stranded out in the open to be shot & I stopped doing it. There are 2 reasons currently why medics aren't doing their job, 1) We have an awful lot of people who have jumped into the beta trying to play it "solo" & 2) The mindset of everyone who used to play it will take time to adjust again. I'm still in the BF mindset where if I go and try to rez that player he's going to disappear and I'll get killed. That will take some time for the community to adjust.

 

I'm sure they could have made the game feel a bit fuller but I think the idea is that it's a battlefield and not a map. The idea is that a battle can take place in multiple locations with a town / city / countryside and not that everyone consistently converges on one point. There are several points to attack / defend and I think the concept is that at each of these points they are skirmishes.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, CarloOos said:

Player feedback was the reason suppression was effectively removed.

 

Also see: 

AA guns being nerfed into oblivion against planes in BF1.

AA Tanks being nerfed against everything in BF4.

AA Tanks having range nerfed, because reducing power wasn't already enough.

Certain shotguns being nerfed because they could kill at more than 5 feet in BF4.

Certain RPGs etc nerfed against infantry, because those are anti vehicle weapons.

Reduce ammo count in vehicles on BF4 (increase reload speed too)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CarloOos said:

It’s really not. I don’t personally work in games but I imagine attitudes regarding customers who think they know more than people who have spent their entires lives honing a particular craft are shared across all creative fields. 

 

Player engagement is very de rigueur in these days of social media marketing, but half of those players would absent mindedly turn Battlefield into Nuketown with noob tubes if you actually listened to them. Player feedback was the reason suppression was effectively removed. Have faith in your creative vision and ignore your fanbase, they’re almost entirely idiots who have zero awareness of all the tireless testing, iterative changes and hard decisions that have already been made behind the scenes. 

 

Usually when decisions get made at a creative level that the fan-base wholeheartedly reject its because of interference at a corporate level, not because the fans are such amazing gamers that they became at better making games themselves.

 

I agree with this at a philosophical level, and I definitely think that DICE should be free to steer the series in the direction they think best, but I can't help thinking of Destiny 2, and how Bungie had such a clear strategy for the sequel of (e.g making it less grindy, more easy to dip into, more competitive as a PVP experience) and subsequently how roundly that was rejected by the players and how they've spent the last year rowing back on everything.

 

The thing that struck me about Destiny 2 was how it confident and assured Bungie were with the direction they took with the sequel and how flat it fell. You could argue that the direction DICE are taking BF is "better" than what Bungie did with D2, but ultimately success is determined by sales and player count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.