Do we want duplicate leaders to be on?

When on, all teams get their 1st choice of leader. It could be boring to see the same heads more than once on the startup and diplo screens, but there isn't really any risk of confusion because we can use custom team names to distinguish them.

When off, a tiebreaker has to be used if multiple teams choose the same leader. Worst case, luck of the draw could stick a team with their 5th place choice of leader. The game is more "pure" and doesn't suffer the aesthetic issues of seeing the same leaderhead.

I think the positives of allowing duplicates outweigh the negatives, which for me are eye candy stuff anyway.

It's incredibly easy to set up the game either way, FYI. Let's run this thread as an informal straw poll to see what the general feeling is. If overall sentiment is strongly in favor of allowing or not allowing duplicate leaders/civs, that will help simplify the setup process. :)

Definitely go for duplicate leaders. Civs will have their own unique identity anyway, so no-one will get confused. Let's allow everyone to have their 1st choice of leader. :)

If we could all sit down in a room together and argue over who gets to be what leader - I'd vote for no duplicates.

This is how my friends and I do it at LAN parties... because my second or third choice depends on what Civs others are picking.

Since we can't practically do that for this MTDG - (and it's too bad, it sounds like it'd be fun to get everyone here in the same room for a little geek argument and haggling :) ) - I think it'd be better to allow duplicates.

At least, that's my personal opinion.
Let every team get their first choice. :thumbsup:

I'll be the lone voice to suggest NO to duplicate leaders.

We should not have duplicates since there are only five players so we should submit a list of civs and leaders

:agree: You're my "hero"?

Duplicate leaders should be allowed imo. It is unfair for someone to be left with a different leader than what they want just because it shouldn't be on. It is not like having the same leader would lead the teams to play the same anyways. Also @ General_W, part of the point is that people should not know the leaders of the others when chosing.

I definitely vote no duplicates, since I feel gameplay is only half the fun here, and the "eyecandy" is actually a fairly large part of the other, roleplaying, aspect.

We are only 5 teams, and likely within each team there are plenty of different wishes for leaders. Thus a team ending up with their 3rd choice will likely just mean that they will end up with a leader that many of them liked, even if not everyone had it as their top choice. It is inconceivable to me that any team could not pick out 5 leaders they would actually like playing, and thus not care overly much if they get 1st or 3rd or even 5th. So saying it is "unfair" for someone to get a different leader than they "want" doesn't really make sense to me.

In other words, unlike DaveShack I think the benefits of having no duplicates far outweighs the negatives, which I actually consider non-existant.

In the Civ3 MTDG, each team submitted an ordered list with 5 choices. Then the decision process was:
1) Those teams that have chosen a unique leader as their 1st, give them that leader.
2) For all duplicate choices, roll the dice to see who of them gets their choice.
3) For the teams that did not get their 1st choice, move to the next viable alternative in the list.
4) Rinse and repeat.

I think this is the model we should adopt.

I definitely vote no duplicates, since I feel gameplay is only half the fun here, and the "eyecandy" is actually a fairly large part of the other, roleplaying, aspect.

[...]

In other words, unlike DaveShack I think the benefits of having no duplicates far outweighs the negatives, which I actually consider non-existant.

What exactly are the benefits of having duplicates? There are almost none, as far as I can see. It is very important to note that in civ-to-civ diplomacy in multiplayer, NO PICTURE appears in the leaderhead spot. Thus the only time you might ever see a leader's face is in the F4 screen (in low quality, I might add). That's literally about it. You don't see them close-up, ever.

Team colours will be automatically changed if two teams select the same leader, so there will be no confusion there. Plus, empires will be labelled with completely different names anyway.

So, is that one picture in the F4 screen really worth restricting teams from picking the leader that the majority of their players want? :confused:

I'm against duplicates. I don't think the game will be very interesting if three of the teams have the same traits, same starting techs, and same UUs and UBs.

There is enough variance in the game already that we really don't need to force people to chose something they otherwise wouldn't chose for the sake of a bit variance...

I don't like the idea of duplicates. For all we know, we could wind up all picking the same leader! And that would just be weird. You could forget about roleplaying, for one, for anyone who's interested in that.

Besides that, I'm perfectly happy playing any of the civs that our team has under consideration; its no big deal to me if we don't get our first choice.

I don't like the idea of duplicates. For all we know, we could wind up all picking the same leader! And that would just be weird.
That'd be incredibly unlikely. People have such differing preferences and strategies that I'd be surprised if even 2 leader choices would be the same. However, we should still allow the option to be there in case two teams do make the same pick.

You could forget about roleplaying, for one, for anyone who's interested in that.
Why would all people having the same leader eliminate roleplaying? That just doesn't follow at all.

I don't like the idea of duplicates. For all we know, we could wind up all picking the same leader! And that would just be weird. You could forget about roleplaying, for one, for anyone who's interested in that.
In the last civ4 mtdg all teams got their first choices even though we had decided against duplicates, so I would think it very unlikely we end up with more than two leaders being the same in this game.

I also am totally against duplicates...as I metioned in the team thread...no cloning, please!

If all leaders meet that might be something like 5x Bismark at a round table. At least there wouldn't be language issues :mischief:

That'd be incredibly unlikely. People have such differing preferences and strategies that I'd be surprised if even 2 leader choices would be the same. However, we should still allow the option to be there in case two teams do make the same pick.

I agree :b: It's not likely that each team wants to play the same civ, but as some civs are better on some maps than others, it would be unfair to just give one team an advantage over another for no apparent reason.

Tell you what, the teams that decide they don't want duplicate civs can pick after the rest of the teams, so they know they won't get a duplicate. The rest of us can pick whatever civ we want :goodjob:


Why would all people having the same leader eliminate roleplaying? That just doesn't follow at all.

Hey, if all teams want to play the same civ, I'd happily change the name of the leader, to something different. Call him Munty, say. :p

Each team will have it's own identity anyways so having the same leaders won't change that, if two teams want the same leader then let them both have it :)

In the Civ3 MTDG, each team submitted an ordered list with 5 choices. Then the decision process was:
1) Those teams that have chosen a unique leader as their 1st, give them that leader.
2) For all duplicate choices, roll the dice to see who of them gets their choice.
3) For the teams that did not get their 1st choice, move to the next viable alternative in the list.
4) Rinse and repeat.

I think this worked out fine, so we could do it again.

(In other words, our team got our #1 pick :p)

Our team got 4th pick, and we're very happy with that. Even after being declared on by the team who got their 1st pick. :p

I agree with Niklas, duplicates would be detrimental to roleplay, and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.

and no team should not be able to point out five leaders they like.

so have random leaders then?

With only 5 teams, I see no problem with no duplicate leaders.

Also, I would like to point out that I don't mind duplicate civs, as long as the leader is different (traits are more important than uniques for almost every civ)

so have random leaders then?
Some leaders are undeniably worse than others. The point is that a team should have no problem pointing out five leaders they would have fun playing, not that they should play just any leader.

But if you meant that each team submits 5 leaders and one of them is chosen at random (with rerolls on duplicates), then I definitely wouldn't mind.

Actually, I wouldn't mind full randomness either, but that's a totally different beast, and I don't think we should do it for this game.

Actually, I wouldn't mind full randomness either, but that's a totally different beast, and I don't think we should do it for this game.
No, the teams need to have at least some control over their leader pick - that way no-one can complain about being hard done by with their leader. Besides, picking a leader is part of the pre-game fun anyway. :)

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.

Works for me...do teams think Wednesday is a reasonable deadline (along with the map discussion, which Sullla has led)? You can look at the "To Do" thread for more things to discuss if you want.

Duplical leader are better, because then we don`t know the other civ.
If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader. That`s an advantage for team1.

... Then I suggest we do as Niklas suggested - each team picks 5 leaders, and are given a leader randomly among those five. Rerolls on duplicate leaders and civs.
Works for me...do teams think Wednesday is a reasonable deadline (along with the map discussion, which Sullla has led)? You can look at the "To Do" thread for more things to discuss if you want.
I for one would really prefer that we didn't do this. I thought the purpose of this thread was to vote on whether the majority of people actually want no duplicate leaders, rather than just deciding to do it that way?

Duplical leader are better, because then we don`t know the other civ.
If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader. That`s an advantage for team1.
I don't quite understand what you're saying. Can you clarify? :confused:

First we should have a vote on if we want duplicate leaders or not... Though sulla/yourself could just check if the leaders the teams have decided on are the same or not...

Aye, and the voting should be by each team, all this thread is for is reasoning why we should take a particular course of action. So far there hasn't really been any reasoning:

The reasons for duplicates:

Each team can have whichever leader they want, so that no team is unduly handicapped by being forced to have a subpar civ for the given map type.
Duplicates are the fairest way to make both teams happy if there is a clash over duplicates.


The reasons for not allowing duplicates:
Personal choice; not liking the duplicate leader heads in diplomacy

You can roleplay with duplicate leaders, each team is going to have a different name, different border colours, and are going to be different entities, so claiming that you can't roleplay with duplicate leaders is a complete non sequitur.

---

The downside to not allowing duplicates is that one team gets the good leader and others have to make do with worse. Which is tantamount to saying they want good luck for the game such as beneficial hut pops, events, or getting lucky in combat. Duplicating the leaders allows us to level the playing field that little bit more, just as we have a good map maker balance the map for us. If it were possible to make a mod so that each civ had a different leader head, would those who dislike duplicate leaders for roleplay reasons be happy?

If 2 teams have the same leader, then the team1 knows, another team has the chosen leader.
We were discussing this in our team forum; I believe the conclusion was that we wouldn't be able to keep leader choices secret when logging into pitboss. In other words, everyone is going to know the other team's choice from the start of the game, there is no surprise. That said, if somehow a way was found to set up the game, which allowed each team to be kept in the dark, I would completely support this.
Given the current situation, I would vote for NO duplicate leaders because I think it does limit gameplay with only five teams. Personally, if my team's leader was the same as another team, I would want to change anyway, to get a leader who won't have to compete with a clone for everything. I think that if two teams chose the same leader they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc... I think it's very likely each team has a different choice anyway, but if it comes down to some other team dead set on a leader I would be the one supporting change on my team just for the sake of variability.

Earthling, that's a very good point, I hadn't even thought that far. If we decide to allow duplicate leaders, and if another team happens to choose the same leader that we have, then I would want to change our leader. I don't really care if all the other four teams have the same (I could think of them as the evil alien clones that we the heroes need to rescue the world from), as long as we can play a unique leader.

Krill, how nice of you to completely omit the reasoning I actually have done. :p

My whole point is that no team will end up with a subpar leader, and in particular not for a given map type since we likely won't know much about the map anyway. If a team has a problem naming 5 leaders out of the 52(!) available choices that they could actually consider playing, and that they wouldn't consider subpar, then I'd be really really surprised. So saying that anyone is unduly handicapped by not getting their first choice, that's a complete non sequitur.

Also, I also refute the claim that giving duplicate leaders is the fairest way to resolve a conflict of interest, by the reasoning I gave in my answer to Earthling. I'd rather play a "subpar" leader than the same as someone else. How is it then fair to assign duplicates, when that is what I wish least of all?

If it were possible to make a mod so that each civ had a different leader head, would those who dislike duplicate leaders for roleplay reasons be happy?
I missed this on the first read through. No, I would not be satisfied, for the reasons Earthling gave. There's a reason no two leaders in BtS are given the same traits, as it promotes different play styles and a more varied game. It's not only about the aesthetical part of roleplaying, it's just as much about actions.

The reasons for duplicates:

Each team can have whichever leader they want, so that no team is unduly handicapped by being forced to have a subpar civ for the given map type.
Duplicates are the fairest way to make both teams happy if there is a clash over duplicates.


The reasons for not allowing duplicates:
Personal choice; not liking the duplicate leader heads in diplomacy

You can roleplay with duplicate leaders, each team is going to have a different name, different border colours, and are going to be different entities, so claiming that you can't roleplay with duplicate leaders is a complete non sequitur.
Very well said. :)

Given the current situation, I would vote for NO duplicate leaders because I think it does limit gameplay with only five teams. Personally, if my team's leader was the same as another team, I would want to change anyway, to get a leader who won't have to compete with a clone for everything. I think that if two teams chose the same leader they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc... I think it's very likely each team has a different choice anyway, but if it comes down to some other team dead set on a leader I would be the one supporting change on my team just for the sake of variability.
What you've said is absolutely incorrect. Just because two teams choose the same leader does NOT mean that their gameplay and strategy will be clones of one another - nothing could be further from the truth. In reality, the geography and resources of the starting position affect the gameplay and strategy far more than the leader choice.

I don't understand at all how you arrived at the idea that "they would most likely be playing the same- going for the same wonders, tech, etc...". That is completely untrue. Each team will have unique approaches to the game, and will be affected more by their geography and diplomatic relations than anything else for their wonder and tech choices. Even computer controlled AI playing duplicate leaders will follow entirely different strategies, so it boggles my mind how you can think that human controlled duplicate leaders will play the exact same game - or even anything close! ;)

Also, I also refute the claim that giving duplicate leaders is the fairest way to resolve a conflict of interest, by the reasoning I gave in my answer to Earthling. I'd rather play a "subpar" leader than the same as someone else. How is it then fair to assign duplicates, when that is what I wish least of all?
It sounds like this whole issue might be resolved very easily, in that case.

Step 1: All teams make a list of five preferences for leaders.

Step 2: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are happy with this, then they are allowed to keep that leader.

Step 3: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are not happy with this, then they have the option to change their leader to the next-highest preference on their list that is not a duplicate.

That sounds to me like something we can all agree to. Thoughts? :)

Personally I'd be happy with that.

Isn't that essentially what Niklas wrote earlier, except with the clause regarding duplicates (essentially allowing the two teams with duplicates to decide for themselves)?

In the Civ3 MTDG, each team submitted an ordered list with 5 choices. Then the decision process was:
1) Those teams that have chosen a unique leader as their 1st, give them that leader.
2) For all duplicate choices, roll the dice to see who of them gets their choice.
3) For the teams that did not get their 1st choice, move to the next viable alternative in the list.
4) Rinse and repeat.

I think this is the model we should adopt.

edit: But yes, it is fine with me...

Isn't that essentially what Niklas wrote earlier, except with the clause regarding duplicates (essentially allowing the two teams with duplicates to decide for themselves)?
Precisely. The main difference is that those with duplicates get to choose for themselves whether or not they want to keep their leader or change it. That way we avoid both teams being forced into picking an alternative leader, possibly against one or both of their wills.

What I'm proposing is to let the individual teams choose if they are happy to keep their duplicate leaders (if they have any) or not. That seems the most fair thing to do, and it avoids any arguments with one team telling another how they have to react to duplicate leaders. ;)

I would personally be happy with Lord Parkin's amendment. Good thinking Lord! :thumbsup:

Problem is of course that our team is not anywhere in agreement on wether we would want duplicate leaders or not... But yeah, we'll take that when it comes up.

Sounds great to me too Lord Parkin. I know a lot will depend on the map; I understand many leaders are played very differently and should have put an example like 2 Ramses, much more likely to both rush for GW, Pyramids, Oracle, etc... Two Roosevelts would likely have no problem at all, compared to two Ramses (just an example again) I'll always be optimistic and hope that everyone gets their first choice; however I have no business dictating what the other teams are allowed to choose. Like I said, if another team chose a duplicate I'd likely want my team to just change to make things more interesting. (Edit: right, oyzar, I'm not trying to speak for our whole team here, just me) Of course, I'm also hoping for some delicious irony when some team finds out another team chose their first choice as a leader they had rated a horrible option.;)

That would only be ironic if said team was crushed by the civ they rated as useless ;)

The Niklas/Lord Parkin plan looks like a logical and fair way to handle the civ/leader choices. I will type it up into a more formal proposal for the team forums on Wednesday, AFTER the current discussion of game and map settings concludes. :)

:agree:

I can see both points of view - the proposed solutions sound great to me! :thumbsup:

Each team can submit their first choice to Ginger_Ale (or Sulla?) via PM - and if there any duplicates, they can be informed privately and given the option to submit a second choice if desired.

What will we do if BOTH teams decide to take their second choice? :lol:

Each team can submit their first choice to Ginger_Ale (or Sulla?) via PM - and if there any duplicates, they can be informed privately and given the option to submit a second choice if desired.

What will we do if BOTH teams decide to take their second choice? :lol:
Just a comment, I deliberately worded the description slightly differently than this to avoid potential problems. Arguably there is a slight advantage if a team picks another leader after they know that another team has picked that same leader. (For instance, they may know that there is at least one other team starting with Mysticism, and thus that getting another leader that has Mysticism will not give them as good a chance of getting an early religion.)

That's why I suggested that all teams make their lists of preferences first, and then in the case of duplicates where a team wants to change leaders, their second (or third etc) choice is selected from that list as necessary. This avoids any issues with picking a leader with extra knowledge of what other teams are picking. ;)

Perfect!

Good thinking. :thumbsup:

Of course, If a team is committed to not caring if there's a duplicate out there, then they only need to submit 1 name :) - those that don't want a duplicate should submit a list of 5 names.

Sounds like an awesome plan.

Fulfills my desires - basically same as Niklas', I would hate to play a duplicate leader. Fortunately we're on the same team :p.

Speaking for myself, and not Team 5, I support the Parkin Compromise.

It´s a nice compromise.

If you vote only 1 leader you get it; if you vote 5, there is at least 1 no other team has voted for.
There remain a question:
If 2 teams vote for the same single leader, they get it or not?

What I don´t understand is the reason behind this discussion, what is wrong with 2 or3 Montes and a fight of Jaguars in jungle.

There remain a question:
If 2 teams vote for the same single leader, they get it or not?
They both get it, since those teams will have agreed to have duplicate leaders (since they're only picking 1 single leader).

What I don´t understand is the reason behind this discussion, what is wrong with 2 or3 Montes and a fight of Jaguars in jungle.
That's exactly what I thought originally. ;)

Personally I will vote against duplicate leaders. Just my personal preference.

Just in case we are voting, I vote for no duplicates!

Well, we aren't.

I would vote no duplicates.

And though it is not relevant to the main discussion here. I would ban Civs with the financial trait.

And though it is not relevant to the main discussion here. I would ban Civs with the financial trait.
If we did that, then there'd be a good case for banning e.g. the Romans too and continuing like this we would quickly limit the choices severely while we wouldn't get rid of the fact that someone wanting to play the "strongest" leader would still only have a few possible choices (once some civs are removed, new ones shine through as the "best"). So while your concern is valid, I don't think banning leaders would do much other than limiting each team's choices and consequently reducing variety and flavour in the game. :)

That`s absurd.
Do you all have the meaning, that another team will be better play with your chosen leader? On the other hand if a second team choose your leader, you should be gratify that your opinion about the best leader is not so bad.

And if you have the opinion that romans and Cesar are the best, then choose him and look what will be the result.

sry Calis

That`s absurd.
Do you all have the meaning, that another team will be better play with your chosen leader? On the other hand if a second team choose your leader, you should be gratify that your opinion about the best leader is not so bad.

And if you have the opinion that romans and Cesar are the best, then choose him and look what will be the result.

At least for me it's not about the best leader at all.

For me it's just a question of feeling. And for me it feels wrong, if the same person appears twice on the same world. It has nothing to do with the game itself or strategy.

And I feel you should not call someones opinion ABSURD!!

That`s absurd.
Do you all have the meaning, that another team will be better play with your chosen leader? On the other hand if a second team choose your leader, you should be gratify that your opinion about the best leader is not so bad.

And if you have the opinion that romans and Cesar are the best, then choose him and look what will be the result.

sry Calis
There's a reason I put "best" and "strongest" in quotation marks... part of my point (maybe it was too subtle) is that everyone has their own opinion about who is stronger and a leader that's strong in the hands of one team might be average in the handsof another.

And choosing a leader one deems strong and then judging the leader based on the result in one single game would be a clear third-grade abuse of an anecdote.

I also against duplicate leaders, different traits will mix things up more and add better variety and play styles.

People, this was already decided quite a while ago. There's no need to keep posting votes and opinions on the matter. :)

With these settings in place, your team should now be able to finalize your choice of leader. We will be using Lord Parkin's suggestion of how to deal with duplicate leaders:

Step 1: All teams make a list of five preferences for leaders.

Step 2: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are happy with this, then they are allowed to keep that leader.

Step 3: If a team has chosen the same leader as another team for their first preference, and they are not happy with this, then they have the option to change their leader to the next-highest preference on their list that is not a duplicate.

Thus, your team will need to decide on two things: your leader pick(s), and are you OK with having duplicate leaders? If you are OK with having duplicate leaders, then you will simply get your first choice. No further discussion needed. If your team would prefer not to be playing a duplicate leader, you will need to come up with a top five list. Then, if a duplicate arises, you have the option of swapping to the next leader on your list. I hope that makes sense. :)

The deadline for picking your leader(s) will be Monday, November 24. Please also finalize your team name and any other appropriate nicknames/description by that date. Once I have all of that information, I will create the map and we will get started, hopefully around the end of next week. I will also post this same message in each team forum, for those who might miss it in the general forum.

Good luck!
- Sullla :king:

Hi,
this is my first post here (apart from the post asking to register for a team).

May I suggest something that we do in multiplayer...it might be of soem use.

The ssytem is called reverse pick, with unrestricted leaders.

After a random draw teams get a pick order. So lets say team 1 picks first, team 5 second, team 4 third, team 2 fourth and team 3 fifth.

So team 1 picks civilization then team 5 picks civilization etc, until all teams have picked civilization. After all picked civilization the pick order is reversed and teh team who picked last civilization picks first leader etc.

This has 2 benefits.

First you have no dublicate leaders...
Second The team that picks the best civ will (ie picks first) will pick fifth a leader so it has no great advantage by picking first.

Also this makes choices quite strategical, so for example if you plan to take ragnar of rome and you pick first civ (ie picking rome) you might not be able to pick ragnar by the time it is your turn to pick a leader..

Hi,
this is my first post here (apart from the post asking to register for a team).

May I suggest something that we do in multiplayer...it might be of soem use.

The ssytem is called reverse pick, with unrestricted leaders.

After a random draw teams get a pick order. So lets say team 1 picks first, team 5 second, team 4 third, team 2 fourth and team 3 fifth.

So team 1 picks civilization then team 5 picks civilization etc, until all teams have picked civilization. After all picked civilization the pick order is reversed and teh team who picked last civilization picks first leader etc.

This has 2 benefits.

First you have no dublicate leaders...
Second The team that picks the best civ will (ie picks first) will pick fifth a leader so it has no great advantage by picking first.

Also this makes choices quite strategical, so for example if you plan to take ragnar of rome and you pick first civ (ie picking rome) you might not be able to pick ragnar by the time it is your turn to pick a leader..

Unrestricted leaders are rather unbalanced though, and ragnar of rome is not really any worse than shaka or kublai or boudica of rome...

Unrestricted leaders are rather unbalanced though, and ragnar of rome is not really any worse than shaka or kublai or boudica of rome...

Personnaly I don't think (anymore) that rome is overpowered (even with aggressive leader).

I also think that in this kind of map 5 players on standard size it will be much more important to pick economic and developing traits than aggressive....but that is just me...

Indiansmoke - while that's certainly an interesting idea, at this stage we've already decided how we're going to pick the leaders, and the process has already begun. Going backwards and down a different route at this stage would delay us by a couple of weeks at least, which I don't think is sensible.

Besides, I don't think that many people are keen on unrestricted leaders. Personally, I prefer the original leaders for a game like this.

Indiansmoke - while that's certainly an interesting idea, at this stage we've already decided how we're going to pick the leaders, and the process has already begun. Going backwards and down a different route at this stage would delay us by a couple of weeks at least, which I don't think is sensible.

Besides, I don't think that many people are keen on unrestricted leaders. Personally, I prefer the original leaders for a game like this.

Ok...did not realize that the process has been detrmined...saw the thread and though this idea might be usefull.

I also think that in this kind of map 5 players on standard size it will be much more important to pick economic and developing traits than aggressive....but that is just me...

You are certainly not alone thinking this ;)... However this is a discussion for the teams.

I don't like the idea of duplicates. For all we know, we could wind up all picking the same leader! And that would just be weird.If ALL the teams played the same leader....it would sure be easy to compare strategies after the game is complete.