Suppression Mechanics

[Quartermaster]

You may decide to run like a gazelle (do things faster) or you might keep your head down and crawl (higher AP cost).

The problem is that the suppression system would have to be incredibly complicated to take into account both of those possibilities.

Worrying about being taken out of an airsoft game is a little different to worrying that the next burst of plasma would ignite your face.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/experience-a-firefight-in-afghanistan-through-a-soldiers-headcam-20120317/

I don't see a lot of running around and risking a bullet in the head in this example.

It is a group of soldiers stuck behind cover while an unseen enemy takes shots at them.

What I see is this:

Slow cautious movement to limit the risks (higher AP costs).

Blind firing to minimise exposure while trying to keep the enemies heads down (reduced accuracy).

If you were to use this as an example then you would probably also need to increase the cover save of a suppressed unit (if it was in cover) to represent them keeping their heads down.

I am unsure if that would be necessary.

The nice thing about it leading to higher AP costs is that it will in turn reduce accuracy (with fewer APs to spend you will need to select less accurate options).

My own thoughts (This is going to be a bit long):

I prefer the higher AP cost option (with differential effects for movement and firing) and it should probably be a function of where bullets are landing, the distance of the bullet's impact point to the suppressed soldier (ideally I would do this as a function of how close it was in the bullet's path, but that would be too difficult to figure out probably), the soldier's bravery, how protected they are against that type of damage, and if they are in cover already. Whether or not the soldier has cover would dramatically alter the soldier's ability to react. If in cover, the soldier would receive bigger penalties to movement, but relatively smaller penalties for accuracy whereas if out of cover they would receive smaller penalties to movement (you need to get out of there ASAP), but bigger penalties to accuracy. I would use functions that would look similar to the following to

accomplish this:

'To determine whether or not the soldier is affected by a bullet this will calculate a factor value that will be used to calculate the change based on the suppression

' This will use one constant that could be set in the initiatilzer file:

' ThreatRange = 7 'Only if you are within seven squares will this affect the soldier

Function SuppressionFactor (impactPoint, soldierLocation, optional radius = 0) As Single

'Use pythaogrean theorem to calculate the distance and then if a blast, subtract the radius

Distance = sqrt((impactPoint.X - SoldierLocation.X)^2 + (impactPoint.Y - SoldierLocation.Y)^2) - radius

If distance <= ThreatRange Then

'Use an logarithmic function to decrease the amount of suppression based on the range (so if at the threshold this won't have much of an effect)

SuppressionFactor = 1 - Log(distance, (ThreatRange+1)) 'This is the log of the distance with the base being the Threatrange (The +1 is so ensure that at the maximum range the suppressionfactor is not 0)

Else

SuppressionFactor = 0

End If

Return SuppressionFactor

End Function

'The following code would be inserted wherever it would be handled when bullets impact

SuppressiveForce += (SuppressionFactor(impact, distance, radius) * (Damage - Armor))

If amountOfCover > 0.10 then 'to account for random smoke this is not just greater than 0

Soldier.MovementSuppression += SuppressionForce * 0.7

Soldier.AccuracySuppression += SuppressionForce * 0.3

Else

Soldier.MovementSuppression += SuppressionForce * 0.2

Soldier.AccuracySuppression += SuppressionForce * 0.8

End If

'THE following code would be used after the turn ends to calculate the AP and Accuracy Penalties

'Would use the following constant for the accuracy penalty rate (AccuractyLost per amount of AccuracySuppression = Bravery)

Soldier.AccuracyPenalty = Soldier.AccuracySuppression / Bravery

Soldier.MovementPenalty = Soldier.MovementSuppression /Bravery

'THE following code would be used when firing (the plus 1 is in place in case there is no penalty it would function normally)

Accuracy = (BaseAccuracy - Cover)/ (Soldier.AccuracyPenalty+1)

'THE following code would be used when moving

MovementCost = BaseMovementCost * (Soldier.MovementPenalty+1)

[IceVamp]

all the things!

Well.. there you have it! Copy paste into game and start testing.

[Gauddlike]

I know panic is basicly a stun, but it's not a stunlock.

Panic would add to the tension and x-com atmosphere. I don't see a mechanic where you can simply do the math and be able to tell if your soldier is going to be stunned or able to do something the next turn contributing to that feeling.

If you can make them panic once then it is normally easier to make them do it again.

If you can consistently keep them unable to act then that is the stun lock you are against.

None of the other (non panic) related systems have that same kind of problem as they all allow you to act in some fashion.

My accuracy and movement cost suggestion doesn't stop you moving or firing.

It gives you a penalty to being suppressed without taking your troops actions out of your hands the way a flat AP reduction or outright panic does.

[Gorlom]

If you can make them panic once then it is normally easier to make them do it again.

If you can consistently keep them unable to act then that is the stun lock you are against.

Thats pretty much up to the devs to decide/balance isn't it?

None of the other (non panic) related systems have that same kind of problem as they all allow you to act in some fashion.

The AP reduction acctually causes the stunnlock me and Gazz are afraid of. I know it's not been at the hight of the discussion but it's not really dead yet.

My accuracy and movement cost suggestion doesn't stop you moving or firing.

It gives you a penalty to being suppressed without taking your troops actions out of your hands the way a flat AP reduction or outright panic does.

I have not objected against movement cost/accuracy penalty. If you look earlier in the thread (page 1) I acctually suggested increased AP cost myself: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/1551-Suppression-Mechanics?p=17845&viewfull=1#post17845

What about reduceing the view distance for supressed soldiers? (would be less effective if some other soldier has view on the alien but could still work as a supplementary mechanic imo)

PS. Btw Gauddlike are you saying you dont want Panic to be in the game at all? Or just not to be part of any supression mechanic? I didn't say I wanted it to be easy to panic a unit by supression fire, but I still want the panic mechanic to be in the game.

Edited May 2, 2012 by Gorlom

[Gauddlike]

I am just pointing out that you objected to stunlock removing control of your character but then suggested using the panic mechanism which does the same thing.

I would like to see panic handled differently but I haven't really thought about it, maybe closer to beta.

If you look earlier in the thread (page 1) I acctually suggested increased AP cost myself: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/1551-Suppression-Mechanics?p=17845&viewfull=1#post17845

As did I in the second post of this thread, it does seem like a much fairer system.

Your earlier stance was what confused me about your later post

[Gorlom]

I am just pointing out that you objected to stunlock removing control of your character but then suggested using the panic mechanism which does the same thing.

I would like to see panic handled differently but I haven't really thought about it, maybe closer to beta.

I still don't consider panic to be a stunlock, if it is a stunlock its poorly implemented imo. What about the berserker state?

As did I in the second post of this thread, it does seem like a much fairer system.

Your earlier stance was what confused me about your later post

I admitt to missing that you suggested increase in AP cost in the first post, but I wasn't trying to compete. It was more "See? We are thinking along the same lines" comment. Probably shouldn't have drawn attention to it being on the first page I guess It did seem a bit challanbeing didn't it?

[catmorbid]

I support adding a suppression fire mechanic. However, a few thoughts regarding it (trying to keep it short).

-Make the mechanic universal, i.e. 5 round burst equals same kind of suppression as 5 single shots fired at the same area area. Machine guns should instead fire longer bursts. Also, please multiple burst modes (short, long)! Amount of suppression damage should be based on how close the shot went by.

-To counterbalance burst length add a more drastic recoil effect where accuracy of each shot drops rapidly after the initial attack. Also, recoil can then be made a stat to further specialize weapons and give modders incentive to add new weapons such as machine pistols (high ROF, relatively low recoil)

-As for suppression effects, 100% immobilization doesn't sound a good idea, but rather an increased AP cost/AP reduction (same thing really) up to a certain point could do the trick

Otherwise, sounds really good - keep up the good work!

[Gorlom]

-Make the mechanic universal, i.e. 5 round burst equals same kind of suppression as 5 single shots fired at the same area area. Machine guns should instead fire longer bursts. Also, please multiple burst modes (short, long)! Amount of suppression damage should be based on how close the shot went by.

Why should the supression be universal? Are you talking about for the machinegun or are you talking about the precision rifle and rocket launcher too? Maybe it should work on the basis of AP spent? or AP cost with a multiplier times the number of shots or whatever?

I just think it will take away from the mechanic if it is indeed universal.

[IceVamp]

Why should the supression be universal? Are you talking about for the machinegun or are you talking about the precision rifle and rocket launcher too? Maybe it should work on the basis of AP spent? or AP cost with a multiplier times the number of shots or whatever?

I just think it will take away from the mechanic if it is indeed universal.

What do you mean will be taken away from it? That if you have five guys shooting at someone behind a crate with snap shot not doing anything, but if you select the "Suppress" action, suddenly those shots have an effect besides denting the furniture? How is that superior?

[pack.wolf]

I agree with IceVamp that all projectiles (and probably explosions?) should have an effect on suppression. But either the algorithm behind it should benefit certain (kinds of) weapons, i.e. MGs and other rapid fire weapons over ARs over plasma rifles, or the weapons should get different bonuses to suppression if that is easier to implement.

So say a single MG is enough to suppress area X while if you only have ARs with you you will need to spend the APs of 3 or 4 guys to achieve the same effect.

[IceVamp]

Yes, if the mechanic was implemented that way, there would need to be such differences. But if it's based off amount of bullets/explosions, the MG would in it's current form already be a superior suppression weapon, if you consider amount of AP spent for amount of suppression achieved.

[Gorlom]

What do you mean will be taken away from it? That if you have five guys shooting at someone behind a crate with snap shot not doing anything, but if you select the "Suppress" action, suddenly those shots have an effect besides denting the furniture? How is that superior?

You missunderstand me. I never said that shots should not have any supression effect unless selecting a special mode. I just think that every bullet/projectile/beam haveing the same effect regardless of what weapon or whatever other factors would be a flawed system. Why should only volume matter? How is that in any way a good mechanic? It might mimic reality from some perspective but that doesn't mean its a good mechanic.

I have no idea how you got what you got from my response to catmorbid. (Did you read the bit I quoted so you know what I was objecting against?)

Edited May 2, 2012 by Gorlom

[jamoecw]

You may decide to run like a gazelle (do things faster) or you might keep your head down and crawl (higher AP cost).

The problem is that the suppression system would have to be incredibly complicated to take into account both of those possibilities.

Worrying about being taken out of an airsoft game is a little different to worrying that the next burst of plasma would ignite your face.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/experience-a-firefight-in-afghanistan-through-a-soldiers-headcam-20120317/

I don't see a lot of running around and risking a bullet in the head in this example.

It is a group of soldiers stuck behind cover while an unseen enemy takes shots at them.

What I see is this:

Slow cautious movement to limit the risks (higher AP costs).

Blind firing to minimise exposure while trying to keep the enemies heads down (reduced accuracy).

If you were to use this as an example then you would probably also need to increase the cover save of a suppressed unit (if it was in cover) to represent them keeping their heads down.

I am unsure if that would be necessary.

great video.

same guy taking fire in the open:

he gets his reaction fire and then runs to cover.

part 2 where the unit tries to flank.

I'd have to say that I don't care for the AP loss thing either. While it works in some situations, it would be completely unreal and frustrating in others. Suppose that an alien flanks a soldier and succeeds in completely suppressing him? Now the soldier has no cover, cannot return fire and can't move to nearby cover. That isn't an accurate portrayal of suppression, but rather, it mimics the actions of those dumb victims in B movies who see approaching death and do nothing.

While it's not the same as real combat, I'm guessing that suppression in paintball provides a useful model to examine. I've played plenty of games and I know what response players have when under heavy fire. They either duck behind their cover, run to the nearest cover, fall to prone or return fire. The first option (duck behind their cover) is the action that is portrayed by the AP loss model being proposed for Xenonauts. In paintball though, players only react that way if they have cover in the first place. If they don't have cover, they'll never just sit around waiting to be eliminated.

Reduced accuracy however, is an effect of suppression regardless of the situation. I very much agree with putting that effect into the Xenonauts suppression mechanics.

As far as movement goes, paintball players use suppression tactics in a chess-like manner. It's usually not possible to entirely prevent the opponent from moving but it is easy enough to create a lane of fire that makes all movement through that specific area very risky.

What I'd like to see in Xenonauts is a three-fold effect. First, there's the accuracy penalty. Second, negation of reaction fire, Third, suppression fire creates an area of effect (cone-shaped) that stays in place for the remainder of the shooter's round and the subsequent opponent's round. Any attempt to move inside or through the AOE carries the risk of taking damage (greatly reduced if the soldier has cover). This system permits players to have more tactical choices. They can return fire with reduced accuracy, run in hopes of getting to safety or skulk behind cover.

That system also makes it possible to use area of denial tactics when advancing on enemy positions. Firing machine guns at the corners of buildings will make it risky for aliens to rush around the corner and open fire.

I'd also like to make a proposal for machine guns. They should have the option to shoot suppressive fire or short, controlled bursts. Suppressive fire would be the 15 round, inaccurate area of denial attack. The short burst option is there in case the player decides he needs to focus on putting a killing shot into a single enemy. I suggest the controlled fire mode because it's likely that at some point the player will be in a situation where only the machine-gunners are alive. At that point, ammo conservation and enemy kills will be critical.

basically he describes textbook reactions to taking fire, which are reflected in the videos.

the only thing i think that sapping APs is trying to simulate while the soldier is in the open, is keeping him from charging the suppressor. i agree that doing area damage probably isn't the best way to do this, as 1 of altair's games did this, and it wasn't very useful. if anyone has played full spectrum warrior, that is a game built around cover and suppression. it has pretty much nothing else:

Under Fire

Soldiers and enemies who are under fire have a reduced rate of fire

because they are forced to duck behind cover at intervals. Other than the

reduced firing rate, being under fire has no other consequences as long as

soldiers have cover. If they do not have cover, being under fire causes

soldiers to go prone and return fire.

Pinned

Soldiers and enemies can come under

extremely heavy fire. This occurs with

heavy weapons, such as .50 caliber

machine guns, BMPs or Bradleys, or

when a unit suppresses with a weapon

on full or semi-automatic.

Enemies show the pinned symbol (2)

when they are under suppression or heavy weapon fire. When an enemy is

pinned, it means he is ducked down and will not return fire until several

seconds after the heavy fire ceases.

Soldiers under heavy fire also duck down and will not return fire. They are

unable to do anything but move under these conditions.

the game was made as a training tool for soldiers, the principals about cover are probably better than any other game out there.

[IceVamp]

You missunderstand me. I never said that shots should not have any supression effect unless selecting a special mode. I just think that every bullet/projectile/beam haveing the same effect regardless of what weapon or whatever other factors would be a flawed system. Why should only volume matter? How is that in any way a good mechanic? It might mimic reality from some perspective but that doesn't mean its a good mechanic.

I have no idea how you got what you got from my response to catmorbid. (Did you read the bit I quoted so you know what I was objecting against?)

Totally misunderstood you then. You quoted him on the mechanic being universal, and argued slightly against this. I thought you meant what I said then, that suppression should be a mode or something similar. I hope you didn't misinterpret my post, I was genuinely asking how, what I thought you meant, was better.

I'm not saying only volume should matter, if you see my earlier posts. MG's and Sniper Fire is naturally more suppressant than a pistol. I think we're agreeing quite a bit.

[Gorlom]

Totally misunderstood you then. You quoted him on the mechanic being universal, and argued slightly against this. I thought you meant what I said then, that suppression should be a mode or something similar. I hope you didn't misinterpret my post, I was genuinely asking how, what I thought you meant, was better.

I'm not saying only volume should matter, if you see my earlier posts. MG's and Sniper Fire is naturally more suppressant than a pistol. I think we're agreeing quite a bit.

I argued specifically against the sentance about how a 5 shot burst would supress the same as 5 single snapshots, as I understood that to mean the mechanic should be all about volume.

No, I didn't misinterperate your post (or so I think at least). I quickly understood that there was some sort of misscommunication where my opinion/objection didn't make itself clear to you.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Gorlom

[IceVamp]

Alright! The thing about that (5 snap vs. 5 rnd burst) example being the same; I assume that the caliber or type of weapon is similar. If you pay 85 AP for five snap shots, I don't see a problem with them having the same suppression as a 27 AP 5 round burst. The amount of bullets whizzing past the enemy is the same, and you've certainly paid for it! That alone makes the MG a far superior suppression weapon. Whereas a precision rifle would have to have a certain bullet type for example, that grants extra suppression.

I don't want the mechanic to be all about volume, but universal, meaning all fire suppress. Considering the different AP costs, I'm not sure MG type weapons need a boost to the amount of suppression each bullet does, and about that we might disagree. However a pistol should rightly have lower suppression for example.

[Gorlom]

Well I did ask if he thought it should be the same for all shots from a machinegun only or if it would be the same from a machinegun, a sniper rifle and rocket launcher as well... but I guess I phrased it oddly or something.

[catmorbid]

You could make suppression effect take into account more variables than just the bullets:

Rate of fire: bullets fired in bursts add slightly more cumulative suppression, meaning single shots still come a bit close but bursts have some advantage here regardless. However, the effect should be very minor.

Weapon/Damage type: Add a multiplier based on weapon type. Maybe beams should be more effective in this sense than bullets (visual stimulus), and a rocket! holy hell i'm outta here! You get the point

So basically, now we could have three variables that affect how effective suppression would be. If you wrap it all together, the outcome should be something like multiple shots with any weapon from any soldier causing suppression, MGs being most effective due to rate of fire, maybe some plasma minigun or rocket machinegun beating them all

[Gauddlike]

Rate of fire would already be a factor.

That is reflected by the AP cost of the shot.

A 3 shot burst from an assault rifle for example is 35 AP while a single shot (no accuracy increase) is 17.

Let's assume that each bullet adds 2 suppression points (SP).

That means a burst will give 6 SP for 35 AP (5.83 AP per SP) while 3 single shots also give 6 SP but at a rate of 8.5 AP per SP.

The burst is already a more time effective method of suppressing an enemy but the same effect can be generated by pure weight of fire from multiple soldiers.

I would use the weapon/damage type modifier to represent the soldiers weakness to that damage as Chris mentioned.

Armour with 85 laser resist and 10 plasma resist would naturally make the wearer less likely to feel threatened by laser fire as opposed to plasma.

The bullet type could be a straight modifier on the ammo.

Adding it to the ammo rather than the weapon makes it easier to have multiple ammo types with different effects if someone feels like modding it.

*edit* Forgot to add the accuracy of the shot as a factor.

Getting hit should definitely give the SP, a near miss (say 2 squares in all directions as an example) might have a 66% chance of adding SP, a wider miss (4 squares?) might have a 33% chance while a shot that is outside of that area would not have an effect.

Those misses might add SP to a completely different enemy though.

Edited May 3, 2012 by Gauddlike

[catmorbid]

I was just thinking it from the target's point of view, what kind of psychological effect it would have in comparison to shoot with MG or several rifles. Actually several people shooting rifles, while not cost-effective AP wise, it'd be more effective due to each shot having better accuracy (presumably) while MG automatic fire would need to handle recoil.

But you're probably right with the ROF thing, not really necessary to make it needlessly complicated, handling each shot as equal, regardless of source, then taking into consideration the weapon/damage type and range to target would probably suffice very well.

[Gorlom]

Considering from the point of view from the soldiers the source of a shot would probably not matter that much. However as a gamemechanic I think the weapon type (or base AP cost of a shot) should hold more weight.

Once again I feel the need to stress that real life justification should not design the gamemechanic, gameplay should.

[local]

I wanted to say a little more about why I would only like suppression to be limited to small (~20% max?) effects to available AP and/or to accuracy.

About suppression for the game in general :

It would make sense to me for a complicated suppression system to be used in a game with a larger map scale, where groups of troops move around in a large area, something more like civilization or a mech game like cyberstorm. The reason is because it would help to account for cover that isn't represented by the map, and movement that can't be done with the game's units on the (too large) map.

But xenonauts already has a detailed map with plenty of stuff to move behind, take cover and IMO doesn't benefit much from a complicated suppression system, because the means to do that are already in the map and in the normal gameplay - ducking, running back, changing position, changing angle, changing firing mode, changing number of shots taken (due to tension).

Effect on accuracy makes sense to me but only if it applies to the alien type, and I would prefer if the effect was hidden, meaning not at all in the GUI in the form of a readout bar or number, except in maybe a debug mode.

About suppression for the player :

A heavy or complicated suppression system isn't needed IMO especially for the player because the reasons for being suppressed - fear, tension, soldiers protecting themselves can maybe be done in a more fun way through a combination of the commander's feelings about what his troops are doing (the manager - you), and maybe some different grades of morale level or some other system of AI brain function which might be different between player units and alien units. Medium morale levels could result in uncertainty from soldiers, low morale could result in more of that, and more tendency to panic if the soldier was not brave, or berserk if the soldier was brave. If the soldier had medium bravery levels, they might do half and half, or only small amounts of either or both, but not use all AP doing that in a turn.

Importantly too, I mean that these things could happen on the player's turn, so that the player could have more ability to deal with unit's own decisions. It could also happen on the other side's turn like in xcom.

Panic and berserk could be a spectrum, where soldiers might try to keep themselves safe (small panic actions like automatically taking cover, or backing off) ,or small berserk actions like shooting more than necessary or at a target that they choose, or readying an alternate weapon without you telling them to. But almost all of the time they would follow orders and be stable. At the uncommon end of the spectrum soldiers could do the usual thing and shoot everything for multiple turns, try to grapple with a giant cyberdisc or run away while dropping their weapons, freeze in place for multiple turns, or even try to disarm a fellow soldier.

About suppression for the AI :

I don't think a -heavy suppression effect- would help for for AI either. Instead of their uncertainty, fear, decision making about what to duck behind, using suppression would tend to make their abilities less effective instead of their decisions. I know interesting AI would be harder to program, but to me it seems more versatile and more fun and could accomplish the same thing and more, and if there already is to be an AI like this, then I don't see suppression adding much except if it is a fairly light effect, to help missed cannon/rocket/large threat/multiple small arms fire from many angles/etc shots be more useful against some alien types.

[irongamer]

I didn't have time to read all the posts so maybe this view was already tossed in there but I"m going to add it anyhow.

The idea of suppression is good and should add some more dynamics to the game. However, within a certain range I think suppression should drop off and damage should go back up. If I'm around 4 tiles (or whatever number works for balance) from an enemy and I unload three 3 into its chest I believe there should be more damage and less suppression at that point. Beyond X number of tiles from a target damage will drop off and suppression will ramp back up.

Overall I like the idea of suppression.

[Edit]

Some other ideas would be replacing one of the more accurate shot or maybe snap shots on weapons that have suppression and make suppression fire one of the firing options on the gun. So for the rifle class that has burst fire the firing options would be:

1. Single shot - medium AP cost, high accuracy

2. Burst shot - high AP cost, low accuracy

3. Suppression - medium/low AP cost, low damage, low accuracy, high suppression

Edited May 4, 2012 by irongamer

[Gauddlike]

Generally the thought seems to be at the moment that suppression isn't a separate shot type at all.

Not everyone agrees of course but suppression being an effect of all rounds fired that is applied to an enemy seems to make sense.

More sense than a 3 round burst not having any suppressing effect but a 3 round suppressing attack pinning an enemy down anyway.

Shooting someone with a single shot would have a small suppression effect.

That wouldn't really bother someone unless they had been under repeated fire from others as well.

Spraying the area with machine gun fire would have a greater suppression effect but not be very accurate so damage would be limited.

[catmorbid]

Generally the thought seems to be at the moment that suppression isn't a separate shot type at all.

Not everyone agrees of course but suppression being an effect of all rounds fired that is applied to an enemy seems to make sense.

More sense than a 3 round burst not having any suppressing effect but a 3 round suppressing attack pinning an enemy down anyway.

Shooting someone with a single shot would have a small suppression effect.

That wouldn't really bother someone unless they had been under repeated fire from others as well.

Spraying the area with machine gun fire would have a greater suppression effect but not be very accurate so damage would be limited.

That sounds about right to me. Personally, I think it's the only way to do it. Higher level abstractions of this would belong to table/board games where rule complexity is limited by playability.

One thing I might want to add is the addition of some sort of recoil mechanics:

The accuracy of a burst is not determined by a predetermined accuracy modifier, but a recoil modifier and applied only to the next shot. Simplest way would be to make recoil a % variable, e.g. 20% recoil would multiply accuracy by 0.8 for each consecutive shot. You could also add an impact for STR to somewhat reduce the recoil, and then factor in STR being given chance to increase by burst fire, maybe long bursts not the short ones.

The only problem here being how to display accuracy, but I think simply using the accuracy of the first shot would be enough. Maybe some sort of indicator for recoil. E.g. a shot with 45% accuracy and 27% recoil could be displayed as: 45% (-27%)